Crowds are dangerous if you care about the truth in the slightest

[nobodylovesme]

wdym? the story is like 90% of the text and the conclusions are laughable at best. Am I the only one who read the story?

I mean, I would explain it to you if I could. But you need to work on your media literacy/reading comprehension if these are your opinions. Too much detail would have to be explained over for me to answer you properly.

And of course you drop a JFL react, as if that magically erases the category error I'm pointing out. Classic move when you can't explain the contradiction.

Your entire "argument" is just vague handwaving, "he doesn't get the big picture", while refusing to actually define what that "big picture" even is. You won't even write one paragraph to explain what OP's real point was. Either you can't, or you've started sucking him off.

Let’s be clear: I'm calling out the mismatch between OP's intro and his story. The intro frames it as Jungian mob psychology, hive-minded distortion, collective suppression of truth. But the actual anecdote is about passive bystanders and OP folding in a 1v1 game.

The "crowd" didn’t influence the outcome. They didn't suppress merit. They didn't side with anyone. They were irrelevant. This isn't Jungian. It's just bad storytelling and cope reframed as a philosophical point.

So again, either engage with the structural flaw I'm pointing out, or just admit you're here to nod along with any post that feels deep, regardless of whether it makes sense.

I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not actually stupid or "low-IQ", but keep coping, it's funny

 

[Primalsplit]

And of course you drop a JFL react, as if that magically erases the category error I'm pointing out. Classic move when you can't explain the contradiction.

Your entire "argument" is just vague handwaving, "he doesn't get the big picture", while refusing to actually define what that "big picture" even is. You won't even write one paragraph to explain what OP's real point was. Either you can't, or you've started sucking him off.

Let’s be clear: I'm calling out the mismatch between OP's intro and his story. The intro frames it as Jungian mob psychology, hive-minded distortion, collective suppression of truth. But the actual anecdote is about passive bystanders and OP folding in a 1v1 game.

The "crowd" didn’t influence the outcome. They didn't suppress merit. They didn't side with anyone. They were irrelevant. This isn't Jungian. It's just bad storytelling and cope reframed as a philosophical point.

So again, either engage with the structural flaw I'm pointing out, or just admit you're here to nod along with any post that feels deep, regardless of whether it makes sense.

I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not actually stupid or "low-IQ", but keep coping, it's funny

Like... What in the fuck?


It's about how objective measures are not taken into account by most. No one really goes out to say that they should check the rulebook or something and delay judgement before that happens; this would be the objective method. There are probably some that do think this, but since not everyone has this type of common sense; instead the instinct (of following the charisma) takes over (because everyone can relate to it, even if they disagree with it). As indicated by the guy later commending the OP, there ARE actually people that think this way.

Funny enough, if that guy and others like him voice their rational concerns, the crowd can be swayed over. But people who rely on instinct are always sure of themselves while people who are more rational are always in the habit of being more doubtful (and they had prior experience of getting silenced by irrational people). Which is all the more reason why a rational person needs to learn how to stand up better with assuredness and to undo the bad conditioning they've had. Because every rational person has had this experience of not being taken seriously by irrational people at least once. It's very very relatable.

I hope I managed to explain it to you without turning this into an ego battle.

 

[nobodylovesme]

Like... What in the fuck?


It's about how objective measures are not taken into account by most. No one really goes out to say that they should check the rulebook or something and delay judgement before that happens; this would be the objective method. There are probably some that do think this, but since not everyone has this type of common sense; instead the instinct (of following the charisma) takes over (because everyone can relate to it, even if they disagree with it). As indicated by the guy later commending the OP, there ARE actually people that think this way.

Funny enough, if that guy and others like him voice their rational concerns, the crowd can be swayed over. But people who rely on instinct are always sure of themselves while people who are more rational are always in the habit of being more doubtful (and they had prior experience of getting silenced by irrational people). Which is all the more reason why a rational person needs to learn how to stand up better with assuredness and to undo the bad conditioning they've had. Because every rational person has had this experience of not being taken seriously by irrational people at least once. It's very very relatable.

I hope I managed to explain it to you without turning this into an ego battle.

Appreciate the effort, but you're applying a philosophical lens onto a story that never actually demonstrated it.

The moment where people "could have checked the rulebook" never even happens in the story. There's no push for truth, no moment of collective judgment, no example of instinct overpowering objectivity. The classmates are passive. They don't side with the manipulator(Only the close friends as it's indirect attack to them). They don't mock the OP. They're barely there.

You're projecting a hypothetical mob scenario onto a story that was about a private failure to assert oneself. That's not crowd psychology. That's internal passivity. A few bystanders quietly watching a chess match isn't a Jungian hive-mind, and claiming so cheapens the actual concept.

OP's own words make it clear: he chose not to speak up. He felt "status mogged," so he folded. The story is personal, not collective.

 

[nobodylovesme]

Like... What in the fuck?


It's about how objective measures are not taken into account by most. No one really goes out to say that they should check the rulebook or something and delay judgement before that happens; this would be the objective method. There are probably some that do think this, but since not everyone has this type of common sense; instead the instinct (of following the charisma) takes over (because everyone can relate to it, even if they disagree with it). As indicated by the guy later commending the OP, there ARE actually people that think this way.

Funny enough, if that guy and others like him voice their rational concerns, the crowd can be swayed over. But people who rely on instinct are always sure of themselves while people who are more rational are always in the habit of being more doubtful (and they had prior experience of getting silenced by irrational people). Which is all the more reason why a rational person needs to learn how to stand up better with assuredness and to undo the bad conditioning they've had. Because every rational person has had this experience of not being taken seriously by irrational people at least once. It's very very relatable.

I hope I managed to explain it to you without turning this into an ego battle.

Your own explanation even cheapens OP's whole thread. Read the title and read the intro, it's completely different from what the story is actually about. How can you not concede that? That's literally my only claim here.

Like wat????

 

[Yliaster]

And of course you drop a JFL react, as if that magically erases the category error I'm pointing out. Classic move when you can't explain the contradiction.

Your entire "argument" is just vague handwaving, "he doesn't get the big picture", while refusing to actually define what that "big picture" even is. You won't even write one paragraph to explain what OP's real point was. Either you can't, or you've started sucking him off.

Let’s be clear: I'm calling out the mismatch between OP's intro and his story. The intro frames it as Jungian mob psychology, hive-minded distortion, collective suppression of truth. But the actual anecdote is about passive bystanders and OP folding in a 1v1 game.

The "crowd" didn’t influence the outcome. They didn't suppress merit. They didn't side with anyone. They were irrelevant. This isn't Jungian. It's just bad storytelling and cope reframed as a philosophical point.

So again, either engage with the structural flaw I'm pointing out, or just admit you're here to nod along with any post that feels deep, regardless of whether it makes sense.

I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not actually stupid or "low-IQ", but keep coping, it's funny

Reading through most of your replies and agree with you 100% you seem pretty sharp and grounded ,not even resorting
to ad hominems or anything

Only reason OP's post has gained as much traction as it has is because as I've pointed out earlier one of his threads
made a cameo in Rehab Room's videos and im guessing the Moderation Staff and other blackpill fanboys here have
came to this realization hence the hailo effect and confirmation bias he is being given.Whereas in Reality after going
over his Post a second time its simply seems like a case of the Spotlight Effect which is common among people with NPD

 

[Primalsplit]

Appreciate the effort, but you're applying a philosophical lens onto a story that never actually demonstrated it.

The moment where people "could have checked the rulebook" never even happens in the story. There's no push for truth, no moment of collective judgment, no example of instinct overpowering objectivity. The classmates are passive. They don't side with the manipulator(Only the close friends as it's indirect attack to them). They don't mock the OP. They're barely there.

You're projecting a hypothetical mob scenario onto a story that was about a private failure to assert oneself. That's not crowd psychology. That's internal passivity. A few bystanders quietly watching a chess match isn't a Jungian hive-mind, and claiming so cheapens the actual concept.

OP's own words make it clear: he chose not to speak up. He felt "status mogged," so he folded. The story is personal, not collective.

Your own explanation even cheapens OP's whole thread. Read the title and read the intro, it's completely different from what the story is actually about. How can you not concede that? That's literally my only claim here.

Like wat????

I don't think the crowd is very passive in involvement with this.

I don't really wish to exert more effort in this. You should ask your English teacher for private tutorship at this point (or whatever is your native language).

 

[nobodylovesme]

I don't really wish to exert more effort in this. You should ask your English teacher for private tutorship at this point (or whatever is your native language).

Same

Nice jab again, really tells me what kind of person you are. Sorry if my writing wasn't polished enough for you