We have all found ourselves repelled by one group or another -- Christians, Democrats, Republicans, the mainstream media, feminists, environmentalists -- for the pronouncements or antics of their members. I find myself resisting my own aversion to Democrats -- we can start with them -- because their leaders make me sick. But I actually sympathize with part of the Democratic platform and most of the members' ( if not the leaders -- yech!) innate sympathy for the poor. I think this same phenomenon must have driven some early Christians out of the cities and into the wilderness. What is going on here?
Groucho Marxx said it best: "I refuse to join or belong to any group or organization that will stoop so low as to accept me as a member".
Dunno who coined it, but "None of us are as stupid as all of us" best describes people and groups imo. Individuals tend to be pretty great. But put us together, and our greatness is roughly inversely proportional to our numbers, with rare exception.
Not to be intentionally provocative, but the word for what you are describing-- disliking an entire group, because of some of its members-- is known as "stereotyping," or "prejudice," to limit my answer to just two of the terms.
You're both actually wrong. Experiments have proven that groups, when averaged together, make the best choice. Individually we humans are generally wildly wrong. But when our individual choices are summed together and averaged we generally make the correct choice or, at least, come very close. The simplest example is having people guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. Generally, individually, we suck. But when a group of guess made by many people are averaged together they get close to the right answer and the more people involved the better they get. Of course this has been tested with more than jelly beans. The problem with "groups" is when they don't act individually but let a few, or ONE misguided or selfishly motivated, individual make a choice for them. That's when groups go horribly wrong, like some of our fell Americans did on January 6th 2021.
Um, actually you are wrong, on a couple of scores. First off, I was only quoting George Carlin, and I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about guessing the number of jellybeans (which did not make me laugh, or smile, or even muse, at all, while reading it), so you are wrong to say that I am materially misquoting him (which was the meaning of your post, regardless of whether that had been your intent). Secondly, you are talking about gaging some objective thing. Carlin was talking about the potential for peer pressure to create a group mentality, that leads people to commit horrendous acts, they would never think to do, without the encouragement (and sometimes the anonymity that comes from being a part) of the the group. What are the odds that thousands of people, individually, would have stormed the Capital? Carlin probably had in mind, historical events like the Nazi atrocities. The Stanford Prison Experiment, and others, have shown the tremendous degree with which people confirm to the expectations of those around them. All that said, I was not voicing my agreement with Carlin's observation, only noting its similarity to what @modernpaladin had quoted. If you were saying I was wrong in thinking there was a similarity, that would be a third mistake, you had made.
Whoa! I really wasn't commenting on Carlin, Carlin was a comedian. He was funny as hell but wrong as often as he was right. All I was saying is "People United" (kinda like when we vote) make better choices than individuals. I get that I was replying to your Carlin quote, but, IMHO he was wrong and science backs that up. As I said these studies involved more important decisions than jelly beans, the jelly bean experiment is just the easiest to explain and relates, accurately, the general idea.
You still miss both my points. On the arguments, what you are talking about-- proven by your jelly bean experiment, in which many opinions are taken and then averaged-- and what Carlin was talking about, were completely different things because, in your experiment, please notice that the people do not interact! This, naturally, automatically paints an unrealistic picture of society. And so it certainly does not show that Carlin was wrong, in thinking that people in groups, are more capable of evil, and more likely to be driven in that direction, than single individuals. Again, looking at the greatest evils that have been perpetrated by humanity, all have required group participation. Not to say this proves Carlin's point, but only that your jelly bean experiment is completely moot, with regard to this question. Do you get it? My second "point," had to do not with any arguments, per se, but with the way you expressed your argument. I cannot know what you are thinking, other than from what you write. Therefore if you do not write what you actually mean, you have only yourself to blame, for any misunderstanding. As I said, I had merely commented to another member, about the similarity between their paraphrased quote, and another one with which I was familiar. If you had meant to say that both quotes expressed incorrect opinions, then you should have said something to that effect. Instead, you wrote, "You're both actually wrong." This literally means that either my attributing my quote to Carlin was incorrect, or that my noting of a similarity between the two quotes was mistaken-- neither of which, I take it, was your intent, but that is what you'd said. I am not claiming, in this instance, that I couldn't figure out what you had meant to be saying-- that is not the point. To tie this to my other point, there is a social element, in the way one comes across, based on the way one expresses themself. To say, "actually, the two ideas you are quoting are both wrong," comes across as respectful, and not overly confrontational. When, however, you are so eager to correct people that you jump in with the misstatement of your own, "You're both actually wrong..." you sound almost giddy with wanting to point out another's error (though, as I have said, I don't think this represents your true attitude). So that social point, had been that you should use more care in expressing yourself accurately, or else you should not be surprised when people respond with an attitude appropriate for what you had written, even if it is not what you had really meant. I hope I have been clear, in what I have been trying to relate.
People do interact when George does stand-up, at least as much as when they vote. I pointed out that, "people in groups", have a great capacity for violence because they are more likely to be driven by a small group or an individual motivated selfishly. In my initial reply I DID reply to both. You're nitpicking in the rest of that paragraph. The third paragraph is a complete abandonment of you previous statement you "cannot know what you are thinking". I wasn't giddy, just wanted to share a opposing view that is backed up by scientific experimentation, not just opinion. It's clear I hurt your feelings; sorry. I obviously don't take this board as seriously as you do, I'm just messing around having fun. <- this means I'm done discussing this with you.
The thing is, though, that I'm not really sure I even dislike or mistrust the instincts of Democrats or, say, feminists as a group. They want more gravy flowing to workers and to women, more equality, more "equity" to use their dumb term. And that's defensible. But then I see Michael Moore or one of the Squad barking something stupid with a self assured grin and a megaphone and it makes me regret every vote for a Democrat I ever cast.
Perhaps the observation that the elites who run the democratic party are not, in fact representative of the policy and behavior you'd like to equate to them and democrats in general. I agree. Most democrats I know who aren't in politics are generally sensitive to the plight of the poor, disadvantaged, etc. The policies, however, or their leaders, as you point out are repugnant at best. The policy doesn't map back to the sensitivity that we might believe is applicable to the members of the party. I'd say this though, the word, specifically, that you're looking for in this case is enochlophobia. Although, it is more the fear of crowds, perhaps. I remember when democrats chaffed at the idea of the establishment... And yet, now that they are the establishment, they seem pretty entrenched and unwilling to entrust themselves... funny.
I think its because they're arguing for equality from a position of moral/ethical responsibility and social justice, which makes it a subjective and therefore emotional issue. People being led around by their emotions are easily led astray by 'leaders' who are good at emotional manipulation. Equality can quite easily be argued from a position of logic using simple empathy as a foundation, but its far harder to use equality as a sociopolitical football on that basis, so logic and empathy are avoided.
What the heck are you talking about? You'd brought up the experiment of guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar, as an example of how groups of people make better decisions than individuals. I pointed out that those groups of guessers, do so, individually, and then have their guesses averaged; they do not interact with each other, during the guessing process. Therefore, this does not accurately reproduce the decision- making process of people in a group, as it exists, "in the wild," so to speak. This has nothing to do with Carlin, personally, "when he does stand-up." It does have to do with the phenomenon he had spoken about, namely, that in the wild, group dynamic. Clearly, that doesn't mean that every time you get a group of people, you have the potential for violence. I think he was probably referring more to when people self-identity as a "group," that is, set themselves apart from others, in some way: a club, a political party, and so forth. This statement of yours is, also, inexplicable, once more pointing to a failure of comprehension, on your part, in your "messing around," here. I know that you were referring to both modernpaladin and myself, as that was your very first line, which I was criticizing: "You're both actually wrong." My quote, to which your misguided answer appears meant as a reply, was: "If you had meant to say that both quotes expressed incorrect opinions, then you should have said something to that effect." The word " both" is included because that is the word your opening statement had used, not to emphasize that word. The emphasis is meant to be on the italicized word, "quotes." That is, if you had meant to say that the things we were quoting were wrong, as opposed to that we, ourselves, were wrong-- which is what you had actually said-- then you should have said, "the ideas you are both quoting, are wrong." Do you not see the difference, between that and "you're both actually wrong?" How so? 1) I never said that you were giddy; I said that when you are in such a rush to correct people that (instead of correctly saying, "actually, the things both of you quoted are wrong") your own statement, itself is wrong-- that me & modern paladin, ourselves, were wrong (which is how you phrased your intro), it makes you sound as if you are giddy. I made clear, a number of times, that I did not believe this accurately represented your intent. My point, in saying that I-- like anyone else-- can only judge your meaning from what you write, and cannot read your mind, was that I cannot know what you had actually been thinking, if it is different from what you wrote. Therefore, my paragraph you see as an "abandonment" of the idea that I can't know what is in your mind, if it's not what you write, was an attempt to encourage you to be more careful, in the future, about actually expressing your thought more accurately than you did in this case, so that you don't sound giddy about correcting people when, in fact, you are only wishing to "share a(n) opposing view..." My point was, because of your misphrasing, your wish was unclear. I had, however, assumed the best intentions of your remark; I don't know how you could have missed my interjecting that, a couple of times. Obviously, my hope, that you might prevent potential confusion with your readers, in the future, by being more careful in your phrasing, was unrealistic, as careful, is clearly just not your style. 0 for 4. You did not hurt my feelings. My first impression of your quote was as I related, which was that you were being an irritant. I quickly realized, however, that you had merely done a poor job of expressing yourself, and so took it upon myself, to point that out to you. Your obtuseness to all my efforts to do this, however, have restored my feeling, that you are just an irritant. Clearly, pictographs are your best form of communication. This means try reading your posts, as if you are the person on the receiving end, to see if they come across, the way you want them to. And this means I am tired of trying to explain algebra to a chicken, or whatever analogy works better for you. I will set my bar lower, in my expectations of anything you post, until you give me some reason to think differently.
