derpyderpins
Normie Life Mogs
- Sep 19, 2023
- 1,574
I avoid politics on here like the plague, but I'm going to post something I was sent without a source (so as to not endorse the source or their ideology, stances, etc.) because I think it is a good overview of something I have been thinking about in recent months:
I'm hoping this topic grabs attention because I ask: who does this topic make you think about? I can take some guesses - religious people (particularly christians), republicans or MAGA folks, pro-lifers, "normies" or NPCs or similar, and other groups that might be aligned with them in one way or another.
It's a tough question for me, how to communicate with these people. It's true that it almost has to be a 1-on-1 exercise, and there's the rub. It's too easy for them to simply avoid your attempted interaction and retreat to their echo-chamber, regardless of how friendly and non-threatening and innocent your questions may be. I don't want to lie to people, but it almost seems that you need to feign agreement with the belief rather than genuine curiosity.
As we value connections less and less and our identity becomes more entwined with electronic communication, it is easier and easier to avoid any challenges to our orthodoxies. I would like to hear general thoughts on this issue and how to approach it. I understand in advance that a popular take - possibly for good reason - is that people get to a point of being too far gone and you just have to cut them out of your life and leave them in their misery. I'd obviously like that to not be the ultimate answer, but can't change the nature of the world alone.
This is not directly related to the topic but just some extra background:
For the Derp twist, of course I am not thinking specifically about religious people or republicans, because I don't care about them as general groups. I care about this community and related communities. I fear there is a trend on niche online groups such as ours of rejecting traditional orthodoxies/tribalism only to manufacture our own and ensconce ourselves in just as damaging of an echo-chamber.
I've always feared and guarded against letting myself fall into "groupthink," where I am not coming to my own conclusions, or where I am constantly repeating similar mantras that I know will get positive feedback from a specific group just to validate those views (and - subconciously - myself). I can look back on my life and realize I was not always successful with this. Especially when you're in your teens/20s (and especially if you spend your 20s behaving as if you're still in your teens) it's very very easy to value validation over independence, even if you tell yourself you believe the opposite.
A trap is "I have rejected the majority, therefore I have avoided tribalism and groupthink." Nonconformity is not automatically independent thought. In fact, it can be more dangerous. As you limit your echo-chamber to smaller and smaller groups, you become more and more reliant on them. You seek the same amount of validation, but rather than getting it through numbers, you must puff up your tribesmembers and ideologies to even further (perceived) superiority. You must reject challenges even more strongly, and dehumanize dissenters to an even greater extent. Even indirect challenges pour cement on the beliefs.
I posted recently in the "recovery" section about what I termed "pro-death" groups on this site. A subtopic was trying to help people who have fallen into groupthink, and the above quote made me revisit the topic, because I said something similar, that in my brief research on discussing people who have embraced total tribalism is that challenging the views just reinforces them, regardless of the logic presented.
I'm hoping this topic grabs attention because I ask: who does this topic make you think about? I can take some guesses - religious people (particularly christians), republicans or MAGA folks, pro-lifers, "normies" or NPCs or similar, and other groups that might be aligned with them in one way or another.
It's a tough question for me, how to communicate with these people. It's true that it almost has to be a 1-on-1 exercise, and there's the rub. It's too easy for them to simply avoid your attempted interaction and retreat to their echo-chamber, regardless of how friendly and non-threatening and innocent your questions may be. I don't want to lie to people, but it almost seems that you need to feign agreement with the belief rather than genuine curiosity.
As we value connections less and less and our identity becomes more entwined with electronic communication, it is easier and easier to avoid any challenges to our orthodoxies. I would like to hear general thoughts on this issue and how to approach it. I understand in advance that a popular take - possibly for good reason - is that people get to a point of being too far gone and you just have to cut them out of your life and leave them in their misery. I'd obviously like that to not be the ultimate answer, but can't change the nature of the world alone.
This is not directly related to the topic but just some extra background:
For the Derp twist, of course I am not thinking specifically about religious people or republicans, because I don't care about them as general groups. I care about this community and related communities. I fear there is a trend on niche online groups such as ours of rejecting traditional orthodoxies/tribalism only to manufacture our own and ensconce ourselves in just as damaging of an echo-chamber.
I've always feared and guarded against letting myself fall into "groupthink," where I am not coming to my own conclusions, or where I am constantly repeating similar mantras that I know will get positive feedback from a specific group just to validate those views (and - subconciously - myself). I can look back on my life and realize I was not always successful with this. Especially when you're in your teens/20s (and especially if you spend your 20s behaving as if you're still in your teens) it's very very easy to value validation over independence, even if you tell yourself you believe the opposite.
A trap is "I have rejected the majority, therefore I have avoided tribalism and groupthink." Nonconformity is not automatically independent thought. In fact, it can be more dangerous. As you limit your echo-chamber to smaller and smaller groups, you become more and more reliant on them. You seek the same amount of validation, but rather than getting it through numbers, you must puff up your tribesmembers and ideologies to even further (perceived) superiority. You must reject challenges even more strongly, and dehumanize dissenters to an even greater extent. Even indirect challenges pour cement on the beliefs.
I posted recently in the "recovery" section about what I termed "pro-death" groups on this site. A subtopic was trying to help people who have fallen into groupthink, and the above quote made me revisit the topic, because I said something similar, that in my brief research on discussing people who have embraced total tribalism is that challenging the views just reinforces them, regardless of the logic presented.
Looking back on that thread, I noticed that recent responses evidence the "pouring cement on the beliefs" issue. I was very clear with several disclaimers that the focus of the post was on people outside that group who are attempting recovery, and why being (possibly indirectly) attacked by that group should not discourage their recovery efforts, yet several weeks after it was posted there suddenly was some controversy in the comments by people in the group. The response was that the "truth" of their view that death is always better than life must be spread, and that such black-and-white thinking is necessary. Even someone who has specifically requested the mods enforce a 'no-contact' policy with me where neither of us is to enter threads started by the other jumped in to like these comments, evidencing the severe response to having the ideology challenged. [I don't mind, for the record. Still wishing them well. Nice to know you're reading my stuff ;).] Just thought that was interesting.
