The dangers and but the vital importance of ideologies and collective thinking

[Muira]

I'll update this soon

[godslave]

[Renna]

They may have a time and a place. I like Yuval point of view, people should read his book ”Homo sapiens”:

[Sol]

"Collective thinking" in the sense of when several people think and exchange by opinions - is a positive situation, mainly.
Some danger exists in lower thinking criticism because of conformism, emotions, lack of correct data and thinking limitations.

Ideology is opinions with emotional part. It exists for anything what people do and think for practical application. By an ideology in more common representation can be defined opinions common in a group.

The positive side of a conformism is that when an opinion is correct then people do not spare resources to doubt in it. Also not all have the needed data and skills to process this for their opinion was correct or best among possible.
Common moral norms, traditions, common thoughts - it's all about ideology and it has significant conformism. Such things are stable and have innertia as to accept new is risky. Also much of this was and still is useful. While some parts may be outdated, wrong, not best possible.

It needs to doubt in anything, as anything may be not true. But also it's useful to have a respect to existing and to try find explanations why that could be accepted as useful, to understand borders where that can be useful still.
It's always risky and resourceful task to make changes in ideologies which existed for long and supported a society to be in the past.
The analogy is with eco systems in the nature. You change one element, which may seem as bad to you, and the consequences may be worse than you think.

Also, when changes are inputed, as the changes take resources - the society becomes weaker and easier gets a harm, and any external influence. Changes arise conflicts in a society, what results in the similar. It's always needs to think about positive and negative sides of changes, what and when will prevail, what is the cost of any improvements. In case you want good to a society and not just to make it weaker by creating and supporting conflicts inside of it by "chaose" tactics (USA officials do this in other nations to compete, as in lower classes of own nation, as for different competing groups; "divide et impera").
Changes are made by groups which see in them a way to satisfy better own interests. So it always needs to find who may and interested to do them, to start the process at least. For the task of changes to better or to worse, or just to make a society weaker by inspiring inner conflicts and by sparing resources on "improvements". In the situation when is wanted a conflict - both opposing sides get a support to exist, to be stronger the conflict lasted longer and was more intensive, more destructive.
Among variants is to make a revolution. It never will be accepted by all, so then it's easy to organise civil war. Any changes have the potential to create opposing groups and then come to a conflict. For this is useful to beat to the most traditional norms and evident understanding, as this should inspire higher opposing, higher conflict in a society to make people weaker. Also higher conflict inside of many individs, what harms their psyche, disorients and makes easier to be controled, as lesser competing with you. It's very useful to make and support conflicts between higher and lower classes of societies to weaken them as whole.

There are dangers and profits, bad and good, harmful and useful in anything.

[FDG]

"Collective thinking" in the sense of when several people think and exchange by opinions - is a positive situation, mainly.
Some danger exists in lower thinking criticism because of conformism, emotions, lack of correct data and thinking limitations.

Ideology is opinions with emotional part. It exists for anything what people do and think for practical application. By an ideology in more common representation can be defined opinions common in a group.

The positive side of a conformism is that when an opinion is correct then people do not spare resources to doubt in it. Also not all have the needed data and skills to process this for their opinion was correct or best among possible.
Common moral norms, traditions, common thoughts - it's all about ideology and it has significant conformism. Such things are stable and have innertia as to accept new is risky. Also much of this was and still is useful. While some parts may be outdated, wrong, not best possible.

It needs to doubt in anything, as anything may be not true. But also it's useful to have a respect to existing and to try find explanations why that could be accepted as useful, to understand borders where that can be useful still.
It's always risky and resourceful task to make changes in ideologies which existed for long and supported a society to be in the past.
The analogy is with eco systems in the nature. You change one element, which may seem as bad to you, and the consequences may be worse than you think.

Also, when changes are inputed, as the changes take resources - the society becomes weaker and easier gets a harm, and any external influence. Changes arise conflicts in a society, what results in the similar. It's always needs to think about positive and negative sides of changes, what and when will prevail, what is the cost of any improvements. In case you want good to a society and not just to make it weaker by creating and supporting conflicts inside of it by "chaose" tactics (USA officials do this in other nations to compete, as in lower classes of own nation, as for different competing groups; "divide et impera").
Changes are made by groups which see in them a way to satisfy better own interests. So it always needs to find who may and interested to do them, to start the process at least. For the task of changes to better or to worse, or just to make a society weaker by inspiring inner conflicts and by sparing resources on "improvements". In the situation when is wanted a conflict - both opposing sides get a support to exist, to be stronger the conflict lasted longer and was more intensive, more destructive.
Among variants is to make a revolution. It never will be accepted by all, so then it's easy to organise civil war. Any changes have the potential to create opposing groups and then come to a conflict. For this is useful to beat to the most traditional norms and evident understanding, as this should inspire higher opposing, higher conflict in a society to make people weaker. Also higher conflict inside of many individs, what harms their psyche, disorients and makes easier to be controled, as lesser competing with you. It's very useful to make and support conflicts between higher and lower classes of societies to weaken them as whole.

There are dangers and profits, bad and good, harmful and useful in anything.

Generally changes happen either from external events (some other people coming and wanting your land, or wanting to settle nearby) or if there's additional resources, then the additional "cost" of changing can be burdened without incurring in major problems. It's not by chance that the least "conservative" societies are usually those with the most free resources.

[kuno]

I tend to be critical of collective thinking, but the truth is we all engage in collective thinking. It’s part of human nature, part of belonging to a society. You find an ideology you like and can wrap your head/heart around, and you adopt it. And by adopting it, you are adopting the ideas of others. Nobody has the time to think up their own completely original theories about everything. Nothing is really original anymore anyway, if you’re part of a society.

Collective thinking and ideologies are a necessity, but one must also remain wary of people who try to influence others with dangerous ideas. Mob mentality is dangerous, and it’s the reason I tend to be cautious of collective thinking and the adoption of ideologies; I don’t want to be dragged into some weird cult (I guess you could call socionics a cult LOL—kidding). You have to be willing to think for yourself as well as remain open to others’ ideas, to remain open to having a dialogue—an exchange of ideas. This is how you remain balanced and have your own well-formulated perspectives/ideas as well as ideas you’ve adopted from others. An exchange of points of view is how some of the best ideas are formed.

I hope I understood the point of this thread, haha

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Collective thinking is important, necessary, and unavoidable.

The mistake people make is letting collective thinking interfere with individual thinking, when it really should be enhanced by independent thinking people coming together to discuss and challenge ideas to determine the best ones for us as societies to choose (not follow).

Collective thinking is what stood against the Nazis. Collective thinking is what ended slavery in USA. Collective thinking is what determines whether murder is punishable. Collective thinking is what prevents pedophilia from being widely accepted or overlooked.

Independent thinking is important, but one person alone cannot change the world.

The fact that there is strength in numbers, I'd argue, is all the more reason independent thinking is important. Look at the Milgram experiment. When independent thinking was omitted, the group strengthened Hit.ler's ideas.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

The question for me is: when is it a good time to take "dangers and vital importance" at face value instead of inquiring (or philosophizing, if you will)? I don't know the answer to that but i can think of people who would say "whenever they cause suffering" and that there is no need to involve others (also because insights affect others/relationships anyway).