Quote
nutrino
The lesson is that public awareness, thus public attitudes CAN change, sometimes dramatically, about issues that previous generations accepted as the status quo .... and in every case, the "discussion before the discussion" took place in small outposts of dissenting opinion, such as this one we have before us.
the public certainly can and certainly does, history proves that, we are just so painfully slow uniting! Nothing human has ever been achieved without human interactions first taking place, as without an other, there is no I. That is what LGATs do - upset and confuse that balance. And boy is it a fine balance, even in the healthies of souls! Dissent IMO is essential for any healthy democratic discussion or change
Quote
bonnie
Seems to me as if we're groomed from birth to turn off the critical thinking, in service to our need for social perks...first in the family, then the schools, peer groups, consumer driven media, politics...it just goes on and on.
I'm afraid what you have written makes me think of the difference in the social sciences between the US (and to a small degree the UK) and the rest of Europe/World. In particular, the differences in communication science and political science - particulary the importance US social scientists seem to have placed on Skinners' Behaviourism (a progression of Pavlovs approach) over the last 60 years. I can only hope me raising this promotes some US citizens to start looking in this direction. Oh how we can sometimes seem to be worlds away! I am of course not saying that Europeans are not 'groomed from birth' to think less critically (indeed we are, and increasingly so in the UK over the rest of Europe) and through the same social conditioning tools that you mention. I just think that we have had more freedom of dissent over this side... did the US not notice that it was the only country scared of 'reds under the beds'?
My own interest in this, aside from linguistically, is from the 'corporate takeover' perspective of these and other social spheres, such as schools, peer groups (yes, there is corporate influence BIG time here - school children dropping in names of cars into relevant conversations etc. The corporate takeover of the US and UK democratic model is now well documented. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of the 'free' market seem to outweigh the positives - IF you look at it from a species perspective at least. It is in a corporations interest to NOT have critical thinking, just as it is for a cult or LGAT. Think of the cult of 'nike', where people get the 'swoosh' tattoed on themselves, to remember to 'just do it'. How far in the 'nike' reality was that kid?!
Quote
bonnie
This very human need for the approval and love of others seems to be our critical Achilles' heel, so to speak. It's damn hard to stand up against the disapproval of your peer group. I seriously doubt that I would have been up to the task, (AA-wise), if I hadn't had extensive childhood training in rebellion, revolt, and black-sheepery.
Hmmm, I would hazard from your statement Bonnie that you are from a large(ish) family. I certainly believe that myself coming from a larger family has helped all of our critical awareness - could this a reason why large families became to be frowned upon? Blood is thicker than water (think of that from a governments perspective - frightens them I bet!).
We may need love and approval Bonnie - but what is it that stops us being critical of those who apparently shower us with these things? I respect dissenters more than sheep for sure!
What is it about the US that has made all this so popular and profitable though? Why do we in Europe scorn even AA so much more, let alone landmark? This is not an 'anti-american' question, it is an observation on statistics and culture. Per capita more US citizens are in one form of therapy or another than any other nation.... even therapists having therapy! lordy, is there no end to the need?! More seriously though - whats the situation in Canada and Australia? And why do Canadians/Australians think it is better/worse/no different?
Quote
skeptic
I have been considering that perhaps "cult" is the default mode for humans. I don't know how or if this relates to humans but in the world of herd/pack/group animals, being apart from the group is unnatural for them. They are hardwired to do what it takes to stay in the group.
Well, if you apply behaviourism (think Skinner), then yeah, thats it, but for me, thats a little reductionist. I believe it is right, to the point that those who fall for a cult and its philosophy have reduced (or had reduced) their ability for critical reasonsing - the aspect of the human that behaviourism had so much trouble explaining. I believe it is human to find ways OUT of a box, not IN the box. That is basically what seperates us from the rest of mammals. Don't get me wrong, we are all social beings, just some seem too much so!
Interestingly, the words cult and culture share a similar root - from the latin colere, meaning to till or worship. Maybe we are doomed ;o)
Quote
skeptic
I wonder. Just pure speculation as I ponder the cult phenomenon. There is something in cults that appeals to something in us that seems to be outside the realm of cognition, something related to basic survival maybe.
Hmmmmm good point to ponder on....! I don't believe it has anything related to our survival instincts though, except in a many-working-as-one sense. I do believe it has a lot more to do with our over-riding need to belong. This I believe is actually manipulated, by media, advertising and government, to be more intense a need than is actually healthy or natural - this relates back to my 'larger family' point earlier. Those from larger families honestly seem more democratic IMO. I would love to know if any studies back this up, or indeed have looked into this! This is perhaps just a moan about a homogenous culture, but... well, anyone following me?!
Basically I think we (the species, but particullary the English speaking world) have serious issues with self, other and the relation between the two. We are so mediarised that we are unsure what real is, so we are more willing than ever to search for the 'real'. The 'real' is quite a new worry, we used to know what 'real' was. Maybe all this is a subconcious psychological rejection of postmodernism? A quest for the hyperreal myth? Being postmodern, it would have to mix old with new (scientology replaces the old myth of god with aliens, the function is still the same, MKP need to mix pagan and native american practices alongside pseudo-scientific ramblings) otherwise it would not be 'authentic'.
(I think I'll stop thinking about this for a while!)