The Root Cause of War: Is It Simply Human Nature?

[Andre]

The motivation of Gleick may be reflected in the few book reviews he wrote for amazon.com. Especially the one dated February 8, 2012, and also in the book that he is reviewing. I think it's not prudent to link to that, but with this information it's an easy google. I guess that would clarify a lot.

 

[Ms Music]

You have to be extremely careful because this is how it usually starts: "We must eradicate the monster threat!"

Yes, I know. Amazing how easy it was for me to fall into the Moral Entrepreneur category, huh? But really, where else do you start? Other than to have the moral police say "We don't believe you are qualified to be in politics anymore, as your actions don't seem to be what is best for the human flock."

For society as a whole to get along, we all need to self govern. Where self governing doesn't happen, others must step in and decide what must be done. I think that is how it has gone on for tens of thousands of years.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, I know. Amazing how easy it was for me to fall into the Moral Entrepreneur category, huh? But really, where else do you start? Other than to have the moral police say "We don't believe you are qualified to be in politics anymore, as your actions don't seem to be what is best for the human flock."

For society as a whole to get along, we all need to self govern. Where self governing doesn't happen, others must step in and decide what must be done. I think that is how it has gone on for tens of thousands of years.

It's an eternal dilemma. To defeat the monster you have to be at least slightly more powerful than the monster and that much power is just going to attract more monsters. To defeat Hitler we made friends with Stalin! Then the new friend became the same as the old enemy. In the end, though, keeping that war "cold" worked out. The new enemy eventually crumbled away by attrition, and we never had to suffer a direct, full blown conflict.

So, there's something to be said for the "Mexican Standoff." That's all I mean: there's something to be said for it. Not suggesting it's a panacea.

In general, though, I am not aware a blanket solution guaranteed to work has been found. "Interventions" and direct confrontations can often be counter-productive. All I can say is you have to be extremely careful in all cases where you're thinking about taking some action.

 

[Ms Music]

It's an eternal dilemma. To defeat the monster you have to be at least slightly more powerful than the monster and that much power is just going to attract more monsters...
...
.. All I can say is you have to be extremely careful in all cases where you're thinking about taking some action.

Very true. So maybe the direction of fixing the problem by eliminating the monster is wrong. Well, that IS why I said the problem couldn't be fixed in my first post.

So how about taking it from the angle of the group? Once again back to Andre's first post, do humans need an enemy? If we can't eliminate the enemy, then what is the need inside the human to have something to fear?

I have a friend that just today is freaking out thinking the world will end soon due to the financial crisis. She suddenly has an enemy. I would not have made the connection, except for the fact that we are talking about human fears now. Why are so many people creating a fear of Armageddon?

I hope Andre doesn't mind my taking it off subject, but I think it is the same root fear that he is asking about. The need for an enemy. If he doesn't like it, he can redirect me in the correct direction.

 

[DaveC426913]

They cannot have their celebration on the 4th of May. That day is already taken.

It is the Official International Happy Star Wars Day.

May the 4th be with you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Very true. So maybe the direction of fixing the problem by eliminating the monster is wrong. Well, that IS why I said the problem couldn't be fixed in my first post.

So how about taking it from the angle of the group? Once again back to Andre's first post, do humans need an enemy? If we can't eliminate the enemy, then what is the need inside the human to have something to fear?

I have a friend that just today is freaking out thinking the world will end soon due to the financial crisis. She suddenly has an enemy. I would not have made the connection, except for the fact that we are talking about human fears now. Why are so many people creating a fear of Armageddon?

I hope Andre doesn't mind my taking it off subject, but I think it is the same root fear that he is asking about. The need for an enemy. If he doesn't like it, he can redirect me in the correct direction.

The need for an enemy is Andre's diagnosis, not mine. I don't believe it's the case. If you look at primitive societies you'll see that they often become cooperative for cooperation's sake in the absence of an enemy. They work together to erect houses for newlyweds, fish as a tribe, gather fruit en mass when it ripens, etc. They don't look for enemies. Enemies happen, and when they do, you have to drop everything and deal with it.

 

[Ms Music]

May the forth be with you too, sir! For we have the Revenge of the fifth, and the revenge of the sixth to deal with, at least until the Return of July.

And now back on track, do humans need Darth Vader?

I mean,... do humans need enemies? Why do we create enemies?

 

[DaveC426913]

For we have the Revenge of the fifth, and the revenge of the sixth to deal with,

Bahahahahah! That's great! I've never heard that!

Now, when I traditionally send out this greeting to all my friends, family and colleagues, they will have - not just one but three days groaning!

I love it! :!):!):!):!):!)

 

[Ms Music]

If you look at primitive societies you'll see that they often become cooperative for cooperation's sake in the absence of an enemy. They work together to erect houses for newlyweds, fish as a tribe, gather fruit en mass when it ripens, etc. They don't look for enemies. Enemies happen, and when they do, you have to drop everything and deal with it.

That is the outlook I had until the other day. Unfortunately I had two abnormally busy days, and didn't get back here to respond.

When I look around at today's society, I see many groups that hate or have behavior that does not seem normal. Name your poison. A few would be the OP of WWII Nazi society, then you have the anarchists, the Wall Street haters, and the global warmers/anti global warmers.

So is this something related to modern day society?

Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for now, I should be back Monday.

*peace*

 

[lisab]

That is the outlook I had until the other day. Unfortunately I had two abnormally busy days, and didn't get back here to respond.

When I look around at today's society, I see many groups that hate or have behavior that does not seem normal. Name your poison. A few would be the OP of WWII Nazi society, then you have the anarchists, the Wall Street haters, and the global warmers/anti global warmers.

So is this something related to modern day society?

Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for now, I should be back Monday.

*peace*

Maybe such groups are substitutes for religion?

 

[mheslep]

Maybe such groups are substitutes for religion?

+1. At least that is my operating theory. Eventually a harder look will have to be taken for what this implies for the separation of church and state doctrine when the state takes up various fervors. Imagine the outcry if the hundreds of municipalities had abandoned the public parks day and night or, say, Baptist revival meetings for months on end instead of Occupiers.

 

[Andre]

...When I look around at today's society, I see many groups that hate or have behavior that does not seem normal. Name your poison. A few would be the OP of WWII Nazi society, then you have the anarchists, the Wall Street haters, and the global warmers/anti global warmers.

So is this something related to modern day society?

The crusades, the medieval witches, suppressing heresy thoughout history, revolutions, and other protracted social conflicts?

Maybe such groups are substitutes for religion?

Maybe, if you got to have something to believe in.

Notice also the element of group polarization.

In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individual's initial tendency is to be risky and towards greater caution if individual's initial tendency is to be cautious... The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individual's initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion...

Sounds familiar? Isn't each gathering of the group intensifying the group cohesion about their beliefs? political conventions, religious services.

 

[Andre]

An example of moral panic. Gay pride cancelled.

On the tv news was a life event of people harassed by a member of a hate group.

 

[Ms Music]

It sounds to me that you pretty much nailed it with your Group Polarization wiki link:

War and violent behavior

Group polarization has been reported to occur during war time and other times of conflict. When there is a feud, individuals with the same viewpoint or on the same side, unite and share information; creating a heterogeneous group.[28] During a time of conflict, it is not normal practice for an individual to mingle with the enemy. When individuals with the same views spend all of their time together, their viewpoints become stronger and more extreme.[28] Group polarization can also help in explaining violent behavior. A notable example from history is the Holocaust. During the Holocaust, Hitler united a group of like-minded individuals, Nazis, who shared the common belief that Jews should be exterminated. Once these individuals united into a group, they viewed anyone who didn’t hold Nazi beliefs as outsiders, thus demonstrating polarization.[29] As they polarized, their sense of unity increased and their Nazi pride intensified, ultimately causing them to engage in the violent behavior that they did. Group polarization is also evident in similar situations, such as terrorist attacks and gang violence. While polarization can occur in any type of conflict, it has its most damaging effects in large-scale inter-group, public policy, and international conflicts.

I also like Lisa's idea that it is a replacement for religion.

What bugs me, is a few weeks back my daughter said she really knows very little about the holocaust. They don't teach it in her high school apparently.

 

[OmCheeto]

Every year on the 4th of May, the Netherlands memorizes their deaths of world war II

When I was a toddler to teenager, every adult had memories of The War. Yes I am that old. Everybody knew plenty of people who died due to the hostilities or due to the holocaust. And every conversation in those times turned to that subject, invariably, ending to the question, how was it possible? How could a complete population, our neighbors, normally nice and kind people, have turned into such monsters? What could possibly be the force behind that, to drive normal people to such a madness?

And then silence. Of course nobody had any sensible answer to that. But we all vowed that it would never ever happen again.

Nowadays after decades of good progress in sociology studies, things slowly start to get clear.

It seems that everybody needs an enemy.

Does that make sense?

Sense?

Yes.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

People don't want to be wrong. No matter how wrong they've been. So they, through magical misdirection, point the finger at something else.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Ms Music and Om, it's really quite revealing how this group polarization works. Obviously, the question arises if science can be affected too. Maybe have a look at Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

You can read how Lysenko managed to defeat main stream science ultimately resulting in a purging (genocide) of the scientific community

On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko's research.[3] Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as 'bourgeois' or 'fascist', and analogous 'non-bourgeois' theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time (see Japhetic theory; socialist realism).Interestingly, perhaps the only opponents of Lysenkoism during Stalin's lifetime to escape liquidation came from the small community of Soviet nuclear physicists. But as Tony Judt has observed, "Stalin left his nuclear physicists alone... [He] may well have been mad but he was not stupid." ...

"the only correct theory".....Sounds familiar today?

I think this is a key observation:

It is often suggested that Lysenko's success came solely from the desire in the USSR to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be purged of their 'bourgeois' or 'fascist' instincts.

Hence Lysenko's ideas were idealistic. They needed to be true to propagate the dogma, hence they became true or..rather truthiness.

Maybe this looks very familiar today too.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks Ms Music and Om, it's really quite revealing how this group polarization works. Obviously, the question arises if science can be affected too. Maybe have a look at Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism reads like an Onion post today.

Though, to me anyways, most everything reads like an Onion post...

 

[Andre]

Maybe it's not that uncommon.

http://redstatepatriot.com/preconceptual.gif

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/preconceptual.GIF

 

[ThomasT]

When I was a toddler to teenager, every adult had memories of The War. Yes I am that old. Everybody knew plenty of people who died due to the hostilities or due to the holocaust.

Me too. I was born just after WWII. A US baby boomer.

And every conversation in those times turned to that subject ...

I grew up in the US, which was unaffected by the violence, so, as I recall, it was never a topic of conversation ... even though my father was in it.

... invariably, ending to the question, how was it possible? How could a complete population, our neighbors, normally nice and kind people, have turned into such monsters?

I don't think that that's the best way to characterize it. People were faced with difficult choices. Mostly, I think, there were few actual monsters. Sometimes, otherwise good people acted questionably out of fear. Which seems to me to be quite understandable.

What could possibly be the force behind that, to drive normal people to such a madness?

The force behind it is when you're put, circumstantially, between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.

And then silence. Of course nobody had any sensible answer to that.

There's a sensible answer. Faced with tough choices involving danger, some people will act courageously, but most people won't.

But we all vowed that it would never ever happen again.

It has and will continue to happen. Let's be clear what we're talking about, in general terms. The oppression of basic individual human liberty and dignity. The oppression of individual sovereignty.

A minority of people will have the courage to stand up to and oppose that. But most won't, imho. That doesn't make the people unable to resist oppression monsters. It's just part of the human/animal condition. Most of us aren't heroes. Most of us aren't especially strong. Most of us are simply not willing to forsake any hope of a normal, comfortable, life in order to actively oppose oppression.

Actually, the question I intended to discuss in this thread is, can we? Can we prevent that it ever happens again?

Imho, no. But I think there is hope that it can be minimized.

 

[OmCheeto]

Every year on the 4th of May, the Netherlands memorizes their deaths of world war II

It seems that everybody needs an enemy.

Does that make sense?

Tomorrow is our May 4th, and this still makes sense.

Actually, the question I intended to discuss in this thread is, can we? Can we prevent that it ever happens again?

We can only do what we can.

Here are some ideas about that.

Maybe that many 'characteristics' are happening today?

Too often. I looked at some genocide web sites the other day and ran across a picture subtitled: "Prisoners digging their own graves". It somewhat reminded me of a video I'd seen a while back:
It struck me that "moral entrepreneurs" had manipulated the financial system to basically commit genocide on businesses, for their own financial gain. A bit of a stretch? Maybe, but people are looking the other way. And looking the other way is one of the things I've learned that you simply cannot do.

I don't need any enemies, and I can do without them. I'm not sure why one would need an enemy. Does the term 'enemy' extend to adversary? Evenso, I don't really need adversaries.

Nature and the universe are challenging enough, and certainly interesting and not boring.

liar...

Racketeering and corruption is not a mistake - it is a choice and it is a crime - besides being immoral and unethical.

Enemies come in all forms. Your choice of enemies is fortunately based on something legitimate.

Exactly, but did we really learn that lesson? Are we practicing preventive measures? Look at stage 1 classification:

People are divided into "us and them".

As I said, we can all try to do our part. The first thing I did when focus moved from Iraq to Iran, was to attempt to learn the Parsi language, (A dismal failure by the way). among other things. I've facebook friends from Tunisia, Greece, Poland, The Netherlands, South Africa, Germany, Bosnia, England, Kuwait, and even someone from Kansas. I can think of no other way to remove the "them" from one's thought processes, then to make them all one of us. (kumbaya)

I suppose I'm a bit more aware of what's transpired than many, as I grew up at the exact correct time. I got to watch Hogan's Heros. I got to watch my mother cry after JFK was murdered. Then MLK, and RFK. Then I watched the World at War series. (not to be confused with World of Warcraft). Then I got to watch the war tallies from Vietnam every night. I thought it was odd that it was ok to kill so many of them, but it was very bad for our soldiers to die. Then I watched Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man". Probably one of the most influential documentaries I'd ever witnessed. Not to mention that I studied under Alan Watts through my adolescence. (My clock radio was above the level of my head when his talks came on every Saturday morning, so I can say that, literally).

Sadly, I agree.

I think the Holocaust is taught wrong in schools. It's made out to be a "German thing" -- totally, totally wrong (as evidenced by examples given by other posters).

It's a *human* thing. We're all capable of it, and that's really frightening.

This reminds of the week after my mother passed away. My sister took the framed picture of my mother, aged 16, in her Luftwaffe uniform, eyes pointed towards the heavens, smiling like Mona Lisa, and removed the picture from its frame. She noticed something odd, that no one in 40 years had ever noticed. The broach on her neckerchief was a bit shinier than the rest of the image. So my sister touched it, and it was pencil lead. So she got an eraser, and removed the penciling. Low and behold, mom had a swastika on that little neckerchief broach thingy. Mom was a freakin' Nazi after all!

But anyways, if your own mom can be a Nazi, which I'm sure she wasn't, then why can't I?

I had long talks with several of Czech, Hungarian, and Polish colleagues, who were not only kind, honest and actually just like us, but they also told us in turn what kind of incredible villains we had been. From their stories it became clear that our mutual enemy image was somewhat exaggerated.

Soldiers are often like this. Thrust into battle against each other, yet they all want the same thing; to go home and see their girlfriends.(and boyfriends now). I remember thinking to myself during both Iraq wars, that I admired the soldiers on the other side, as much as I admired ours. I don't think this is an isolated attitude.

There is a story of the Kamikaze pilot who crashed his plane into the USS Missouri during WWII. The crew recovered his body and gave him a fully honorable and dignified burial at sea..

The conclusion was that the leadership of both our and their side had grossly overestimated and overstated the evilness of the opponent and shockingly, we had accepted all of that eagerly, because it seemed that we wanted it to be true.

I think there is a root of the problem.

And that, is just as true today, as ever. (biting lip from elaborating...)

Kennis is macht. Our leaders (and us) need to know the potential enemies and neighbors and they (and us if possible) need to keep an eye on things, and know
what is going on around us.

I agree, absolutely.

Part of the problem is that it is rare for a country to teach it's own atrocities.

And then get hammered for "apologizing" if they do. [nixonian expletive deleted] apologies. If we were wrong, admit it, and fix it. If we were right, pat ourselves on the back. But DON'T call it apologizing. (ps. I will admit to being wrong, but I never apologize for anything. Life is. And **** happens. Sometimes I'm responsible for some freaky ****. Are you dead? No. Are you crippled? No. Then get the **** over it.)

Duh!
...
If someone breaks into my home, I won't hesitate to shoot the person.

Double Duh!

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

On a more positive note... I'm an "Army brat"

Me too! Though an Air Force brat.

So I pursued a technical education and career as an EE.

Me too! Though I never graduated, and ended up with a big "L" tattooed on my forehead.

I hope that cooler minds prevail.

Me too!

Sorry if this is a bit off topic from the OP. But maybe it's not.

Common ground! It's the first step in friendship.
(kumbaya again)

it made me think of my own experience of 9/11

That was interesting, wasn't it. Not sure if anyone else noticed. I noticed that people who "looked" Middle Eastern, started eating lunch together. It was very strange. It took them several years to re-assimilate themselves into the "I don't give a **** what nationality you are" lunchroom society.

I keep asking for world peace, but all I have received so far is whirled peas.

I once gave someone a can of peas, nested in a dirt filled brass flower pot for xmas. She said all she wanted was Peace on Earth. Peas on Dirt was the closest I could get.

which is actually the hidden agenda in this thread.

And I've been suckered in...

The need for an enemy is Andre's diagnosis, not mine. I don't believe it's the case.

Enemy or scapegoat, it's the same thing to me. When things go haywire in a society, someone needs to be blamed. As I pointed out the other day, it can't be me who's at fault for all this poop that's going on, I'm never wrong, and if you're the only other person on the planet, then it must be your fault.

It's just part of the human/animal condition. Most of us aren't heroes. Most of us aren't especially strong. Most of us are simply not willing to forsake any hope of a normal, comfortable, life in order to actively oppose oppression.

You got me there.

In conclusion, it is Memorial Day now on the right coast. I'll have to go visit my dead Luftwaffe mother and dead USAF father's grave tomorrow, they share the same plot.

ps. Sorry about deleting the Nietzsche post the other day. In hindsight, it was a mistake. (OK! I was wrong!) But I only knew at the time that Nietzsche was some sort of philosopher with a pretentious name. I've since learned that he was correct. As evidenced by the bumper sticker, which kind of, IMHO, expresses the angst of the thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Umbn6ZBuE​

 

[Andre]

Thanks OmCheeto, it looks like we agree.

May I wrap that up in my generic memorial speech, and feel free to copy it.

Dear friends
We are gathered here today to honor and pay respect to those dearly beloved who have gone before us defending our freedom, so that we may live free. We reflect on their service and their sacrifice defending our country and our people against the enemy.

But during this reflection it occurs to me that in many places on Earth, memorials are held on different days for different countries, when people pay respect to their heroes. We have called them enemies and they have called us enemies. And then I wonder why?

Why was it that both sides were determined to take lives for each one's own good cause. Did the end justify the means? We thought it did, because we were all convinced of the evilness of the enemy, we lived in fear, and our hopes for a bright future were dim. We were convinced that we had no choice but to eliminate the threat. Sometimes that choice was indeed inevitable, when we had to defend ourselves against actual acts of war.

But was it always inevitable? Now we know that the others, the people, the ones we used to call enemies, had exactly the same thoughts, that we were the evil enemy.

But we were no threat to them at all, we just wanted to live in peace and have a happy future together with the beloved ones we commemorate today. I guess it’s not too farfetched to assume that this too was the wish of the other side, the people in the street.

But why then, do we listen to those who come to tell us that we have a terrible enemy who needs to be eliminated or our future would be taken away and we would all perish? Why do we want to believe that so much? Is it the desire to feel comradeship that a common enemy brings about? Is it our eagerness to go and take action against the enemy given in by our wish to do good? But above all our wish to contribute to the common cause and show that we are a respected member of our society?

But don’t those on the other side do exactly the same thing? So if they do what we do, aren’t we like them, aren’t we our own enemy? Aren’t we part of the cause for this memorial? And will we create more reasons for this memorial in the future?

Dear friends
If we want to break this mutual positive feedback effect, we must no longer think in terms of them versus us. We must resist our initial reaction and resist the idea that we have an enemy. We must recognize demagoguery and we must not take it for granted when we are told that we have a terrible enemy.

Go back home and get friends on PF and facebook and so on, in China and Iran, Russia and Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, wherever you can find them. Talk with them, share thoughts and discover that peace is answered with peace. And then realize, there is no them and us. We are all in this live together. Let's' not waste more precious lives of our fellows our home country or our neighbor’s and perhaps we can prevent having to commemorate more heroes than the ones we respectfully remember today.

 

[OmCheeto]

May I wrap that up in my generic memorial speech, and feel free to copy it.

Copied and distributed.

Thank you.

 

[Ms Music]

Andre, that is awesome!

 

[ThomasT]

( ...) If we want to break this mutual positive feedback effect, we must no longer think in terms of them versus us.

I agree with your sentiments, and the idea that it would be a better world for all of us if everybody heeded those directives or suggestions. Unfortunately, it seems to contradict what the evidence suggests is our nature. That is, the statement ...

... there is no them and us.

... seems to be contradicted by the historical record.

It would indeed be a nicer world if the strong didn't dominate and exploit the weak. There are certainly lots of people doing their part in being good neighbors. Unfortunately there are those whose stars burn a bit brighter than the norm who are particularly resistant to such messages. So we have to, on many levels, be prepared for conflict, or we'll be at the mercy of people with various weapons who mean to dominate us, imho.

 

[OmCheeto]

I agree with your sentiments, and the idea that it would be a better world for all of us if everybody heeded those directives or suggestions. Unfortunately, it seems to contradict what the evidence suggests is our nature. That is, the statement ...
... seems to be contradicted by the historical record.

It would indeed be a nicer world if the strong didn't dominate and exploit the weak. There are certainly lots of people doing their part in being good neighbors. Unfortunately there are those whose stars burn a bit brighter than the norm who are particularly resistant to such messages. So we have to, on many levels, be prepared for conflict, or we'll be at the mercy of people with various weapons who mean to dominate us, imho.

An acquaintance at work laughed at me today when I mentioned the finale to the thread. He retorted something similar to what you just said.

I reminded him, that there was no internet, historically.

I didn't ask any of my non-PF international facebook friends to be my friend*. I went to facebook, Al Jazeera in particular, and started saying, what they apparently could not. Friendship requests started popping up from all over the world.

It was a very strange feeling to think that there were places on the Earth where you could be executed for speaking your mind, and was very humbled to think that I might be speaking for them.

Sometimes, I think we take our freedom for granted.

But we have it, and just posting your opinion can be that; "Do what you can do" thingy. If enough people around the world can see that everyone else is thinking the same thing, then well, maybe...

From my Grecian Radical Hippy's Front Page:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/542781_3144599772462_1189035662_32487283_1257807377_n.jpg​

*With the exception of one. He is the googlewhack of facebook friends. He posted something in Arabic on Obama's facebook page. I figured it was some nasty Al-Qaedaish inspired insult. But I google translated it, and it turned out to be a greeting. It was refreshing, and made me a bit embarrassed that I was so presumptive. I requested his friendship, and he accepted.

 

[ThomasT]

Nice post Om.

 

[OmCheeto]

It would indeed be a nicer world if the strong didn't dominate and exploit the weak.

It would be even nicer if the weak would stop electing the strong who keep exploiting them. But you know how charming and convincing sociopaths can be.

 

[Andre]

Two more things, it's not so much the strong exploiting the weak, but the moral enterpreneurs cultivating fear to the crowd. Herd instinct makes them turn into believers and haters of the other side. That's the essence of the cause of WW-II.

Second. The internet can be a great medium to profilerate friendship but moral enterpreneurs can also use it to spread fear more easily. I won't link but if you google ' keeping the world on track for devastating romm ' - without parenthesis, you will find a nice example as first hit normally. I would specifically recommend to read the first response to the article.

Edit: and if you want to know what was snipped out of that first response, googling ' A student in despair over ' may help.

 

[Andre]

The internet can be a great medium to profilerate friendship but moral enterpreneurs can also use it to spread fear more easily. I won't link but if you google ' keeping the world on track for devastating romm ' - without parenthesis, you will find a nice example as first hit normally. I would specifically recommend to read the first response to the article.

Edit: and if you want to know what was snipped out of that first response, googling ' A student in despair over ' may help.

I noticed that the first google suggestion is now under the second hit. Anyway, the second google suggestion tells the whole story too.

 

[Ms Music]

It would be even nicer if the weak would stop electing the strong who keep exploiting them. But you know how charming and convincing sociopaths can be.

So now are we back to the sociopaths again?

In the politics portion of this discussion I am certain it is the issue. In the other related portions of this discussion, I am not so sure yet.

 

[Andre]

Again, moral entrepeneurs are not sociopaths, I would think that the majority is socially involved, considerate, and convinced that there is a big threat looming. And they just have that mission, to save the world from that. They just want to do their share and make the world a better place to live in. They just have to dispose of that threat, even if it's the last thing they do.

Anyway in the case of that 17 years old desperate student, one can easily dismiss that. Adolescents cannot be considerated mentally stable. But how about professors? Kari Norgaard for instance?

 

[ThomasT]

Two more things, it's not so much the strong exploiting the weak, but the moral enterpreneurs cultivating fear to the crowd. Herd instinct makes them turn into believers and haters of the other side. That's the essence of the cause of WW-II.

I don't think that herd instinct is the best way, or even a very informative way, to characterize the essence of the cause of WWII, or any war for that matter. Just my current opinion.

The problem is that even if all of us had the courage to act according to our consciences, then, assuming that different socialization imparts different conscientious imperatives, then conflict is still inevitable.

And there remain those with no apparent conscientious imperatives -- an inordinate percentage of which seem to rise to positions of power. Just a particular take on things. But, if true, why is that? Is it because the actions of such persons aren't as constrained as those of persons of conscience?

 

[OmCheeto]

So now are we back to the sociopaths again?

In the politics portion of this discussion I am certain it is the issue. In the other related portions of this discussion, I am not so sure yet.

Eek!

Sorry.

The wolves are there, constantly intimidating us, watching for the weak one that is easy for the taking. Sheep aren’t fearful without the wolves. The wolves probably are sociopaths, but I won’t get into that now.

As the thread topic didn't strike me as being about the wolves, I ignored any comments about them.

But I think we should find a way to teach the sheep about wolves. By example perhaps.

No time today for me to give examples unfortunately.

--------------------------------
Ein, zwei, drei! Schlaff, zeit, ist, nei!
Bartender! Forget what I just said!
Ein andere boogeleise bitte! ;)

 

[Andre]

I don't think that herd instinct is the best way, or even a very informative way, to characterize the essence of the cause of WWII, or any war for that matter. Just my current opinion.

Don't forget that the motive of the leader of the national socialists, to go to war, was the "Endlösung". And the question here is, how did he manage to mobilize a complete nation to co-operate to do that. Obviously what he preached appealed to the population, it triggered their 'noble' (herd) instinct to free the world of an apparently terrible threat. See also Crowd psychology.

And obviously those who opposed were just in the way, and were being taken care of.

But I think we should find a way to teach the sheep about wolves.

Yes that would be great. One of the problems is that moral enterpreneurs usually do the teaching. They have a message to convey. Also they have a strong self-preservation mechanism, suppressing dissidence (see my signature).

I guess our hope is on communities like physicsforums where the ability to logical analysis may overcome gut feeling.

 

[ThomasT]

Don't forget that the motive of the leader of the national socialists, to go to war, was the "Endlösung". And the question here is, how did he manage to mobilize a complete nation to co-operate to do that. Obviously what he preached appealed to the population, it triggered their 'noble' (herd) instinct to free the world of an apparently terrible threat. See also Crowd psychology.

And obviously those who opposed were just in the way, and were being taken care of.



Yes that would be great. One of the problems is that moral enterpreneurs usually do the teaching. They have a message to convey. Also they have a strong self-preservation mechanism, suppressing dissidence (see my signature).

I guess our hope is on communities like physicsforums where the ability to logical analysis may overcome gut feeling.

Thanks for the links. I think I understand your points and your way of making sense of large scale conflict. That is, your statements make sense to me.

I agree with you that online communities like PF, with it's general requirements of documentation, logical analysis, and scientific verification are a good resource for getting at the truth of some things. However, some of the most controversial issues are barred from being discussed here, because it's not primarily a political forum.

The hope of most people, I'm supposing, is that the will of people who value liberty, equality of opportunity, and equality of justice will dominate the will of people who don't. Online communities might be a valuable tool in realizing that hope.