Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Organised Societies

When you are alone in a closed room and you see smoke coming in, you will most likely investigate.

You will drive your own destiny.

When more people are in a room and smoke enters it, they will probably look at the each other for answers and wait till one reacts or does something.

If a trained fireman is in the room, he would herd the people and take the lead and people might follow in an orderly fashion.

There are various possible scenarios, however, if no trained fire person is there, folk might wait till a breaking point and just panic and react.

Then chaos will ensue and if the group is lucky the correct action will take place.

In this scene, there might be those that will act individually and think for themselves and not follow the herd effect.

In the same way, if a person is stranded on an island he will try to find a way on his own to survive.

In a group people follow that which is best for the majority and then delegate and share resources.

People group to produce Human interactions to generate as much hope energy as possible, which is driven by the instinct to survive.

The majority rule and not that which is sensible, dictates most groups. Herding in many cases is a viable option, but in some cases there could be better solutions.

Even in good functioning groups, good solutions are at times overridden and eliminated, because of the momentum of the masses.
We rather do that which functions best for the masses, than looking at innovation that might oppose the masses.
Groups can be dominated by proven ideas that have worked for certain individuals under specific circumstances.

Others then dream of gaining the same success, so tend to follow these existing ideas, even if their circumstances are different.

Less of their own dreams are then followed.

In this way as the society gets sophisticated, people tend less to survive on their own accord. 

Hence, they don’t think of solutions, but are more focused on learning from what is proven and that worked for the masses before.

People prefer the easy way out, so this then resorts just to following.

When humans think they can't do something, it makes them feel out of control so tend to avoid it. 

The fear of the unknown produces stress. This stops many from venturing into the unknown and  they prefer to stick with the proven ideas of the groups they belong to.

A nation of followers then grows.

Huge groups of followers then develop which are needed to ensure the survival of a particular system.

A system, where outcomes are known, where stress is minimized, with less fear and where we think hope energy abounds, one that serves the purpose of the masses and where individuals might be lost in the momentum.

It is known that those who are in charge tend to have less stress, simply because less people can reprimand them.

Many then strive to have these roles called “leaders”. Those leaders will then hang on to it, even if it means becoming corrupt.

Instinct drives us to store the hope energy we have.

In this system, it is then no longer about the survival of the individual, but more about fighting for the good roles, the roles that have less fear and stress. The roles with the benefits and the hope energy

The energy we think we need to survive.

The more developed and organized the society is, the more trained roles there will be. These role players will be very adept at what they do and control, but will fail to realize that they are just performing a routine like a machine in a factory.

Box building engineers who compete for profit and not for quality. We then create in mass; we follow the leaders and perform our roles, optimizing production and removing creativity.

Some develop superiority complexes, since they feel the role they play is more important and forget that even the leaders are not thinkers, but mere role players.

Even though educated we tend to think less. We perform on cue, what we were taught, no matter how complicated the role is.

How easy it then becomes to conduct the masses to causes of the group and when the hype is over, the followers forget the causes just as easily.

Chaos is removed by ordered society. Without chaos there is no need to solve and this slows down creativity and development.

One can then easily forget to think about your own wants and what makes sense. We then just follow that which is popular.

Those who don’t conform may be excluded, exterminated or lost in the stampede of the masses.

If they are lucky, they start a new clan.

Then it is called a revolution.

Not all societies become intolerant to individual innovation, however even in good functioning groups, a good idea might be overridden and eliminated because of the momentum of the masses.
Also, a revolution could simply mean, a change in the direction of the masses.
We tend to prioritize because of what others think is good. We don’t decide ourselves what’s good.

It’s unfortunate because as kids we still think and do what we like.

Many kids don’t listen to logic or group thought, they do what their instinct likes. Meaning they decide for themselves.
At times it is better to think for yourself, than to follow the masses of chaos in a room filled with smoke.
Be a kid, and YOU decide for YOURSELF when and how to react to the smoke in your room.

No need to wait for the ordered society to approve that the smoke is either trouble or fun.


  1. My first reaction when I see or smell smoke is to act instinctively and get to safety, no wait to see what some other person is going to do--as I can think for myself
    It is true nowadays we are all governed by rules and learned behaviour on how to react and what is acceptable often against or own sense of what is right or how it should be--I would rather react according to how I feel and think and not follow everyone else
    Children learn more from freeplay than playgroups and playdates and develope more this way naturally
    I would rather be like the child and not a follower

  2. many citizens, especially the older ones, feel that the youngsters have
    it easy and become superficial,
    just buying what "they" (the bureaucracy) are selling.

    some older people did get wiser, some got bitter, some just desperate to
    make their mark somehow.
    so you might have a problem to really find out what their true reasons are.

    I think it's good to educate children to think for themselves.
    on the other hand, the very large majority of people are followers.
    I would say about 80% would be a good working number, let's call them
    "the masses".
    that gives them some measure of comfort (in numbers, if not other any
    other way)
    the masses would run away from smoke, when they see or smell it.
    and in general they take the herd approach: some individuals are lost,
    but the herd survives.
    there is no question of pride or personal achievement, just follow the
    simple and if it did not work, it would not persist.
    but the truth is, it does work, and the perception is that
    it is much more preferable for the masses, rather than to confront the
    unknowns of personal choices.

    this I wrote just to describe the reality, good or bad.

    some of us are motivated to be curious, to invent things.
    it's a lonely bunch, and it's risky too. it upsets the order of things.
    you might get pride, if your ideas get recognition,
    but if you were looking for happiness,
    there are easier ways to get it than be an innovator, let alone a

    so what is the right balance?
    well maybe this is where the personal thinking must prevail,
    when you open your eyes really wide, watch listen and learn and then
    decide what exactly we are looking at,
    since most times we tend to see what we like to see, not the real world.

    sometimes less is more.
    maybe a smaller community of people like minded is so much better
    than either a large herd, or a lone wolf. :)
    I think we as humans are better off in smaller herds, where we have at
    least a bit of personal interaction with all the rest.
    that's the way our heads were wired, over a very long time of fighting
    for survival.
    I dare say, from afar, even if not perfect, the swiss system is better
    than many others,
    in fact it it is envied by many.
    and the swiss system idea (direct democracy in a federal systems with
    many smaller groups)
    is a good example of what I think is the most natural way to get things
    done well.

    and in the end? success is the best revenge, against all that is evil.
    live a happy life, and try to do good for those close to you,
    what else can be better? that's my bit of "zen" :)

    and be proud of what you do!

    1. Yes its good to find a small clan that you can be in sync with.

      I wonder what is the critical mass number, where small clan effectiveness starts to be lost to herd mentality?

      in that article, I am saying, I would love to find my clan, but until then I prefer to be a lone wolf than to be lost and out of sync within a group.

      At least I have my family at home as you say.

      Be good to who you can.

      Save one, save the world.

  3. There are two groups of people in this world. those who are leaders and those who are followers. the difference between the two is that followers constantly need or seek those to follow, while true leaders leads without having to look for a following. i probably would have corralled everyone in the room and show them what to do by following my every move to get out of a room that was being filled with smoke. Am I saying I am a natural born leader? - NOT REALLY. I think of myself as a leader who progressed through the so called stages of leadership as the years passed and as I grew older.

    Why am I saying this? The world needs leaders, without them the world will be in further chaos.

    1. A leader is not always a thinker, it is a role in an organized society.

  4. Nice text !
    Concerning BJJ, maybe you (we) could do better (surviving), joining my "clan"! What do you think about it?! ;-)
    Lets sit down and talk about it!

  5. Im Sinne der Philosophie eine sehr gute Uebung von einem Nicht-Philosophen.


Contact Form


Email *

Message *