Here are three distinctions:
The naïve insulate. The shy isolate. The wise network.
I will explain below what I mean by all three of the above statements. First, everyone has the capacity for critical thinking from the earliest age. However, none of us begin with advanced intellectual discernment. We lack experience. We have the capacity to learn, but we haven’t learned anything yet.
We are naïve, but of course do not even know what it means to be naïve. So, we form into herds with whoever happens to be around. We attempt to insulate ourselves from a disorienting amount of change (or from unfamiliar ideas that we find confusing or stressful). We need small increments of change so that we can slowly develop our capacity for discernment. We have to start with stacking blocks before we can discuss the details of civil engineering for a dam or a suspension bridge.
The herding impulse is a good impulse. As infants, it is extremely adaptive to enter into some stable social group (like even in the wild, human babies will seek companionship from whatever intelligent animals they can find).
“I definitely see the benefits of being part of a group…. [but] I think I am smarter than the general majority within a lot of groups. I won’t let a dumb majority decide for someone that is smarter than them, how they should act.”
If you have a sense of devotion or guilt that lead you to defend all naïve people from naivete and oppression and so on, I consider that a naïve tendency. If I am ashamed that I used to be naïve, then I may want to protect absolutely everyone from the stage of being naïve.
If you condemn herding and hysteria, why? What shame and perfectionism motivates the condemnation? To whom are you attempting to display loyalty?
Herding is adaptive for the naïve. Rescuing the naïve from herds may be of interest or not. Trapping the naïve in herds (for redistributing wealth to the wise through intimidation and indoctrination) may be a common tactic.
Maybe there is a pretense that there should be no such thing as exploitation or oppression or inequity. If so, that is fine. It is common for networks of exploitation and oppression to use rituals of indoctrination to program the masses to experience shame in relation to the existence of oppression and exploitation and naivete and indoctrination.
I let the dumb majority decide for whoever the dumb majority decides for. I do not presume to be more wise then a herd. Or, to put it another way, I do not presume that my discernment is more relevant than the naive hysteria of a herd.
The wise one knows that there is value and intelligence within hysteria and paranoia. However what is good for the herd may not be good for specific individuals. The wise one does not really get upset about that.
I am curious to your thoughts on one who did not herd, as a child. I was not perceived as worthy of membership into any one, but overall, I was not overly affected by the refusal, so much as the lack of peace from constantly having my chair pulled from underneath me, ponytail or pigtails pulled, name called, things stolen, tripped up, laughed at, lunch extorted…etc.
The point is, it would have benefited me to “fit in”, in the respect that it would have afforded me a less stressful childhood, but, to be honest, there were very few people my age, or close to that I understood. I found them simplistic, in what they perceived as important and what they seemed to derive pleasure in.
To say they were too childish for me, may sound ridiculous, but remember, I got in trouble for reading books in class in some grades, even though I had nothing else to do but wait on almost everyone else to finish their mind boggling class work, or test. Yeah, it’s safe to say kids didn’t like me, and I might have out myself out there with a big “kick me” sign on my back by asking further details about a topic of class discussion, or raising my hand with the correct answer, to the point that just me raising my at all, whether called upon or not, elicited hateful looks. Which really only served to reassert my perceptions of them as being mostly too mentally underdeveloped to be rationalised.
Were they all dropped on their heads? Who ridicules intelligence, and thinks letting a luge hang out of their mouth is a fucking hoot?
“And I’ve got ten more years of this?!?!” Which, basically, I did. Though I quit school after finishing eleventh. I was done. Still…no herds joined.
I do not mean “herd” in a very exclusive or personal way. You grew up in a household (or an orphanage etc). You were taught language and culture. You might have gone to public indoctrination programming institutions (primary school etc).
Whether you were “a full official member of a herd” is not the issue. You were “herded.” The government herded you and you were (and are) subject to the certain rules and norms within that herd.
The fact that you repeated consented to enter classrooms and settings in which you could expect harassment and abuse is a clear sign. A “normal” healthy child would scream or bite or kick someone in the face. A “herded” child will be too terrified to “get the fuck out.”
As for the hatred of the other children, they were in a context of suppressed aggression and neglect. Since they were neglected (or abused), it was natural for them to abuse anyone that they perceived to be vulnerable. By natural, I mean that is exactly what they spontaneously did.
Their antics were all about social approval. Their abuse of the vulnerable was also all about impressing their peers.
If they were intimidated by your intelligence AND they were free to leave, they would have simply fled from you. However, they were also herded and warehoused in the schools and so they did whatever they could to suppress you and intimidate you in to being quiet. They did not want you to be openly intelligent and cause them further envy and shame. What they did was totally adaptive within the context of their interests and the social circumstances in which they were placed.
The hysterical, viral nature of herd mentality is valuable… although often grossly imprecise. I am not troubled by the existence of herds or hysteria. I value their function.
After someone is fully independent and established in their discernment, then a herd may form around them and, for those specific individuals, a wise leader can promote discernment and relevant standards of behavior and speaking that are appropriate for the different people within the herd. The youngest people will have different rules than adults.
There will be a division of authority or a delegating of responsibility where the most wise rarely discipline the youth. The leader will subtly guide the organic growth of the herd like pruning and watering a tree. They will not focus on the growth of every single leaf or every single flower. If you are familiar with the different forms of leadership that are listed in the ancient Chinese classic Tao Te Ching, I am referencing the invisible leadership where the leader leads not from the front as a celebrity figurehead, but from behind or underneath at the roots.
Back to the basic idea of naive people being attracted to herds, there may be some disadvantages involved with certain social groups. As the organism develops and reaches sexual maturity as well as new levels of intellectual discernment, they will be bored or even repulsed by the social norms that are extremely appropriate for herds of children. If there is enough economic stability and health, then a young adult may mate within their herd. That may last or that may result in a relatively catastrophic breakdown.
They may get extremely interested in personal development and introspection. They lose interest in just fitting in and social validation. They want health and wealth and do not want to rely on any outside source, even if they continue to receive special privileges and subsidies. They develop caution in regard to the tendency of herds toward unexamined paranoia and hysteria.
They may continue to seek real connection and true love and all of those kinds of things, but they may also become increasingly selective. They recognize that in order to experience romantic ideals, there can be an lengthy intermediate period of personal responsibility and gradual growth.
For instance, the Cinderella princess that attracts the charming wealthy prince just based on her gracious personality and 16-year-old tits is not a total fantasy. However, by the age of 17, most young women realize that there are a lot more 17-year-old females than charming wealthy princes lining up to sweep them away.
Anyway, those who are for the most part experiencing that second phase of shy isolation and introversion will, over time, grow to be increasingly repulsed by the hysterical naivety of herds and increasingly attracted to what they may or may not call wisdom or maturity. They want to continue to withdraw from naïve herds and perhaps even torepulse the naïve. They want to continue to introspect and untangle the unexamined presumptions and confusions from their herd of origin.
they are interested in language and communication, but they may still be rather confused and idealistic and hysterical. However, they are open to wisdom.
How do they interact with someone who they think might be wise? They test someone who interests them enough to bother with testing. They test naivete. They test contempt. They test arrogance. They test shame. They test attachment.
They throw tantrums. They make accusations. They justify their shyness and isolation.
The naive person is terrified by “wisdom” because it is unfamiliar and they seek to insulate themselves from too much unfamiliar content. Unlike the naïve who relate to wisdom as a threat to their fragile social dependencies , the shy person does respect wisdom.
The naïve person is completely freaked out that someone may have the wisdom to recognize their shame and also lack an obsession with attracting approval. The wise person’s general disinterest in the approval of “everyone” is terrifying to the naive because the naïve person does not want the wise person to embarrass the fuck out of them in front of their social herd.
Note of course that these three phases do not have black and white boundaries. In regard to different subject matter, such as politics or health or general psychology, A person may be shy and leaning toward wisdom. However, when it comes to their past romantic relationships or current romantic relationships, that same person may be straddling the fence between shy and naïve.
Also, in regard to holistic health in particular, there are a lot of people who find one or two issues and then want to go back to their old herd and reform the herd ( out of loyalty to the herd). The prince charming may admire that sentiment, but until the attachment to save the herd from naivety dissolves, then someone is still straddling the boundary between naïve and shy.
So why is it that people who are shy get interested in networking? They realize that isolation provides relief from the naïve herds, but may not be sufficient or favorable overall. So, with the capacity to be stable independently – as in financially stable – then someone can start to network.
Networking does not mean making a new naïve herd. It means recognizing one’s own wisdom and expertise as well as respecting the fact that other people have other kinds of expertise and even social connections that can be valuable to others in the network.
In my own history, Daniel will recall the drama a few years ago involving me and the primal diet Facebook group. That is the one where I found Rose and Valerie and Mike and Max etc.
I directly challenged certain patterns of thinking within the group (and various individuals in the group) on the subject of naivete, presumptiveness, and herding. Through that process, I came into contact with Max and learned about the prevalence of hyperventilation (and I also learned about the super hydrating water from him, even though he was skeptical and even dismissive about it). However, it was by networking with him that I became aware of those methods.
In my latest article about jaw symmetry and facial symmetry and how that center of gravity of the skull requires compensation from the rest of the spine ( https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/beyond-mainstream-logic-a-cure-for-hhd/ ), there are a few people who contributed to my attention to that subject. One of them is Paul Hess and he was on exactly one of the Skype conference calls.
In regard to financial forecasting, I am much more self taught. I could list authors that have influenced me, but I have not really networked with any of them. I do not personally know anybody who I consider to be “in my league.”
As for discernment and personal development, I have many influences. However, my network currently includes many of you and that is about as far as it goes. I am ready to create channels for expanding the network. That could include some others who are beyond my discernment or equally just as discerning.
Finally, as the wise continue to network, it can happen that herds form around them. Those could be “casual groupies” or their own offspring, kin, etc….
The wise still network even if herds form around them, but also guide any herds that form. I said a bit about that in my earlier reply to HL about “leading from the roots underground” in contrast to the “leadership” of celebrity political figureheads.
In the case of Jiddu Krishnamurti, he officially disbanded the “herd” that was forming around him as a guru. He did not go in the direction of Osho (or Mooji), but in the direction of “conspicuously independent spiritual celebrities,” like Alan Watts or Robert Anton Wilson or perhaps Byron Katie (who is somewhat “in the middle” in regard to being a fringe celebrity and neither rejecting herds or emphasizing them).