I’m not equating the two, but we may have to agree to disagree on certain edges.
Having seen groupthink start and then grow in a very up close way in my old church, and encountering it again in grad school, by my reckoning groupthink feeds the egotism of believers. As individuals, the people who play the biggest part in the formation of groupthink very much want to be ‘right.’ As groupthink is consolidated into a collective, these individuals are deeply validated that they are ‘right’.
From my POV, that’s a big part of why it can be so hard to get folks who are deeply embedded in such a collective to think outside that box. Doing so can be experienced as an ego death, because it will mean acknowledging they were wrong, and likely responsible for hurting others.
I have plenty of experience with this as well, at all levels.
Group think and ego can't both be fundamentally wrong, bc those are only options- leader or following a leader. Is there a 3rd option that I'm blind to? Calling both those things fundamentally wrong means that you view human nature as fundamentally wrong, but wrong by what standard? What is considered right then?
Humans use to live in jungle and now travel in space. I call that morally good. Reality is objectively real and human life is bound by physics and evolution.
Everyone has an ego. You can't respond without an ego to integrate your thoughts through whatever moral code you have, whether you consciously know your morals or not. That's why I compared ego to desires in the other thread, bc you literally can't function without these things. This means that they in the most basic and neutral form are not the problem. It would be like calling food the problem. You have to eat food, have desires, and have an ego, other wise you die.
All humans have a strong desire to be good or close to it, bc humans who don't value themselves do not pass on DNA. In jungle you have to fight everyday to survive and you are not going to do that without buttering yourself as someone worth fighting for.
Social animal nature is social for selfish survival reasons, which is why valuing yourself also means proving that value to the rest of the tribe. The higher value a person has in tribe the stronger their survival and thriving potential is, bc the more others value you, the more access you have to them and their resources, if needed.
Having access to others is not good or bad, in and of itself. The moral values of the person is what will determine whether or not they use their access morally or immorally.
Money isn't evil, it's just resource purchasing power. How it is used determines its moral value. Animals can not survive without resources so money in itself is extremely moral, bc money increasing humans ability to trade with each other to enhance their life. Can't exactly trade a part of a cow for coffee, in an efficient way.
This speech explains why money is more moral to the other option.
Humans have a certain nature that is needed to live and live morally. It's immoral to view fundamental human nature as immoral, bc it traps the individual in the belief that humans are naturally evil, which isn't true and it causes self hatred, which destroys an individuals moral life potential.
Ego and group think are opposites.
Individual vs no individual
I’m not equating the two, but we may have to agree to disagree on certain edges.
Having seen groupthink start and then grow in a very up close way in my old church, and encountering it again in grad school, by my reckoning groupthink feeds the egotism of believers. As individuals, the people who play the biggest part in the formation of groupthink very much want to be ‘right.’ As groupthink is consolidated into a collective, these individuals are deeply validated that they are ‘right’.
From my POV, that’s a big part of why it can be so hard to get folks who are deeply embedded in such a collective to think outside that box. Doing so can be experienced as an ego death, because it will mean acknowledging they were wrong, and likely responsible for hurting others.
I have plenty of experience with this as well, at all levels.
Group think and ego can't both be fundamentally wrong, bc those are only options- leader or following a leader. Is there a 3rd option that I'm blind to? Calling both those things fundamentally wrong means that you view human nature as fundamentally wrong, but wrong by what standard? What is considered right then?
Humans use to live in jungle and now travel in space. I call that morally good. Reality is objectively real and human life is bound by physics and evolution.
Everyone has an ego. You can't respond without an ego to integrate your thoughts through whatever moral code you have, whether you consciously know your morals or not. That's why I compared ego to desires in the other thread, bc you literally can't function without these things. This means that they in the most basic and neutral form are not the problem. It would be like calling food the problem. You have to eat food, have desires, and have an ego, other wise you die.
All humans have a strong desire to be good or close to it, bc humans who don't value themselves do not pass on DNA. In jungle you have to fight everyday to survive and you are not going to do that without buttering yourself as someone worth fighting for.
Social animal nature is social for selfish survival reasons, which is why valuing yourself also means proving that value to the rest of the tribe. The higher value a person has in tribe the stronger their survival and thriving potential is, bc the more others value you, the more access you have to them and their resources, if needed.
Having access to others is not good or bad, in and of itself. The moral values of the person is what will determine whether or not they use their access morally or immorally.
Money isn't evil, it's just resource purchasing power. How it is used determines its moral value. Animals can not survive without resources so money in itself is extremely moral, bc money increasing humans ability to trade with each other to enhance their life. Can't exactly trade a part of a cow for coffee, in an efficient way.
This speech explains why money is more moral to the other option.
https://youtu.be/u-T0ey0IKDA?si=pvpLTBiy_cm0GvJe
Humans have a certain nature that is needed to live and live morally. It's immoral to view fundamental human nature as immoral, bc it traps the individual in the belief that humans are naturally evil, which isn't true and it causes self hatred, which destroys an individuals moral life potential.
Ego death is a part of life and the moral journey of optimally integrating with reality. One of simplest examples is a drug addict becoming sober