Motives of Groups

2008-06-18T04:56:00.005+03:00

This first dialog discusses the motives and reasons why people are moved to form groups, why they stay in groups, and why they shun others from said groups. It then goes on to talk of these groups and individuals in them.

Colin:
Okay let’s start then?

Nobuto:
Sure.

Colin:
Since it’s your idea, let’s start with your point of view.

Nobuto:
People are pushed to form relations with those around them for many reasons. First, people want to feel comfortable and to enjoy themselves. By oneself, it is hard to accomplish such things. Second, the diversity in the different people around us helps us to be successful - the ideas and effort of one may fail, but two can succeed. Groups also occur in order to seek shelter from prejudice, to
create environments where they are able to be safe without fear.
This fear that they shield themselves from in groups is the very reason they shun others from the groups - they fear those people will in some manner detract from or ruin this environment that they have set up for themselves.
It is, on one level, an instinct of survival. Yet at the same time it is a bonding between minds, a sharing of lives. This is why people are driven together.

Colin:
It sounds as though groups are used only defensively.

Nobuto:
In a way, they are. Groups that act offensively, I think, are only trying to gain some purpose to continue or strengthen their group, so that their group will continue to exist without the blight of ruin. Even when groups are formed solely to attack, it is either in defense of a larger group or to win some prize, which would further increase the group's complacency, contentment, and furthered
continuation.

Colin:
So in truth groups are formed and made up of people with two degrees of characteristics; wolves and sheep.

Nobuto:
A fine point. Yet I believe that both have the same base goal in mind, but it is obvious it is sometimes achieved in different ways. Wolves and sheep seem, to me, a distinct and fine classification.

Colin:
Well that is why it would be defined in degrees of the characteristics.
Actually, in truth never mind.
I believe that in reality these two groups are in fact, both either protectors or those who need to be protected.

Raleyla:
The use of "driven together" makes it seem as though relationships are never optional or truly enjoyable - that they are only for use.

Nobuto:
Driven together is being used to describe the fact that it is usually done without a great amount of thought. It is both optional and can be enjoyable, but many times those who opt out seem to do less well than others.

Colin:
A shepherd and his flock I suppose.

Raleyla:
Who, in any group, is this said shepherd?
Is it determined by those in the group?
Consciously or not?

Colin:
It is determined unconsciously by those in the group.

Nobuto:
I agree.

Raleyla:
In terms of the typical group, the shepherd will be the one who is the most powerful one? Most outgoing? Most likable? Etc? Is there a certain set of characteristics and traits that is most appealing to people as a whole that determines who the shepherd is or will be?

Colin:
Every characteristic of leadership defines the characteristics of the shepherd and the shepherd is both leader and caretaker.

Nobuto:
In actuality, I don't think the shepherd must always be a person. It may be a guiding principle or purpose.

Colin:
How so?

Nobuto:
Well, if we look at the shepherd as simply something that creates the group and guides it, then it could be anything. A board of 7 equal members does not have a set leader, yet they are guided in a common purpose.

Colin:
Ah but you see the shepherd doesn't necessarily create the group, and the board of 7 EQUAL members will never exist. A subconscious leader is always involuntarily elected by a group.

Nobuto:
I believe that there can be situations where equal leaders exist: I will admit they are not common, but...

Raleyla:
Well yes, because if it is done subconsciously, it will always be involuntarily.
I agree that there are situations where equal leaders exist; however, they are indeed few and far between.

Colin:
It's my personal opinion that no two people are ever truly equal, even between two people, perfect equality is impossible. It's because even in the minutest degree, one person will possess more of the characteristics of leadership than another and even in the case of such an equal group, it would not be beneficial whatsoever because each person within the group, like all human beings, has a drive for personal gain.

Raleyla:
Going to that extreme of minute degrees, you do have a point of which I agree.

Colin:
Should just one have that drive even, the group will fail to maintain this equality.

Raleyla:
Absolutely perfect equality is unattainable..

Nobuto:
But even if a person possesses more characteristics of leadership, that does not mean they act on it or use it. They can have more qualities of leadership without becoming the leader.

Raleyla:
Very true.

Nobuto:
For example: If a democracy were in place, the people would vote for the candidate to lead them who they found most fitting. Does this mean that this individual has more qualities of leadership? Is more useful? More hardworking? It means none of these things. It simply means that in most peoples' eyes, this person would make a good leader.

Raleyla:
If they are ones who keep to themselves and do not let on to those qualities.

Colin:
Then they fail to possess one of the primary characteristics of leadership!

Raleyla:
Not necessarily.

Colin:
Yes, all leaders need a drive to be better than others, or otherwise they would not seek leadership in the first place. An able-bodied leader, standing at the sidelines does little good to the whole.

Nobuto:
They are not then necessarily the best fit to lead.

Colin:
Best fit is, once again, irrelevant, only what is in existence is relevant.

Colin:
Here in the US, we have George W. Bush as president, personally he's not entirely fit to lead
but regardless of that, he is currently the leader of the nation. I can't change this fact myself, and he still holds a major position in decision-making.

Raleyla:
Best fit actually is relevant due to the fact that it based off the opinions of those in the group, which then leads to the subconscious determination of the leader or shepherd. As far as Bush is concerned, some people must have found him to be best fit while others do not.

Colin:
But either way, he is in fact in a leadership position, regardless of what so many people think.

Raleyla:
Yes, but that does not make him a leader, entirely. It merely means that he gained a position of power due to popular vote. Just as in groups of people, majority vote wins, subconscious or not.

Colin:
I admit that, that is true.

Nobuto:
But majority does not always win.

Raleyla:
True also.

Colin:
Whoever has more influence wins. Influence in most cases is power.

Nobuto:
In the middle ages, over half the population were peasants. Nobles and kings won, however. But they were not the majority. More influence winning is viable.

Colin:
Even in the case of a democratic system: Should one person with a great amount of influence over the population choose to support something, the "sheep" are more likely to agree.

Nobuto:
True enough.

Raleyla:
In essence, those with the most influence will either create or swing a majority vote. It can also be viewed in the light of bandwagon.

Colin:
Influence over a military force is also easily included in this concept of influence.

Raleyla:
Mhm.

Colin:
Every man holding a gun sadly has more influence than the man who is unarmed.
Which could describe the United States now that I think about it...

Nobuto:
I do not believe that to be an accurate description of the States. Are you telling me that armed men are in your Senate, making decisions? That it is somehow a military dictatorship? Or did you mean the previous ideas?

Colin:
What I mean is not its domestic control, but instead the manner in which it controls itself internationally.

Nobuto:
Internationally, this may be true. But the world has always needed a nation of power and might to regulate things; for hundreds of years the European nations fit this function. It was not until the end of WWII that the United States of America began to dominate the military scene.

Colin:
I agree with that, which of course would demonstrate the fact that whoever holds the most influence can change over time. Overall, this is a demonstration of how the interactions between individual people within a system can be related to the massive system known as International Relations.
What you said earlier was that the shepherd is not necessarily a person, but in fact it is always a person, the vision and direction of the group is never a person, though it may be possessed by one.

Colin:
Excuse me for saying person, what I mean to say is, rather than an individual person, a solid entity.

Nobuto:
Apologies -- I have to go...

Raleyla:
It's all good.
Catch you later - have a good night!

Nobuto:
Thank you all for your time here tonight. I found it enlightening and challenging.

Raleyla:
Bye.

Colin:
Bye, good points by the way.

Raleyla:
How might a group be possessed by a person or a solid entity?

Colin:
A group could be possessed by a person or solid entity when whichever of those has influence over the entire group, a controlling level of influence that is...

Raleyla:
Possessed? Perhaps led by? Directed? Dictated even, but possessed?

Colin:
It depends upon the case.
In some cases, a group can in fact be possessed by a person or entity.

Raleyla:
I beg your pardon, but how on earth can a group possibly be possessed by anything?

Colin:
When a group is controlled to such an extreme degree.

Raleyla:
I still disagree that that is being possessed.
Colin:
Typically, only through a threat of death or the sort is such a level possible, do you agree with that?

Raleyla:
Which would then lead us into the realm of dark cults.

Colin:
A lack of choice, that's all that it is.

Raleyla:
I agree with that, but I still say that possessed is not the correct word.

Colin:
Fine by me, but it’s the word I'll choose to use for those extreme cases.

Raleyla:
Okay.

Colin:
In addition to all of this, forming groups is not always beneficial.

Raleyla:
Very true.
Also, beneficial to whom or what?
What are the most common types or ways that are not beneficial?

Colin:
For example, what is known as "social loafing"; with an increase in the size of the group, less work is done by each individual. A single person will do 100% of the work on a project, but two people will usually not do 50% of the work each.

Raleyla:
Indeed. One will almost always do more than 50% while the other slacks.

Colin:
Because no two people will have an equal work ethic.

Raleyla:
All too true. An extreme case of social loafing is that of when there are more people involved, the probability that another individual will offer assistance in any way greatly decreases. Such cases are known as the bystander effect - when during broad daylight, with plenty of people present, a rape or beating occurs but not a single person steps in to offer assistance.

Colin:
Mhm... Too many people thinking about who's going to do something, rather than just doing it themselves.

Raleyla:
They all expect someone else to step in rather than simply taking the initiative and doing it themselves. That is a fear in and of itself.

Colin:
I suppose too large of a degree of humanity has concluded that they're good enough in the position they are, and due to that can suddenly lack initiative.

Raleyla:
That and possibly the fact that they have an irrational fear of losing their position to some degree or another.
Colin:
But that's entirely possible, it’s not irrational whatsoever.

Raleyla:
By helping another human?

Colin:
No.

Raleyla:
By taking the initiative?

Colin:
Yes.

Raleyla:
Elaborate please.

Colin:
It's because it is dependent upon what the initiative is concerning.

Raleyla:
Okay, I am beginning to see where you are coming from. Can you think of an example that illustrates that?

Colin:
There is first of all the manner in which people draw attention to themselves, and that fact of misinterpretation what people's intentions are, etc.

Raleyla:
Ah, yes.

Colin:
But overall: I agree, humanity needs more initiative and it is irrational to be so self-centered as to care so much about your own personal image rather than the well being of others.

Raleyla:
They need to take the initiative every time it arises. It is the lack of people who do that, not the lack of initiative.

Colin:
Ah very true...

About the conversations

2008-06-15T23:53:00.000+03:00

This is how everything here works: We will discuss a point and then place it on the blog. The topics vary from politics, to science, to psychology, and to philosophy. You, the reader of course, are encouraged to give your own opinion upon anything you read in the discussion - if it is valid and reasonable, your response may be posted within a later discussion as well. Please avoid attacking a
person rather than their point; doing so merely means that you have nothing worth saying in the first place.

-The Universitas (the authors as a whole)

The Mental Dialogues

Motives of Groups

About the conversations