What is herding? "The herd instinct. Why do people follow the lead of others? Herd instinct in art

IX. Herd instinct

We will not long rejoice at the illusory solution to the riddle of mass by this formula. We will immediately be disturbed by the thought that we have, in essence, referred to the riddle of hypnosis, in which there is still so much unresolved. And here a new objection to further research arises.

We must tell ourselves that the numerous affective attachments that we have noted in the masses are quite sufficient to explain one of its characteristic features: the lack of independence and initiative of the individual, the homogeneity of his reactions with the reactions of all others, his reduction, so to speak, to a mass individual. But the mass reveals something more if we consider it as a whole; traits of weakness of intellectual activity, affective uninhibition, inability to curb and delay, a tendency to cross boundaries in the manifestation of feelings and to the complete transition of these feelings into actions - all this, etc., so vividly outlined by Le Bon, creates an undoubted picture of regression of mental activity to an earlier stage, such as we usually find in savages and children. Such regression is especially characteristic of ordinary masses, while in highly organized artificial masses it cannot be deep, as we have heard.

Thus we get the impression of a state in which the individual emotional impulses and the personal intellectual act of the individual are too weak to manifest themselves separately, and must necessarily await reinforcement in the form of uniform repetition on the part of other people. Let us remember how many of these phenomena of dependence relate to the normal constitution of human society, how little originality and personal courage there is in it, how strongly each person is at the mercy of the attitudes of the mass soul, manifested in racial characteristics, class prejudices, public opinion, etc. e. The mystery of suggestive influence is increased for us by the affirmation of the fact that such influence is exerted not only by the leader, but also by each individual on another individual, and we reproach ourselves for the fact that we unilaterally emphasized the attitude towards the leader, without paying any attention to the other mutual suggestion factor.

Out of modesty, we will want to listen to another voice that promises us an explanation based on simpler principles. I borrow this explanation from W. Trotter's excellent book on the herd instinct and regret only that it did not completely escape the antipathy that resulted from the last great war.

Trotter considers the described mental phenomena of the masses to be a derivative of the herd instinct (gregariousness), which is innate both for humans and for other animal species. This gregariousness is biologically an analogy and, as it were, a continuation of multicellularity; in the sense of libidinal theory, it is a further manifestation of the tendency, arising from libido, of all homogeneous living beings to unite into units of large volume. An individual feels incomplete when he is alone. The fear of a small child is already a manifestation of this herd instinct. Contrary to the herd is tantamount to separation from it and is therefore avoided with fear. The herd denies everything new and unusual. The herd instinct is something primary that cannot be split up.

Trotter cites a number of drives (or instincts) that he considers primary: the instinct of self-preservation, nutrition, sexual instinct and herd instinct. The latter must often be opposed to other instincts. Consciousness of guilt and a sense of duty are the characteristic property of the gregarious animal. According to Trotter, the repressive forces that psychoanalysis discovered in the “I” also come from the herd instinct, and, consequently, the resistance that the doctor encounters during psychoanalytic treatment. Language owes its meaning to its ability to give people the opportunity for mutual understanding in a herd; it is mainly the identification of individuals with each other that rests on it.

Just as Le Bon focused primarily on characteristic short-lived masses, and Mc Dougall - stable societies, so Trotter focused his attention on the most common associations in which a person lives, this zwou politikou, and gave them a psychological justification. Trotter does not need to look for the origin of the herd instinct, since he considers it primary and insoluble. His remark that Boris Sidis considers the herd instinct to be a derivative of suggestibility is, fortunately, unnecessary for him; This is an explanation according to a well-known, unsatisfactory template, and the opposite position, which states that suggestibility is a derivative of the herd instinct, turned out to be more obvious to me.

But one can object to Trotter's presentation with even greater right than against others that it pays too little attention to the role of the leader in the mass, while we are inclined to the opposite opinion that the essence of the mass cannot be understood if we neglect leader. The herd instinct leaves no place for a leader at all, the leader only accidentally comes into the herd, and in connection with this stands the fact that from this instinct there is no path to the need for a deity; the flock lacks a shepherd. But, in addition, Trotter’s presentation can be psychologically refuted, that is, it can at least be made probable that the herd instinct is decomposing, that it is not primary in the same sense as the instinct of self-preservation and the sexual instinct.

Of course, it is not easy to trace the ontogenesis of the herd instinct. The fear of a small child left alone (Trotter interprets it as a manifestation of instinct) more easily allows for another interpretation. It refers to the mother, subsequently to other loved ones, and is an expression of an unfulfilled desire, with which the child does not know how to do anything except turn it into fear. The fear of a small child left alone with himself will not subside at the sight of any person “from the herd”; on the contrary, the approach of such a “stranger” will only cause fear. For a long time, nothing is noticed in the child that would speak of a herd instinct or a sense of mass (Massengef?hl). Such a feeling is formed only in nurseries, where there are many children, from their attitude towards their parents, namely: like the initial envy with which an older child meets a younger one. The eldest child would, of course, jealously oust the younger one, alienate him from his parents, deprive him of all rights, but due to the fact that this child, like all subsequent ones, is equally loved by his parents, the eldest child, not being able to maintain his hostile attitude without damage for himself, is forced to identify himself with other children, and in the children's environment a sense of mass or community arises, which receives its further development at school. The first demand of this reactive formation is the demand for justice, for everyone to be treated equally. It is known how loudly and persistently this demand manifests itself in school. If I myself cannot be a favorite, then at least let no one be a favorite. One could consider this transformation and replacement of jealousy with a feeling of mass in the nursery and at school as something implausible if the same process were not observed again a little later with different relationships.

The public spirit, esprit de corps, etc., which subsequently exert their influence in society, do not hide their origin from initial envy. No one should have the desire to advance, everyone should be equal to the other, everyone should have the same values. Social justice should mean that a person himself gives up a lot so that others also have to give it up, or - which is the same thing - cannot demand it. This demand for equality is the root of social conscience and the sense of duty. In an unexpected way we find it in the fear of infection in syphilitics, which we understand thanks to psychoanalysis. The fear of these unfortunates is an expression of their resistance against the unconscious desire to spread their infection to others. For why should they alone be infected and deprived of so much, while others should not? The beautiful parable of Solomon's judgment has this same core. If one woman's child dies, then the other should not have a living child either. By this desire it was possible to recognize the victim.

So, social feeling rests on the transformation of a feeling that was initially hostile into a positively colored attachment, which has the character of identification. Since we have so far traced this process, it appears that this transformation is accomplished under the influence of a general tender affection for a person standing outside the mass. Our analysis of identification seems to us to be inexhaustive, but for our present purpose it is sufficient to return to the proposition that the mass demands strict adherence to equality. We have already heard in the discussion of both artificial masses, the church and the army, that their prerequisite is the equal love of the leader for all members of the mass. But we do not forget that the demand for equality that exists among the masses applies only to its individual members and does not concern the leader. All members of the mass should be equal to each other, but they all want the leader to rule over them. Many equal to each other, able to identify with each other, and one single one, superior to them all - this is the situation that exists in a viable mass. Consequently, we allow ourselves to make a correction to Trotter’s expression that man is a herd animal; he is rather an animal of the horde, a participant in the horde led by a leader.

Herd instinct and its manifestations. Varieties of the desire to be like everyone else. Correction of this condition in yourself.

What is herd instinct

P.A. Kropotkin, a scientist and Russian revolutionary anarchist, believed that solidarity was a quality that was inherent in almost every person.

At the University of Leeds (UK), scientists put forward a theory regarding 5%. They showed by example that this number of people is quite enough to subjugate 95% of other ordinary people.

In this case, the herd instinct automatically kicks in, and on a subconscious level, a person begins to do what 5% of demonstrators do. Even if he did not like the performance of an artist, he automatically begins to applaud him because of the applause of part of the audience.

Varieties of herd instinct

This phenomenon covers many aspects of human life. Among them, the leading positions are occupied by religion, politics, art, advertising and the sex life of ordinary people. It is in these areas that it is easiest to manipulate people's consciousness.

Religious herd instinct

• Sects. Such islands of “spiritual cleansing” began to operate most actively in our country in the early 90s. Taking advantage of the confusion of people after the collapse of the USSR, pseudo-prophets began to create societies that were later able to cloud the brains of even adequate individuals. At the same time, the herd instinct worked uninterruptedly, because the person wanted to believe in the best and reached for a ghostly dream. Experts were interested in the fact that the sect leaders were excellent psychologists and speakers. In their arguments to the public, they relied on Christian postulates, while destroying human souls and gathering fanatics into a controlled herd. The most dangerous sects are Jehovah's Witnesses, Calvary Chapel and Peoples Temple.
• Communes. These organizations can be called the highest manifestation of a dangerous association of people on religious grounds. If the community lives at a monastery, where everyone can see its activities, then this is not a problem. However, manipulators do not stop at such modest means of obtaining funds for their existence and arrange entire settlements of adherents of the created idol. An example is the “Manson Family” community, in which the herd instinct made people slaves of someone else’s will and cruel killers.

Sexual herd instinct

1. Dogma about procreation. One of the most common stereotypes is that people (especially women) worry about their infertility. If you do not take into account the moral side of the issue, but use logic, then interesting facts emerge. Society is wary of those individuals who cannot reproduce offspring. There is a stereotype that a person must continue the family line and give the new citizen his own set of chromosomes. However, with a great desire to have a child, people often forget that orphanages exist. Psychologists believe the reason for this fear is associating oneself with the animal environment. In any herd, an infertile female automatically becomes the lowest link among animals. For the same reason, society, with the help of church dogmas, condemns concepts such as homosexuality, lesbianism and other types of sexuality that do not ultimately lead to the conception of a child.
2. Social cliché about jealousy. Another stereotype is the opinion that this is a manifestation of love for your sexual partner. Experts say that the voiced feeling has nothing to do with passion and the desire to always be close to a certain person. They consider the basis of jealousy to be the fear of losing their rank in the herd hierarchy.
3. Monogamy stereotype. Some researchers believe that this model of the institution of marriage was created by people who feared competition from males and females of higher herd rank. According to sex therapists, the idea remains a pointless waste of time: representatives of the herd hierarchy can still afford to have a harem. Sexual freedom is unrealistic among people with a herd instinct. Whether this is good or bad is up to each person to decide based on his views on life and morality.

Political herd instinct

• Patriotism. Such a social feeling is inherent in people who love their homeland and the population that lives in it. It was this political principle that helped many peoples repel the attacks of the enemy who encroached on their lands. However, it is quite dangerous when it develops into fanaticism and hypertrophied leavened patriotism.
• Nationalism. This ideology can be of a civil, ethnic and cultural nature. The manifestation of the herd instinct can develop into aggression with extreme nationalism, because it begins to resemble extremism.
• Racism. Such a belief system has no place in a civilized society. At one time, the herd instinct played a cruel joke on the planters of the southern states of America, who owned black slaves. Policies of racial discrimination may call for either the deprivation of the rights and freedoms of people from another human population system or their complete destruction.
• Religious hostility. This intolerance towards representatives of other faiths and its propaganda are punishable by law. However, quite often the herd instinct kicks in when the crowd is turned on by an experienced manipulator.

Advertising herd instinct

Quite often children become the targets of advertising. It is important for them to get a fashionable toy that does not leave TV screens. Moreover, your classmates have it, but you need to be like everyone else and not yield to them in anything. A child will prefer an advertised and rather harmful sweet, but will not ask his parents to buy a high-quality domestic product.

Some adults are not far removed from their children and strive to take possession of a branded item. They reason on the principle that if they take everything, then it is a profitable and rational purchase. Such people are magnetically affected by slogans like “do as we do; do it with us."

Politicians also skillfully use the psychology of the herd instinct. Quite often, the advertising of their party looks like a leader in the foreground, behind whom stands a whole crowd of like-minded people. After the communist videos, war veterans feel like an important component of the party, which reminds them of the times of their distant youth.

Herd instinct in art

If you don't like the theater, you are immediately labeled as a person who cannot understand beauty.

People themselves develop a herd instinct, obeying the opinion of the crowd. Any preferences in art are a matter of taste, but the resulting stereotypes are firmly deposited in the minds of ordinary people.

Ways to combat the herd instinct

Society does not like “white crows” and calls them crazy people. The grief of such individuals is precisely from their mind. Possessing high intelligence, they do not want to blend in with the crowd. As a result, such people remain lonely rebels. It is quite difficult not to cause rejection from society and at the same time be an extraordinary person. However, even mediocrity does not always dream of becoming a small link in a single whole.

Psychologists advise correcting your herd instinct as follows:

1. Staying calm in any situation. The energy of the crowd only affects a person when he is emotionally overexcited. This is especially true for overly impressionable and exalted individuals. Calmness is a powerful weapon against manipulators.
2. Turning on the brain 100%. A highly developed personality will never become a victim of the herd mentality. Pseudo-prophets usually do not associate with such people. The exception is the leaders of Scientology, who were hooked by John Travolta and Tom Cruise.
3. Analysis of your own behavior. It is recommended to understand your inner “I”, highlighting positive and negative character traits and existing desires. Having understood yourself, it is easier to develop a further plan of action. You can allow ambition to take precedence over prudence for a while, because it is they who are the incentive to destroy your desire to be like everyone else.
4. Destroying stereotypes. It is not necessary to become a rebel and go against the crowd. However, people must understand that in front of them is a person with a clear life position and personal preferences. You don’t have to go against your will to watch a fashionable film or visit a well-advertised exhibition just because they caused a public stir.
5. Raising self-esteem. Individuals with a herd instinct are most often not confident in themselves. They are hurt by criticism from the outside, and they try to stay in the shadow of the leader. You should love yourself and understand your individuality.
6. Doing something interesting. In the company of extraordinary people there is a reality and you can learn something yourself. At the same time, you should not be afraid of the formation of a herd instinct in such a community, because such individuals do not copy each other’s actions.
7. Developing a sense of humor and communication skills. It is the voiced qualities that distinguish a person from the gray mass. To do this, it is recommended to read humorous books and watch funny talk shows.
8. Life for yourself and family. It is necessary, first of all, to put your own interests above all else, and not the opinions of others that society imposes. If this does not turn into selfishness, then such a line of behavior will not allow a person to merge with the crowd.

Bylinina Alena

1. Introduction

All animals in nature are characterized by a herd lifestyle. A herd is a hierarchical system in which each individual has its own role. Sometimes (usually when applied to predators) it is called not a herd, but a flock, but the essence of the herd does not change because it was called differently.

Man also has an instinct for herd hierarchy. In fact, the human herd differs from the herd of animals only in what qualities determine the rank of an individual in the herd. Unlike animals, physical strength plays a much smaller role in humans; much more important is the size of the wallet, belonging to one or another social class, etc. But only external signs of herd rank. The mechanism of action of the herd instinct in humans is practically no different from that in animals.

Purpose of the study:

Find out why people like to blend in with the crowd. Is it easy for a person to succumb to the herd instinct? How to get rid of this quality.

1. Consider the theory of this issue.

2. Find out with the help of literature about people who, afraid to stand out from the crowd, committed offenses.

3. Conduct a survey among teenagers on the topic: “Is it easy for you to blend in with the crowd?” Draw conclusions.

Download:

Preview:

VIII regional festival-competition

research works and creative projects of students in the field of social sciences, humanities, art and culture

"Your path to discovery"

"The herd instinct.

Why do people follow other people's lead?

http://zoonovosti.by/board/post23460.html

Herd instinct and conflicts of our subconscious.

Interpersonal contradictions, the struggle between people when their interests, ideas, judgments and outlooks on life collide, lead to conflicts. Conflicts are the scourge of modern society, sometimes causing an irreparable blow to people’s relationships and causing numerous psychosomatic illnesses.

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

But if you analyze, it turns out that at the heart of any seemingly unnecessary scandal, any aggression, any action lies a motivating reason, a subconscious hope for the result that is desirable to obtain. At work, such reasons may be the desire to increase your earnings or 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 certain goal. They are determined by 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 those around them, but also by the scandalous person himself.

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

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

Human behavior is based on urgent needs, as well as primitive instincts and desires that we do not realize are determined by biological impulses. It is ancient instincts that often cause conflict situations, determining the behavior of modern man. We inherited these instincts from our distant ancestors; they were useful in the past, but now they have lost their value and only hinder us.

However, alas, the motives of modern man’s behavior are in many ways similar to the motives of animal behavior. 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 behavior of people around us.

So, a large flock of monkeys is in a fenced area under the supervision of scientists. As in living nature, a flock has its own hierarchy. Separation by rank is the law of any pack. There is always a leader, the head of the pack, as well as first-ranking males and females, second-ranking ones, outcasts, and children. And so they put a feeding cage with a cunning lock on the monkeys’ territory. In the cage there is a delicacy of selected ripe bananas. The monkeys want bananas, they fiddle irritably around the cage, but they can’t get the bananas: they can’t reach through the bars of the cage, and they can’t open the lock.

Then the scientists isolate the least authoritative male monkey from the pack. And away from everyone, they are taught to open exactly the same lock on another cage. They demonstrate and train a skill. Finally, the monkey understood everything, learned it. She is returned to the pack. The monkey looks contentedly approaches the feeder, manipulates the constipation and takes out a banana! The whole flock, resigned to the fact that the lock will not open, stares in surprise at its relative and gathers near the cage. The leader of the pack jumps up, slaps the “smart guy”, takes the banana and eats it himself.

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

But the experiment continues: scientists remove the leader of the pack and now teach him to open this complex lock. Having taught them, they release them back into the flock.

The leader importantly approaches the feeder, takes out a banana and demonstratively, with obvious superiority, begins to eat it. The flock gathers in a circle, carefully watches how the leader deliciously deals with the banana, takes out another tasty fruit and again eats it himself. Everyone is waiting for the leader to get enough. After which the first-ranking male tries to repeat the manipulations he saw with the lock. It doesn’t work right away, 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 the monkey who opened the 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 turned out to be quite a sociological experience. In particular, the writer M. Weller spoke enthusiastically about this experience. Indeed, understanding the results of experience provides important conclusions for human society. After all, in the human subconscious lies the most ancient herd instinct, 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 you need coordination. For this, the pack needs a leader. The leader unites, protects and guides the pack; submission to the leader makes the pack and each individual of this pack less vulnerable to enemies. Following the orders of the leader is the key to one’s own safety. Submission to the leader of the pack or the desire to take his place is an adaptive biological group survival instinct that promotes self-preservation and reproduction. The desire to obey, please, and be close to a socially significant individual gives a feeling 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 flock there is a constant struggle for leadership between socially significant individuals. The authority of a leader is gained in fights with relatives. In nature, physical strength and courage provide superiority. The strongest male comes to the fore, capable of organizing a flock for hunting, obtaining food 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, first of all, go to the leaders. A strong male must pass on his genes to as many females as possible. This is the ancient law of pack survival.

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

Like any pack, a community of people still organizes itself into classes, ranks, and castes. There is numerous evidence of this.

Once, back in Soviet times, an experiment was conducted in several colonies for minors. There they selected teenagers who suffered from the oppression of their brothers (located at the very bottom of a kind of social ladder) and isolated them. And what? After some time, a hierarchy arose again among the selected teenagers with new leaders and even more cruel oppression and bullying by the “leaders” of the children 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, then the thieves, then the peasants, followed by the so-called goats and finally the most despised prisoners.

In the army, the rank system is enshrined in law. According to the Charter, military personnel are obliged to unquestioningly obey their senior rank. This makes the army easily controllable, capable of carrying out any order from 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 and official status, which forces subordinates to be in a lower position. That’s why our saying is so popular and true: “You’re the boss, I’m a fool, I’m the boss, you’re a fool.” The opinion of a person with a lower status and worse financial situation is taken into account last.

Let's consider another interesting experiment. Or rather, I found information about different experiments, very similar in design and results. One was conducted with laboratory rats, the other with mice. I'll tell you about rats.

An additional room was added to the cage with the animals and the feeding trough 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 side of the pool farthest from the rats.

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

Then the pool was filled with water. A pack of rats has gathered on the site, the animals are running, worried, squeaking: they want to eat, but the only way to get to the feeding trough is by swimming. Rats really don't like to swim!

Rats have an instinct that is useful for packs. In case of danger and in difficult, unpredictable situations, a flock usually risks the life of only one, of course, not the most important individual. So, when you eat suspicious food, you suddenly become poisoned? Only one animal tries it at first. The others watch and wait. If everything is in order with the rat, then the whole flock begins to eat. And reconnaissance of an unfamiliar situation 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 arriving rat by stronger individuals. However, reconnaissance was 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 the food. There were more people who didn't swim. Therefore, individual rats had to swim up to 10 times before they were allowed to eat the food brought. Everyone swam differently. Some 2-3 times, some more. There were one or two animals that made just one swim, just for themselves. These individuals, in my opinion, are quite strong and respected in the pack; they do not strive for leadership, but can stand up for themselves and avoid harassment. When applied to people, this type often withdraws from society, becoming a hermit or a philosopher.

However, that's a different story. In our experiment, scientists selected and isolated animals that made swims, and left only those who took food. And again the situation repeated itself, division occurred again. Only the fights on the site between the arriving rats and those who continued to take the food became more brutal.

It is clear that 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 pack leaders would take food away from him. In any pack, it is normal to take away from those lower in the hierarchy.

But even people high in the hierarchical ladder have the opportunity to rob those of less importance of their work, their ideas, their women, finally. Power and position in society make it possible to control people, appropriate their labor, and satisfy one’s despotic ambitions.

At the same time, in order not to be deprived, you need to fight for your place in 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 need to be at the top of the social ladder. This law is fixed on our subconscious level.

And people fight, sometimes not even consciously, for leadership, listen and try to please the one they consider the leader, but ignore and criticize those whom they place below themselves in the hierarchy. At the same time, a person’s authority is often gained not by physical strength, but by intellect, the ability to persuade, and prove. Of course, pedigree, connections, and money matter.

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

Boys and men more actively strive for high status, compete in games and work, defining the hierarchy and their place in it. Women more often sacrifice success and self-realization in order to maintain relationships. They show off their achievements less. 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 their spouse or work colleagues. By 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 the recommendations they make are not implemented. They usually react sharply when a woman tries to “rule” the family or begins to belittle her husband.

Men are stronger than women; in nature, males are usually stronger than females. But at the animal level there is an instinctive prohibition against showing aggression towards females. And a person has many similar deep attitudes. However, here too people have “moved away” from animals: some men are capable of hitting a woman. However, the majority adheres to social norms that prescribe not to show physical violence against women. But often a man can react aggressively to a woman’s disdain for his person. 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. Men are ready to provide care and attention to obedient women. That is why the objects of knightly treatment are usually meek, non-aggressive, compliant ladies. It is these women who have a subconscious desire to please their men.

However, many women express dissatisfaction with their interests being ignored. This is usually the cause of conflicts in the family. A woman's attempt to achieve equality often leads to scandal.

Of course, compliance, capitulation to a woman’s demands, a subconscious willingness to consider her higher in rank also manifests itself in some men. Ordinary people consider such people to be henpecked.

Psychologists say that making concessions demonstrates "good will" and serves as a positive behavioral model. But concessions can be subconsciously perceived by others as a sign of weakness. The proverb: “If you don’t do good to people, you won’t get evil” from this area. Agreeable people want to please others and try to help them. But sometimes help begins to be taken for granted. On an unconscious level, a kind person may be viewed as inferior in rank. And instead of gratitude, demand more and more concessions from him. This can lead to conflict.

The phenomenon of the unconscious was substantiated by Sigmund Freud. The unconscious, according to Freud, arose as an inevitable consequence of the action of the personality's defense mechanisms (DM). 3Ms are not recognized by the individual himself, but they help overcome the discrepancy between expectations and the understanding of the impossibility of one’s expectations. What is hidden in a person’s subconscious is manifested in his dreams, fantasies, jokes, slips and slips. However, SMs can be an unconscious source of conflicts with others. ZM can drive intrapersonal conflict deeper and lead to mental illness.

3M is rarely limited to the sphere of human mental activity; it goes into action. If a subordinate, offended by his boss, kicks the dog on the way home, and at home scolds his wife for a bad dinner or may hit her for no apparent reason, then a defense mechanism of substituting aggression is at work here. One object is replaced by another. The victim becomes not the direct source of mental trauma, but the weaker person who comes to hand.

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

Hooligans behave in a similar way.

Unmotivated aggression is usually associated with the desire to demonstrate superiority in strength. This is how the aggressor asserts himself, trying to subconsciously become more significant through violence.

Z. Freud studied the subconscious motives of human behavior associated with sexual attraction. He was accused of destroying morality and facilitating sexual debauchery. 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 identify the following causes of conflicts: mismatch of goals and interests of people, threat to security, unmet needs and desire for superiority, inequality, as well as information 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, scolding of a boss against a subordinate, husband against wife, mother-in-law against son-in-law, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, the roots of conflicts in any team usually have precisely this nature.

Let's take my mother-in-law, for example. 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 is 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 are highlighted, and his actions are perceived critically. The mother-in-law does not listen to her son-in-law, they do not adapt to his interests, she only tries to dictate, and demands material benefits for her daughter. If a man has a desire for leadership, conflicts in such a family are inevitable.

In order to justify their attitude towards those whom they subconsciously place below themselves in social status, they try to attribute negative qualities to them: cowardice, stupidity, meanness, greed, harmfulness. This is not always the case.

But personal attacks and insults (“you’re good for nothing,” “your hands are growing out of nowhere,” “you’re a complete fool,” “you don’t understand anything in life,” “it’s hard to live with such an idiot”), didactic instructions, comments about external form, criticism of actions, ignoring the opponent (as if they do not notice him) all this is connected with the subconscious desire to humiliate a person in order to give rise to uncertainty in him, to awaken feelings of powerlessness and inferiority.

However, the manifestation of intolerance and aggressiveness is an integral part of the law of a social group, which prescribes division by rank and the struggle for leadership. This law is valid for a pride, a family, a general group of people, a work team. The driving force behind this law is the herd instinct. It is one of 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 attraction.

Basic instincts make up 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 know how to live by reason. The higher a person climbed the evolutionary ladder, the less influence instincts had on us, the more often our actions were determined by the mind. The behavior of modern man has also acquired specific features regulated by a system of moral principles.

For example, our feeling of natural fear associated with the instinct of self-preservation is superimposed with a feeling of duty or shame at the thought of possible cowardice. Thus, the result of the same danger when attacked by the enemy during military operations 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 his instincts are in his behavior. Raging passions are characteristic primarily of “lumpen” psychology, of the criminal environment, where relationships within the community are largely determined by instincts and brute physical force.

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

As for conflicts, they should be avoided. The optimal strategy would be to avoid the conflict. It is best not to come across the eyes of a disgruntled boss, angry mother-in-law, neighbor or mother-in-law.

If this cannot be done, do not get drawn into the conflict. Do not react to rudeness, do not respond to provocations, do not make excuses, do not argue. Your role in the conflict is to disrupt the enemy’s scenario, not to give him the opportunity to use you to defuse and strengthen his own subconscious status.

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

Usually, to self-justify his behavior, the instigator of the conflict looks for a reason (as in Krylov’s famous fable, the wolf, before attacking the lamb, tries to attribute unseemly actions to it in order to present himself as a judge carrying out fair 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 for relieving negativity.

As a last resort, remain calm, agree, do not provoke an aggressive reaction, and show respect. The enemy comes at you with rudeness, and you try to calm him down, agree with him. He begins to be indignant about dinner, and you ask for advice: how best to prepare this dish. Demonstrate good intentions and a desire to maintain a good relationship with a person who is ready for a scandal. Praise and ask his opinion more often, but try not to become dependent. Even in the most critical situation, one should show ingenuity and find the most acceptable solutions.

Of course, there are “difficult” people, communication with whom 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 underlying motives of your behavior and the behavior of others, you can learn to avoid unnecessary breakdowns, disputes and scandals.

Continuation of the topic.

Reading time: 2 min

Herd mentality is a concept used in psychology and other social disciplines, but it is not a scientific term, but rather a figurative analogue for a brief description of a rather voluminous concept. Briefly, it can be described as motivating one’s own actions solely because the majority of a social group of individuals does so (everyone skipped class or offended the weak, shouted at a match or got married this year, boycotted a certain person or defended the party’s position).

The herd feeling in people differs from the same mechanism in the animal world, where the behavior of a large mass of representatives of one species is regulated not by personal preferences and necessity, but by biological laws. This is a useful evolutionary acquisition of the animal world, allowing the preservation of the population. For example, when one individual begins to run away, it is much more effective for everyone else to run away than to wait for immediate danger to see for themselves. In the context of human behavior, it rather implies an inability to react individually, obeying the laws of the crowd and mass behavior.

The herd feeling or herd instinct is subject to certain biological characteristics of the human psyche, for example, the establishment of certain rhythms and cycles - this is how applause in the crowd, the menstrual periods of women in the same territory, and even the time of wakefulness and hunger are synchronized. Accordingly, using this expression implies an initial attitude towards manifestations of human behavior as lower, animal, biologically determined forms.

Not all people gathered in one place behave like a herd - only the presence of intellectual control over their own behavior is the determining factor. Consequently, the fewer intellectually informed decisions that take into account individual needs, the higher the likelihood of instinctive behavior at the animal level.

What it is

The effect of the herd feeling in its prevalence can be compared with hypnotizability, that is, there are people susceptible to such influence, and there are those who can successfully control these characteristics. Research has shown that in human contexts, herd mentality occurs depending on who is the motivator of the action.

If in the animal world the entire population can obey one, then in the human environment it is important that the influencer be a leader, have charisma or express the fulfillment of the desires of the majority of those gathered. Further, everything is much simpler - for a huge crowd, from two to five percent of such leaders are enough, capable of eventually forcing the entire mass to act as they do. No special technologies are required for this - the main thing is that these few percent behave in the same way, harmoniously, then the rest, with less expression of leadership, will begin to copy their behavior.

The speed of achieving the effect directly depends on the number of people - the more, the faster the result. This is due to the fact that when interacting one-on-one, physical difference and separateness are very strongly felt, but when in a crowd, the feeling of community and similarity comes to the fore, individuality is erased. As a result, the stronger the physical feeling of one’s involvement in the group and the feeling of its continuation in one’s psyche, the more pronounced the crowd or herd effect will be due to the fact that one’s own individuality, as well as the cognitive-intellectual assessment of the situation, will fade into the background.

This effect deserves special attention because of its problematic consequences, because when a herd feeling arises, moral and value foundations finally fall, a person feels complete impunity for any actions. This is achieved due to the fact that the level of responsibility for one action performed is the same, only if the action is performed by one person, then he is fully responsible for the results, if there are two, then this level is divided between them, but if hundreds of people do this, then the level of personal We don’t feel any responsibility.

Such impunity opens up access to the commission of those actions that are unacceptable for the individual level of consciousness; as a result, it is the crowd that can do anything. The absence of internal moral frameworks lowers a person to the state of the psyche of an animal, and if you then talk to the person who committed the crime, succumbing to the crowd effect, you can often encounter remorse and misunderstanding of your own actions.

Causes

The reasons for this effect exist on several levels. The first is the least controllable - biological and innate synchronization. Human bodies, like all living things, are subject to certain rhythms and it is their submission to general laws that ensures survival. Evolutionarily, the synchronization of behavior ensured favorable relationships, coordinated work and the provision of the necessary security for the entire human community. These mechanisms have been preserved to some extent, although they can be corrected by consciousness and intellect, and by developing one’s own behavioral strategies.

There is a mechanism for the influence of minorities on the behavior of the general mass. So, if you give a crowd of a hundred people the task of walking along arbitrary paths, and only five of them will move in a certain trajectory, then after a few minutes the entire system will be synchronized, and the crowd will walk according to the algorithm specified by the five people. It will be more difficult to do the same if everyone is motivated by their own movement strategy; accordingly, the herd effect occurs when a person does not have his own concept. Those who sit idle, do not understand what they want, are not sure of their goals - are more easily influenced on the grounds that the empty space is easy to fill.

There are also more controlled manifestations of this feeling, for example, the need to be accepted or the fear of being excluded from a certain group. Compliance with rituals gives a sign to everyone around that it is yours, it needs to be protected and benefits shared - this is how people enter subcultures and circles of interests, this is how people recognize those close to them in spirit. When the need for interaction becomes higher than one’s own principles, then subordination to the demands of the crowd arises, for the sake of maintaining a place in it.

Examples of herd mentality

Examples of herd sentiment appear in any large society that is specially ordered. For example, if it is a queue, then a negative attitude towards those passing without waiting is a programmed feeling. In the same way, we can talk about a herd reaction to latecomers for any session set by time, be it a conference, an operation, a movie or a meeting of friends. This does not apply to moral standards, etiquette and the internal feeling of violating one’s own boundaries, because, in fact, a person’s personal participation is in no way affected by this behavior of another. Only in the context of a personal meeting, an individual exam, can we talk about something else - if there is a majority that is unfamiliar with each other, then this is a crowd effect.

Another example is that it is different for all people, but if you gather a fairly large audience, you will notice that everyone will react emotionally in approximately the same way. As soon as a few people laugh, the whole room starts laughing with them. What is typical is that even if one finds what is happening funny, he is more likely to restrain himself from expressing this clearly if there is silence and everyone is listening with serious faces. In completely extreme cases, people may not even notice the comedy or seriousness of the situation, succumbing to the influence of surrounding facial expressions.

In relation to assembled audiences of students, the same herd feeling operates, plunging teachers into powerlessness. When interested individuals begin to skip classes because the whole group has left or speak negatively about an interesting subject. The difficulty of management lies in the fact that not everyone decides to leave the pair, but only a few people, but when this choice is made by emotional leaders, despite the fact that half of the audience is not defined in their learning motivation, the outcome remains the same.

Vivid examples are the behavior of fans and fans, religious figures and people at rallies. In fact, if you talk to them in dialogue, the majority will behave more restrained. But the herd mentality concerns not only active actions, but also ignoring. Remember how passers-by pretend not to notice someone who has fallen, or how subway passengers pretend to be asleep. Here the motivation is not so much in achievement, but in the desire not to stand out from the crowd, not to help the fallen, and therefore not to take responsibility (or maybe he won’t get up because he died), not to give up his place, expecting others to do it.

Speaker of the Medical and Psychological Center "PsychoMed"