← Back to context

Comment by hoppp

25 days ago

I just thought that instead of psychosis it's just regular groupthink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Maybe the difference would be the level of absurdity that's accepted

6 comments

hoppp

Reply
andai  25 days ago

I would add to this that there's actually a social function to "costly" beliefs, which is that they signal allegiance to the in-group.

A practice (or a fashion) has more social value to the degree that it is absurd, because it signals the person is able and willing to align with the group at personal cost.

This is easiest to see in some insular religious communities.

Normie culture is quite similar: a vast complex of ever-shifting shibboleths which signal, "I'm one of you. You can trust me."

It signals the person is able and willing to follow the rules, to make themselves predictable, easier to understand and cooperate with.

  • hoppp  25 days ago

    That is true, it's beneficial for social survival.

    But what I find fascinating is how the groupthink mechanism alters the subjective reality of people.

    Lies or fantasy becomes reality if the entire group believes it and people truly believe the collectively accepted things to be real.

    It just makes me think about consciousness overall or the lack of it, because all these things are mainly governed by subconscious mechanisms in the brain.

    We are not the same when it comes to levels of consciousness and if the group mechanism demands less of it, people have no conscious choice about it

    Of course nothing is black and white

    • rightbyte  24 days ago

      I think it is more about "knowing when to shut up" than about actually believing when it comes to sudden dominating group think. It is very clear in politics where a wing on some issue go silent and then suddenly appears way later.

      1 reply →