|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/11/2009 10:44:53 AM |
There is not much difference between a charismatic evangelist or war-mongering president and Hitler.
I whole heartidly agree with this.
Each implies a conscious violation of trust and the impinging upon other's free will.
The problem is that not everyone is actually interested in applying a 'critical thinking filter' to their experience of the world. It takes energy to digest information presented to the senses in a way that takes many factors into acount (history being a big one). Furthermore the way information is organized and presented does not encourage investigation, rather, a passive acceptance (read about the physical effects of watching television). It's not easy to think for oneself and there are so many levels to do it on.
Certainly the education system can be of assistance here, but I am concerned that we are using it to churn out workers, not thinkers, cogs, not builders. There is certainly much to be said for including courses in critical thinking, in philosophy, logic and debate, into the highschool curriculum (I would start in elementary school). | |
|
| |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/11/2009 8:40:04 PM | I'm more afraid of other people thinking for me.
I typically fear the organization behind the person who can't think for himself. They have developed the propaganda to create the thoughless clones who litter the earth. That is dangerous. The actual people and their dogma aren't a big problem until they form a lynch mob.
| |
|
| |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:59:48 AM | | I think the diffrence is on how creative people are. Being unique is some what of a paradox. After all it takes a uniqe mind to think of a new fashion, music genre, hairstyle etc. the problem is others want to be uniqe and borrow from another individual, to the point of what makes a person uniqe becomes ordanary. | |
|
Salgo
|
Joined: 5/1/2009
Msg: 82 | |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:03:52 AM |
rhodax wrote
I start it off.
When watching, listening to, or reading the news I always ask myself.
1) Is this news that I actually need to know?
2) Why am I being told this
3) What am actually being told
4) Who is telling me this
5) Who benefits from me knowing this
I do the same, though now I don't watch TV news much as most of it is just edited to fit garbage. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 83 | |
| |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/12/2009 7:44:15 PM | ""There's a better way to phrase that:
Why are people so afraid to think for themselves? ""
i agree with you... for not everybody is afrade... i like to think that i am not... i heard of a test one time... with a large group of poeople, where 75 % of the people in it where on the inside, the knew what was going on, wile 25% dident know... and they where all lined up randomly... they where all told to look at a page with a colour on it... the colour was white, soo they went down the line asking poeple one by one what the colour was, that 75% where told to say that it was black... and they found the 75% of the people who dident know what was going on went with the majority also agreeing it was black, 25% of that 25% that dident know, soo only 8%of the enier group argued that is waas white... how ever after some time arguing, over half of that group submissed to the rest of the group... soo only 3% of the enier group faught for what they believed in.... i found that really interesting | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/12/2009 8:03:12 PM | | If you make four rights you're back at the corner where you started. You can't go wrong. I thought that for myself and without any fear whatever. That's as brave a thought as you'll find anywhere. | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 8:38:50 AM | Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
It is knowm as 'informational cascade'
If you're posing the question it means you have never heard of it, a good place to begin then is wiki... | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 9:05:09 AM | I had talk to my evo.psych instructor once about this. I asked her roughly "is there a possible evo. idea behind conformity? If you look at, say, antelope on the plain and a lioness comes charging, they all run right, and in one huge pack, and the moment one breaks of from the pack he becomes the target of the lion and almost certainly is killed" She didn't say too much significant that i remember, but i wonder if there's anything to that.
Fun to think about.
I mean obviously the hominids branched off into much seperate, complex and different behaviours, but were all part of the same kingdom....lower yet, the same phylum. | |
|
| |
dlros
|
Joined: 10/14/2008
Msg: 89 | |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:15:47 AM | This is an interesting rant coming from a Southwestern guy with a Cowboy hat ;)
But I half agree with him. Look there are people who look at a new trend and say "wow cool, somthing new, I'd like to try that!". Then there are folks who say, "wow I better wear this, or I won't look cool". So there are early-adopters and followers.
As far as the assertion about "workaholic" the OP is just dead wrong. Language, and by extention vocabulary; is organic. It flows and changes, evolves from slang, and enters and leaves the dictionary by consensus, not by fiat. If you use the OP's logic the word alcoholic itself would be incorect, as it is an "abstract obsurdity" (put simply a word that doesn't make sense from a purley constuctionalist point of view). Workaholic is a word in the English language quite literally, and quite rationally.
My guess is that the OP has a problem with the fluid (and sometimes exhausting) nature of popular culture. If that's the case, his point is well taken, but if he's such a rugged individualist, why is he so angry about it?
Just for the record, I'm a little sick of backwards baseball caps myself ;)
And what may I ask is this?
Now, human echolocation is generally accepted as possible, even by echolocation experts
You have GOT to be kidding! | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:19:12 AM | Alli hoop:
I don’t study the same strands of thoughts n theories the majority of people in this forum, I come more from a simplistic approach…lol
Your post #94 put into play instincts of survival/ conformity: in your scenario there is a physical opening for a challenge to focus on one goal instead of many - making the catch more successful. I find that in forums: something someone said leaves an opening for a challenge…not one of power but one of exercising a right of thought from one being to another. Breaking away and awakening the spirits…placing or questioning a thought goes along with knowing self and being open to knowing more. It is human.
There is also a bond people have in relationship to their physical selves found in community – playing specific roles, questioning their boundaries; a sense of knowing reinforced by impacts by several people creating individual strength associated with leadership/questioning.
Generally speaking, if it is the question of “non-thinking humans” the difference might be found that humans in general have placed far too many obstacles living up to conformity that is unattainable (celebrities) falling into survival mode - Rarely in touch with self projecting their happiness on fantasy lives outside themselves.
I also think being outside of community – humans play multiple roles and are more in instinctual survival. Difference with humans compared to antelopes could be we have a choice of living in survival/conformity or individual thought. To practice individualistic thought takes too much work in an already overwhelming world. Most do what is easy for that moment.
Possibly humans forever question their presence in this world threatened by extinguishment. My grandfather use to say – the bond of many is difficult to break where if just one, far easier to bend n break. If one survives, memory/scars have the ability to create strength.
 | |
|
dlros
|
Joined: 10/14/2008
Msg: 91 | |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:35:19 AM | "runs with wolves"- I agree with both you and "Ali oop" (love her handle).
Nature rewards both initiative and conformity depending on circumstance. As humans we put forward great, and somtimes very sad examples of both.
Sometimes conformity can can help us build equitable democarcies. And sometimes it can cause us to walk into gas chambers like sheep-or cause us to force others into them.
Sometimes initiative creates art, culture and invention. Sometimes it causes untold suffering and destruction.
I guess that sometimes it's good to be a follower and in other circumstances it's better to be a leader.
And sometimes it's good to be an antelope- especially if the grass is tasty :) | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 5:53:26 PM | And as we all undress at night, in the dim light of the candles, our brothers are silent, for they dare not speak the thoughts of their minds. For all must agree with all, and they cannot know if their thoughts are the thoughts of all, and so they fear to speak.
...
What brought it to pass? What disaster took their reason away from men? What whip lashed them to their knees in shame and submission? The worship of the word "We."
~Anthem, Ayn Rand
Individualism is out (unless we are rich, famous or beautiful), "we" is in, lol, or so it seems at times. ;) | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 7:12:55 PM | RE Msg: 94 by Alli_oop:
I had talk to my evo.psych instructor once about this. I asked her roughly "is there a possible evo. idea behind conformity? If you look at, say, antelope on the plain and a lioness comes charging, they all run right, and in one huge pack, and the moment one breaks of from the pack he becomes the target of the lion and almost certainly is killed" She didn't say too much significant that i remember, but i wonder if there's anything to that.
Fun to think about.
I mean obviously the hominids branched off into much seperate, complex and different behaviours, but were all part of the same kingdom....lower yet, the same phylum. It makes sense to do that, when you are in a group, and you are being attacked physically by a predator. But when you watch horror films, with a group of people being picked off by a serial killer, then you'd expect that everyone stays in a group. But they don't. They all split up. You see the same thing in action films. The people split up. You see the same in real life. When a group of people are being attacked by others, the human instinct is generally to flee and scatter, or unite and fight.
But animals do the reverse. The antelopes flee as a pack. The lions tend to spread out around the antelopes, and then attack separately, or maybe 2 on one antelope.
Another example is that when dogs get scared, they tend to bear their teeth, and even attack. Humans don't. They tend to flee when they are scared, and only tend to attack when they are not.
We humans seem to do things differently to how animals do things.
Now the question is why? Animals rely on instinct, either copied from other animals, or inbuilt. Either way, they follow a set pattern. But humans act on their feeling and their emotions. Humans react to their fears and drives, and tend to ignore or overrule their instincts.
But there is another rationale to why people act in herd-like behaviour. One thing that can be seen, is that when people walk together in the same direction, they tend to fall in step. This caused problems for the new London Bridge, because it caused a resonance effect, that greatly magnified the stress on the bridge. Almost ripped it apart, till engineers figured out that this falling-in-step thing was causing the problem, and added supports in the right places that breaks up the pattern, and stops people walking in step across the bridge.
Unlike animals, we think. But thinking can carry. You have an idea. You tell someone else. Now he has the idea. He tells someone else. Now she has the idea. Pretty soon, lots of people have the same idea. The same can happen with emotions. Only emotions are communicated non-verbally, by facial expressions and body language. So they can be communicated as quickly as you can see, in 1/10th of a second. So in only 1 second, your emotion can spread to 10 other people. If each person has 2 people in their field of view, then this multiplies by 2 each time, and in 1 second, your emotion can spread to 1000 people. That means that fear, or happiness, or any emotion, can spread like wildfire. That's why when people lose confidence in stock markets and panic, the stock market can collapse in a single day. The panic spreads unbelievably quickly.
The same thing happens with social ideas. Someone has an idea. It requires thinking to understand it. The person says that idea to someone else. Others hear it too. But the very first thing they pick up on, is what they see, because our sight only takes 1/10th of a second to process what we see, far quicker than what we hear. We see their facical expressions and their body language. So the very first thing we pick up on, is how they feel about the idea, NOT the idea itself. So by the time we process the idea, we've already decided how to feel about it, and that determines how we see the idea too. We have no NEED to think about the idea. The emotion has told us how to interpret it. Moreover, because emotions cloud the brain, it is very difficult to think about the idea. So most of us don't. We just take the emotion, process the idea in light of how we feel about it, and then react accordingly, which is going to be pretty similar to how the person we got the idea from reacted. So we'll just pass the same emotions and ideas on like wildfire. Pretty soon, everyone has the same idea, with the same interpretation, based on how we feel about the idea.
We can question the people about that idea. Most people in the UK know about global warming, and that it is pretty bad for the planet. A lot probably don't really know too much about it. If you asked them what caused it, or what we can do about it, you'd probably get a variety of answers, because that's not what people are processing. But nearly all would say it's bad, and that it's something that we have to do something about, because those are the feelings that they picked up on, a feeling that global warming is bad, and a feeling of urgency to act on it in some way or other. | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 7:27:26 PM |
Another example is that when dogs get scared, they tend to bear their teeth, and even attack. Humans don't. They tend to flee when they are scared, and only tend to attack when they are not.
this isnt true. Humans actually tend to act similar to many animals. There is nothing to separate us. Unless the dog is unusually aggressive, it will also flee when scared. It attacks if it feels it is backed into a corner. Same goes for people. They flee naturally when frightened, but if backed into a corner, we will attack. Same as the dog. Same as many animals. People tend to attack when they are not scared?? Only if they are a violent criminal. When do people attack in lack of fright? Thats not our nature.
Only emotions are communicated non-verbally, by facial expressions and body language. So they can be communicated as quickly as you can see, in 1/10th of a second. So in only 1 second, your emotion can spread to 10 other people. If each person has 2 people in their field of view, then this multiplies by 2 each time, and in 1 second, your emotion can spread to 1000 people. That means that fear, or happiness, or any emotion, can spread like wildfire. That's why when people lose confidence in stock markets and panic, the stock market can collapse in a single day. The panic spreads unbelievably quickly.
Your basic premise is correct, but why do you always feel you need to make up numbers to prove your point? This whole paragraph is just fiction. Since you are trying to be mathematically precise, i'll add to what you said. You can't actually transmit emotions in sequence to 10 people in a second, because there is more in the time factor than the time it takes for the image of the emotional face to get to your eye. It also, has to process in the brain, then travel back down the nervous system to control the muscles of the next person's face. I think if you were to do an experiment, it would actually take 4 or more seconds to transmit an emotion down a chain of 10 people.
Other than that, i agree with the paragraph. I just think a brief response without fictional math would be more persuasive. | |
|
| |
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:12:40 PM | i think humans definately have the potential for instinct. Fortunately, our higher brain functions usually override these. When we are presented with a danger....say, we are walking down the street and see two men coming towards us from the other way, screaming insults to everyone they pass.
Naturally, as they approach you, your heart will begin to race, your face and neck will feel hot, and become red. And you will want to flee (maybe at least cross the streat). But your cognitive process can overrule that. Before you act, you will think it through. You may say "oh, they are just drunk teenagers being jerks..just keep my head down and walk past them".....or you may say "yeah, this is dangerous, i'm going to other side of street"......but, ultimately it was your reasoning that makes you choose, not an instinctual behavior. | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/15/2009 6:52:01 AM | OP- I know what you mean. I went to see this band and they all played in the same key. Same time signature. 3 guys sang and they even sang the same words. Even some of the audience sang the same words. There may be hope for them though. They did sing different notes.
And words. I often use 'Schtuppendelichenphor" instead of "Paraguay" and people get this strange, blazquitic look on their face.
Americans can still proudly claim their independence of thought, though. While Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff mesmerized the audiences of France and Germany, we realized their original attractions were dependent on Dean Martin and the boobs. | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/15/2009 7:00:15 AM | "Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?"
Mr. Logic Lemming,
by asking the question in the title you in effect defer the thinking to others. You are too much of a follower to figure out the answer; you are asking the great beyond, the forum community here for sure, to 1. think about your question and then 2. give you a satisfactory answer.
This is exactly what you are talking about: Fear or inability for one to think for him/herself.
Why do you think you are a lemming, Mr. Lemming? | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/15/2009 7:48:44 AM | Most times, there's an advantage to be a Lemming. Only when everything goes to hell do people, who just happen to have miss *that boat, start laughing and saying.. "You idiot!"
IMHO, if you're not a Lemming, you're a wolf, dead, or a hermit.
<div class='quote'>Another example is that when dogs get scared, they tend to bear their teeth, and even attack. Humans don't. They tend to flee when they are scared, and only tend to attack when they are not.Ever hear of a fear biter? But for people (and I guess for dogs as well) it depends on the personality type. Some have the fright response (a startled horse), and some have the attack response. I experienced both. I suspect that the trauma you experience as a youth determines the percentage of fight or flight reactions invoked, but only marginally. It mostly depends on the personality type. | |
|
| Why is everyone so afraid to think for themselves?
Posted: 7/15/2009 9:20:05 AM | RE Msg: 101 by greg14229:
Another example is that when dogs get scared, they tend to bear their teeth, and even attack. Humans don't. They tend to flee when they are scared, and only tend to attack when they are not. this isnt true. Humans actually tend to act similar to many animals. There is nothing to separate us. Unless the dog is unusually aggressive, it will also flee when scared. It attacks if it feels it is backed into a corner. Same goes for people. They flee naturally when frightened, but if backed into a corner, we will attack.
People tend to attack when they are not scared?? Only if they are a violent criminal. When do people attack in lack of fright? Thats not our nature. People who feel that there is someone who might cause harm to them if not forced to flee, and who are not afraid of that threat, tend to attack. Violent criminals attack when they have an incentive to gain, such as by gaining money. By and large, most people don't feel that someone else is going to cause them any harm, and when they do, they tend to be of the impression that they cannot win, such as when corporations screw people over. A common example is that when people buy a product that turns out to be faulty, most don't take it back, unless it is of a very large expense, that they simply cannot afford to lose. It is only the minority who always claim on their warranty for every dud product that they buy.
Only emotions are communicated non-verbally, by facial expressions and body language. So they can be communicated as quickly as you can see, in 1/10th of a second. So in only 1 second, your emotion can spread to 10 other people. If each person has 2 people in their field of view, then this multiplies by 2 each time, and in 1 second, your emotion can spread to 1000 people. That means that fear, or happiness, or any emotion, can spread like wildfire. That's why when people lose confidence in stock markets and panic, the stock market can collapse in a single day. The panic spreads unbelievably quickly. Your basic premise is correct, but why do you always feel you need to make up numbers to prove your point? This whole paragraph is just fiction. Since you are trying to be mathematically precise, i'll add to what you said. You can't actually transmit emotions in sequence to 10 people in a second, because there is more in the time factor than the time it takes for the image of the emotional face to get to your eye. It also, has to process in the brain, then travel back down the nervous system to control the muscles of the next person's face. I think if you were to do an experiment, it would actually take 4 or more seconds to transmit an emotion down a chain of 10 people. Other than that, i agree with the paragraph. I just think a brief response without fictional math would be more persuasive.
4 seconds seems far too long to me, because I can see people's reactions instantaneously to other people's expressions. When people show disgust in their face, other people show a reaction in their faces, in less than 1 second. You have to remember, that the nerves of the body travel at the speed of electricity, not the speed of thought. Transmitting a muscle reaction is a heck of a lot quicker than it takes to think. That's why we braking distance is split into thinking distance, the time it takes to think to brake, and stopping distance, the time it takes for the car physically to stop, but not reaction distance, the time it takes to physically exert one's muscles to press on the brake. The time it takes once the brain has already sent the message to the nerves, to make the muscles press on the pedal, is negligible at speeds below 200mph, because that takes place at the speed of electricity.
Maybe we disagree on the details. But I hope that we can agree in principle, and not let this devolve into yet another long argument. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
