Psychology of Mass Formations


#1

Lifted from a post on Metamoderna. It would seem to be describing a phenomenon similar to Aperspectival Madness.


#2

@steljarkos @excecutive - Let me know what you think. I found this profound.


#3

No surprises, makes perfect sense to me. This topic is implicitly subsumed within my article “Knowing how to be: Imitation, the neglected axiom.” Materialists and reductionists will, however, find this video surprising - they don’t have a category for it, beyond their already established (reductionist) categories in the social and psychological (behaviorist) sciences. They are perhaps more likely to think along the lines of “interesting adaptive trait… I wonder which genes are responsible for expressing this behavior… but that cannot possibly apply to me, I’m an objective, sensible, clear thinker.” They’ll try to force-fit it into their presumptively-Darwinian paradigm as another ill-fitting piece of a puzzle that does not hang together. “I’ll need to add this to my tool-kit of theories” - oblivious to the easy, self-evident unity with which it flows, all by itself.


#4

Very interesting! In the 90’s I studied Hypnosis and got certified as a Clinical Hypnotist. It started to become obvious to me that here in America there was a progressing state of Mass Hypnosis. I’ve expressed this concern for decades while most just glazed over when I talked about it. The Prof lays it out in a brilliant and informed way. I’m already forwarding this video to people I know. Thanks for sharing!

Best regards,
Brian


#5

@steljarkos One point that the group mentions is that Disagreability is a common trait for those that tend to avoid getting sucked into Mass Formations.

It is optimistic to think that the Just Agree with Group Think gaslighting isn’t going to win out in the end. I’ve forgotten the %'s but Desmet sees only 10-20% as “true believers” in the new orthodoxy, 20-30 are true followers, then rest are either opposed or silent due to fear. In our case here in the US it’s fear of being Cancelled.

@Brian_Downey
Along similar lines I spent many hours in courses looking that included deep look at use of cliches. With this Mass Formation capability that can easily spread via social media platforms, we see cliches picked up highly intelligent folks. Where I’m going with it is if our thought lines fall into these cliches “CRT”, “Insurrection”, “Marxist”, “Free Market” our OWN thinking becomes channeled into these hypnotic patterns.


#6

You are, in fact - part of the Just Agree with Group Think Gaslighting Gang. 90% of your posts are complete gaslighting group think. Just you rationalize with yourself that it isn’t because you are 100% focused on the opposing group think. Two sides of the same coin. You are right group think instead of left, but you do swing left when the wind blows that way. That’s the #1 sign of groupthink IMO - complete unawareness that a two positions you hold are completely incompatible and when it’s pointed out to you, you redirect to the next groupthink gaslight.


#7

I think the world requires a return to heaven/hell/reincarnation narratives. You know, “you’re gonna burn in the flames of hell”, fire-and-brimstone stuff. Fear of being cancelled is just so lame. Life is so short, and people worry about being called mean names? Oh, I get it… for many, being called mean names implies being cancelled and losing jobs and source of income.

But nobody thinks of the shithole they’ll reincarnate to, as a consequence of cowering to this nonsense. When you cower to it, you reaffirm its cultural logic. When you reaffirm its cultural logic, you become the logic. That goes into your DNA. And, thanks to DNA nonlocality, your rebirth will be to new parents who’ve cowered to the same kind of logic… your new parents will be products of your next culture. You will be reborn into your next culture with the same innocence that you entered this one… that’s why you won’t remember this one, or what you did to deserve your next incarnation. From ignorance to ignorance. From one shithole to the next. A never-ending cycle of shitholes. You never escape it. Only when you confront it, might you escape it.

The universe is a big place, there is no shortage of shitholes to transition across. No thanks, not for me. There are better places… maybe even heavenly places… to transition across. I’d rather wear the disdain with which I’m treated in shithole culture as a badge of honor. Cancel culture creeps can go fuck themselves.

The concept, btw, is not new, though expressed in different forms… Hinduism/Buddhism and karma, Christianity and heaven/hell. My own spin being culture as analogous to karma (or even, heaven/hell)… we are products of culture to an extent that few people appreciate.

If people could appreciate the consequences of conforming to stupid groupthink they might worry less about being called mean names. They might learn to relish the distinction from the sheep that being called mean names implies, for it is, indeed, a badge of honor.

Go ahead, bigot-masquerading-as-antibigot, projecting your assumptions and your original sin, call me a racist or whatever you want. I know what I stand for, and that’s all that matters.


#8

I pulled this summary from the net (linked here):

4 conditions need to be present to create Mass-Formation

  1. There needs to a lot of socially isolated people or people who experience a lack of social bond

  2. People who experience a lack of ‘sense making’. Unable to come to sensible conclusions.

  3. There is a lot of Free-Floating Anxiety (FFA). Free-Floating because there’s nothing to connect their anxiety to. No focal point. Unable to identify what’s causing and so no way to deal with it.

  4. There’s also a lot of Free-Floating Psychological-Discontent. People may experience their daily lives as lacking any purpose or meaning

Question is if we double down on what’s gotten us into this situation? Or reconsider root causes of what’s lead to a large portion of society experiencing some or all of these 4 conditions?


#9

I can’t disagree with what you’ve actually written, but it’s the unwritten part I know is there that I feel you are not seeing.
Traditional conservatives have their own cancel culture, and so do Trump Conservatives. For a Traditional conservative they wanted “whites only” sections, don’t want to allow homosexuals to even exist, want to cancel “uppity” aka “nasty” women, Latinos, Muslims an so on. What was terrible was that they actually did have the entire force of the government behind them at one time. I remember when a soldier literally could be (and were) be murdered being gay. Or not even gay - just dating a trans woman who looked very much like a woman.
So you can’t redirect me - I grew up with conservative cancel culture. I remember all the “N-word and and gay jokes” even to this day and I remember when sexual harassment at school and in the workplace was considered “no big deal”. Grabbing a woman’s ass wasn’t even a punishable offense. At the worst you’d be told not to do it. Then your boss would ask “was it soft or firm” after she left the office. Any attempt by the woman or teenage girl to protest sexual harassments and she was “cancelled”. If you are my age and just forget or hide all this from yourself, well good luck with that. It will come out no matter what - generally as anger redirected toward women in general to cover up one’s own faults.
So cancel culture existed before modern Liberalism.
Also, Trump conservativism is very much cancel culture. People like @FermentedAgave use words to name call that have lost all meaning. The way he uses Marxism - it no longer means anything except “I don’t like the group I think you belong to”.
There is a direct line from traditional conservative cancel culture - through making that behavior illegal - directly to modern Trump Conservativism. They desperately need an enemy to direct their anger against. Since we made it illegal to racists, sexist, and all the rest - they just redirect their anger outward towards Liberals in general.

Was the Liberal cancel culture full of problems? Yes. Here though is the biggest significant difference: When Liberals lost in 2016 this immediately provoked a time of self reflection. “Oh, I’m missing something here. What is it?” This will ultimately lead humanity to a better place. In contrast, when the Trump Conservative Party lost in 2020, it’s immediate and ongoing reaction is “They cheated, lets get our guns and overthrow democracy.”

But you are right - what another person says actually has no meaning to a person who is congruent within themselves. And yes, groupthink is almost the root of the problem, but not the deep root. At the very deepest rot of groupthink is a lacking feeling of self worth.

My challenge to you would be to transform your work into addressing those deep feelings of worthlessness that are rampant in our culture that in turn make them susceptible to groupthink of both the left and the right variety. In working specifically with men, it’s the recognition that while women played a role, the only person a man needs to look to for answers and appreciation, feelings of belonging and self worth is himself.


#10

A very good question and I agree with you.
The answer is no - we have to completely re-think the world that developed out of the schitzophrenic Christian War culture that goes all the way back to the Crusades. On the one hand, all through the ages Christian nations have worshiped a God of peace, but were also aggressively warlike and genocidal. The very roots of Western culture are based in insanity.

This does not mean that we have to go back to living in mud huts - but we do have to look at what Christianity failed (and currently fails) to provide to humanity. Why is it Christians are always first to grab for their guns and seek a violent solution? Such as attempting to overthrow democracy when they lose an election.

You can be sure that we will not return to the 1950’s and nor was it as great as nostalgia leads you to believe - when black people being in a certain part of town was suspicious, gays were beaten by police, and it was part of manhood to give your woman a smack across the face if she got out of line. Remember all those old movies where the answer to female hysteria was to smack her? Yeah - ask your wife or daughter if those were the good old days, lol.

Here’s a reminder of how this was actually an issue that needed to be changed in the 1960’s and is not merely wokism aperspectival madness:

Here’s another clip from “the good old days” when “men could handle their wives” (sarcasm)

And here is one of 1,000 reasons why we will never go back, lol:


#11

@corey-devos’ recent post of Kurt Koller’s “An Introduction to Integral Science” might be a good place to start. I think that a concerted effort to unify science and religion would address all four points. People need something to believe in.

Most importantly, we need to understand the relationship between personality and culture. The world’s most credible religions have attempted something along those lines, but, due to their limited horizons and short histories, they’ve found themselves confined to parochial narratives like God the Creator, karma, heaven and hell, humans-r-speshul (made in god’s image, and all that).

For the first time in history, however, humans now realize how ridiculously huge the universe is (Hubble deepfield and all that). For the first time in history, humans know that the CHNOPS (basic life-essential elements) on earth are strewn throughout a life-abundant universe. It would be a waste were we to throw out all we know, in favor of a broken paradigm (neo-Darwinism) and a broken, politically correct, decadent culture.

On a positive note, however, regardless of the ultimate outcome, everyone will continue to be “happy”… happy with reality, this is “just” how reality is, happy that they’ve accepted its terms, happy that they fit in.

Just as a fly is happy in its pile of dung, so too, a person can be happy in their cultural shithole, regardless of how broken it might be. This is the truth of that meme doing the rounds, in anticipation of the coming reset: “you will own nothing, and you will be happy.” Current adults might be initially resistant. But their children will forget what their parents valued, and they will grow up cheerfully in the new authoritarianism that legislates how owning nothing should be administered and policed.

More generally, you will live in a hellhole, and you will be happy. You don’t know any better. This is, after all, “reality”. Like it or lump it. You will measure yourself to your culture’s terms. “Oh look, they’re killing one another… looks easy, even fun, I bet I can double that and become king of the castle.” And you will be happy in your new pile of dung, content that the terms suit you and your lifestyle, content with your level in the maggot-infested hierarchy.

A demonstration of God’s beneficence in all His Goodness. He grants everyone their wish, even if it is just a pile of dung.

I don’t see any other solution than a decent synthesis of science and religion, in a narrative that suits our time. We either take this opportunity, or we accept the new Dark Age that looms on the horizon. If the latter, the universe won’t miss us, we will be but a blip in a long progression of extinctions.


#12

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… you’ll have trouble slotting me into a pigeon hole. A pigeon hole for me does not exist.

I’m well aware of the problem with conservative cancel culture. I grew up in Australia and with its Anglo-based emphasis on privilege playing out in a penal colony, it makes for an especially conservative, very authoritarian hybrid that is difficult for non-Australians to understand. If you want homophobia, bigotry and sexism, there was no place in the world that was worse than Australia. I use the past tense, “was”, loosely. To outsiders visiting Australia, Australians might come across as “fun, relaxed and easy-going”, but nothing can be farther from the truth. Their “easy-going” is not a liberty, but a constraint. Step beyond its bounds, make them “uncomfortable”, and you will feel the sting of their narrow, authoritarian constraints.

So, getting back to my point. Given my Australian experience, I think I understand the nuances of conservative culture at least as well as you do. In comparison to Australia, America is, culturally, more in touch with liberty than Australia ever was… or perhaps ever will be (depending on the depths to which America will continue to slide). Australia formalized its racism in a “White Australia Policy.” No such thing took place in America. America has a bill of rights (for what it’s worth, in the current political climate). Australia, however, is the single world “democracy” that never entertained a bill of rights. You want the ugly side of conservatism, in all its authoritarian privilege? Try growing up in Australia. You want cancel culture? Try testing the seemingly trivial limits of what’s permissible in Australia to see real ghosting and exclusion in action.

Hence, my original attraction to American progressivism (until it became jaded by more contemporaneous realities).

The thing is, though, given my Australian experience, I am interpreting American conservatism in a more positive light than you. The liberty of engaging with the world, come what may. That liberty is absent in Australia, a land of subtle but pervasive constraints, a “social obligation” narrative that curtails liberties in ways that Americans won’t understand.

The left vs right debate is a red herring. What is really at issue is the cultural narrative, the foundation of liberty as originally conceived (despite its flaws), and my current leaning towards conservatism is merely incidental to that. I’ll get over it. I’m more interested in the pervasive cultural dynamics that impact on everybody’s lives, liberal, conservative or in between. If I seem to be picking on the left more than the right, perhaps it’s because, like a reformed alcoholic, their hypocrisies are more of an irritant to me than they might be to others. Once you see it, you can’t unsee, and it makes your eyes water.


#13

On this we agree.
I also actually believe myself to have conservative values similar to the founding fathers (who were mostly Deists and also solidly Green or even 2nd tier Teal or violet)


#14

Cast adrift, Free-Floating Psychological-Discontent upon an infinite abyss of graphite despair. Breathlessly at vigil resisting the engulf of terror.


#15

Maybe you’ve read it, and while I certainly wouldn’t call it a “synthesis,” Jeffrey Kripal’s book “The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge” attempts to address aspects of this subject which you may (or may not!) find interesting. I love some of the quotes he uses, starting with:

Hydrogen is a light odorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people. (Anonymous)

and ending with:

When everything is human, the human is a very different thing. (Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, in “Cannibal Metaphysics”)


#16

No, I haven’t read his book. The following youtube, though, provides an idea of what he’s about:

Interesting. But as a skeptic of time as a dimension of space-time, I’d like to see more evidence about pre-cognitive events than suggested in personal anecdotes (as he explores here). My cosmology does not factor in a future that is already existing “just there”, waiting to be traversed across space-time. The relationship between the known and the unknown (as per my cosmology) implies a future that is inherently unknown, and therefore yet to be discovered; it is not already existing, waiting to be unpacked (implies baggage from the presumption of a newtonian, clockwork universe).

I do, however, come on board with his call to unify science with religion and his references to subjectivity/objectivity. We must do this. The split between science and religion is an artificial split of truth. There is only one truth, and splitting truth into one part “science” and one part “religion” is a nonsense. Truth either makes sense or it doesn’t (or it is unknown, maybe even unknowable in its totality). Which part “makes sense”? Is it the science or is it the religion? Surely both must unify in a spirit of commonsense.

Meanwhile, that which is unknown/unknowable remains a priority of both perspectives, it is not the preserve of just one.