4 ms·

I would guess that such groups are being manipulated by exceptionally smart people for specific ends, some significant fraction of the time. I think that's a t

I would guess that such groups are being manipulated by exceptionally smart people for specific ends, some significant fraction of the time. I think that's a tempting theory to have. Explains a lot and is easy to understand, but I think it gives individuals too much credit. I would guess exceptionally smart people drift in and out at random and attempt to use the group for specific ends. I think their success rate is slim and random. By "random" I actually mean the group may go along if it thinks it would be "lulz". Notice I said "may", it also may not - lots of random noise in the hive mind. What this means is that trying to control or predict the actions of the group is a fool's game. At best you may be able to influence them occasionally in some small way, its pure chaos theory.

stcredzero 16y ago
I would guess exceptionally smart people drift in and out at random and attempt to use the group for specific ends. I think their success rate is slim and random. I think that's what they want you to think. It may even be true. It's not a reason to give up on the "smart core group" theory, though. I think it gives individuals too much credit. This is a long running debate. There is a camp that thinks individual personalities have significant effects on History. I'd be willing to believe that Anonymous is entirely emergent, but in that case, there would be a "fossil record" of its evolution. (Great. Now that I've posted that, some smartass Anon is going to create one!) What this means is that trying to control or predict the actions of the group is a fool's game. At best you may be able to influence them occasionally in some small way, its pure chaos theory. There's no good way to guarantee which way a buffalo herd will stampede. Doesn't mean there's zero utility in doing so, or that no one can be held accountable.

stcredzero 16y ago

I would guess exceptionally smart people drift in and out at random and attempt to use the group for specific ends. I think their success rate is slim and random. I think that's what they want you to think. It may even be true. It's not a reason to give up on the "smart core group" theory, though. I think it gives individuals too much credit. This is a long running debate. There is a camp that thinks individual personalities have significant effects on History. I'd be willing to believe that Anonymous is entirely emergent, but in that case, there would be a "fossil record" of its evolution. (Great. Now that I've posted that, some smartass Anon is going to create one!) What this means is that trying to control or predict the actions of the group is a fool's game. At best you may be able to influence them occasionally in some small way, its pure chaos theory. There's no good way to guarantee which way a buffalo herd will stampede. Doesn't mean there's zero utility in doing so, or that no one can be held accountable.