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

 

[ss07]

high iq read all

 

[InanimatePragmatist]

Intro

The simplest way I can illustrate to you why crowds are problematic is to think of a woman you’re interested in. But the problem is, she’ll likely have friends who often give her unsolicited input on guys that she’s seeing. You don’t know what kind of values her friends have. They could be some Instagram attention whores or gold diggers. The problem is that crowd intervention can distort individual judgment, especially women who are generally more hive-minded. Hence, because the values of her friends rubbed off on her (or after watching a few Thewizardliz videos JFL), she starts judging and evaluating you from the lens of an attention whore and gold digger. I’m not implying that you should “sigmamaxx” and avoid crowds at all costs. But the rule of thumb is that the higher the stakes are, whether it's your reputation, dignity or sanity on the line, the more you should avoid situations where there's a third party that might twist the truth against you.

“In a crowd, the qualities which everybody possesses multiply, pile up, and become the dominant characteristics of the whole crowd. Not everybody has virtues, but everybody has the low animal instincts, the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and vicious traits of the savage.” - Carl Jung

When I see a group of 15-year-olds all with the same broccoli hairstyle at McDonalds, I can already tell one of them is an abused dog while one of them gets their dick ridden non-stop. Groups naturally sort into “winners” and “losers” with little regard to truth or fairness. Inb4 “wHy ShOuLd I cArE?”. If you genuinely think that the truth doesn’t matter and that everything is subjective, that’s fine. But then again, those who always prioritize their feelings over rationality shouldn’t be surprised when they experience hardship at the hands of others. Those who have an “I can do what I want” mentality should also consider the fact that they will also potentially fall victim to people with the same mentality. In other words, everyone’s “gangsta” until they’re the victim of the same chaos and irrationality they dickride. That’s “tragedy of the commons” in a nutshell.

My chess rivalry story

This will be the most anecdotal/”lore” heavy thread since my megathread about getting cucked. When I was 10-11, I dabbled in chess for a year or so and was addicted to the feeling of winning, which gave me the positive feedback loop to play as long as I did. Although starting chess at that age meant it was too late to do anything meaningful (getting grandmaster title and beyond), no matter how hard I worked unless I was some generational talent. I never got around to playing in tournaments (as you will find out why) and therefore never got an official elo rating. There was a time when I would literally sit outside my classroom with a chessboard for the entire lunch recess to challenge as many people as I could to prove myself as the best player in the school. Sure there was a chess club too, but it was inactive as fuck and it only ran once a week or some shit while facing the same 2-3 players everytime. But it wasn’t exactly a surprise given how prominent anti-intellectualism is and the glorification of athletics in the west.

I’d argue that chess might be the fairest and most objective competitive game out there since both players have the same pieces and abilities. Thus, one cannot exploit any gimmicks that might work 1% of the time against certain players. In other words, no "paper-scissors-rock" bullshit. The game’s deterministic nature, no dice, no hidden information etc, means that outcomes depend purely on skill, strategy, and decision-making. Not to mention that it’s a 1v1 game, hence you have no teammates to blame for your own mistakes. At times, it can feel like you are carrying the weight of the world on your shoulders, and that if you lose the game, your whole family dies, and you are gay.

My elementary school chess “rival”

So there was this guy in my class who basically looked kinda like Syndrome from The Incredibles but with nigger lips (could call him “Syndrome Niggerlips”). Turns out he also played chess, albeit longer than I had. Even though I facially mogged him quite a bit, he had more social status given that he comes from a wealthy family and was NTmaxxed from having a sense of mafioso bravado. In contrast, I was a quiet, emotionally sensitive and angsty kid with a short fuse.

At one point, he used his family wealth to size me up, which quickly led me to have an unfavorable view of him. Despite him being the one who introduced me to the chess club, he was often “busy” playing against other opponents. Our rivalry only really started when we played a chess match in our classroom during lunch recess while everyone else was outside. “inb4 JFL fucking nerds ”. The chess match lasted long enough until recess was over, and our classmates came back into the classroom. For me, the timing couldn’t be better because I was on the verge of winning as I was trying to corner and checkmate his king with my queen and rook. With our classmates seeing us duel each other for the first time, I thought that if I wanted to socially “ascend”, it would depend on me proving my superiority over my rival in chess in front of them all. And there’s no better situation for this than the one I’m in right now. After all, there are girls watching too. Knowing that I had no way of losing this, I toyed with my rival a little bit by chasing his king around a little bit instead of going for the most efficient checkmate.

But plot twist, my rival then suddenly claimed it’s a draw because of the “fifty-move rule”. From that moment, I just sat there speechless, seething and knowing that he took advantage of the fact that our classmates only walked in when I was about to checkmate him and their ignorance of the chess rules. Note that the purpose of this rule was to “prevent a player with no chance of winning from obstinately continuing to play indefinitely or seeking to win by tiring the opponent”. The most it could’ve been was 10-20 moves without a checkmate, not fucking 50. His deceptive action basically showcases that, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”. While I was really pissed, I didn’t want to cause a scene, knowing it was futile trying to call him out in front of everyone when he status mogs me. Although you could argue I kinda deserved this for playing with my food. This made me really hungry for a rematch against him over the next couple of months, another opportunity to prove my superiority over “Syndrome Niggerlips” in front of a crowd.

“The duel of the century”

Months passed, and one day, my rival decided to challenge me to a best-of-three chess duel just right outside our classroom. Strangely, he decided to lay down a rule of not being allowed to touch our own chess pieces when it’s the opponent's turn, and if one does so three times, they lose the duel. Initially, I had no problem with it and didn’t find it suspicious that he felt the need to lay down such a rule.

In the first game, I got to start with the white pieces and claimed first blood after a close battle. For the second game, I switched to the black pieces but unfortunately wasn’t able to close the match in two and lost after another close game. Funnily enough, both of us touched our own pieces when it was the other person’s turn once in each of the games, hence we both got two strikes. One more strike and one of us loses before the possibility of a checkmate.

And now it was our third and decisive game, and it was back to me playing white. Unlike our previous two games, this one was not even close, where it felt like everything was going according to my plan. The icing on the cake was that a crowd started to gather, mostly kids from the neighbouring classroom. This perfect timing almost felt like some divine intervention helping set the stage for my social ascension. It almost felt like sponsorship deals and endorsements were waiting for me. Don’t forget potentially drowning in pussy too (jk I didn’t even know girls had vaginas at that age). I had a commanding lead and was about to checkmate him, leading to me getting a bit giddy and shaky as if I had Parkinson’s, desperately waiting for my turns to inch closer to my victory. But then, perhaps out of nerves or OCD, I reached out and adjusted one of my rival’s pieces. Maybe cause of how long the previous match lasted, my brain became too accustomed to the black pieces, leading to a brain fart where I thought I was still controlling them.

This led to Syndrome Niggerlips pointing fingers at me, shouting and declaring me the “loser”. I immediately raged at him, saying that it didn’t count since I didn’t touch my own pieces. I then squealed like a pig sent for the slaughter. Unfortunately, some guys in the crowd that watched our final match sided with him and said that I should just concede because “it’s just a game bro”. Obviously, I didn’t and kept yelling, refusing even to pack up the chess pieces and stormed off. I was angry to the point where my face was red, as if I had burst a few blood vessels.

Whether I really violated this “touch move” rule was a matter of semantics. You might say that I could’ve later proven that such rule that my rival imposed is bullshit. But similarly to how people believe in the 5-second rule for food dropping on the ground, I think there’s also an unspoken time frame for proving something. Since this incident occurred during the early 2010s (I’m a boomer by this site's standards), it wasn’t exactly the norm yet for people to have a smartphone at hand to google something. Even more so among some 10-year-olds at an elementary school.

Bastardization of truth

I was the social underdog who thought truth and raw skill alone would prevail over wealth and social status and all other kinds of superficiality. That no matter how much wealth and clout they have, they cannot acquire the skill. Nonetheless, Niggerlips acquired the “win”, no matter how dirty it was. A game that I thought was one of the last places where a meritocracy exists in this godforsaken world was somehow bastardized by my rival’s leveraging of his social status to twist the truth.

Had there been no crowd, or if our matches were played in controlled environments, my rival wouldn’t have pulled the stunts he did, and everything would’ve gone as I had planned. As I mentioned in my debate thread, social status and context/setting matter more than raw skill in winning a debate.

There’s no such thing as “winning” debates when one is truly blackpilled

Debating: An art of manipulating human weakness Maybe it's just me, but there's no such thing as "winning" debates when one is truly blackpilled. When all illusions are broken down and the harshest truths are embraced, we eventually realize that debating is more about smokes and mirrors...

looksmax.org

The same thing applied here for our chess rivalry, where in the first duel in front of our classmates, my rival took advantage of the crowd’s ignorance of the chess rules to escape a defeat. While for the “duel of the century”, he yet again escaped another defeat by leveraging his superior social status in front of the crowd to accuse me of breaking a rule he imposed by moving the goalposts.

When I came back to class, since my face was really red from my outburst, I had to cover my face to avoid further embarrassment. I sat down, burying my face into my knees, where I was able to hear my heartbeat quite audibly whilst struggling to calm myself down. This incident actually made me lose most of my drive for chess, causing me to play in a much more rushed manner, make blunders that I wouldn't have made in the past. It's like something in me got rearranged irrevocably on a cellular level. And so, unfortunately, I quit chess shortly after the significant decline in my skills following that incident. But that might’ve just shown that I never inherently liked chess and instead saw it as a pragmatic social tool to hype myself up.

Aftermath

Spoiler: ghey shet

Miraculously enough, my emotional outburst did not tank my social status in the class, and everything went back to normal quite quickly as if the chess match never happened in the first place. I remember after elementary school when we went to different schools, Syndrome Niggerlips had the gall to add me on Facebook and then proceed to tell me not to add any of his friends or that he’ll block me, since he went to a private school. Of course, I didn’t bother catching up with him after that, but I heard that he later struggled academically. Can’t say I find solace in that, since being one of the top students in my class during high school didn’t get me anywhere meaningful either. Besides, the safety net of his family wealth would “forgive” any of his potential failures.

The only solace I had was the year after the incident when this Japanese kid in my class brought up this incident when we talked about chess, and how he thought my rival was a bullshitter and that I should’ve won. At that point, I stopped playing chess and don’t recall him being amongst the crowd. Ironically, I didn’t get along with him as I was seen as this kid with anger issues back in elementary school. But the fact that he somewhat disliked me, yet still believed that I should’ve won was strangely comforting. It was probably because that kid was academically the smartest in my class, which gave me a bit of reassurance, albeit overdue. There's something wholesome about someone disliking me yet still willing to look past that for the sake of the truth. I could live with the fact that someone dislikes me as a person, but is at least willing to embrace the truth, even if there is no benefit in doing so.

The chess rivalry story was perhaps the first social blackpill I experienced, where I was also “cucked” by someone I physically mogged, 10+ years before I got cucked for real by that dark-triadmaxxed asian femboy who I brought up in my megathread:

How I fully embraced the blackpill (MEGATHREAD + COMPILATION)

Intro Shoutout to @emeraldglass for prompting me to write this thread after he broke my profile’s hymen to ask why I basically never posted this whole time since 2020. Although he seems to have gone MIA ever since. Looks like I got pumped n dumped and @greycel got his sloppy seconds. I made...

looksmax.org

TL;DR: Crowds distort truth by amplifying base instincts and multiplying shared flaws to the point of overshadowing merit and fairness. You can see this from something as small as a friend’s unsolicited advice to millions of people watching a live debate. A childhood chess rivalry story was used to illustrate how my “rival” manipulated the crowd’s ignorance to claim a draw via the “fifty-move rule”. Later in the “match of the century”, he escaped another defeat through an arbitrary “touch-move” rule where he had basically moved the goalposts to rob me of a win. In both matches, it was the combination of the crowd’s ignorance of chess rules and my rival’s status that allowed the truth to be bastardized. The takeaway is that in any high-stakes situation, it’d be prudent to avoid crowds, as they will only naturally sort into “winners” and “losers” with little regard for fairness or truth.

View attachment 3841670

@TiktokUser @bloomercel @LLcel @(-__-+) @Changmentum

I learnt this the hard way

 

[GodDeityEyeBro]

You're right, the story does seem a bit far-fetched. At that age, kids aren't usually so calculated and strategic, especially in a chess game. It's more likely that OP was just spinning a tale to fit his narrative about crowds and meritocracy, a simple chess game doesn't usually devolve into such dramatic social dynamics especially among elementary school kids lol

The details were probably embellished on OP's part (@Sloppyseconds has a tendency to write with extreme verbosity) but the situation itself wasn't really that "dramatic". The story just seemed like another scenario of "It's not that deep". Many situations like this do occur irl too if we're being honest (for example if a kid or even sometimes an adult broke a thing of yours that isn't necessarily expensive but something of collectible value (like a controller or something) people will let you get angry for a bit, but if you get TOO angry then they'll tell you that "it's not that deep". Group hivemind stuff like this is quite inevitable if we're being honest.

 

[GodDeityEyeBro]

Honestly @Sloppyseconds , I get your point but the chess example isn't really it. I suppose though an example of this behavior done in the wider social landscape is the politic abyss (politics people being swallowed into the abyss and becoming either the current "left", "right", and "independent" (independents who shout about how independent they are about politics are usually just people who are often just as political as the other 2 sides) and "current year" argumentation

 

[FoolYoungHi]

Are you Indian?

 

[gpsl]

The guy who had to pull the 50-move rule as soon as he saw a crowd that he could impress is the guy who actually has mental issues. I don’t bother correcting things like this either. Honour isn’t a virtue that a person who’s mental environment is enmeshed with a group holds. Standing up here is correctly assessed as irrational. You have to wait until the group is gone. You can bully such a person in perpetuity. Always disconnect the sheep from the herd.