Philosophy : Psychology : Groups

From bitrary
Jump to: navigation, search

Philosophy : Psychology

As long as people specialize, they need to collaborate. A social group is a set of people that collaborates. A person tends to belong to multiple groups at the same time. A person tends to leave and join different groups. A group does not have to consist of people that happen to be physically near that person, nor does it have to consist of people that have roughly the same age as the person has. For example, a fact that someone is placed to a school class does not mean that the person belongs to that group from psychological point of view, specially if the classmates are bastards, tease that person, etc. The same applies to sets of people like neighbours, people that live in the same town, people that live on the same island, people that live in the same country, etc. On the other hand, remotely working set of scientists or software developers can form a group from psychological point of view. A set of students working on some university project can also form a group from psychological point of view. That is to say, being social does not mean that one has to accept being part of a set of people that are idiots or bastards. Nor does being social necessarily mean that one has to spend a lot of time just at the other people's company socializing. Being social can mean that one makes sure that the deliverables have always technically high quality, so that when someone does take its time studying the details of the deliverables, regardless of whether the deliverables were created for money or through other arrangements, the details are properly finished and complete, so to speak, well polished.

My(Martin Vahi) grandfather, Ilmar Eiskop, used to say that reading a book is also a form of communication with the author of the book. I(Martin Vahi) think that a book can be seen as one really well polished, thorough, letter and reading letters and hearing other people out is an essential part of communication.

How to deal with Parasitic Groups

Destroying a group does not necessarily entail that at least some of its members have to be killed or kidnapped(imprisoned). It may entail that in some cases, but not always. Before starting a confrontation there should be at least some idea, preferably a plan, how to deescalate the confrontation. (Politologists tend to use the term "deescalation of conflict", but if the existence of a conflict is a binary value, like, it exists or it does not exist, then there is no way to increase it or decrease it in any other way than to create it or eliminate it and hence I prefer to use the term "confrontation", which is more precise.) Whether one's properties are strengths or weaknesses depends on the environment, including social environment. Hence one must work on getting oneself into an environment, where one's properties are strengths, not weaknesses. The least confrontational and most efficient way to do it is to find such an environment and move there, but if that is not possible for some reason, then one has to try to modify one's current environment to suit one's needs and that probably means that others have to be confronted, unless the changes are such that they do not care about the changes, id est they are indifferent about the changes. Which groups survive is a matter of evolution. How to destroy groups, how to choose, which groups to destroy and in which order to destroy them and which new groups need to be crated and in which order they need to be created is a matter of game theory.