Live data from Hacker News

A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

gwern.net

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#21

> If you were in a bookstore and you said, “I’m done,” you’d walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said, “This is boring,” you’d walk out. > You’re sitting at a party, and you decide, “I don’t like this; I don’t want to be here.” And then you don’t leave. Wait.. what?? Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens?

>Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens?

The reason was in the paragraphs leading up your excerpt: >, and so he decided that the unresolvability of the question was the answer. To the question “Do groups of people behave as aggregations of individuals or as a cohesive group?” Bion’s answer was that human groups are “hopelessly committed to both,” which is to say hopelessly committed to individual identity and to group membership.

Or put another way, the desire for social conformity can contradict private preferences.

If the bored person leaves early (fulfills a personal preference), he/she draws extra attention to himself because they're the only making an exit. This can also embarrass the host. So a reasonable rationalization is to avoid embarrassing the host (social conformity) and just suffer some temporary boredom.

But the above social calculation changes if multiple people decide to leave. Now, there's "safety in numbers" and leaving early is emotionally easier. Sure, the host still might be embarrassed but there's no longer a single party-goer to point disapproval at.

Another version of the above is clapping and standing ovations at presentations. If all the audience members expressed their true opinions, there might be 75% clapping and 25% not clapping. But polite society has an unspoken rule where everybody claps. Likewise when some think that clapping by itself is appropriate but a standing ovation is not. But then a few stand up ... and now everybody stands up.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#22
post #18

> If you were in a bookstore and you said, “I’m done,” you’d walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said, “This is boring,” you’d walk out. > You’re sitting at a party, and you decide, “I don’t like this; I don’t want to be here.” And then you don’t leave. Wait.. what?? Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens?

Behaving unauthentically is a form of masking that some of is learn to do because we receive the msssage that certain behaviour is not accepted.

> Behaving unauthentically

I feel that people, these days, are more free to express their "inner voice," more often.

In some cases, this is good. In others, it is bad.

One of the rationalizations that I hear, for "hate jockeys," is "Hey, they're just saying what everyone thinks!".

There's a reason that we don't say everything that we think. We're actually experiencing object lessons, in exactly this, in society, these days.

In my case, basic courtesy is why I "behave unauthentically." It's not lying, or even dishonesty. It's basic human relations.

Extreme example:

I'm routinely dealing with the types of people many folks in "polite society" think should be euthanized. It sucks, when those people say what they think.

When we say "These people should be killed/hurt," then some folks take the rhetoric as support for their actions.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#23

Of course: a group contains the inverse of every member.

Did you read the post? His whole point is that the group exists apart from the individuality of each member, and can have separate goals and methods.

And that you can't study both the members and the group at the same time.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chat GPT is going to build a fusion reactor? Fight the war in Ukraine? Find a way to slow muscle atrophy?

Don't worry chat gpt is just showing us all who has antisocial personalities and lacks understanding or empathy for the human condition. Nothing you say matters to them. It's their way of trying to prove to themselves that only they matter and other human beings aren't worth their time.

When you interpret their view of the world as uncharitably as you just did, is it any wonder they have a low opinion of other people?

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#25
post #21

> If you were in a bookstore and you said, “I’m done,” you’d walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said, “This is boring,” you’d walk out. > You’re sitting at a party, and you decide, “I don’t like this; I don’t want to be here.” And then you don’t leave. Wait.. what?? Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens?

>Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens? The reason was in the paragraphs leading up your excerpt: >, and so he decided that the unresolvability of the question was the answer. To the question “Do groups of people behave as aggregations of individuals or as a cohesive group?” Bion’s answer was that human groups are “hopelessly committed to both,” which is to sa…

> But the above social calculation changes if multiple people decide to leave. Now, there's "safety in numbers" and leaving early is emotionally easier. Sure, the host still might be embarrassed but there's no longer a single party-goer to point disapproval at.

Applies to so many things. In a somewhat conservative-ish community of people who grew up in the same small town/village, the first person to divorce their partner will become a village-wide scandal. A small wave of divorces following soon after will barely gather a remark.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#26
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Behaving unauthentically is a form of masking that some of is learn to do because we receive the msssage that certain behaviour is not accepted.

> Behaving unauthentically I feel that people, these days, are more free to express their "inner voice," more often. In some cases, this is good. In others, it is bad. One of the rationalizations that I hear, for "hate jockeys," is "Hey, they're just saying what everyone thinks!". There's a reason that we don't say everything that we think. We're actually experiencing object lessons, in exactly this, in society, thes…

> I'm routinely dealing with the types of people many folks in "polite society" think should be euthanized. It sucks, when those people say what they think.

I do take your point overall, but in this kind of example would it not be better to bring it out into the open and discuss it? Granted it would likely be an unpleasant conversation, but they do hold an unpleasant opinion, so why not make them go through the unpleasantness of defending it?

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#27
post #10

Chat gpt et al seem to have changed the game. We dont need to get human groups to work better, if the output of a group can be outperformed by an algo.

Chat GPT is going to build a fusion reactor? Fight the war in Ukraine? Find a way to slow muscle atrophy?

> Chat GPT is going to build a fusion reactor?

GPT-4? Not likely. GPT-6? Maybe.

> Fight the war in Ukraine?

I hope not, because soon after it will be ChatGPT vs. ЧатGPT vs. 聊天GPT vs. le bavardage GPT, and I don't think we're ready for AI wars just yet.

> Find a way to slow muscle atrophy?

Again, GPT-4 likely not, but there's a chance that the solution is already there, hidden in 20 different scientific papers across 5 scientific disciplines, waiting for someone to find the connection. We're way past "academic publishing singularity" for humans to be able to do it, but maybe GPT-6 will manage.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#28
post #23

Of course: a group contains the inverse of every member.

Did you read the post? His whole point is that the group exists apart from the individuality of each member, and can have separate goals and methods. And that you can't study both the members and the group at the same time.

I think GP was making a math joke; "a group is a non-empty set [...] in such a way that [...] every element has an inverse". [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#29

> If you were in a bookstore and you said, “I’m done,” you’d walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said, “This is boring,” you’d walk out. > You’re sitting at a party, and you decide, “I don’t like this; I don’t want to be here.” And then you don’t leave. Wait.. what?? Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens?

Possible reasons, approximately in order of increasing complexity: * You were invited, and it would be awkward to leave too early. * You're someone's +1, and it would be awkward to leave them behind. * It's a party for you, and it would be ungrateful to leave. * You're intoxicated, and it's not safe for you to drive right now, so you need to wait until you sober up. * The host put in a lot of effort to arrange the pa…

The best part about having MS is that I can leave any social event at any time and it's not considered rude. As an introvert, I don't miss the 'do I leave?' decision-making flowchart.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy [pdf] (2005)

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Behaving unauthentically I feel that people, these days, are more free to express their "inner voice," more often. In some cases, this is good. In others, it is bad. One of the rationalizations that I hear, for "hate jockeys," is "Hey, they're just saying what everyone thinks!". There's a reason that we don't say everything that we think. We're actually experiencing object lessons, in exactly this, in society, thes…

> I'm routinely dealing with the types of people many folks in "polite society" think should be euthanized. It sucks, when those people say what they think. I do take your point overall, but in this kind of example would it not be better to bring it out into the open and discuss it? Granted it would likely be an unpleasant conversation, but they do hold an unpleasant opinion, so why not make them go through the unple…

Because they don’t actually need to defend it. We see that all the time, these days. When someone is called out on extreme rhetoric, they don’t bother to defend it. They just throw ad hominem attacks at those that question the position, and double down on their BS.

It works a treat. Trying to “call out” people, these days, simply gives them a new platform, and actually amplifies their hate.

Post reply on HN