Had another recent experiment. 10 people in a doctors waiting room and 1 person walks in (the subject). When a beep went off, everyone stood up.  They wanted to see how long before the subject also took part in standing up.  Some asked why is everyone standing and the reply was IDK.

Had another recent experiment. 10 people in a doctors waiting room and 1 person walks in (the subject). When a beep went off, everyone stood up.  They wanted to see how long before the subject also took part in standing up.  Some asked why is everyone standing and the reply was IDK.

Look up studies on how Japanese and other asian countries are pros at waiting in lines.  I've witnessed some of that first hand in numerous visits.  Folks waiting in line for a Disney ride fast pass, but the machine was broken.  My buddy's wife (hapa, but fluent Japanese) luckily asked and clarified.  There were folks waiting in line and many just lined up behind them. 

Look up studies on how Japanese and other asian countries are pros at waiting in lines.  I've witnessed some of that first hand in numerous visits.  Folks waiting in line for a Disney ride fast pass, but the machine was broken.  My buddy's wife (hapa, but fluent Japanese) luckily asked and clarified.  There were folks waiting in line and many just lined up behind them.

I'm no follower.  So I ask if this is the line for X.  I actually get joy at the Longs I go to. There is a line marker set up movie theater style.   About 5 self check out and 1 human register.  Almost all the time there is a line, I see 1 or no people at the self check out, even though the open light is on at the top of them.  The lone cashier is ringing someone up. So I just bypass everyone and go to the self check out.  Then the light bulb goes on and people follow.  This could be seen as a dick move, but not my problem they cannot figure stuff out.

What does irritate me about Jap tourist is they do not know how to wait at a crosswalk for the light to change. Many are often waiting on the road, just off the curb.  And they like to stand in the middle of clothing store walk ways, even when not looking at clothes.  Dated a chick that worked at Abercrombie and walking into the store to where she was, always had Jap tourist in the way. But they are very apologetic when you say excuse me.  "Sumimasen...sumimasen" with the head nod for each time the word was said is their reply.

I'm no follower.  So I ask if this is the line for X.  I actually get joy at the Longs I go to. There is a line marker set up movie theater style.   About 5 self check out and 1 human register.  Almost all the time there is a line, I see 1 or no people at the self check out, even though the open light is on at the top of them.  The lone cashier is ringing someone up. So I just bypass everyone and go to the self check out.  Then the light bulb goes on and people follow.  This could be seen as a dick move, but not my problem they cannot figure stuff out.

What does irritate me about Jap tourist is they do not know how to wait at a crosswalk for the light to change. Many are often waiting on the road, just off the curb.  And they like to stand in the middle of clothing store walk ways, even when not looking at clothes.  Dated a chick that worked at Abercrombie and walking into the store to where she was, always had Jap tourist in the way. But they are very apologetic when you say excuse me.  "Sumimasen...sumimasen" with the head nod for each time the word was said is their reply.

I learned my first month in Hawaii about Japanese etiquette when in public.  On the sidewalks of Waikiki, they just walk straight toward their destination.  If they bump into someone, there's no "Excuse me", "Sorry" or any other apology.

Then I went to Tokyo.  Ten times more crowded than Waikiki.  If they apologized every time they bumped into someone, they'd never get anywhere!  Crowded conditions basically turned them into automatons (robots) when in public trying to get somewhere.  That attitude carries over when they come here apparently.

They might nod when you say "Excuse me" to get past them, but they wouldn't bat an eye if you brushed past them without a word, as that's the norm.

Different strokes ....

As for following people for no reason ... My mom used to wear a T-Shirt that said, "Don't follow me.  I'm lost, too!"  We got her that because she had this knack about causing lines to form.  At the county fair, she'd pick a ride or exhibit because nobody was in line for it.  As soon as she got in line, there would be 10-15 more people lined up behind her.  It happened pretty much every time.  She asked one of the ride operators if they'd consider paying her a percentage of the ride's revenue if she'd keep lining up to ride!   

So, yeah.  Nobody in line -- less chance anyone will come over to wait.  Put a few people in line, and others will think there must be a good reason to be there.

I learned my first month in Hawaii about Japanese etiquette when in public.  On the sidewalks of Waikiki, they just walk straight toward their destination.  If they bump into someone, there's no "Excuse me", "Sorry" or any other apology.

Then I went to Tokyo.  Ten times more crowded than Waikiki.  If they apologized every time they bumped into someone, they'd never get anywhere!  Crowded conditions basically turned them into automatons (robots) when in public trying to get somewhere.  That attitude carries over when they come here apparently.

They might nod when you say "Excuse me" to get past them, but they wouldn't bat an eye if you brushed past them without a word, as that's the norm.

Different strokes ....

Taiwan is the same. People bump you all the time, but it's all G cause you're in their way and preventing them from going from point A to B.  And if you bump them, they don't mind cause that means they're in your way from going to point B. At least Taiwan doesn't have the crazy crowded trains like Japan does.  But it does look like a fun job. I would yell "RAMMING SPEED" all day.

So only after visiting Taiwan, do I now understand the concept.  Guess it's popular in other Asian countries as well. If you pull that here in HI, dem are fighting words, so to say. 

Taiwan is the same. People bump you all the time, but it's all G cause you're in their way and preventing them from going from point A to B.  And if you bump them, they don't mind cause that means they're in your way from going to point B. At least Taiwan doesn't have the crazy crowded trains like Japan does.  But it does look like a fun job. I would yell "RAMMING SPEED" all day.

So only after visiting Taiwan, do I now understand the concept.  Guess it's popular in other Asian countries as well. If you pull that here in HI, dem are fighting words, so to say.

We always tried to avoid the trains around Tokyo during commuting hours.  I bet the sardines are laughing!

My buddy showed us the easiest method for buying train tickets.  Get the cheapest one they offer.  When you get to your stop, go to the fare machine, and it'll tell you how much more you owe from your purchase point to that station.  We walked past tons of people trying to calculate their fares before buying a ticket.  That directly correlates to the herd mentality topic brought up here.  They were doing what all the people in front of them were doing.  We found a more efficient method and bypassed the lines.   

Some ideas are so unreasonable and dangerous that to entertain them is to give them a foothold of legitimacy that they do not deserve.

Thats exactly the argument people use to censor free speech, I don't think that is your intent though. I will say that I disagree with your sentiment though.

When you compare me with a terrorist for standing up for my rights then there is no middle ground. You are my enemy, and you are the enemy of everything this country is supposed to stand for.

I never said you were anything like a terrorist, utterly false, however I do apologize if that was the impression you got.

Thats exactly the argument people use to censor free speech.

I never said you were anything like a terrorist, utterly false.

Nobody said "Censorship."  He's saying that to entertain dangerous ideas, thus giving them legitimacy next to ideas that are not dangerous, is how those ideas become mainstream and deceptively benign.

Look at how the Socialist ideas have crept into our society.  History shows us the utter failure when such ideas are implemented, yet academically, people still try to justify its legitimacy.

Here we are, with a Bernie Sanders Socialist Regime on the doorsteps of the White House, and people think "It has to be better than what we have," because they just don't want to study history.

Censor him?  No.  Make him President?  Hell no!

And I CLEARLY posted that this is a red herring and IRRELEVANT because he was not IN FACT fired.  What some fans and others may have called for is not a valid point unless you have evidence it was only one political affiliation ("tribe") doing so.

Like I said, I was comparing the calling for his firing to the calling of unvaccinated being fired.

Please show me where I said you were talking about people having to do things at the barrel of a gun.

I already went over this when I covered force vs coercion.

Short answer -- you refuse to acknowledge the difference between "respect" and "patriotism" when discussing national symbols. 

I don't refuse to acknowledge that they are different, just the difference is not relevant to my point. Coerced patriotism, love, respect, etc. none of them are real when they are coerced. You were too focused on how they are not all the same thing to see the point was about the coercion.

WRONG.
36 US Code § 301 - National anthem -- Not arbitrary., but law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

LOL, thats just arbitrary written into law!

Not sure how the tribal thing came up.  But are you grasping at herd mentality?

I think you are trying to make connections based on what you assume for many on this board.  Then you started grasping at straws to try to make a point by attempting to provoke thought based on your assumptions/profile of folks here. 

Are there folks on the ends of the spectrum?  Yeah, in more ways than one that I have observed.  That's the thing with generalities and trying to throw a blanket over groups.

I think tribalism and herd mentality are somewhat related but I don't think I am talking about herd mentality.

I tried to come up with an example which to me illustrated the phenomenon but apparently others don't see it. So either I am seeing something that isn't a contradiction or other people can't see it is a contradiction due to the nature of tribalism. I guess the problem with using such examples is that they lack the data of studies necessary to prove or disprove them as real examples. Another example I was pondering was the reactions when Obama bowed to a foreign Arab leader vs when Bush held hands with a foreign Arab leader but again we lack quantitative data as far as I can tell and they aren't perfect 1 for 1 comparisons.

I find it interesting though when situations occur where you would expect a standard political divide on an issue based on tendencies among those political identifications. So the capitol got overrun and suddenly democrats who had wanted to defund the police sounded like republicans with strong support for the police and strong prison sentences. Or when covid hit, conservatives who usually tout the free market started to sound like liberals when they became so skeptical of big pharma.

I do think that this can be something hard to study because it isn't exactly something flattering. We like to think we are all individuals and free thinkers so even just the suggestion that we fall pre to tribalism is something we don't want to consider or admit.  I don't think politics escapes this tribalism whether it is a general political identity or surrounding a specific candidate like Trump and Biden. Just trying to bring up this subject in the realm of politics has obviously roused strong feelings. It is hard to even bring up an example without people running to battle-stations. My suggestion that peoples positions on the vaccine and masking would be switched if the politicians positions were switched on its face ends up being insulting because it suggests we aren't really that free thinking.

I must acknowledge that with politics people don't always fall into easily defined lines where they agree on everything. Even this board here has a spectrum of views about gun rights even though I think we all generally favor gun rights.

Nobody said "Censorship."

I know. Irrelevant.

He's saying that to entertain dangerous ideas, thus giving them legitimacy next to ideas that are not dangerous, is how those ideas become mainstream and deceptively benign.

A difference yes but not a significant one for my point.

Look at how the Socialist ideas have crept into our society.  History shows us the utter failure when such ideas are implemented, yet academically, people still try to justify its legitimacy. Here we are, with a Bernie Sanders Socialist Regime on the doorsteps of the White House, and people think "It has to be better than what we have," because they just don't want to study history.

This is likely a problem which will never truly go away, we will have to educated each generation about the dangers of full socialism to keep people from falling into its attractive trap. But we won't just do that by pointing at the worst examples and just trying to make people feel dumb for considering it, they will just think they can do it better. Just telling them it is too dangerous to even entertain  isn't going to accomplish anything.

There's a "herd mentality" experiment where people were asked to identify which length of string or something was shorter than the other one.

Everyone in the room was in on the setup except for the "subject."

Everyone picked the longer string and said it was the shorter one.  The subject could plainly see that this was the longer of the two.  However, instead of picking the one he knew to be correct, which would imply all the others got it wrong, he picked the longer string as well.

This is a phenomenon observed almost 2 centuries ago, and it was incorporated in the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes."  All the adults pretended to see what they were told was reality.  It took an innocent child to tell the truth.

It's much easier to travel the same direction as the herd, school, or whatever group than it is to go against the flow. 

By the way, after one of the people in on the string experiment chose the right string, the subject was 30% more likely to pick the right one, too.  Sometimes it only takes one other person to confirm your beliefs for you to act on them.  If no one is brave enough to trust their own eyes, society will follow the crowd off the nearest cliff.

Now do vaccines, "consensus," and "majority."

Very good examples Flapp, thank you for adding that to the conversation.

I think tribalism and herd mentality are somewhat related but I don't think I am talking about herd mentality.

I tried to come up with an example which to me illustrated the phenomenon but apparently others don't see it. So either I am seeing something that isn't a contradiction or other people can't see it is a contradiction due to the nature of tribalism. I guess the problem with using such examples is that they lack the data of studies necessary to prove or disprove them as real examples. Another example I was pondering was the reactions when Obama bowed to a foreign Arab leader vs when Bush held hands with a foreign Arab leader but again we lack quantitative data as far as I can tell and they aren't perfect 1 for 1 comparisons.

I find it interesting though when situations occur where you would expect a standard political divide on an issue based on tendencies among those political identifications. So the capitol got overrun and suddenly democrats who had wanted to defund the police sounded like republicans with strong support for the police and strong prison sentences. Or when covid hit, conservatives who usually tout the free market started to sound like liberals when they became so skeptical of big pharma.

I do think that this can be something hard to study because it isn't exactly something flattering. We like to think we are all individuals and free thinkers so even just the suggestion that we fall pre to tribalism is something we don't want to consider or admit.  I don't think politics escapes this tribalism whether it is a general political identity or surrounding a specific candidate like Trump and Biden. Just trying to bring up this subject in the realm of politics has obviously roused strong feelings. It is hard to even bring up an example without people running to battle-stations. My suggestion that peoples positions on the vaccine and masking would be switched if the politicians positions were switched on its face ends up being insulting because it suggests we aren't really that free thinking.

I must acknowledge that with politics people don't always fall into easily defined lines where they agree on everything. Even this board here has a spectrum of views about gun rights even though I think we all generally favor gun rights.

Tribadism

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The only tribes that matter:

Tribe 1- The Swamp

Tribe 2- Violent Extremists (now defined as anyone who disagrees with The Swamp)

https://www.activistpost.com/2021/10/militia-violent-extremists-added-to-a-growing-list-of-9-violent-domestic-extremists-groups.html

I was thinking about some other examples of this that show how supporting your tribe matters more than objectivity. And I don't think it is a concious choice to ignore the truth but a sincere subconscious inability to see outside of what tribes tell people to think. Studies have shown there is a high resistance to going against a tribe. If humans were really objective we would expect to see opinions and beliefs about these issues spread across race, religion, politics, etc but we don't. Additionally I think we see people tending to lineup the same way on sub issues to a large issue, so for example we don't usually find anti covid vaccine people who are pro mask but anti lockdowns and vice versa. People seem to line up relatively neatly instead of having varying unique opinions.

Again these are just examples of this phenomenon, not trying to hold a discussion on any of these issues. Additionally these are just observations of mine, not quantitative data.

#1. The breakdown of who thinks Trump lost legitimately or it was stolen. Pretty clear lines from what I have seen, the strong supporters all seem to think the election was stolen and the people hardcore against Trump all think he lost legitimately.  I have never met a Democrat who thought Trump's election was stolen and I have never met a hardcore Trump supporter who thought Trump lost legitimately.

#2 Responses to covid, masks, and the vaccine. Here I think the lines are not as clean but from what I have observed divisions seem relatively consistent along certain tribal lines.

#3 Gun rights. The liberals tend to think the 2nd amendment means one thing and the conservatives tend to think it means something different.

so it's only groupthink and it's not possible that more than a few people came to the same conclusion?

I was thinking about some other examples of this that show how supporting your tribe matters more than objectivity. And I don't think it is a concious choice to ignore the truth but a sincere subconscious inability to see outside of what tribes tell people to think. Studies have shown there is a high resistance to going against a tribe. If humans were really objective we would expect to see opinions and beliefs about these issues spread across race, religion, politics, etc but we don't. Additionally I think we see people tending to lineup the same way on sub issues to a large issue, so for example we don't usually find anti covid vaccine people who are pro mask but anti lockdowns and vice versa. People seem to line up relatively neatly instead of having varying unique opinions.

Again these are just examples of this phenomenon, not trying to hold a discussion on any of these issues. Additionally these are just observations of mine, not quantitative data.

#1. The breakdown of who thinks Trump lost legitimately or it was stolen. Pretty clear lines from what I have seen, the strong supporters all seem to think the election was stolen and the people hardcore against Trump all think he lost legitimately.  I have never met a Democrat who thought Trump's election was stolen and I have never met a hardcore Trump supporter who thought Trump lost legitimately.

#2 Responses to covid, masks, and the vaccine. Here I think the lines are not as clean but from what I have observed divisions seem relatively consistent along certain tribal lines.

#3 Gun rights. The liberals tend to think the 2nd amendment means one thing and the conservatives tend to think it means something different.

so it's only groupthink and it's not possible that more than a few people came to the same conclusion?

echo chamber bruh

I was thinking about some other examples of this that show how supporting your tribe matters more than objectivity. And I don't think it is a concious choice to ignore the truth but a sincere subconscious inability to see outside of what tribes tell people to think. Studies have shown there is a high resistance to going against a tribe. If humans were really objective we would expect to see opinions and beliefs about these issues spread across race, religion, politics, etc but we don't. Additionally I think we see people tending to lineup the same way on sub issues to a large issue, so for example we don't usually find anti covid vaccine people who are pro mask but anti lockdowns and vice versa. People seem to line up relatively neatly instead of having varying unique opinions.

Again these are just examples of this phenomenon, not trying to hold a discussion on any of these issues. Additionally these are just observations of mine, not quantitative data.

#1. The breakdown of who thinks Trump lost legitimately or it was stolen. Pretty clear lines from what I have seen, the strong supporters all seem to think the election was stolen and the people hardcore against Trump all think he lost legitimately.  I have never met a Democrat who thought Trump's election was stolen and I have never met a hardcore Trump supporter who thought Trump lost legitimately.

#2 Responses to covid, masks, and the vaccine. Here I think the lines are not as clean but from what I have observed divisions seem relatively consistent along certain tribal lines.

#3 Gun rights. The liberals tend to think the 2nd amendment means one thing and the conservatives tend to think it means something different.

Your observations are flawed.

There are plenty of people/groups who are pro-mask and anti-lockdown.  Your characterization of "pro-mask" is incorrect.  People who don't agree with the mandatory closing of businesses tend to also be against mask MANDATES.  Big difference between that and being "anti-mask."

Being against mandatory closures and mandatory mask wearing are both consistent with the belief that government does not have the authority to do such things without scientific proof that (1) failing to do so will be worse than doing it, and (2) the individual freedom to choose for themselves must be protected. 

Therefore, the "tribe" you are describing values individual choice and liberty over governmental control.  Americans are mostly averse to being forced to do anything, even when that thing holds the promise of benefits or preventing negative outcomes.

Ask Edgar Friendly how that works.   

echo chamber bruh

lul

so it's only groupthink and it's not possible that more than a few people came to the same conclusion?

If you find conclusions so strongly correlated along certain tribal lines (religion, race, politics, etc) then I would say groupthink is a strong factor.

I think that if this were not the case then you would expect to find more diversity of thought. I think this is also why you find groups with positions that are inconsistent with the ideals of their tribe, loyalty to the tribe is more valued than consistent ideology. Why are people who don't line up with their tribes get attacked? Look at what happens when a democrat doesn't side with the liberal agenda? They eat their own. What happens when a republican doesn't side with Trump? A RINO or worse.

Back in caveman days this may have been a trait that served us well.