Stay tuned, don't lean out. Do what others do. Go where everyone goes. Say what they want to hear. And most importantly - do not think, because for you everything has long been invented. Just be like everyone else!

This is such a simple "formula for success" for most people - to be in a crowd, to be a crowd, with all the ensuing consequences: loss of individuality, lack of one's own views, susceptibility to other people's influence, desire to be led, fear to prove oneself! In a word - longing! Let's talk about herd instinct.

Why is the herd instinct bad?

The herd instinct, along with other instincts (self-preservation and procreation), is inherent in man by nature. And what is meant by nature is difficult, inexpedient and simply stupid to dispute. But there is one "but"! If the instincts of self-preservation and reproduction help humanity, at the very least, to preserve life and reproduce perfectly on the planet, then in the case of the herd instinct, an ambiguous picture emerges. On the one hand, we all live according to generally accepted rules, thanks to which we have an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bmorality and morality. In this case social norms do not allow the world to slide into chaos and anarchy. But there is another side of the coin...

Let's look at a simple example. Before us is an average young man. Pleasant, kind, intelligent, friendly. Caring father and loving husband. Let's add, to complete his positive image, belonging to some humane profession. Let's say he works as a paramedic on an ambulance - he saves human lives. In general, a completely positive character who is not capable of causing harm. Our hero has one passion - football! And now, sitting at the match, he becomes a witness to the shameful loss of his favorite team, to the delight and pleasure of the fans of the winning team. It would seem that it's okay - a game is a game. But then the most “humiliated and insulted” by the loss of their home team get up and start a fight with the fans of the winning club. Something “clicks” in the head of our hero, and he, driven by motives he does not understand, joins the brawl. The denouement is known - the OMON arrives and, having treated the brawlers with batons and butts of machine guns, packs them into paddy wagons. Our hero, lying on the cold floor of a special vehicle and having gained the ability to think soberly, asks himself one question: why ?! Why did he get into this fight? After all, aggression is not characteristic of him in any form, he does not cripple people, on the contrary, he saves them! The answer is simple: he turned off critical thinking - the ability to analyze a situation and formulate possible consequences. Herd instinct completely overshadowed common sense. Everyone got into a fight and, therefore, he must! And the boys would not understand if he left! He was not himself at that moment - he was like everyone else ...

Do you understand how dangerous and destructive it is to “turn off” the brain and follow the majority? Dangerous - for life and health, and destructive - for a person's personality. And that was the most "harmless" example. And how many bloody wars, armed conflicts, terrorist attacks and other tragedies have occurred only because people are driven by herd thinking? Manipulators (they are also called shepherds), hiding their true selfish motives behind beautiful invocative speeches about equality, patriotism and their god, “turn on” the crowd, and it, in its blind faith in a lofty idea, goes to rob, kill, rape!

There have always been people who went against the rules and had their own opinion. The society has already prepared for such stigmas and labels: "white" crows, dissidents, dissidents, heretics, rebels, upstarts and troublemakers. Having stuck a label, the society takes measures to establish "justice": from silent censure to collective persecution, called by a vile word - persecution! Purpose: to rot someone who thinks differently, lower, push, make it clear that it is no better. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, those who disagree either break down, becoming part of the crowd, or close up and move away, because it is a thankless task to fight the "windmills" of public opinion.

Is everything that those who disagree say so wrong and harmful that society does not accept it? Yes, that's not the point!!! An adherent of the crowd does not like the very fact that someone has his own opinion, he subconsciously feels strength in such a person against the background of his intellectual weakness and “blinkered” look, and therefore he sees a threat to himself. Or, on the contrary, it may even be very smart and tacitly admit the correctness, usefulness and relevance of other people's ideas, but he will never admit this in public, because this is fraught with sanctions against him from the majority - he himself will be on the other side of the barricades. Here is such a simple mechanism. Add here the susceptibility to the opinions of others and the habit of obeying the "shepherds", who, while not distinguished by particular decency, can meanwhile have strong leadership qualities and the ability to persuade.

The main reason why people gravitate towards the crowd is a sense of security, because it is easier to survive in a group. We mean the global negative manifestations of life: wars, cataclysms, epidemics, etc. In this case, herding is the basis of the instinct of self-preservation. It is a fact.

But with the manifestations of herdism, when the question of survival is not worth it, it is already possible and necessary to argue. Who makes you, along with everyone, spread rot on a newbie, what is your excuse? Are you afraid to break away from the team, to be branded as a "white" crow and be in his place? You don't need to be afraid of that. Be afraid of the lack of individuality - the very trait that makes a person different from others and forms him as a person.

Or take all these total sales and Black Fridays. When a roaring crowd, losing its human form, storms stores, trampling on the fallen, hoping to take possession of a TV, five phones and a kilogram of batteries. And all this to the cries of appeal about the discounts of managers (read - shepherds). Driven by the herd instinct and love for freebies, people finally lose their self-esteem.

And such examples of herding can be given endlessly, but we will not do this, just as we will not draw conclusions - you will draw them yourself.

Like

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 dependency phenomena are included in a normal constitution. human society how little originality and personal courage is 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. The riddle of suggestive influence grows if we admit that this influence does not come from only from the leader, but also from each individual to each other individual, and we reproach ourselves that we singled out the relationship to 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 points out a number of primary drives (or instincts) that he considers primary: the instinct for self-affirmation, nutrition, sexual and social mischief. The latter is often in opposition to other instincts. Consciousness of guilt and sense of duty characteristic qualities 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 some of them be infected and lose so much, while others should 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.

• 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 life choice childfree who are motivated above all...

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.

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 maintaining 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 in early XIX century by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in the treatise "Philosophy of Zoology". The views of Lamarck himself are quite difficult to understand, since they are based on a number of completely uninterpretable within the framework modern science concepts of the 18th century (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 "subtle ...

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) - the process of emotional and psychological impoverishment of the child, due to 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 features 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 primitive society. At the moment, there is no unified theory of the emergence of culture.

Superman (German Übermensch) - an image introduced by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in the work "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to denote a creature that in its power must surpass modern man as much as the latter surpassed the monkey. 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...

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 way 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 study 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 of civilization was created by this small 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.

Let us 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 state 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 survived, then this mistake can be corrected fairly quickly.

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 the world fundamentally undetermined. 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

HERD INSTINCT

It would be inaccurate to say that the human herd is opposed to individuality as such. A person with a strong herd instinct is not at all able to perceive individuality even as abstract concept. For him, there are no personalities, but there are individuals, characterized only by gender, belonging to a certain herd and rank in the herd hierarchy.

This is well illustrated by the so-called "sex symbols" - high-ranking individuals whose images are replicated by human mass culture as a role model. You are unlikely to find information - what is the personality of another pop singer or actress whose photos filled the pages of magazines: what are her views on life and worldview, what is she interested in, what books does she read (if she reads at all) - the herd is not interested.

The herd is interested in something else: what size of her breasts, waist and hips, as well as what male sex symbols she has affairs with - i.e. what is her rank as a female in the herd hierarchy. Beauty contests have the same origin, and in general everything that is built on the evaluation of a human personality according to only one parameter: this parameter always turns out to be the herd rank or some of its secondary manifestations.

For the same reason, the herd man does not experience love as an attraction to the partner/shee's personality, but only shows an instinctive reaction to a high-ranking male/female. Moreover, for him there is no significant difference between different partners of the same rank (age also affects not directly, but through its influence on the herd rank).

A herd is a group of individuals who have similar features in appearance and instinctively follow the same standards of behavior. The one who follows other standards of behavior: dresses differently, listens to different music - is perceived by the herd man as a representative of another herd. And in nature, another herd is always competitors for food and territory, and, if possible, for females.

"Wars" between metalheads and rappers, between fans of different football teams, between groups of gopniks from different regions are purely herd-instinctive in nature. "With whom you are?" - this is the question that their participants ask everyone they meet. The fact that you can be on your own, not belong to any of the opposing herds, does not fit in the head of a typical herd person. Another means: from another herd.

The herd man judges the strength of groups of people solely by their numbers. Therefore, when a small group of talented individuals (which he sees as "too weak a herd") acquires influence disproportionate to its size in society, the herd man immediately sees some secret intrigues and conspiracies, the connections of this group with more numerous and hostile towards his herd. communities of people - hence all the legends about the Jewish and Masonic conspiracy come from.

This is exacerbated by the fact that non-herd personalities usually do not look high-ranking; those. from the point of view of the herd, they occupy a place in society that does not correspond to their rank, which is unthinkable without the help of some powerful forces from outside.

Low-ranking people, dissatisfied with their position in the human herd, usually strive to build a new herd in their own way, i.e. gather around yourself a group of even lower-ranking people who obey the authority of the founder in everything and adhere to the same views and tastes as he.

We see this in the example of most leaders of totalitarian movements: Christ, Mohammed, Hitler, Stalin - all these are low-ranking people who devoted their lives to winning a high rank, using a crowd of even lower-ranking human individuals. It is very typical for such movements to impose the tastes of the leader on all members of the movement: for example, wine is forbidden in Islam because Muhammad once got into trouble because of it; the Nazis declared the Slavs subhuman because Hitler personally hated them (at first, other Nazi ideologists considered the Slavs a race related to the Germans).

Any desire to impose their standards of behavior, tastes, traditions on others is a manifestation of the herd instinct, as well as the desire to follow the standards of behavior accepted among those around them. The standards of herd behavior are determined by high-ranking individuals, and low-ranking individuals obey them, subconsciously fearing to be expelled from the herd. Therefore, attempts to impose one's tastes and views on life on others is a form of struggle for a high herd rank.

In disputes and polemics, the herd man always sees in his opponent a being of a lower rank. "How well I lowered him!" - he thinks, having expressed another batch of curses against his opponent, and when he answers the same, he is sincerely perplexed: "And this nonentity is still trying to run into me!" Naturally, from the side of his opponent the situation is seen in the exact opposite way.

The herd man does not realize that there may be individual preferences and personal reasons for holding certain views. For him, any tastes and points of view are divided into "correct" (which he adheres to and which, in his opinion, is shared by the majority of the herd, all "normal people") and "wrong".

He sees the dispute as an opportunity to show his high rank, to increase his self-esteem. (This is especially noticeable when several low-ranking debaters at once, in a characteristic tedious and annoyed tone, without listening to each other, are trying for a long time and unsuccessfully to find a super-killing argument that will finally “shut up” opponents.)

In general, we can conclude that the herd man is obsessed with two subconscious fears: being expelled from the herd and being the last in the herd.

STEREOTYPES

stereotypes- templates, samples, models and patterns of behavior due to simplified thought processes. A person does not think, but uses the inference that he already has in his mind about this or that phenomenon. This happens automatically, unconsciously, without the ability to understand in detail what is happening.

If there are a lot of such simplified routes of thoughts, a person's worldview is limited, narrowed and acts as an obstacle to self-development and improvement. The stereotypes of our distant ancestors came to us in the form of laconic proverbs and sayings, which contain worldly wisdom. Such wisdom in the form of capacious figurative sayings for centuries helps a person to understand life.

Stereotypes of people appear and are fixed in modern society to make life easier, to help you navigate it, find the right path, and avoid mistakes. Without stereotypes of thinking, the knowledge of the world by a person would be difficult. Every time a person would have to use his mind to reach an understanding of the nature of phenomena, all life would consist of only knowledge.

At the same time, stereotypes help to understand the diversity of life manifestations, contribute to the successful adaptation of a person in society. The positive role of the stereotype as an adaptive phenomenon can shift towards a negative or limiting perception of life. Where is the line between a perception pattern that helps to live and a stereotype that infringes on thinking? To answer this question, you need to understand the diversity of stereotypes in society.

TYPES OF STEREOTYPES OF THINKING

The formation of stereotypes occurs from the moment a person is born. For babies, the colors of clothes “advising” their gender are selected, the boys are dressed in blue, the girls in pink. Many of the prevailing stereotypes of thinking can be classified according to the thought process that causes them:

Generalization.

In its normal manifestation, this is a useful logical operation, in its excessive manifestation it is a “stigma” that is superimposed on essentially different phenomena. Generalization involves drawing conclusions from several similar situations, overgeneralization draws conclusions from a single incident.

Such a generalization makes thinking rigid, inflexible, limited. Too frequent formation of stereotypes caused by the generalization of personal qualities and character traits can lead to self-doubt, low self-esteem and the consequences that follow from this.

Example. If a person failed to win at a talent contest once, he forms an opinion about himself as mediocrity.

Categorization by species and types is designed to structure a certain set, to divide it into groups. Excessive categorization leads to ignoring individuality, features, uniqueness. Categorization on a person is hung up with a “label”, gives a general negative assessment, without taking into account his experience and personality. There are categories of bad, dishonest, evil, deceitful, greedy people and so on.

Example. A mother-in-law is always a person who does not like her son-in-law.

"Black and white" thinking.

A diverse, constantly changing world is squeezed into the concepts of "good - bad", "true - false", "right - wrong" and other polar categories. If you use only two evaluations “good” and “bad” in life to characterize phenomena, life becomes a series of black and white stripes and mixes into one continuous grayness.

Life is not good or bad, it is made so by polar thinking, the consequences of which are pessimism, maximalism, excessive perfectionism, depression, lack of meaning and values.

Example. When a person has learned the stereotypes of society that divorce is a negative and condemned act, that it is harder for divorced people to find a mate and afford new relationships, they can stay in a marriage that is burdensome and brings nothing but suffering, instead of seeking new love and becomes happy.

Perception errors.

A person mistakenly focuses on some aspects of the phenomenon and ignores others. Such biased selectivity leads to the fact that a person does not perceive an alternative, the possibility of a different opinion and the existence of other facets of the phenomenon, and does not know how to think critically. Egocentric thinking, egoism, dogmatism, stubbornness, conservatism, fanaticism develop. Personal or other authoritative opinion is defined as absolute truth and ideal, not subject to refutation.

Example. Unshakable, blind and reckless devotion to the idea of ​​any social movement.

High expectations.

Insidious social stereotypes lie in the inflated, unreasonable expectations of people. This is how utopias and unattainable ideals are born. The value and significance of individual phenomena is extolled and perceived as a desired goal.

As a result, stress, disappointment, resentment, frustration and a host of other negative experiences. High expectations of the other person lead to quarrels, conflicts and even breakups.

Example. The girl is waiting for her "prince on a white horse", who is necessarily handsome, rich and in love with her in advance.

BREAKING STEREOTYPES OF THINKING

The role of a stereotype can be negative in its impact, limiting thinking to such an extent that it interferes with the normal life of a person. In this case, there is a desire to get rid of the stereotypes of life that interfere with life itself.

To get rid of patterns and cliches of thinking, you need to learn awareness of perception.

It is necessary to monitor the thoughts and emotions that arise here and now, focus on personal experience experiences of what is happening.

Ways to get rid of the negative influence of thinking stereotypes:

Comparison. Comparison involves analyzing the situation, comparing it with others, finding differences and contradictions. There is no need to rush to think in the usual categories, when you can think, reflect on what is perceived at the moment and compare it with what is already known.

Setting realistic goals. In order to be less influenced from outside, it is necessary to form personal positive stereotypes of life. They can be in the form of realistic, achievable life goals and values.

openness of perception. To be able to perceive the phenomenon as a whole, look at it as if for the first time, rediscover new facets of the known and carefully study everything new that the surrounding world provides.

Critical thinking. You need to be able to ask questions: “Is this really true?”, “Does the thought contradict common sense?”, “Do I agree with what I used to think, hear, perceive as truth?” and other similar matters of doubt.

Expanding horizons. You can get rid of stereotypes by developing, learning new things, expanding your horizons, going beyond the usual boundaries of the comfort zone. Interest in learning and acquiring new experience contributes to the formation of one's own views and opinions that differ from the generally accepted ones.

These techniques will help get rid of a specific stereotype that interferes with life, as well as the habit of thinking in a stereotyped, biased and narrow way.

It is logical to assume that the further evolution of man towards the improvement of the mind will lead to the gradual disappearance of the herd instinct and the excessive dependence of the individual on stereotypical thinking.

This will inevitably entail radical changes in the entire form of the existence of civilization on Earth, since the structure of modern human society is largely determined by the instinct of the herd hierarchy in people.