Our joy at the illusory resolution, by means of this formula, of the enigma of mass will be brief. Very soon we will be disturbed by the thought that in essence we have accepted the reference to the riddle of hypnosis, in which there is still so much unresolved. And now a new objection opens the way forward for us.

We have the right to say to ourselves that the extensive affective connections that we have noticed in the mass are quite sufficient to explain one of its properties, namely, the lack of independence and initiative in the individual, the homogeneity of his reactions with the reaction of all others, his reduction, so to speak, to the level of the mass individual. But when considering the mass as a whole, it shows us more: traits of weakening intellectual activity, unrestrained passions, inability for moderation and delay, a tendency to go beyond all limits in the expression of feelings and to completely withdraw emotional energy through actions - this and much more, which is so Le Bon vividly expounds, gives an undoubted picture of the regression of mental activity to an earlier stage, which we are accustomed to find in savages or children. Such a regression is especially characteristic of the essence of ordinary masses, while among highly organized, artificial masses such regression can be significantly delayed.

So we get the impression of a state where the separate emotional impulse and the individual intellectual act of the individual are too weak to appear separately, and must necessarily wait for confirmation by a similar repetition on the part of others. Let us recall how many of these phenomena of dependence are included in the normal constitution of human society, how little originality and personal courage are in it, and how much each individual is at the mercy of the attitudes of the mass soul, manifested in racial characteristics, class prejudices, public opinion, etc. Riddle suggestive influence grows if we recognize that this influence comes not only from the leader, but also from each individual to each other individual, and we reproach ourselves that we singled out the attitude towards the leader one-sidedly, undeservedly pushing into the background another factor of mutual suggestion. Thus learning modesty, we will heed another voice that promises us an explanation on simpler grounds. I quote this explanation from W. Trotter's clever book on the herd instinct, and my only regret is that it did not entirely escape the antipathy that resulted from the latter. great war. Trotter leads the psychic phenomena observed in the masses from the herd instinct, which is innate in man as well as in other animal species. Biologically, this herding is an analogy and, as it were, a continuation of multicellularity, and in the spirit of the theory of libido, a further expression of the tendency of all homogeneous living beings to unite into ever larger units.

The separate individual feels incomplete if he is alone. Already the fear of a small child is a manifestation of the herd instinct. Contradiction to the herd is tantamount to separation from it, and therefore contradictions are timidly avoided. But the herd rejects everything new, unusual. Herd instinct - according to Trotter - something primary, further indecomposable.

Trotter lists a number of primal urges (or instincts) that he considers primary: the instinct for self-affirmation, nourishment, sexual and social abuse. The latter is often in opposition to other instincts. Consciousness of guilt and a sense of duty are characteristic qualities of a gregarious animal. From the herd instinct, according to Trotter, also come the repressive forces discovered by psychoanalysis in the "I", and the resistance that the doctor encounters during psychoanalytic treatment. The meaning of speech was based on the possibility of using it in a herd for the purpose of mutual understanding; on it, to a large extent, the identification of individuals with each other is based.

While Le Bon described mainly characteristic fluid mass formations, and Mac Dougall stable public education, Trotter concentrated his interest on the most common associations in which a person lives, gave their psychological justification. Trotter does not have to look for the origin of the herd instinct, since he defines it as primary and not amenable to further decomposition. His remark that Boris Sidis derives the herd instinct from suggestibility is fortunately superfluous for the bliss. This explanation follows a well-known unsatisfactory pattern; a rearrangement of this thesis, i.e., that suggestibility is a product of the herd instinct, seems to me much more convincing.

However, Troper, with even more right than others, can be objected that he has little regard for the role of leader among the masses; we are inclined to the opposite judgment, namely, that the essence of the mass without regard to the leader is incomprehensible. For the leader, the herd instinct does not leave any place at all, the leader only accidentally enters the mass, and this is connected with the fact that from this instinct there is no way to the need for God; the flock is missing a shepherd. But Trogger's theory can also be undermined psychologically, that is, one can at least prove probable that the herd instinct is not indecomposable, not exemplary in the sense that the instinct of self-preservation and the sexual instinct are reconciled.

What later manifests itself in society as a corporate spirit, etc., by no means denies its origin from original envy. No one should encroach on the nomination, each should be equal to the other and equally possess property. Social justice means that you deny yourself a lot, so that others would have to deny themselves this, or, what is the same, they could not lay claim to it. This demand for equality is the root of social conscience and sense of duty. Unexpectedly, this requirement is found in syphilitic patients in their fear of infection, which we have been able to understand with the help of psychoanalysis. The fear of these unfortunates corresponds to their violent resistance to the unconscious desire to spread their infection to others, since why should they alone be infected and lose so much, while others not? The same is at the heart of the beautiful parable of the Judgment of Solomon. If one woman's child dies, let the other not have a child. According to this desire, the victim is known. Social feeling is based on the change of initially hostile feelings into a connection of a positive direction, which has the character of identification. Insofar as it was possible to trace this process, this change seems to take place under the influence of a tender connection common to all with a person standing outside the mass. Our analysis of identification does not seem exhaustive to us either, but for our present intention it is enough to return to one feature, the insistence of the equation. In discussing both artificial masses—churches and troops—we have already heard of their premise that all should be equally loved by one person—the leader. But let's not forget that the demand for equality of the masses applies only to the participants in the masses, but not to the leader. All participants in the mass need to be equal among themselves, but they all want power over themselves alone. A multitude of equals who can identify with each other, and a single one who surpasses them all - this is the situation realized in a viable mass. So, Trotter's statement: man is a herd animal, we dare to correct in the sense that he is rather an animal of the horde, an individual led by the leader of the horde.

This article will be dedicated to people who are used to living according to the “herd principle”. From the point of view of banal erudition, the herd, as an individual, critically metaphorizing in its abstraction, it cannot be ignored by theoretical subjectivism - this is how the concept of the human herd sounds in a manual on psychology.

This or that value of the sum depends on the value of the units ... Our entire sociology knows no other instinct than the instinct of the herd, that is, summed zeros, where each zero has “equal rights”, where it is considered a virtue to be a zero ... Nietzsche

But, we all know very well that the herd is people who have their own leader. A striking example of the herd are the so-called "Bounty" from the movie "Bad girls" (starring Lindsay Lohan, I advise you to watch at your leisure). Bounty is a school herd run by Regina George - the leader. Its principle is this - whatever Regina tells us, we will do it.

Yes, on the one hand, it’s not bad to be in such a herd: you have your own specific place (a merry fellow or a fashionista, for example), everyone thinks and treats different things in the same way, and in general you don’t need to strain your brains too much, because the leader decides everything for you .

The crowd does not like singles; it recognizes only false people who imitate each other in everything. The crowd despises everyone who keeps to himself, who defends his rights, defends his freedom, does his own thing, regardless of the consequences. — Osho

But not everything is as good as it seems at first glance. Let's review everything herd pros and cons. To those already listed above pluses some of my acquaintances (who live according to the "herd principle") they attribute: understanding of each other, ease of communication, mutual assistance and... Doesn't this remind you of some kind of closed sect. Joke. Yes, it’s not bad if you occupy a certain place in the herd, but a counter question arises: "Who am I if there is no herd nearby?".

the biggest disadvantage the herd is that which is infringed upon and destruction of individualism. This implies incorrect behavior, which is considered wrong in the herd: you cannot do something without the consent of others, and if you do it - Goodbye herd. A little radical, but true. Everyone knows the concept of collectivism from the history of the USSR.

The crowd can forgive anything and anyone, but not a person who is able to remain himself under the pressure of her contemptuous ridicule. — Ayn Rand

To some extent, it may have justified itself, but what did it lead to - to the collapse Soviet Union. In essence, the USSR (with all its advantages) is the same herd, only in a larger concept.

The “herd principle” of living with us every day: someone from a friend bought himself some new fashionable blouse, as literally the next day all the other friends get almost similar, one of the friends started smoking new cigarettes and all praising this new brand they themselves begin to smoke the same ones.

People can only be tolerated alone, the crowd is too close to the animal world. — Franz Grillparzer

It, like an unconditioned reflex Pavlova (when the dog produced gastric juice when the light was turned on), which is produced, but which can be easily disposed of.

People who express their individuality and are not in the herd from all sides receive some pressure in response. It’s just that the herd destroys everyone who is not part of it: the “dirty linen” of the individualist rises, gossip arises, and in general everything is done according to the principle “If you are not like everyone else, then you have no place on this planet at all.”

Do you know why this is done? All because the herd is afraid of individualists. This is due to the fact that the individualist, in moral and psychological terms, is much stronger than these supporters of herd life.

People who are not afraid to show maximum enthusiasm and creativity achieve the highest results both in life and in recognition in society (over time, of course). I don’t mean standing out from the crowd with red hair and a lot of tattoos on the body (although as an option - very much even nothing). Just do not succumb to pressure from the outside and do not always “adjust” to others, showing your character and nature.

Herd instinct and conflicts of our subconscious.

Interpersonal contradictions, the struggle between people in the clash of their interests, ideas, judgments and views on life leads to conflicts. Conflicts are the scourge modern society sometimes inflicting an irreparable blow to human relationships, and causing numerous psychosomatic illnesses.

Sometimes it can be difficult to understand why people behave in such a strange, aggressive and "wrong" way. And the conflicting parties themselves often have a poor idea of ​​what they actually want to achieve in the course of the conflict.

But if you analyze it, it turns out that at the heart of any seemingly unnecessary scandal, any aggression, any act is a motive, a subconscious hope for a result that is desirable to obtain. At work, these reasons may be the desire to increase their earnings or to achieve success in the eyes of colleagues. At home, intimacy with a partner, the desire to please him or dominate him. Any conflicts and scandals serve as a tool to achieve a specific goal. They are due to the desire to "win" for each conflicting party. Any behavior that seems negative to us has its own motives. And very often these motives are not realized not only by others, but also by the scandalous person himself.

Simple understanding of deep, subconscious, motives conflict situations help prevent conflicts or significantly reduce the harm they can cause.

Everything that is not currently in the mind of a person is called the subconscious or unconscious (according to Freud). Consciousness is what we are aware of at the present moment.

At the heart of human behavior are essential needs, as well as primitive instincts and desires that we are not aware of, due to biological urges. It is the ancient instincts that often cause conflict situations, determining the behavior modern man. We inherited these instincts from distant ancestors, they were useful in the past, but now they have lost their value and only interfere with us.

However, alas, the motives of the behavior of modern man are in many respects similar to the motives of the behavior of animals. By studying the behavior of animals, scientists better understand and predict the behavior of people in various life situations.

Let's look at some very instructive experiments that will help us understand the subconscious mechanisms of the behavior of the people around us.

So, a large flock of monkeys is in a fenced area under the supervision of scientists. As in wildlife, the flock has its own hierarchy. Division by rank is the law of any flock. There must be a leader, the head of the pack, as well as first-rank males and females, second-rank ones, outcasts, children. And on the territory of the monkeys they put a cage-feeder with a cunning lock-constipation. In a cage, a delicacy of selected ripe bananas. Monkeys want bananas, they irritably fumble around the cage, but they can’t get bananas: they can’t reach through the bars of the cage, and they can’t open the constipation.

Then scientists isolate the most non-authoritative male monkey from the pack. And far from everyone, they are taught to open exactly the same constipation on another cell. Show, train the skill. Finally, the monkey understood everything, learned it. She is returned to the pack. The monkey walks up to the feeder with a satisfied look, manipulates the constipation and pulls out a banana! The whole flock, resigned to the fact that the constipation does not open, stares in surprise at a relative, gathers near the cage. The leader of the pack jumps up, gives a slap to the “wise guy”, takes the banana and eats it himself.

The trained monkey takes out another banana. The male second in rank after the leader comes up to her, gives a couple of slaps in the face and again takes the banana. The poor monkey takes out another banana, then another. Same situation. Other monkeys come up, take away bananas, and even beat the outcast of the pack. He gives them bananas, they hit him in the face. No gratitude, no one expresses the slightest desire to understand how their relative unlocks constipation, no one wants to learn from him the ability to get bananas.

But the experiment continues: scientists put the leader of the pack away and now teach him how to open this complex constipation. Having taught, they are released back into the flock.

The leader importantly approaches the feeder, takes out a banana and defiantly, with obvious superiority, begins to eat it. The flock gathers around, carefully watches how the leader appetizingly cracks down on a banana, takes out another tasty fruit and eats it himself again. Everyone is waiting for the leader to be fed. After that, the first-ranking male tries to repeat the seen manipulations with the lock. It turns out not immediately, but the male is persistent and after several attempts the constipation opens.

Gradually, the whole flock masters the technology of getting bananas. They learn from the leader, then from those higher in the hierarchy. But not in the monkey who discovered constipation first. They beat her, they only take away her prey. Now our discoverer can get himself a banana only after everyone who is more important than him has had enough of bananas.

This is a completely sociological experience. The writer M. Weller, in particular, spoke enthusiastically about this experience. Indeed, understanding the results of the experience gives important conclusions for the society of people. Indeed, in the human subconscious, the most ancient herd instinct is laid, which still often determines our behavior. This instinct has deep biological roots and is associated with the need for the survival of the pack. To survive in the wild requires coordination of actions. For this, the pack needs a leader. The leader unites, protects and directs the pack, submission to the leader makes the pack and each individual of this pack less vulnerable to enemies. The execution of the leader's orders is the guarantee of one's own safety. Submission to the pack leader or the desire to take his place is an adaptive biological group survival instinct that promotes self-preservation and reproduction. The desire to obey, to please, to be close to a socially significant individual gives a sense of one's own security. Members of the pack usually take the side of the leader. And in case of danger, the pack first of all preserves and defends the leader, as the most valuable individual for this pack.

At the same time, in the pack there is a constant struggle for leadership between socially significant individuals. The authority of the leader is obtained in fights with relatives. In nature, physical strength, courage provide superiority. The most powerful male comes to the fore, able to organize a flock for hunting, foraging or avoiding enemies. The rest take their place in the hierarchy and must yield to more significant individuals.

The best food and, most importantly, the females go to the leaders first. A strong male must pass on his genes to as many females as possible. This is the ancient law of pack survival.

But in the community of people and even in ordinary families, their leaders very often appear, who try to guide the rest.

Like any flock, the community of people is still self-organizing into estates, ranks, castes. There are numerous confirmations of this.

Somehow, back in Soviet times, an experiment was conducted in several juvenile colonies. They selected teenagers who suffered from the oppression of their fellows (located at the very bottom of a kind of social ladder), and isolated them. And what? After some time, among the selected adolescents, a hierarchy arose again with new leaders and even more cruel harassment and bullying of the "leaders" over the guys who could not stand up for themselves.

In almost all adult zones, there is a clear unspoken division of people. The role of the leader is played by the thief in law, next in status are the thieves, then the peasants, followed by the so-called goats, and finally the lowered, most despised prisoners.

In the army, the rank system is fixed by law. According to the Charter, military personnel are obliged to unquestioningly obey their superior in rank. This makes the army easily manageable, able to carry out any order of the commander. Commanders are appointed from above, so the struggle for leadership between the military is not so pronounced.

Work collectives have their own hierarchy, official status, forcing the subordinate to be in a lowered position. Therefore, the saying is so popular and fair among us: "You are the boss, I am a fool, I am the boss, you are a fool." The opinion of a person with a lower status and worse financial position, is taken into account last.

Let's consider another interesting experiment. Rather, I found information about different experiments, very similar in terms of the scheme of conduct and results. One was carried out with laboratory rats, the other with mice. Let's talk about rats.

An additional room was added to the animal cage and the feeder was moved there. The room was an empty pool for animals with one platform adjacent to the cage and having a smooth descent to the bottom. The feeder was fixed on the far side of the pool from the rats.

The rats pretty quickly figured out how to get to the feeder. And they began to run for food in a new room.

Then the pool was filled with water. A flock of rats has gathered on the site, the animals are running, worrying, squeaking: they want to eat, but you can only get to the feeder by swimming. Rats really don't like to swim!

Rats have a useful pack instinct. In danger and in difficult, unpredictable situations, a flock usually risks the life of only one, of course, not the most important individual. So, when taking suspicious food suddenly poisoned? only one animal tries it at first. The rest are watching and waiting. If everything is in order with the rat, then the whole flock starts the meal. And reconnaissance of an unfamiliar environment is also most often carried out by someone alone. The rest are waiting for the result.

So during the experiment, one of the rats finally jumps into the water, swims to the feeder, takes food (so much water was poured that you can take a briquette with food without problems), returns back: you can’t eat in the water. However, on the site, the briquette is immediately taken away from the sailed rat by stronger individuals. However, reconnaissance has been carried out. The example of the first rat is followed by several more animals that jump into the water and swim for food.

It turned out that the flock was divided into those who swim for food, and those who take food. There were more of those who did not swim. Therefore, individual rats had to swim up to 10 times before they were allowed to eat the food brought. Everyone swims differently. Someone 2-3 times, someone more. There were one or two animals that made only one swim, only for themselves. These individuals, in my opinion, are quite strong and respected in the pack, they do not strive for leadership, but they can stand up for themselves and avoid harassment. In relation to people, this type often leaves society, becomes a hermit or philosopher.

However, that's another story. In our experiment, the scientists selected and isolated the animals that took the swim, and left only those who took away the food. And again the situation repeated itself, again there was a division. Only the fights on the playground of the rats who had arrived with those who continued to take food became more violent.

Of course, if similar experiments were carried out with monkeys, the results would be the same. The one at the bottom of the pride ladder would swim or run many times, and the leaders of the pack would take food from him. In any flock, it is in the order of things to take away from the lowest in the hierarchy.

But even people who are high in the hierarchical ladder have the opportunity to deprive the less significant of their work, their ideas, their women, finally. Power and position in society make it possible to control people, to appropriate their labor, to satisfy their despotic ambitions.

At the same time, in order not to be deprived, you need to fight for your place under the sun. The law is this: in order to achieve something in life, to be able to lead, to be listened to and respected, you must be at the top of the social ladder. This law is enshrined in us at a subconscious level.

And people fight, sometimes even unconsciously, for leadership, listen and try to please the one they consider to be the leader, but ignore, criticize those who are placed below themselves in the hierarchy. At the same time, the authority of a person is more often obtained not by physical strength, but by intellect, the ability to convince, prove. Of course, pedigree, connections, money matter.

The strategy of competition permeates our entire life. People behave differently, but subconsciously consider others as an object for struggle or, conversely, obedience.

Boys and men more actively strive for high status, compete in games and work, determining the hierarchy and their place in it. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to sacrifice success and self-realization for the sake of maintaining relationships. They show less of their accomplishments. Some women have a need to lean on a "strong shoulder", listen and please a man. They hide their superiority in any area for fear of displeasing a spouse or work colleagues. Talking about her hardships and troubles, a woman subconsciously seeks to receive sympathy and support from a strong male. Men tend to give advice or offer solutions. They get very angry if their recommendations are not implemented. They usually react sharply when a woman tries to "rule" in the family or begins to belittle her husband.

Men stronger than women In nature, males are usually stronger than females. But at the level of animals there is an instinctive ban on the manifestation of aggression towards females. And a person has many similar deep settings. However, here, too, people "left" animals: some men are able to hit a woman. However, the majority adhere social norms ordering not to show physical violence against a woman. But often a man can react aggressively to the neglect of his person by a woman. Men struggle with two desires: the instinctive fear of harming a woman and the desire to punish her, to put her in her place in order to feel superior. For obedient women, men are ready to provide care and attention. Therefore, the object of chivalrous attitude is usually meek, non-aggressive, compliant ladies. It is these women who have a subconscious desire to please their men.

However, many women express dissatisfaction due to ignoring their interests. Usually this is the cause of conflicts in the family. A woman's attempt to achieve equality often leads to a scandal.

Of course, compliance, capitulation to the demands of a woman, a subconscious readiness to consider her higher in rank is also manifested in some men. The inhabitants consider such "henpecked".

Psychologists say that concessions demonstrate "goodwill" and serve as a positive behavioral model. But concessions can be subconsciously perceived by others as a sign of weakness. The proverb: "Do not do good to people, you will not receive evil" from this area. Compliant people want to please others, try to help them. But sometimes help is taken for granted. On the good man on an unconscious level, they may be viewed as lower in rank. And instead of gratitude, demand more and more concessions from him. This can lead to conflict.

The phenomenon of the unconscious was justified by Sigmund Freud. The unconscious, according to Freud, arose as an inevitable consequence of the action of the defense mechanisms (MP) of the individual. ZM are not realized by the personality itself, but help to overcome the mismatch between expectations and understanding the impossibility of one's expectations. Hidden in the subconscious of a person is manifested in his dreams, fantasies, jokes, slips of the tongue and reservations. However, SPs can be an unconscious source of collisions with others. ZM are able to drive deep intrapersonal conflict lead to mental illness.

ZM is rarely limited to the sphere of human mental activity; they go into action. If a subordinate offended by the boss kicks the dog on the way home, and at home scolds his wife for a bad dinner or can hit her for no apparent reason, then a protective mechanism for replacing aggression works here. One object is replaced by another. The victim is not the immediate source of mental trauma, but a weaker person who has fallen under the arm.

Here, as in a primitive pack, slaps are given not to a significant individual, but to a weaker one. At the same time, in order to justify his attack, the aggressor subconsciously looks for negative moments in his victim (“she cooked the wrong dinner”, “looked the wrong way”, etc.).

In a similar way behave and hooligans.

Unmotivated aggression is usually associated with the desire to demonstrate one's superiority in strength. It is the aggressor who asserts himself so subconsciously, tries to become more significant through violence.

Z. Freud investigated the subconscious motives of human behavior associated with sexual desire. He was accused of destroying morality and complicity in sexual revelry. But thanks to the works of Freud, psychology and psychotherapy developed. Many problems of human behavior and the origins of conflict situations have become clearer.

Modern psychologists define the following causes of conflicts: the mismatch of goals and interests of people, the threat to security, unmet needs and the desire for superiority, inequality, as well as informational factors: belief systems, or, for example, football fanaticism.

And yet, the basis of most conflicts is the desire for leadership, which provokes numerous scandals in the family and society. The triggering of the defense mechanisms described by Freud, aggression, swearing by a boss against a subordinate, a husband against his wife, a mother-in-law against a son-in-law, a mother-in-law against a daughter-in-law, the roots of conflicts in any team usually have this very nature.

Take, for example, mother-in-law. The daughter got married, a new member appeared in the family. The mother-in-law instinctively tries to suppress her son-in-law. A woman needs to show her importance, it is beneficial for her that her son-in-law obeys her and would be the lowest in status in the family. Self-affirmation of one of the parties was carried out through the humiliation of the other. Therefore, it is not surprising that the son-in-law is endowed with bad qualities, his shortcomings stick out, and his actions are perceived critically. The mother-in-law does not listen to her son-in-law, does not adapt to his interests, only tries to indicate, demands material benefits for her daughter. If a man also has a desire for leadership, conflicts in such a family are inevitable.

To justify their attitude towards those who are subconsciously placed below themselves in social status, they are trying to attribute negative qualities: cowardice, stupidity, meanness, greed, harmfulness. This is far from always the case.

But personal attacks and insults (“good for nothing”, “hands grow from one place”, “stuffed fool”, “you don’t understand anything in life”, “it’s hard to live with such an idiot”), instructive instructions, remarks about external form, criticism of actions, ignoring the opponent (as if they don’t notice him) all this is connected with a subconscious desire to humiliate a person in order to give rise to insecurity in him, to awaken feelings of powerlessness, inferiority.

However, the manifestation of intolerance and aggressiveness is integral part the law of the social group, which prescribes the division by rank and the struggle for leadership. This law is valid for the pride, the family, the general group of people, the work team. The driving force behind this law is the herd instinct. It is included among the basic instincts, along with two even more important instincts: the instinct of self-preservation, the driving force of which is fear, and the instinct of reproduction, the driving force of which is love and sexual desire.

The basic instincts constitute the formula of the triad. This formula explains almost all natural motives of our behavior, conscious and unconscious.

Stereotypes of behavior associated with basic instincts are embedded in our subconscious, but they are corrected by consciousness, our mind.

Man is not an animal, unlike animals, we can live by reason. The higher a person climbed the evolutionary ladder, the less influence our instincts had on us, the more often our actions were determined by the mind. The behavior of a modern person has also acquired specific features, regulated by a system of moral attitudes.

For example, we have a sense of natural fear associated with the instinct of self-preservation, a sense of duty or shame is superimposed at the thought of possible cowardice. Thus, the result of the same danger in the attack of the enemy during hostilities may be flight for some people, fortitude and courage for others.

At the same time: the higher the intelligence of a particular person, the less pronounced in his behavior are instincts. Raging passions are characteristic primarily of the "lumpen" psychology, for the criminal environment, where relations within the community are largely determined by instincts and brute physical force.

Selfishness, the desire to satisfy only one's needs, the inability or unwillingness to understand the underlying motives of the behavior of others and the inability to foresee the consequences of the attributes of the lower layer of the human personality.

As for conflicts, they should be avoided. The best strategy is to avoid conflict. It is best not to catch the eye of a disgruntled boss, an evil mother-in-law, a neighbor or mother-in-law.

If this fails, do not get involved in the conflict. Do not respond to rudeness, do not respond to provocations, do not make excuses, do not argue. The role in the conflict is to disrupt the enemy's script, to prevent him from using you to defuse and strengthen his own subconscious status.

Determine the opponent's intentions and choose the most appropriate style of behavior for yourself. It is best to confuse the enemy, to find the course of action that will prevent his possible aggression.

Usually, the instigator of the conflict looks for a reason to justify his behavior (as in Krylov’s famous fable, the wolf, before attacking the lamb, tries to ascribe unseemly actions to it in order to present itself as a judge who carries out just retribution). Already at this stage, try to turn everything into a joke or find an urgent matter so as not to be the object of an application to dump negativity.

As a last resort, remain calm, agree, do not provoke an aggressive reaction, show respect. The enemy climbs towards you with rudeness, and you try to calm him down, agree with him. He begins to resent dinner, and you ask for advice on how best to cook this dish. Demonstrate good intentions, a desire to maintain a good relationship with a person who is ready for a scandal. Praise and ask for his opinion more often, but try not to get addicted. Even in the most critical situation, one should be inventive, find the most acceptable solutions.

Of course, there are "difficult" people, communication with which is fraught with conflicts. These are rude, harsh, short-sighted people with a "lumpen" psychology. There are not many of them, but you need to “run away” from such people.

And, of course, there is no point in proving your status in scandals and fights.

Just by understanding the deep motives of your behavior and the behavior of others, you can learn to get away from unnecessary breakdowns, disputes and scandals.

Continuation of the topic.

In addition to the instincts listed in the book "" let's consider one more so-called "herd instinct". We will understand it inexplicable desire of man(herd animal too) join your herd.

In fact, we explained in the book "", that this desire stems only from, since it is in the herd that the individual is most reliable to keep his gene. And the herd instinct does not carry anything fundamentally new for us.

However, faced the other day with the following definition of the herd instinct on Wikipedia:

herd instinct- this is the mechanism underlying the instinct of self-preservation, applicable equally to both humans and animals.

The herd instinct shows how people or animals in a group can act collectively, without centralized leadership. As V. Trotter noted in his work “The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War”, it is pointless to look for the causes and derivatives of the herd instinct, since it is primary and cannot be resolved.

I realized that we need to take a closer look at this issue.

First of all, relying only on , we will show our complete disagreement with all the provisions of this definition.

• First, as shown in, there is no independent self-preservation instinct. There is only a corollary of the same name from the Law (or Instinct) of Gene Conservation.

• Secondly, it is NOT pointless to look for the causes and derivatives of the herd instinct, since it is NOT primary.

Let us recall in passing how primary and secondary statements (or instincts) differ. If statement A implies statement B, and statement B does not imply statement A, then statement A will be called primary, and statement B secondary or a consequence of A.

If the herd instinct were primary, then how to explain the regular breakups of the herd? Especially constant expulsions from the herd of young males that have entered the reproductive age, or vice versa, elderly males?

And they are explained very simply, through

• Young grown males begin to pose a threat to the genetic purity of the offspring of the harem of a dominant, but not yet old and strong male.

• The exiled young males leave the herd and begin to look for an opportunity to form their herd not from herd instinct, but for the sole purpose of preserving their gene.

“Why are the old males driven out?” -you ask. Yes, for almost the same reason.

• Usually this is an aged dominant male who has lost a tournament fight for his harem to a new young male applicant, but has not yet lost his reproductive power and therefore needs to be constantly monitored. In addition, the old male very soon turns into a burden and an extra mouth, unable to get his own food on his own. The end of such old lonely males is always sad.

As you can see, no herd instinct works and everything depends on !

And now the mischievous reader should ask: “Why then do they not expel aged females who are not capable of procreation?” The answer is again simple.

• Elderly females, as a rule, are excellent nannies and are often simply necessary for the care and upbringing of the offspring of the dominant male, i.e. the reason is always the same: !

Nevertheless, we shall henceforth use the term Herd Instinct, keeping in mind, however, that it is a simple consequence.

The situation described above can be observed especially well in a pride of lions or a herd of elephants. Such an unenviable final fate of male lions and elephants after they complete the program is no exception.

In other species, it can be even sadder: in bees, drones die immediately after copulation, in grasshoppers and spiders, males are immediately eaten by females after copulation. This sad list for males can go on and on, and it leads to even more unhappy thoughts.

Now I am tormented by vague doubts that the same or almost the same in the distant historical past was treated with our brother "muzhik".

You ask: Foundations? I explain: Mankind lived for 3-4 million years, practically no different from the animal world surrounding it, driven only by the same. Scientists find traces of human cannibalism in all parts of the world and until very recently. The same is true of human sacrifice.

The rudiments of humanistic morality appeared, one might say, yesterday by historical standards, and there are no serious grounds for believing that in the human herd males were treated better in ancient times than males in the rest of the animal world.

Now we will begin to explore the herd instinct in the most interesting herd - human society. In the most interesting, because a person has another important option that does not exist in the animal world. It !

The herd instinct sits in a person in the same way as in any other herd animal, and in the vast majority of his people, he follows it. Is it good or evil? We will try to give here an exhaustive, as far as possible, answer to this question.

The list of these people in the entire history of mankind, in all types of its activities, is extremely small. Several thousand. Not more. In any case, a small fraction of a percentage of the total population.

I once asked a friend of mine when I was young: “If the whole civilization was created by this small fraction of a percentage, then why did God create all the rest?” The answer was wonderful: “In order to give birth to this small fraction of a percent!”

And in general, it is impossible to imagine a society consisting entirely of geniuses, completely free from the herd instinct! It would fall apart instantly!

Listened to TV the other day conversation-interview two smartest people, Dmitry Gordon and Viktor Shenderovich. They also talked about the herd instinct and came to the conclusion that this instinct is always evil, giving correct examples of the destructive action of this instinct in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and that everything right and good is done by single people without this instinct.

With all due respect to these interlocutors, I cannot agree with both of these statements.

• Firstly, what is wrong with the herd instinct when it raises a person together with all his people to defend the Motherland, to the Revolution?

• Secondly, people like Stalin and Hitler were also absolutely free from the herd instinct. But, at the same time, these people, who hated, skillfully manipulating the herd instinct of the crowd, led their peoples in the twentieth century to the most terrible catastrophes in the history of mankind.

Note that in all totalitarian societies, such as, for example, fascism or communism, following one’s “herd” or, in other words, cultivating a herd instinct becomes public policy and any deviation from it is severely punished. Those who lived under the communists or under the Nazis remember this very well.

The attitude towards the herd instinct in society, especially among the intelligentsia, is rather arrogant and contemptuous. If you open Google on this topic, you will immediately see a bunch of articles on how to get rid of the herd instinct. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of society, blindly and strictly obeying this instinct, is embarrassed to admit it.

The anthem of all who consider themselves free from the herd instinct was once the book "A Seagull named Jonathan Livingston", written by Richard Bach in 1970.

And now let's think about whether it is always necessary to be ashamed of the herd instinct? Why do we, without hesitation, run after the crowd in case of danger?

I remember TV pictures of the tsunami flooding in Thailand in 2004, when crowds of people began to randomly scatter in different directions. Only those who competently began to climb the hills or ran up the stairs of multi-storey strong hotels survived, as well as those who ran after them, following the herd instinct.

At the end of their conversation, Gordon and Shenderovich came to the same conclusion that when you see a huge crowd running somewhere, then immediately run away. As we can see from the examples above, this advice is generally incorrect.

You need to know why the crowd is running, what are its slogans, are they encroaching on anyone's rights to or?

In textbook examples of communism and Nazism, their slogans quite openly called for the destruction of these rights from the nobles, the rich, the bourgeoisie in the first case, and from the Jews and other non-Aryan races - in the second.

The very Principle of Democracy, when the minority is obliged to obey the majority, is the most herd instinct! Who and when proved that the majority is right? Nobody ever! There is no other way to explain this than the herd instinct.

But, as the above examples show, Democracy does not always guarantee the right choice of solution, which happened in Germany in 1933.

Democracy's most recent mistake was Brexit, where its supporters won by less than 2%. A mistake, because Brexit does not give an increase in Freedom of Choice in anything, on the contrary, it lowers its level in Britain as a whole. This will become obvious to everyone immediately in a few years after its implementation, Brexit, unless it is canceled altogether by a second referendum. The most "advanced" Britons foresee this already today.

However, by democratically accepting the power of the majority, we expect that its decision will most often be correct, and history confirms this. Moreover, if Democracy has made a mistake, but the mechanisms of Freedom of Choice (democratic institutions) have been preserved, then this mistake can be quickly corrected.

There are no, to hell with special historical paths and national characteristics! There is simply advance and lag. And it's easy to prove!

If, for example, there are two states A and B with different forms of government, ways of life, and after some time the form of government in state B and the way of life become the same as in A, then this means only one thing: state B is evolutionarily lagging behind in development from states A.

We know many examples of countries where women who have traditionally worn the hijab begin to take them off at the risk of losing their personal freedom (Iran), and we do not know of any country where the reverse process would take place.

This, of course, does not count the case when Islamists recently came to power in Egypt for a short time and women were forcibly put on hijabs. It was a pure short-term fluctuation.

And one more interesting thought: the countries where the permanent presidents who came to power try to prolong their power by hook or by crook, forgery and fraud, resemble herds of animals or animal packs, controlled by permanent leaders, dominant males, too, until their weakened ones are overthrown males are younger and stronger. From here, draw a conclusion which society is closer to its primitive-animal historical beginning.

Well, now, let's formulate the promised answer to the question posed in the title: Is the herd instinct good or bad? Should I follow the herd instinct?

From all of the above, it follows that there is no deterministic answer to this question! There is only a probabilistic answer. It is best to always think with your own head.

But if you do not have your own solution, then it is best to join the group where you most of all see recognized authoritative and intelligent people.

Well, if you have to choose a solution randomly, then join the largest group, in the hope that there should be smart, experienced people there.

None of these tips will give you a 100% guarantee. Only probability!

Generally speaking, our surrounding world is fundamentally not determined. It is probabilistic and there are more questions with probabilistic answers than questions with deterministic answers. Physicists were the first to understand this at the beginning of the last century, when they climbed into the microworld.

In conclusion, I will give an example from a recent news feed about outbreaks of measles in civilized countries such as France.

The fact is that these outbreaks were the result of the fact that some parents refuse to vaccinate their children. Some for orthodox religious reasons, others for reading that vaccination has side effects. Both of them refer to the personal freedom of choice in what concerns their children.

However, if the probability of a side effect is one in thousands, then the probability of a healthy child becoming infected through close contact with a sick child is almost one hundred percent. Moreover, with modern movements of people, it is almost impossible to ensure absolutely reliable quarantine.

So choose after that the probability that you prefer. In this regard, discussions are being raised in France about the forced restriction of personal privacy when there is a threat to society, i.e. the rest.

I remember that in the Soviet Union all children were vaccinated without asking either themselves or their parents. I would not object to such compulsory vaccination.

Karmak Bagisbaev, professor of mathematics, author of the book

• The herd instinct is the mechanism underlying the instinct of self-preservation, applicable equally to both humans and animals.

  The herd instinct shows how people or animals in a group can act collectively, without centralized leadership. As V. Trotter noted in his work "The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War", it is pointless to look for the causes and derivatives of the herd instinct, since it is primary and cannot be resolved.

Related concepts

"Dissatisfaction with culture" - a treatise by Sigmund Freud published in 1930, which was written a year earlier, in initial period his battle with jaw cancer and in the run-up to the rise of the Nazis. The author's conclusions are disappointing. In view of the presence in human nature of an attraction to self-destruction, to death, the aggressive impulses generated by this mighty force will always seek a way out, entering into an inescapable contradiction with libido and civilization. The final reconciliation of nature and culture...

References in literature

Trotter leads the psychic phenomena observed in the masses from herd instinct, which is innate to man in the same way as to other animal species. Biologically, this herding is an analogy and, as it were, a continuation of multicellularity, and in the spirit of the theory of libido, it is a further expression of the tendency of all homogeneous living beings to unite into ever larger units. The separate individual feels incomplete if he is alone. Already the fear of a small child is a manifestation of the herd instinct. Contradiction to the herd is tantamount to separation from it, and therefore contradictions are timidly avoided. But the herd rejects everything new, unusual. Herd instinct - according to Trotter - something primary, further indecomposable.

Related concepts (continued)

Attraction to life - the concept of psychoanalysis, also denoted by the term "Eros"; a complex of drives, including sexual drives and the drive to self-preservation (the instinct of self-preservation), seeking to combine parts of the organic into a kind of unity.

Anti-natalism (ancient Greek ἀντί - "against", Latin natalis - "birth") - a range of philosophical and ethical positions that negatively evaluate reproduction and consider it unethical in certain situations, including a negative assessment of reproduction under any conditions (for example ., such is the position of the bioethical philosopher David Benatar). Anti-natalism must be distinguished from practical solutions overpopulation and birth control policies, as well as childfree life choices, which are motivated primarily by...

Selfishness (ancient Greek Εγώ, lat. ego - “I”) is a behavior entirely determined by the thought of one’s own benefit, benefit, when an individual puts his interests above the interests of others. The opposite of selfishness is traditionally considered altruism, although modern psychology often considers such a contrast to be incorrect. There are also specific views on egoism - such as "reasonable egoism", "hedonism".

Instinct - a set of innate tendencies and aspirations, expressed in the form of complex automatic behavior. In a narrow sense, a set of complex hereditarily determined acts of behavior characteristic of individuals of a given species under certain conditions.

Aggressiveness (Latin aggressio - to attack) or hostility is a stable characteristic of the subject, reflecting his predisposition to behavior, the purpose of which is to harm the environment, or a similar affective state (anger, anger).

Animal rights (English animal rights), also "liberation of animals" (English animal liberation) - the idea of ​​the equivalence of the main needs of people and animals: for example, the need to avoid pain, to save one's life. Supporters hold different philosophical points of view, but all are generally unanimous that animals should not be considered as private property and used for food, clothing, in the entertainment industry and scientific experiments, and some rights, for example, the right to life...

Totem and Taboo is a book published in 1913 by Z. Freud, in which he develops his theory of the origin of morality and religion.

The nature and essence of a person is a philosophical concept that denotes the essential characteristics of a person that distinguish him and are not reducible to all other forms and kinds of being, to some extent inherent in all people.

Intelligence in animals is understood as a set of mental functions, which include thinking, the ability to learn and communicate, which cannot be explained by instincts or learning. It is studied within the framework of cognitive ethology, comparative psychology and zoopsychology.

The higher animals are a collective group of representatives of the animal kingdom, capable of modifying their instinctive behavior (instincts) with the experience gained during their life. Examples are all mammals, birds, many reptiles. The same example is a person in whom hereditary behavior plays a smaller role in decision making than life experience.

The false consensus effect (or false agreement effect) is the tendency to project your way of thinking onto other people. In other words, people tend to believe that everyone else thinks in exactly the same way as they do. This supposed correlation, not supported by statistics, gives the impression of a non-existent consensus. Such a logical fallacy affects a group of people or individuals who assume that their own opinions, beliefs and preferences are much more common ...

Postgenderism is a social, political and cultural movement whose adherents advocate the voluntary elimination of gender from the human species through the use of advanced biotechnologies and assisted reproductive technologies.

Jenkin's nightmare ("swamping argument") - a fundamental objection to Darwin's theory of the gradual formation of new biological species by preserving a favorable trait natural selection put forward by the English engineer Jenkin. According to him, a useful trait that accidentally appeared in a single individual in a group of organisms (populations) will gradually be leveled by crossing with ordinary individuals. This logical difficulty is overcome with the creation of a population ...

"Man descended from apes" is a popular thesis commonly associated with Charles Darwin and the Darwinists, but it has been said before him.

Morality (Latin moralitas, the term was introduced by Cicero from the Latin mores “generally accepted traditions”) - the ideas accepted in society about good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, as well as a set of norms of behavior arising from these ideas.

Almighty control is a mental process that is classified as a psychological defense mechanism. It consists in the unconscious conviction of a person that he is able to control everything. A natural consequence of such a conviction is a person's sense of responsibility for everything around and the feeling of guilt that arises if something gets out of his control.

Shame is a negatively colored feeling, the object of which is some act or quality (philosophy) of the subject.

Asabiya, or Asabiya (arab. عصبية) is a term referring to social solidarity, where the emphasis is on cohesion and unity, group consciousness, a sense of common purpose and social unity. It was originally used in the context of "tribalism" and "clanism". In the modern period, this term is usually identified with solidarity.

Feral children (other names: wild children, feral children) - human children who grew up in conditions of extreme social isolation - out of contact with people from an early age - and practically did not experience care and love from another person, had no experience social behavior and communication. Such children, abandoned by their parents, are raised by animals or live in isolation.

Cowardice is a property of character, the inability to overcome fear of personal danger. Cowardice is inextricably linked with action and the concept of duty: if a person must not take actions dangerous to him, then avoiding the threat is not cowardice, but common sense; a coward, out of fear, does not do what he should.

Lamarckism is an evolutionary concept based on the theory put forward at the beginning of the 19th century by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in his treatise Philosophy of Zoology. The views of Lamarck himself are quite difficult to understand, since they are based on a number of concepts of the 18th century that are completely uninterpretable within the framework of modern science (primarily created by God, matter as a passive principle and nature as order and energy for its implementation; the concept of five elements, of which the ether plays the most important role, in the form of thin...

The hunter and farmer theory is a hypothesis proposed by Tom Hartman to explain the causes of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and ADD in adults, interpreting them as the result of adaptive behavior. Hartman notes that most or all of mankind have been nomadic hunters and gatherers for millennia. Then this standard gradually changed with the development of agriculture in most primitive societies and most people on earth became farmers. During...

Sexualization (instinctualization) is a protective mechanism that consists in attributing an erotic component to negative events, thus “turning” them into positive ones.

Psychological theory of the origin of the state - the theory of the origin of the state, developed by Lev Petrazhitsky. According to this theory, the state was formed as a result of the division of society along psychological lines: some are only able to obey and imitate, others can govern.

Altruism (lat. Alter - other, others) - a concept that comprehends activity associated with disinterested concern for the well-being of others; correlates with the concept of selflessness - that is, with the sacrifice of one's own benefits in favor of the good of another person, other people, or in general - for the common good.

Maternal deprivation (lat. deprivatio - loss, deprivation) is the process of emotional and psychological impoverishment of the child, due to the separation of the child from the mother at an early age. The basis of this phenomenon is the complete or partial lack of attachment to adults in the child, undermining trust in the adult world.

Pseudo-aggression - actions that may result in damage, but which were not preceded by evil intentions.

Psychosocial development, theory - the theory of psychosocial development of the personality, created by Erik Erickson, in which he describes 8 stages of personality development and focuses on the development of the individual's Self.

Disgust is a negatively colored feeling, a strong form of rejection. Opposite emotion: pleasure.

Open individualism (English open individualism; short for an open individual view of personal identity) is a point of view in philosophy, according to which there is only one self-identical subject, which is all and to which all human bodies and all independent streams of consciousness belong. Open individualism requires a different understanding of eternalism. The phenomenological interpretation of open individualism is that I (as the only subject) constantly "discover...

Animal sexual behavior is a term used to refer to certain behavioral complexes, usually (but not always) associated with the implementation of a reproductive or copulatory function. Sexual behavior in animals takes many forms, even within the same species.

Interspecific friendship is a relationship that is formed between individual representatives of different animal species (as opposed to mutualism - a mutually beneficial relationship at the species level). An atypical occurrence in biology, however, numerous cases have been reported in both wild and domestic animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and combinations thereof. In many cases, pairs form those animals whose species usually do not get along in natural conditions, and sometimes one of the species even preys on the other. Among ...

Carnism (lat. carnis - meat, flesh) is a psychological concept, within which a statement is made about the existence of an ideology of the same name, based on a system of beliefs about the legality of consuming animal products, especially meat. The term "carnism" was coined by social psychologist Melanie Joy in 2001 and popularized in her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cow Skins.

- a psychological force that calls a person to fight for survival. Seen as an important and active process of conscious and unconscious reasoning. It is especially pronounced in cases where a serious injury or illness threatens life.

The concept of "teenage reactions" was introduced by the Soviet psychiatrist A. Lichko. Some of the foreign authors single out the "adolescent complex" as a series psychological characteristics characteristic of adolescents. In the event of serious behavioral and emotional disorders in a teenager, it is customary to speak of a “pubertal crisis”.

Cultural genesis is the process of the emergence and formation of the culture of any people and nationality, in general, and the emergence of culture as such in a primitive society. At the moment, there is no unified theory of the emergence of culture.

Superman (German: Übermensch) is an image introduced by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in the work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” to denote a creature that, in its power, should surpass modern man to the extent that the latter surpassed the ape. The superman, being, in accordance with the hypothesis of F. Nietzsche, a natural stage in the history of the human species, must personify the focus of the vital affects of life. The Superman is a radical egocentric who blesses life in the most extreme...

The organic theory of the origin of the state is the theory of the origin of the state, according to which the state is an organism that is born, lives, grows old and dies. Elements of this theory are found in the works of various authors. It has now been rejected by the vast majority of scientists.

Lookism (discrimination in appearance) is a designation of positive stereotypes, prejudices, choice of behavior in relation to physically attractive people, as well as to those whose appearance meets the cultural and social ideas and norms of a particular society. Warren Farrell proposes the term "gene celebration" to describe adoration and praise physical beauty person.

Model of the human psyche (eng. Theory of Mind (ToM). In the literature, you can find other translations of this term, for example: understanding of someone else's consciousness, theory of intentions, theory of consciousness, theory of mind, etc. (in the films "BBC "meets as a" theory of mind ") - a system of representations of mental phenomena (meta-representations), intensively developing in childhood. Possess a model mental state- means to be able to perceive as one's own experiences (belief...