3 ms·

Balancing how? Say each member has a point, and additional members have counterpoints to balance the group. What exactly happened? As a member with a point co

Balancing how? Say each member has a point, and additional members have counterpoints to balance the group. What exactly happened? As a member with a point countered, you've effectively been silenced. You have a group where extremes are neutralized. That is either a set goal by whomever controls the group, or works towards the greater ideology that becomes the group voice and group think that no one member can overturn. You don't need to be in a group to have additional data points. Thinking alone might be easy, but not thinking in a group is also easy. That's what most members end up doing.

agumonkey 5y ago
Maybe you've never been stuck long enough in your own head, but i did spend years with big blind spots about life, and the ability to talk with others would have saved my many many years. Also you sounds biased against groups. Sharing points of view don't equate being silenced. Having more data alone still means you're the sole interpreter, you perspective / understanding of the world might still be too focused on part of the space. Others can widen the angle, change your position. Of course politics can distort things too, but that's outside my comment. I was talking about conceptual group, small, free of agendas. Just a bunch of people saying what they see. Not every group is ruled by someone (even though most of the time there are such implicit social structures, I agree)
- iABzWratDc3RoW 5y ago
  You don't need to be in a group to talk to other people. You also qualify "group" with functionless groups. I am biased against group think. But also group speech, group emotion, and group everything else, as they are all inferior to their individual counterparts. Group emotion is a mob. If you've been in a group where the group changes your independent behavior, or you relinquish your decisions to the group, you've just downgraded yourself. And if you look at all the stupid in the world, most are done by groups.

agumonkey 5y ago

Maybe you've never been stuck long enough in your own head, but i did spend years with big blind spots about life, and the ability to talk with others would have saved my many many years. Also you sounds biased against groups. Sharing points of view don't equate being silenced. Having more data alone still means you're the sole interpreter, you perspective / understanding of the world might still be too focused on part of the space. Others can widen the angle, change your position. Of course politics can distort things too, but that's outside my comment. I was talking about conceptual group, small, free of agendas. Just a bunch of people saying what they see. Not every group is ruled by someone (even though most of the time there are such implicit social structures, I agree)

iABzWratDc3RoW 5y ago
You don't need to be in a group to talk to other people. You also qualify "group" with functionless groups. I am biased against group think. But also group speech, group emotion, and group everything else, as they are all inferior to their individual counterparts. Group emotion is a mob. If you've been in a group where the group changes your independent behavior, or you relinquish your decisions to the group, you've just downgraded yourself. And if you look at all the stupid in the world, most are done by groups.