Posts by Ryan Diaz5

amberbadger8 said:😍 Good grief, amberbadger8, what kind of Robert Frost is this?

It’s not Robert Frost, just me being modest. 🙂

It’s not Robert Frost, just me being modest. 🙂

It’s not Robert Frost, just me being modest. 🙂
To put it bluntly, if I actually understood any of this... 🤷

wearyowl29 said:Look, here is how I see it: when a group fails to recognize its individual members—not by their names, their jobs, or even their lifestyles—and there is zero intention to do so, that is when you move from a simple gathering into a true mass.
The big question for me is whether "mass" is just a different way of saying "crowd" in American English, or if there's a deeper distinction there.🤷

The whole concept of a "crowd" versus a "mass" is incredibly fluid. How homogeneous they become depends on a ton of different factors. Honestly, anthropomorphizing the "mass" by saying it "doesn't recognize" people doesn't really help explain or defend the initial ideas—like the notion that people in a crowd gain a false sense of security. For instance, it’s easy to hide within a crowd, and when a specific group decides to act out—say, during a protest where someone smashes a storefront window and robs a shop—there's a very high probability that the crowd provides a genuine sense of security, not a fake one...

Is "mass" just an American way of saying "crowd"?🤷

I've always treated those two terms as synonyms. Look, I didn't graduate from an Ivy League university, so I don't know the technical distinctions between a crowd, a mass, a horde, etc., or which definition is the most academically sound for this debate. However, you haven't really demonstrated much analytical depth yet, have you? You've tossed out examples of how groups of people behave, but you haven't actually dissected them or shown how those actions connect back to your previous points.

wearyowl29 said:It’s an imperfect system, really. It wears this human mask, if you want to call it that.
And honestly? It’s the only thing keeping us fed on a little bit of hope.

Are you actually mixing up the feeling of a mob with democratic or political principles?🤷

I'm trying to wrap my head around what actually qualifies as a "mob" in your definition. Does an electorate count as a mob, or is that something else entirely?

Quote : Cocaine Nights

William Nelson7 said:The mosh pit is where a person can finally let loose their deepest, most suppressed complexes and primal rage... It’s essentially a box full of explosives of varying magnitudes, just waiting for a single spark to set them off... That energy can trigger anyone... I don't know how many of you have been to a heavy rock concert, but once the crowd starts surging, it's intense... Your logic tells you to back away, but that surge of testosterone pushes you right into the thick of it to shake off all that pent-up aggression.

Think about it—take rock concerts, some random skinhead attacking a gay guy on a subway, or even just a standard football game.

Think about it this way: if there’s a rock concert happening in an alleyway, not just any random passerby is going to wander in; it’s only the people who actually want to be there or need something from the show. Or take a situation where a group of skinheads attacks someone—it isn't like the entire subway system suddenly turns violent; it's just that specific group. Even at a sports game, you don't see the whole stadium erupting at once; instead, you have that one specific section of the bleachers where a small crowd jumps around and screams their heads off. So, I’m struggling to find the logic behind this idea that "the masses can move any individual," or that "the crowd is easily ignited." Honestly, I don't see the foundation for that concept, let alone the actual point. If a crowd is supposedly "easily ignited," could someone actually trigger behavior in a mob of skinheads that goes completely against everything they’ve already been taught and believe in? And what does "easily ignited" even mean in this context? Is it even possible to light a fire in something that's already burning?

amberbadger8 said:Look, here’s how I see it. You can view mass psychology as a direct result—a manifestation of energy—that represents what we might call a certain kind of (un)realized potential. This energy
starts at the strongest links and radiates outward until it hits a saturation point, yet ultimately remains anchored to someone's individual potential. It functions like a peak surrounded by its own surrounding landscape.
..all coalescing into a singular, majority-driven unity that spans the entire planet...

😍 Good grief, amberbadger8, what on earth is this Robert Frost stuff?

wearyowl29 said:Great, I’ll just go ahead and ask the entire scientific community to come over and dismantle my preconceived notions. Until then, I guess we can all just enjoy ourselves, wandering around like some lonely mob roaming the streets in search of a Golden Fleece.

Before I dive into the whole "mob psychology" thing, I should probably get an answer to my question first: what’s your actual take on democracy and the democratic process of decision-making?

wearyowl29 said:Between my reading habits, one completed degree, a "post-grad" course every single year, and enough life lessons and personal screw-ups, I can say that
my opinion hasn't shifted an inch. It’s still the same.

This really reminds me of how religious people argue. Humanity—and science itself—has actually moved forward precisely because certain "settled" assumptions were smashed by individuals. Not to get into the weeds with data about how many people have revolutionized a field they weren't even formally trained in, but don't let it fool you if you got an A just because you were good at regurgitating someone else's homework, which was likely a misunderstood version of a third person's work. We see plenty of folks with Ivy League degrees in supposedly "cultured and civilized" societies who produce the most toxic ideas imaginable. Just because an idea is championed at a university doesn't make it right, much like the argument that an idea is valid simply because it's been preached in churches for centuries.

The mob—that mindless herd—has a life of its own, and the way it plays out shows how we've traded our individual sense of responsibility for this collective, "divine" hive-mind mentality.

To dive deeper into this, maybe we could use an illustration?

I'm not familiar with those.

It's about this specific phenomenon. When people observe an event with only a surface-level understanding of the underlying causes, they tend to jump to the exact same conclusions within a narrow spectrum of logic. For instance, back when the Spaniards were settling in America, the Native Americans fought them tooth and nail, nearly driving them off a peninsula. But then, suddenly, they retreated. The Spaniards regrouped, brought in reinforcements, and won. As it turns out, one of the Native Americans spotted a flying ant. There was this ancient custom among them where seeing the first winged ant signaled it was time to plant corn—since famine was a constant threat—so everyone dropped everything, including wars, to head home and farm. That rule trumped everything else, and that’s what happened. Or take the story about how roughly 60,000 Turks once attacked a small town, only to be repelled by 750 local knights because, during the assault, the image of the Virgin Mary supposedly changed her expression, terrifying the Turks into a retreat. To this day, they hold a knightly tournament in honor of that event and parade that painting through the streets. Now, look, that kind of interpretation doesn't exactly follow strict 😁 logic, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point. We've barely even 😉

It’s an interesting point, but why on earth do we feel the need to justify "the masses" by assigning them qualities they simply aren't capable of possessing?
For instance, acting like they're fireproof, or maybe like a matchstick, a flame
with a long fuse and just enough patience to wait for the right moment to be tossed.

Look, I’m not here to defend the crowd or tear them down; I’m just genuinely curious about how this works in practice. There have been some pretty fascinating attempts to actually justify collective behavior—I think there was even a book released recently arguing for the "wisdom of the crowd," basically claiming there are cases where a group's decision ends up being superior to any single individual's choice. I haven't read the whole thing, obviously, just skimmed a few examples from a review...

developing individual personal responsibility
as well as having the guts to face a problem head-on when it feels overwhelming
which apparently happens via the streets
fostering self-criticism
making decisions with a level head
resisting potential manipulation

and all that good stuff.

???

wearyowl29 said:It’s not flammable... give it three or four years and this whole thread will go up in flames just like everything else!

🙂 Look, please don't take this personally. I just decided to jump in here instead of starting a whole new thread. I’ve noticed that when people start talking about crowd psychology, there are always these built-in biases—like how you mentioned earlier, which I assume you picked up from some movie or maybe a sociology textbook back in the day. It would actually be pretty interesting to hear how your perspective on all this has shifted since then.

Honestly, knowing how certain sociologists have tried to interpret major national events—events that I, by some chance, actually lived through—I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. The thing is, what those academics were theorizing didn't look much different from the interpretations of local barbers or construction workers (who, let's be real, weren't exactly experts on the situation either)...

I think this whole topic is incredibly fascinating and always 😉 relevant. People tend to slap all sorts of imaginary labels on "the masses," and they reach conclusions way too fast. I'm genuinely curious about the research behind these claims. What are the surveyed crowds actually 🙂 saying?

wearyowl29 said:There's that old saying, "When people unite, their ears grow longer," which is such a funny way to put it. People say things like that when they're thinking about a crowd as this massive, singular entity—a sort of psychological organism that operates by its own weird set of rules rather than just being a collection of individuals.

A crowd is incredibly volatile. It's highly combustible! Individuals stop weighing the consequences of what they're doing because, well,
the crowd absorbs all personal responsibility. Everyone puts on that "mob mask" and suddenly, individual accountability just vanishes.
The crowd doesn't feel fear the way we do. What binds them together is a shared interest that effectively drowns out any personal terror in favor of some perceived higher cause.
Being part of a crowd gives people this totally fake sense of security.
A crowd isn't objective; it lashes out at anything that dares to criticize it.
The crowd genuinely believes it has the right to decide everything.
It thinks it has rights that an individual simply doesn't possess.

It is so easy to manipulate a crowd, especially when things get intense. They soak up ideas and viewpoints like a sponge.
They get worked up so easily!
And honestly? They're quite easy to defeat... everything falls apart the moment that hyped-up crowd is met with stronger arguments, or more importantly, the sheer force of weapons, the military, or heavy-handed repression.

What exactly makes you conclude that a crowd is so easily ignited?

the collective lacks accountability—everyone hides behind the group identity and loses their sense of individual responsibility.

Using "everyone" is a pretty massive assumption. Who’s to say that personal responsibility doesn't diminish for some while actually intensifying for others within a group? Where’s the actual evidence for that?

crowds don't feel fear; what binds them is a shared interest where individual fear vanishes in favor of serving higher goals.

Saying a crowd feels no fear is totally unfounded. We see the consequences of panic and stampedes all the time.

a crowd provides a false sense of security.

Actually, it provides a very real sense of security.

the mass lacks objectivity and reacts aggressively to any criticism leveled against it.

Doesn't an individual react aggressively to anything that threatens their own interests? Is anyone truly objective when their own stakes are on the line?

the masses believe they have the right to decide.
the masses think they have rights that an individual does not.

That's basically the entire foundation of democracy. Are you suggesting otherwise—that the people shouldn't have a say?

it's easy to manipulate a crowd, especially during crises; they pick up ideas and stances incredibly quickly.

What does that even mean in practice? Can you give me an example?

they get worked up easily.
and they're easy to crush... it all falls apart when a hyped-up crowd is met with stronger arguments, weapons, the military, or repression.

Honestly, if you look back at history, we’ve been staring at a constant stream of completely contradictory examples.