Kool-Aid didn’t kill those people.

Kool-Aid didn’t kill those people.

Transference and suggestibility killed those people.

In October of 1978, surrounded by hundreds of his followers, cult leader Jim Jones was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head; this event took place in Jonestown, Guyana, where the followers of Jones drank the Kool-Aid of group psychology, killing them self by drinking a soft drink laced with cyanide at the cult’s sprawling compound.

The images of bodies found at the compound were seared into the consciousness of a generation. The phrase “drank the Kool-Aid” came to describe any blind devotion to a cause or person. It was not the Kool-Aid that killed all of these people but it was a human propensity called transference.

Freud informs us the reason for this form of behavior is the tendency for humans to be suggestible and influenced by a psychic form of transference.

[b]What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?[/b]

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes–repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

Psychology is a domain of knowledge that is complex and filled with concepts that are completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of our population. But Psychology provides us with an insight into why humans do what they do that no other domain of knowledge can provide.

Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and just below God.

That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil. “Evil lies not in the hearts of men but in the social arrangements that men take for granted.”

Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom. Sapiens need hope and belief in themselves; thus illusion is necessary if it is creative for life, but is evil if it promotes death.

A psychodynamic analysis of history displays saga of death, destruction, and coercion from the outside while inside we see self-delusion and self enslavement. We seek mystification. We seek transference; we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.

We seek the power to ward off big evil by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

[b]The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens.]/b] We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for an understanding of group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.
English translation Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, was explicitly based on a critique of Le Bon’s work. The quotes and short phrases in this post are from this book.

If we look back at the 90’s, especially, but even today with movies like ‘Children of Men’ it’s interesting to note the type mentality a populace would have to be to continually pump out end of the world scenarios.

In a sense, it’s easier for us as capitalist whores to imagine the end of the world before we could imagine an end to capitalism. Who can really picture a socialist paradise in their head? It’s tough, but it’s easy to remember that big wave from Deep Impact ain’t it?

Instead of imagining a world without the cool aid ending, we’re walking right towards us, content with an ironic and stupid death.

Fascinating.

Ideology is something we humans need to comprehend better than we now do. Ideology is both salvation and death.

We are all members of many ideologies. Our ideologies are the abstract ideas that we create and invest with value. Our ideologies are what lead us to live a certain way, die for a certain cause, and kill THEM who are not US.

I might be a Democrat, Catholic, American, and capitalist. When we are members of a group we can do things that we would never consider doing alone. As an American my group kills others, as a Democrat I may seek to improve the well being of my side while taking it from the other side, as a Catholic I may hate Jews, as a capitalist I may cheat to get mine. All of these things we might do as a group but perhaps never would have been so self-seeking alone.

A philosophy implies you’ve actually thought about it, and how it fits in a philosophical meta-model. Really, an ideology is just a catch-word for people who want to act, but do not really understand why they are doing so.

Look at the Iraq war: People shout ‘freedom’ but don’t even understand there are different types of freedom, or that the western model isn’t the inherently ‘right’ one.

there is nothing catholic about hating jews.

but it is nice of you to admit your hate…

-Imp

I think that you are correct in the fact that people are part of a social group without knowing why. However, being part of that group provides an opportunity to do things that you want to do but would not do as an individual. Being in a group allows one to shed the civilized manner they have learned and to let their emotions and their comrades to allow them to run with the herd.

History records much anti-Semitic behavior by Catholics. European history is awash with Catholics killing Jews. An example is the six million Jews killed by a society which contains a large Catholic history.

It struck me as odd that you would say that in this way they let their emotions run them - along with their comarades. I am assuming you see the individual being run by his or her thoughts.

For me this does not fit. My emotions have always kept me leery of group think and group action. And when it comes to issues like racism, my emotions have always felt, on a gut level, that the person from the other religion or race is just as human as me. I certainly felt that way as a child, and I was rather ruled by my emotions then.

To me the problem with group think is that they use THOUGHT to manipulate emotions or to channel them. You have to work on the emotions, to get them to stop reacting in their usual ways.

history records much anti-semitic behavior by non catholics. world history is awash with non catholics killing jews.

the pope never said that catholics must hate jews.

simply being in the clan does not justify hatred…

-Imp

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

[b]People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

I agree

This makes it sound like individuals are individuals and then get sucked into groups and lose their individuality and become hypnotized. I am sure this happens, but it seems vastly more common to me that very early in life most people have already given over any shreds of individuality. They are often born into groups and never move out of them.

If it is so much like the experience of being with their mothers why is it that most groups are led by men?

I have to say I am not sure you really addressed the main point I was making which was my question about emotions. It seemed like people enter groups and get steered by their emotions and this is the problem. My sense is that groups work on the minds of followers and use these to control emotions that are seen as threats to the functioning of groups. Nazi Germany, for example, had one of the strict control set ups in relation to emotions.

Also, as I said, children completely guided by emotions and desires ought to be more racist if emotions are the roots of the kinds of group to group hate you are talking about. My experience, with myself as a child, and with children in various jobs, is that it takes propaganda to overcome the natural emotional attraction children have for each other regardless of race.

Moreno

Emotions are a very compex matter.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained’ bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

That event was cool. I saw photos of it and survivors on PBS.

I’ve read Damasio, Freud and had childhood interactions with nuns. What you wrote above is interesting, but I still think you haven’t responded to the point I was making. You have paraphrased other people’s ideas, for the most part, and that’s fine. I can make guesses about how you might relate this to the issue I was raising, but I might not be right. My criticism or question related to emotions and you have posted something on emotions. But that isn’t really a response. I don’t mean this to be rude. I just find it a bit odd.

Moreno says —"I have to say I am not sure you really addressed the main point I was making which was my question about emotions. It seemed like people enter groups and get steered by their emotions and this is the problem. My sense is that groups work on the minds of followers and use these to control emotions that are seen as threats to the functioning of groups. Nazi Germany, for example, had one of the strict control set ups in relation to emotions.

Also, as I said, children completely guided by emotions and desires ought to be more racist if emotions are the roots of the kinds of group to group hate you are talking about. My experience, with myself as a child, and with children in various jobs, is that it takes propaganda to overcome the natural emotional attraction children have for each other regardless of race.?"

I responded to these remarks by first telling you what I think emotion means. Your question indicates to me that we do not agree what emotion means. I think that you are using the concept “emotion” incorrectly and thus I cannot respond to your question other than to say that I do not see emotion functioning as you do.

The adults deserved to die, but not the children.

OK. I accept for the purposes of this discussion Damasio’s definition of emotions and feelings. Please explain to me why children are less racist than adults.

(just as a bit of feedback, it certainly would have made it clearer if you had mentioned that you saw our definitions as different and that you were not going to address my questions until we had cleared that up.)

I think that children today are less racist regarding African Americans but are more racist regarding Muslims. This is because after centuries of struggle we have finally begun to make great leaps forward in the matter between white and black but circumstances have caused us to demonize Muslims and thereby created racism there that was not so bad before. Certain sectors are trying to demonize Immigrants from Mexico and has thus increased racism in that sector.

If you look at a nursery school, kindergarten levels, I doubt you will find this to be the case. It is not what I see in the preschools around me. You have to be trained verbally to dislike other races. This is what I am getting at above. Having strong feelings or emotions or even drawing conclusions with them is not the root of racism. Thought is. Of course groups use manipulation of these to control their members, but there is, generally, a phase where they overcome the reactions of their members with thoughts. They drive home thoughts that teach people not to trust their feelings/emotions.