Pack/Mob-mentality. Of the good?

Post Reply New Topic

Pack/Mob-mentality is the thing NTs use a lot more than Autistics, hence become more social beings.

Pack/Mob-mentality implies that humans are inherently not of equal worth - some people are worth more than others, and those worth more are to be dominant over those worth less (they are forced to become submissive).

Worth is today measured in looks, money, power, prestige, fame, social skills, abilities, etc. etc.

Is Pack/Mob-mentality of the good in your opinion? I mean, should one try to adopt it or avoid it? Perhaps only to some extent?

No, most people use it.

People use mob mentality because so many people are doing the same thing, you can remain anonymous. A good example would be Youtube comments especially on Rebecca Black Friday's video. Since "everyone else" is insulting and saying mean stuff, then it must be okay to say the same things. However most people would not say the same hurtful things if it was to Rebecca Black's face.

I would try to avoid mob mentality, even though it seems "okay" in reality, most of the time it is not a good thing. Rebecca Black probably reads some of the comments. Words can hurt. Why do you think so many artists react negatively to "haters" in their songs? Because most people respond negatively to hurtful comments. If you want to give someone advice, don't cuss them out or tell them to go kill themselves. Instead, give artists positive feedback or tell them what they can't do in a nice way.

Herd mentality, like most all human behaviors -especially cognitive biases, has it's benefits.

From many points of view, "worth" throughout all of "human" history -including biological evolution- and for almost ALL animals is measured by what you listed.
Almost always, almost every species.

Money is a secondary motivator so simply replace the word money for whatever word of what people buy with money.

Please don't imagine that only humans, and only nowadays, are just a bunch of degenerates.

What would YOU place worth on if not these things? Personality? A caring soul? Niceosity?
Would you give your car to someone you didn't know solely because they had a nice personality?
Would you work 40 hours a week (and some overtime) for years on end simply because deep down your boss was a really nice guy?

You wouldn't, you couldn't. You have to sell your car for resources to obtain another one.
You can't work for free because you need resources for you and your family to live on - food, shelter, clothing, gas for your car, education, etc.

It's too easy to be bitter and resentful of someone prettier, wealthier, more powerful, more respected, more famous, more socially popular, more talented, but that just makes us feel more pathetic about ourselves, and doesn't help anyone, let alone make the world a better place.

There is ALWAYS someone more... something... than us.
Even if you're the prettiest, AND the richest, AND the most powerful, AND the most respected, AND the most famous, AND the most popular person in the whole wide world AND could play EVERY musical instrument better than everybody everywhere... what would you do if you found someone that could pound nails better than you?

"Mob Mentality" is not evil, it's just there.
Beware of bitterness, resentment, AND self-righteousness, because those are ugly, they are chains, and they ain't "worth" sh*t to nobody.

Pack mentality in humans is more about group identity. I think it's only a problem when people become aggressive towards "outsiders" and there are too many rigid groups.

I'd like to address the various assertions and assumptions in the OP in some detail, so forgive me for picking it to bits and for analysing it with a perhaps inappropriate level of focus, and for the qualifications and considerations brought to bear on the subject.

Readers with low attention spans/boredom thresholds are advised to skip this post. Other readers will (I hope) respond to it with an acceptable level of critical discrimination.

This implies (or takes as granted) several ideas. First is the assertion that NTs "use" mob mentality, which necessarily implies that the phenomenon is conscious, deliberate and to some degree therefore engineered (by whom is not stated).

While there have been throughout history (and especially modern history) examples in which mob-mentality has been deliberately inspired and then directed purposively by influential individuals, I would suggest that most situations in which mob-mentality arises are unforeseeable, unpredictable and very diverse in nature, with almost the sole common characteristic of being spontaneous, or often reactive to a certain situation.

Second is the assumption that 'pack' behaviour is the same thing (in some unspecified way) as 'mob mentality'. I will assume that the OP is referring in both cases to two different manifestations of what is officially recognised as 'herd behaviour' sometimes displayed by humans.

'Pack' behaviour is typified by common needs or goals, and consists of a high degree of co-operation between members. It tends to be context-specific and limited in scale and scope. This can be seen in pack-animals such as wolves, and is arguably a positive and instinctive reaction to the animals' environment, the long term result is to confer advantages (such as, at the most basic level, an enhanced expectation of survival) upon all members. An example of human pack behaviour might be something as small-scale as a family's mutual expectations and standards of personal behaviour; or it could be as large and diverse as
an international corporation, whose individual employees are expected to work together co-operatively (sometimes with explicitly-stated expectations of general and individual behaviour) with the corporate interests of their employers in mind (typically, but not limited to, increasing profitability). This human form of 'pack' behaviour (as is also seen in the animal varieties) typically involves the creation of a specific social hierarchy of needs and responsibilities as they are regarded appropriate in order to allow individuals of specific levels of ability to affect various levels of action to further the wellbeing (however that is measured) of the pack as a whole. It tends to be regarded positively (although sometimes with a degree of cynicism or criticism by outsiders)

'Mob' behaviour is less frequent and is typified by its spontaneous and temporary character (which is frequently reactive in origin), lack of internal organisation, frequent disregard for existing culturally-appropriate behaviour and expectations of personal conduct at an individual and collective level, sometimes by a lack of over-arching purposeful direction, and predominantly by its inherently irrational nature. As a phenomenon, it tends to be regarded negatively by society as a whole, either on a social level or a moral level. Examples might be: Riots among football spectators, speculator and investor behaviour during the Wall Street Crash, or (to take a socially-acceptable and morally neutral form) hysterical behaviour among fans attending concerts by popular performers.

So, while both forms of collective behaviour are aspects of (perhaps ultimately instinct-based) human grouping tendencies (which are also observable in other primate species), it is fundamentally a conceptual mistake (or perhaps a conscious or unconscious personal -- and possibly prejudiced -- misperception) to regard them as equivalent or coterminous.



While context-specific hierarchies invariably arise in pack behaviour (e.g., based on individual traits of recognised personal power or (to take the corporate example) upon an individual's assessed efficiency and efficacy) these usually operate within the collective's understandings of acceptable behaviour (which are often limited by codified standards, such as an individual's contractual obligations and relevant legislative requirements).

It is important to note that such hierarchies (while often rigid in their application) are typically highly-adaptable, with potential for an individual's movement within that hierarchy (whether upward or downward) wherever it is deemed desirable and/or appropriate.

An individual who feels that s/he deserves a higher place within the relevant hierarchy has to be seen to demonstrate an appropriate level of suitability or potential suitability. Examples might be: A standard clerical worker who feels that s/he has justifiable expectations of promotion to a managerial position and their subsequent pursuit of this ambition; or the changing expectations and needs of (and group expectations applicable to) the increasing maturity of a child within a family (the sudden changes of self-perception and expression that constitute one aspect of attaining puberty are perhaps the most intense example of such changes that affects a minor's position in that specific hierarchy).

These are all highly-individual reactions to their perceived or actual position within a hierarchy, and some individuals find a degree of comfort or security in their position and do not seek to alter it.

And, unavoidably, some are dissatisfied with their position, for a number of possible reasons: Lack of power, status, or income are common examples. Often their dissatisfaction is objectively justifiable. An example might be a worker who has all the appropriate desirable qualities (or potential qualities) for advancement, but who is overlooked for promotion either once or repeatedly for various reasons.

So it is a falsifiable generalisation to say that individuals occupying the lower rungs of such hierarchies are 'forced to submit'. In business, they have predetermined obligations and expectations appropriate to their position, to which they have agreed.

This does not entail social submission (although an individual might occasionally act in a submissive way, e.g., by deliberately and self-consciously being overly polite, efficient and meticulous (perhaps out of fear, but perhaps to enhance perceptions of their own 'professionalism') while the COE is visiting their section, or (to take a more complex example) laughing at a manager's bad jokes, perhaps with an aim to increasing his or her own positive perception by that manager, either in general or with regard to influencing the manager's social disposition and eventual reaction to some specific intention in the employee's mind (such as taking unscheduled leave at an arguably inconvenient time).

It's unquestionable that some individuals in some roles in some hierarchies do somtimess find themselves implicitly expected (or actually demanded) to act in self-demeaning ways (whether externally or internally imposed) and that this can sometimes have a degree of negative impact (of uncertain permanence) upon some of their self-perceptions.

An example might be a developing teenager who (while regarding him or herself as 'grown up') is given strict times to return home in the evening, which he or she regards as an unacceptable restriction on their freedom; or an employee (of whatever grade) who finds him or herself socially-anxious and wearing a 'shit-eating' grin whenever a certain manager with negative tendencies (such as a tendency to display unprovoked aggression or to indulge in unnecessary fault-finding which tends to result in the identification of someone as his or her 'victim') is around.

In all but the most extremely-adverse contexts, the affected individual has (recognisable or unidentified or merely potential, formal, informal or even strictly personal) circumstance-specific remedies available. He or she could apply for a new job with a higher wage, for which she or he demonstrates the required qualities (formal, academic, experiental, personal, etc). Or he or she could stand up to the overwhelming and unprofessional behaviour of their boss, with whatever justification. Or (to take the example of the restrictions on the behaviour of the teenager) they could demonstrate responsibility by observing the time limits imposed, with a view to later arguing a persuasive case for granting an extension to that limit.

There are many strategies possible in response to an undesirable position within a hierarchy, of varying degrees of (un)acceptability (by whatever standards apply) and possible appropriateness with regard to personal characteristics and abilities, whether they be judged personally justifiable on a thoroughly-rational (and perhaps evidence-supported) basis or an irrational or even unconscious one, either formal (e.g. pursuing company procedures to complain about another's conduct) or informal (e.g., ignoring unreasonable managerial demands outwith contractual obligations or expectations), or any one of a range of situation specific possibilities.

They tend to be somewhat unpredictable in their specific outcome, even if followed according to a highly-detailed and well-reasoned plan, and often have (unanticipatable) broader effects (typically due to unpredicted personal responses and reactions by those affected or potentially affected, of varying degrees of justification -- and these reactions can themselves sometimes be affected by further action) but they exist nevertheless.

So, for all the foregoing reasons and consideration (which are inevitably highly-detailed and rather nuanced due to the inherently heuristic nature of human behaviour considered on both micro/macro and collective/individual levels) I disagree with your characterisation of pack mentality, specifically as you have termed it with reference to behavioural tendencies which I believe you have demonstrably presented in an exaggerated and extreme way, and which you have framed in terms of an unnecessarily over-simplified dichotomy, which you present (with self-evident reference only to stereotypically-polarised concepts of power) as 'dominant' and 'submissive'.

If the foregoing argument was long-winded and complex, that's because the situation you (consciously or unconsciously) misrepresent is actually very complex and diverse in both character and nature, often subtle in some aspects of its manifestation and enforcement (where necessary), and ultimately somewhat negotiable and navigable (or even ultimately escapable) by the rational efforts of consciously participating individuals (n.b., participation in such a hierarchy and thereby in its perpetuation is ultimately definable as voluntary).



No, these are merely some aspects of some usually-superficial but commonly-understood social markers, and their supposed representation of the bearer's social standing (which may or may not involve perceptions of 'worth' on whatever level) which ultimately has a value and/or influence that is determined by standards perceived by an individual observer.

Those inferred social standards may be imposed and mediated by that individual's conscious or unconscious perceptions of typical characteristic signifiers of social standing, and may have appeal to inherent human tendencies (e.g., instinctual perceptions of genetic suitability as a potential mate) but ultimately -- as your own proposed argument itself demonstrates -- it is down to the individual's conscious decision (or not) to choose to identify their own reactions and therefore appropriate responses to such considerations, ideally (the human tendency to generalise notwithstanding) on a case-specific basis.



As I have argued, pack mentality and consequent behaviour is usually a positive collective adaptation to a given set of circumstances, which may involve the individual's participation at a level he or she believes (for whatever reason) to be inappropriate. This applies upward and downward (for instance, a manager who privately believes that he or she has been promoted beyond their abilities), but is typically the subject of negative perceptions and expressions (of variable justification) among those in lower positions.

This is unavoidable within a hierarchy, although a responsive and socially-positive attitude among higher-ups can sometimes placate, ameliorate or practically address/correct the concerns of such 'dissidents'.

Mob mentality is somewhat different, as I have argued, and due to its inherently irrational nature and usually-chaotic outcomes (on a collective and individual level) is a social phenomenon that is (a) generally regarded as negative and undesirable and (b) is inherently (with regard to the concerns relevant to individual readers/participants within the obvious context of this discussion taking place on a specialised board, in this case WP) highly unlikely to attract participants from among individuals on the autistic spectrum, who tend to be insusceptible, negatively-inclined toward, or even wholly unresponsive to the behaviour in question.

Phew. Time for a beer, I think...

While the main distinction in animals is generally offered as social or non-social creatures, there are actually different kinds of social creatures. Colony, herd, pride and pack. Human behaviour qualifies as a pack animal. Human behaviour is virtually identical to chimpanzees and bonobos, it's primarily the specific gestures that vary. It is an innately compelled perception and behaviour. It is “normal” for humans.

A hierarchy is emphatically a chain of relationships based on dominance and subordinance. Otherwise there would not be a hierarchy. The higher up the “monkey tree” you are, the greater your access to resources and rights of protection. These innate social behaviours are merely an extension of the survival instinct. Imposition on others is imperative in this social system. Those of ASD do not have this innate perception and tend to perceive everyone as equal. In this social context, imposition is offensive. Unfortunately, out numbered a hundred to one, the majority rules by natural force.

Generally, that which is more conducive to survival is more desirable, and measured of greater worth. But cultural fashions also have relevance within groups, and become more exaggerated with rising population. Social creatures reject difference, and the degree of difference they will reject is directly dependant on availability of resources. Even to the point of creating difference for the purpose of exclusion. Survival is the compelled motive.

If you don't play the monkey game at all, you'll be pushed to the bottom of the social order. You'll have least access to resources and least accessible rights; you'll live poor and desperate. Learning the monkey game enough to exploit it for what you need is beneficial. No matter how much you learn another language you will never be as fluent as a native, but exploiting at least the less sophisticated means of asserting oneself will keep you somewhere above the bottom.

I have nothing to add that wasn't said better by other posters. I'm just here to say that CharityFunDay has a knack for in-depth social analysis and I look forward to his future posts.

Thanks for your posts. Here's some ugliness pack-mentality brings along:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scOJqyiYVtk[/youtube]

While “running with the pack” is an innate human function, it does not always produce a malicious outcome. This behaviour is evident in any assemblage in numbers, such as pop concert audiences and peace rallies. The disregard of the vulnerable is motivated more by a disproportion of power.

While the following video takes a slant of rich v poor, the disproportion of advantage alters the behaviour of the participants readily. Both the advantaged begin to act more confident and with less regard, and the disadvantaged become more submissive. In the above video, the ability to impose without restraint nor consequence, and the vulnerable without means of defence or escape provide an extreme disproportion of power. I think the “mob” is more a means of power rather than the very motive of the malice.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-Y_Lc[/youtube]

Amazing. For the first five minute test, I knew what the NT would pick. But I would have picked, in each case, the opposite.

But examples of pack behaviour that are generally-perceived as negative (typically, but not always, identified as such in retrospect) are rare but almost unavoidable consequences of misguided (or directly malevolent) influences, emanating from the higher-up (or highest) individual/s within the pack hierarchy, and hence (consciously or unconsciously) received and understood as either explicit or implicit changes to pack notions of acceptable and/or expected conduct, individual and collective.

And they are easily replicable (or even creatable) by individuals with the required insight into and practical knowledge of the relevant aspects of human behaviour, most commonly for entertainment purposes.

The famous Milgram 'Shock button' experiment is a good example of how, in specific social contexts, the inferred expectations or explicit demands of an authority figure (in this instance, a research scientist) can influence a 'subordinate' individual (in this instance, just about anyone outside the profession) to comply with the perceived social expectations of an unfamiliar situation, and thereby be induced (often with great reluctance and only after repeated reassurances and/or demands) to perform actions that he (justifiably) believes will directly harm another. Milgram's truly-shocking finding was that some people accepted the authority's demands and carried out the required action with the minimum of prompting and reassurance, despite believing that their actions were harming another person, up to standards including the potentially-fatal. (Milgram did not seek to examine the general psychological make-up of such test-subjects, which was arguably a failing in his method).

In fact, Milgram's experiment merely proved what was already demonstrated, because it was inspired by his desire to analyse repeatable aspects of recorded behaviour displayed by civilians and state officials (including the military) of a certain European nation, under the influence of a particular leader, toward certain groups that were deemed unacceptable to the proposed glorious future of the nation in question ... look, I'm trying to avoid breaching Godwin's Law, do you really need this spelled out, FFS?!?

Ahem.

Yeah, pack behaviour sometimes results in bad things, typically in response to inherently human desires for conformity (or perceived conformity) with standards imposed by (socially-maladjusted) pack members in the upper tiers of the relevant hierarchy, which are therefore generally actively received (or subsequently and passively accepted) as appropriate to the hierarchy's needs. Critical or dissenting views are portrayed as contrary to the hierarchy's needs and goals, and are typically either discouraged (through formal or informal penalties), or suppressed by the individual holders of such views, often in the selfish interests of avoiding social ostracism or stigmatisation by fellow pack members.

But the amazing thing about pack behaviour is that instances of institutionally negative pack behaviour are comparatively rare, considering the innumerable modern examples of such structures, involved in nearly every aspect of life, and the therefore vast potential for influence by (and numerous opportunities for exercising this influence available to) the anti-social, for their misuse, misbehaviour or other socially-unacceptable outcomes.

This I would argue is a manifestation of the fundamentally positive nature of civilised human behaviour, specifically with regard to the mutual expectations of co-operation and co-ordination with which pack members work, which in the best (i.e., socially-just and harmoniously-run) hierarchies, reinforce each member's sense of their personal responsibilities toward society as a whole.

PS: I am not ignoring the fact that civilisation isn't necessarily fair to all members, or that people aren't prefect and can (due to design or fallibility) do bad things (often while attempting to do good, by some misguided idea of the outcome), or the fact that hierarchies in general (and society in particular) can sometimes seem to demand more from an individual than they can justifiably deliver to that individual, but that's life, and at least (to judge by historical trends) it's likely to improve. Or fail and falter and finally fall, but ideally not just yet.

What I find wrong about pack mentality is that the highest ranked members are to dominate (often harshly and mean if you ask me!) the lower ranked members of the group.

This is what I cannot do. I cannot (completely) give up my pride for a group of people unless my life fully depends on it. Whether I was to dominate or be submissive to others, I won't do it. At least not in a direct way. It's fine when bosses hand me out tasks to be done, as long as they do it respectfully.

I cannot be punished into obedience unless my immediate survival is at stake. The only result one gets from punishing me is me trying to avoid the punisher at all costs. Respect me, and consider me your equal, and I'll obey.

NTs don't get that. They keep punishing by mocking and bullying, because seen from their perspective punishment works. But it doesn't on me because I don't have a pack-mentality, and I don't want to have it.

This isn't inherent in most animal packs. There is co-operation between all members, but the 'dominant' members generally don't have to enforce their position. Each member of the pack is aware of its status in the hierarchy and usually remains there without complaint. The very rare power-struggles that take place are when a dominant male is weakened, ill or perhaps just getting too old for the job. Then a challenger may appear from the lower ranks, and may or may not prevail. In which case, things carry on much as before, but under new management,

Nor is it even inevitable in human packs. Domination of underlings is unnecessary in a well-run hierarchy, and is usually a sign of personal weakness (or arrogance) on the part of the bully, and may be in contravention of company policies (or specific laws), and should be brought to the attention of the company's HR department as a first step in addressing the bullying.



'Pride' is not the same thing as 'self-respect', You may occasionally have to swallow your pride, but that shouldn't affect your self-respect.

And anyone who expects sincere and consistent respect from their boss is either a fool or has a saint for a boss! It would be nice if all bosses behaved courteously toward their employees at all times, but it's not a realistic expectation -- which is not to say that the only other option is an exclusively power-based dominant-submissive situation.



You have very limited appreciation of the results attainable by experts in psychological or physical punishment, also known as 'torturers'. Perhaps this is because you live in a country where they are not common or acceptable. For this, you should be thankful, because such individuals can generally create whatever reaction they want in their subjects. I mention this purely to provide some perspective to your declarations,

That aside, "Respect me, and consider me your equal, and I'll obey" is a paradox worthy of Proudhon, and still accurately sums up a lot of my thought-processes (typically when dealing with members of the police, who seem to forget that (in Britain at least) they police by public consent, rather than because they are inherently better than the average citizen).



Again, we're back to your bullies-and-victims misperception of pack behaviour. Your trouble is that you haven't found the right pack yet ... you'll be amazed at the change in your behaviour and expectations if/when you do. I guarantee you.

Thank you CharityFunDay, I hope you are right.

It is at my job I've increasingly been bullied more and more because they thought I acted higher in the hierarchy than I was allowed to considering my job position.

It's so difficult (impossible?) for me to like/respect someone just because they have a high social status. What matters to me is how they treat me. When they bully me, I don't like them, be it bosses or common employees.

But I think you are right, it's definitely not the right pack for me. It felt like they were working against me.

If you are experiencing workplace bullying, you should speak (informally) to your HR department as a first port of call. There will be company policies concerning standards of employee behaviour, or perhaps a specific anti-bullying policy. You can then discuss ways forward, whether they be accomplished through formal grievance procedures against named individuals, or by some less formal route (typically characterised by the head of HR having a few select and very firm words with the relevant manager/s). I wish you luck. (Although -- word to the wise --you're probably less likely to be treated seriously by HR if you start spouting off about how your boss should respect you as an equal, so keep that up your sleeve for the Day of the Glorious Revolution, brother).