How Propaganda Works.

Do you find it strange that the people who throw the term 'fascists' around frivolously are usually the definition of fascists? Do you wonder why people repeat ignorant things that are not rooted in facts? Have you ever thought that the far right is creating the far left and vice versa? I've written a lot lately about Normative Group Think, Tribal Psychology, totalitarianism, Marxism/Communism, Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Dark Ego Vehicle Principal.

This article includes specific outcomes and insights from each research study, along with well-cited scholarly references. It also provides an in-depth explanation of the dangers of normative groupthink and mass psychogenic illness, highlighting the role of propaganda in various media forms. Let's outline some of the more important research done in these areas.

"Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast." —John Berger (unapologetic?Marxist)

In ancient Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the Golden Mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example, in the Aristotelian view, courage is a virtue, but if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness, and, in deficiency, cowardice. This is also referred to as The Goldilox Theory.

Robbers Cave Experiment

Conducted by Muzafer Sherif in 1954, the Robbers Cave experiment aimed to investigate intergroup conflict and the conditions necessary for fostering cooperation. Two groups of boys were brought to a summer camp, initially isolated from each other. The experiment was a 1950s social psychology study that demonstrated how intergroup conflict, hostility, and violence can arise when groups compete for limited resources. The experiment took place at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma over three weeks. The researchers divided 22 11- and 12-year-old boys into two groups, the Eagles and the Rattlers, and kept them separate at first. The groups formed strong bonds through cooperative activities, then the researchers introduced them to each other and pitted them against each other in competitive games.?

Outcomes and Insights:

• Intergroup Hostility: The boys developed strong in-group identities and expressed hostility towards the out-group, demonstrating how quickly prejudice can arise from minimal group distinctions.
• Conflict Resolution through Superordinate Goals: The introduction of tasks that required both groups to cooperate to achieve common goals (e.g., fixing a broken water supply) led to reduced animosity and increased cooperation, illustrating the effectiveness of shared objectives in mitigating conflict.

Cited Research: Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology. New York: Routledge. This work has been widely cited in studies related to intergroup relations and conflict resolution.

Minimal Group Paradigm

Henri Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm (1971) explored how minimal distinctions between groups could lead to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. The minimal group paradigm (MGP) is a social psychology research technique that studies how people perceive and behave towards groups. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups, and then asked to distribute rewards to other members of their group. The MGP consistently shows that people favor their own group, even when the groups are based on arbitrary distinctions like shirt color or painting preference.??

Outcomes and Insights:

• Resource Allocation: Participants consistently favored their in-group when distributing rewards, even when the group distinctions were arbitrary, suggesting that group identity is a powerful motivator of behavior.
• Social Identity Theory: This experiment laid the groundwork for social identity theory, highlighting how group membership influences self-esteem and behavior towards others.
• Anonymity: Participants don't interact with other members of their group.?
• No direct benefits: Participants don't receive any direct benefits from the outcome measures.

Cited Research: Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. This foundational text has been frequently cited in social psychology literature.

Asch Conformity Experiment

In the 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments to examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could influence an individual to conform. The research was a series of psychological experiments to study how people conform to social pressure. The experiments involved participants in a line judgment task, where they were told to match the length of a line on a card to one of three lines on another card. However, the majority of participants were actually confederates who had been instructed to give the wrong answer. The real participant was placed second to last and was the only person who was not aware that the others were actors.

Outcomes and Insights:

• High Conformity Rates: Approximately 75% of participants conformed at least once to the incorrect group consensus, highlighting the power of group pressure on individual judgment.
• Impact of Group Size and Dissent: Asch found that conformity increased with group size but decreased when a dissenting opinion was introduced, emphasizing the importance of individual agency within group dynamics.
• Conformity is higher among members of an in-group
• Even a small dissenting minority can have a powerful effect on a larger group
• Having a witness or ally makes it less likely that conformity will occur
• Anonymity can help people fully express their views without fear of retribution

Cited Research: Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, Leadership, and Men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press. This study remains a cornerstone in understanding conformity and group dynamics.

Tribal Psychology

Overview: Tribal psychology examines the innate human tendency to form groups, fostering strong in-group identities that can lead to both positive social bonding and negative out-group hostility. Tribal psychology refers to the tendency of humans to form social groups and identify with them, based on shared values, goals, and identity. This tendency is driven by the brain's natural need for social connections, which is a result of our evolutionary history.

Outcomes and Insights:

• In-group Favoritism and Out-group Discrimination: This concept helps explain why individuals often exhibit loyalty to their groups, leading to biases against outsiders.
• Evolutionary Perspective: The idea suggests that tribalism may have evolved as a survival mechanism, promoting cohesion among group members while simultaneously creating divides between groups.
• Distinguishing ingroup from outgroup: Humans tend to quickly differentiate between members of their own group and those of other groups, and favor their own.?
• Forming deep attachments: Humans can develop strong feelings of affection towards their ingroup.?
• Disliking disloyalty: Humans may dislike members of their own group who are disloyal.?
• Activating the brain's reward system: Perceiving others as part of our group can activate the brain's reward system, which can lead to loyalty and preference.?
• Activating the brain's empathy circuit: Perceiving others as part of our group can also activate the brain's empathy circuit, which can lead to compassion and cooperation. So essentially the person who is virtue signaling and thinking they are being empathetic and supportive are really lying to themselves and being apathetic to others.

Cited Research: Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: In-group Favoritism and Out-group Discrimination. In R. J. Wright (Ed.), The Psychology of Group Conflict and Aggression (pp. 86-109). New York: Wiley. This work synthesizes various aspects of tribal psychology and its implications for intergroup relations.

"Us vs. Them" Phenomenon

Overview: The "us vs. them" phenomenon describes a cognitive bias where individuals categorize themselves into distinct groups, leading to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. The "us vs. them" phenomenon is a mindset and a set of behaviors that can occur when people feel strongly connected to one group over another. This is a natural way to organize information, but it can lead to a "us vs. them" mentality. When a group feels it needs to compete with another group, especially over a limited resource, it can lead to an "us vs. them" mentality.

Outcomes and Insights:

• Polarization and Conflict: This phenomenon can exacerbate societal divisions, fostering an environment where cooperation and understanding are diminished, leading to increased hostility.
• Cognitive Dissonance: Individuals may experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with information that contradicts their group beliefs, further entrenching biases.
• Subconscious discrimination: People may make decisions based on subconscious discrimination.
• Excluding others: People may feel strongly connected to one group over another, leading to the exclusion of others.
• Othering: People may attribute negative characteristics to people or groups that are different from them.
• Dehumanization: People may dehumanize entire groups of people, which can lead to the persecution of marginalized groups.

Cited Research: Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social Psychology (8th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson. This text provides an overview of the psychological mechanisms behind the "us vs. them" mentality and its implications for group dynamics.

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” — David Hume. This quote means that reason's purpose is to serve and obey the passions, and that reason alone cannot motivate action.

According to many sociological perspectives, the statement "social death is more frightening than physical death" is considered true, as the fear of being ostracized and completely excluded from a community can be more psychologically devastating than the concept of physical mortality itself; essentially, losing one's social connections and identity can be more terrifying than the idea of ceasing to exist physically.

What would happen if we replaced that fear with courage?

The studies outlined above illustrate the complexities of human behavior within groups and the powerful influence of social identity, conformity, and tribal psychology. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing the dangers of normative groupthink and mass psychogenic illness, particularly in an age where propaganda can rapidly spread through various social media forms. By fostering awareness of these psychological mechanisms, individuals and organizations can work to promote critical thinking, empathy, and cooperation, ultimately reducing conflict and enhancing social cohesion.

I'm Thomas and I write about things that concern me or that I'm passionate about. I don't care if you like, subscribe or share. I am however grateful for you reading this. THANKS

~FIn