Swarm Theory & Group Psychology

[coberst]

Swarm Theory & Group Psychology

Scientists are studying and trying to develop an ability to emulate the actions of animal swarms. The birds and the bees can do it; why cannot humans emulate their behavior to our advantage?

The collective behavior of animal swarms displays advantageous collective actions without the guidance of organized leadership. Ants, as individuals, are not clever—as a collective ants, bees, birds, caribou, etc. are amazingly clever—there seems to exist something one might label as swarm intelligence—simple creatures following simple rules equal swarm intelligence.

Computer engineers attempt to emulate swarm intelligence to solve complex human problems.

Compare animal swarm intelligence with group psychology. What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

Perhaps human groups cannot develop in a similar manner as does swarm intelligence but the existence of such successful ways of handling complex problems indicates that some critical thinking regarding human group behavior is certainly in order.

Questions for discussion:

Do you think it is possible for humans to significantly improve performance within a group?

Do you think that we can find a way to make group behavior to be smarter?

Sources for ideas and quotes in this OP come from “Swarm Theory”--an article in the July 2007 edition of “National Geographic” and from “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” by Freud.

[Dan BRIGHT]

We dont emulate their swarms. We as humans have our own swarms / groups. We have many of them of varying sizes, each within other ones. We just function on a different and more intellectual level than ants/bees.

Small groups of people dont really accomplish much on their own, but as an entire race, our knowledge accumulates and grows immensely. We're standing on the codified brains of our ancestors for leverage for the future.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Questions for discussion:

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are you trying to set such a sophomoric agenda?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it is possible for humans to significantly improve performance within a group?

[/ QUOTE ]
Athletes tend to improve when competing more than when training on their own.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that we can find a way to make group behavior to be smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean the group can make the group behavior smarter, or an individual? LOL

[ QUOTE ]
Sources for ideas and quotes in this OP come from “Swarm Theory”--an article in the July 2007 edition of “National Geographic” and from “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” by Freud.

[/ QUOTE ]
Glad you read at least something from Freud, unlike you lack of reading from Jung but yet clear statements in support of his ideas! LOL

[Phil153]

It's unfair to compare large animal swarms with informal human social gatherings. as the author of this passage is doing. And if you look at the broader picture, you can see all of human civilization as a swarm - and we've developed some of the most complex and productive interrelations to be found anywhere in the animal kingdom. The kind of economic system whereby people can produce a microchip, or even a hamburger, is a fantastic example of swarm intelligence that trumps the entire animal kindgom.

In short: the author of the passage writes ill considered nonsense (a common affliction of psychologists).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's unfair to compare large animal swarms with informal human social gatherings. as the author of this passage is doing. And if you look at the broader picture, you can see all of human civilization as a swarm - and we've developed some of the most complex and productive interrelations to be found anywhere in the animal kingdom. The kind of economic system whereby people can produce a microchip, or even a hamburger, is a fantastic example of swarm intelligence that trumps the entire animal kindgom.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Excellent post, Phil [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it is possible for humans to significantly improve performance within a group?

[/ QUOTE ]

Groups usually form a prejudice and this cuts off certain areas where individual trial&error may be helpful. On the other hand, groups provide people with a better chance to help someone who can help or insipire them.

Decrease the first aspect and increase the second one and you got a chance.

[Lestat]

Interesting post. I've always considered people in masses to be dumber than individuals or those of smaller groups. (Hence, the re-election of George Bush) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But seriously.. Collectively, people seem to make worse decisions and become more gullible in large groups. I'm

not sure this has anything to do with swarms, however.

I agree with Phil, that when intelligent people get together amazing progress can be made. Perhaps all that I'm observing is that the average person is not smart.

[coberst]

The animals in the swarm follow simple instinctual algorithms. There exists no management in the swarm and it is this fact that is the reason swarms are so effective.

It appears that group behavior is dominated by suggestibility and transference. Transference is what makes hypnotism possible.

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

[Phil153]

Your theory seems too strong to me, and it holds human beings as flawed emotional wrecks. I don't necessarily agree with this.

I think small group dynamics has more to do with divergent experiences and desires and difficulties/inadequacies in communication.

Groups can become very effective with a good leader, familiarity, a strong objective, or training. I fail to see how Freud's theories on childhood helplessness and delusion have anything to do with these things.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
But seriously.. Collectively, people seem to make worse decisions and become more gullible in large groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got a nice read for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem