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 we have noted among the masses are quite sufficient to explain one of its characteristic features: lack of independence and initiative in the individual, 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. 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 another factor of mutual suggestion.
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 wonderful book W. Trotter about the herd instinct and my only regret is that she did not completely escape the antipathy that resulted from the latter 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 further decomposed (which 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 focused on stable societies, so Trotter focused his attention on the most widespread associations in which man 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 in 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, who can identify with each other, and one and only one who surpasses 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.
This article will be dedicated to people who are accustomed to living according to the “herd principle”. From the point of view of banal erudition, the herd, as an individual, critically metaphosizing in its abstraction, it cannot be ignored by theoretical subjectivism - this is how the concept of the human herd sounds in a psychology manual.
This or that value of the sum depends on the value of the units... Our entire sociology knows no other instinct than the instinct of the herd, that is, summed up zeros, where each zero has “the same rights,” where it is considered a virtue to be a zero... Nietzsche
But, we all know very well that the herd is people who have their own leader. A striking example of a herd are the so-called “Bounty” from the movie “Bad Girls” (in leading role Lindsay Lohan, I advise you to watch it at your leisure). The Bounty is a school herd, led by Regina George, the leader. Its principle is this: whatever Regina tells us, we will do.
Yes, on the one hand, it’s not bad to be in such a herd: you have your own specific place (fun or fashionista, for example), everyone thinks and treats different things the same way, and in general you don’t have to strain your brain too much, because the leader decides everything for you .
The crowd doesn't like loners; it recognizes only false people who imitate each other in everything. The crowd despises anyone who keeps to themselves, who stands up for their rights, defends their freedom, does their own thing, regardless of the consequences. — Osho
But not everything is as good as it seems at first glance. Let's look at everything pros and cons of herd. To those already listed above pros some of my friends (who live according to the “herd principle”) they include: understanding each other, ease of communication, mutual assistance and... Doesn’t this remind you of some kind of closed sect? Joke. Yes, it’s not bad if you occupy a certain place in the herd, but a counter question arises: “Who am I if there is no herd nearby?”
The biggest disadvantage the herd is what is disadvantaged in it and human individualism is destroyed. This implies incorrect behavior, which is considered wrong in the herd: you cannot do something without the consent of others, and if you do, Goodbye herd. A little radical, but that's how it is. Everyone knows the concept of collectivism from the history of the USSR.
The crowd can forgive anything and anyone, but not a person who is able to remain himself under the pressure of its contemptuous ridicule. — Ayn Rand
To some extent, it may have justified itself, but what did it lead to - collapse Soviet Union. In essence, the USSR (with all its advantages) is the same herd, only on a larger scale.
The “herd principle” of life is with us every day: one of his friends bought some new fashionable blouse, and literally the next day all the other friends got an almost similar one, some of the friends started smoking new cigarettes and everyone, praising this new brand, began to smoke the same ones.
People can only be tolerated alone; a crowd is too close to the animal world. — Franz Grillparzer
This, How unconditioned reflex Pavlova (when the dog produced gastric juice when the light bulb was turned on), which is produced, but which can be easily gotten rid of.
People who express their individuality and are not part of the herd receive some kind of pressure in return from all sides. It’s just that the herd destroys everyone who is not part of it: the individualist’s “dirty laundry” gets aired, gossip arises, and in general everything is done according to the principle “If you are not like everyone else, then you have no place on this planet at all.”
Do you know why this is done? All because the herd is afraid of individualists. This is due to the fact that an individualist, morally and psychological concepts, much stronger than these supporters of herd life.
People who are not afraid to show maximum enthusiasm and creativity achieve the highest results both in life and in recognition in society (over time, of course). I don’t mean to stand out from the crowd with red hair and a lot of tattoos on the body (although as an option, it’s really nothing). Just do not give in to pressure from others and do not always “adapt” to others, showing your character and nature.
adminThe term “herd mentality” is not scientific. This is a figurative expression. People use it to describe the behavior of others when they behave like animals in a herd. What is herd feeling? What does the 5% law say and what are the features of crowd psychology?
Crowd psychology or what is herd feeling?
Science knows the concept of “crowd psychology”. It explains what the herd feeling is and how it manifests itself, namely:
A crowd of people is more aggressive than an individual;
The crowd is easily susceptible to emotion and suggestion;
The crowd is not able to assess the situation with a “cold” mind;
The crowd does not reason or ask questions;
The crowd is malleable, it is easy to push it to a mass event (riot, rally, protest, criticism, condemnation);
The crowd does not accept individuality;
The crowd acts at the direction of the leader, without thinking or weighing its own actions.
This is inexplicable, but sometimes even intellectually developed people are subject to “herd mentality.” In an exaggerated way, it happens like this: once at a protest, a person chants slogans with those around him, and when left alone, he thinks and understands that his own “I” does not want to express protests, condemn and demand changes.
Or seeing a crowd of people running in an unknown direction, a person joins them, without understanding why. Subconsciously, he believes that since everyone is running, that means I should too. In this state, people are capable of finding themselves in a completely unfamiliar area, and then “biting their elbows”, wondering how to get home.
Manifestations of herd feelings are well remembered by people who found themselves in queues in the USSR. A man stood for hours for a thing that he, in general, did not need. They did this because “other people take it, so I need it too.”
Submission to the energy of the crowd is a direct path to failure, loss of time, false aspirations and even illness. The pattern of development of the disease is simple, and older people are especially susceptible to this. Someone tells an elderly man that government agencies The main thieves are in power. The elderly person does not have the opportunity to verify this personally, and he blindly believes the speaking “well-wisher”. As a result, a person thinks about it with increasing negativity. Having succumbed to suggestion, he becomes nervous, filled with anger, and negative emotions may well lead to a heart attack.
Alcoholism is also an example of a herd mentality. Why does a devotee become a drinker when he finds himself in the company of drinkers? The reason is clear: when others drink, it is difficult to resist; the energy of the drinkers absorbs individual beliefs. They also become smokers and drug addicts “for company.”
Herd mentality and the law of five percent
In psychology there is the concept of “auto-synchronization”. It manifests itself like this: if 5% of the members of a society perform a specific action, the remaining members will also repeat it. If you spook 5% of the horses in a field, the entire herd will bolt. If 5% of pigeons fly, the whole flock will fly up.
This is also typical for human society. Scientists from England conducted an experiment. Several people were invited into a large room. Of these, 5% were instructed to move along a specific trajectory, the rest were told that they could move in any direction. As a result of the experiment, all the people in the room unconsciously moved along a given trajectory. The theory of five percent can be confirmed by everyone. After attending a concert with a group of friends, start clapping at the moment you see fit. The whole room will eventually repeat after you.
Launching auto-synchronization is possible in a team where people are not aware of their own actions and do not think about the purpose and reason. If the level of self-control is low, there is no need to tell everyone what to do - 5% of people in society will start this process.
The Law of Five Percent is actively used by marketers. Starting a rumor that soon there will be no specific type of product left on the shelves. 5% of people will believe this and rush to buy up the supposed shortage. By their own behavior they will trigger mass panic and in the next couple of days there will really be no goods left.
What are the benefits of herd mentality?
Man is a social being. Life without other people is unnatural for a person. Despite the fact that humans have evolved far from animals, we are no different from primates when it comes to collective consciousness. One of these phenomena is the herd feeling.
The everyday idea of herd feeling is negative, which is also, in general, a manifestation of the herd instinct. People tend not to have own opinion, but to completely trust the statements of an authoritative person or group of people. People generally do not require confirmation or justification. This feature is actively manipulated by the media, marketers, politicians and public figures. 
Once psychologists reported that herd mentality is not good, people believed it without thinking about the evidence. People take advantage of the convenient opportunity to repeat other people's thoughts, although the manifestations of herd feelings are not clear-cut.
What are the advantages of the herd instinct? Of course, an aggressive crowd of people, when everyone around them acts as a single organism, without thinking or asking questions, is rather an extreme manifestation of the herd instinct. But there is still a positive component in the herd feeling. Let’s say that the vast majority of reasonable people will not travel along a dangerous road if they have been warned about it. The herd feeling in such cases saves lives and helps to take profitable actions.
In order not to fall into the trap of crowd energy and become a victim of herd mentality, you need to learn and remain calm in critical situations. The crowd can both save and destroy. By showing awareness and a “cold” mind, you can avoid many negative impacts from outside.
March 14, 2014, 11:14In addition to the instincts listed in the book “”, let’s consider another, so-called “herd instinct”. We will understand by it inexplicable human desire(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 it is most reliable for an individual to preserve his gene. And the herd instinct does not bring anything fundamentally new to us.
However, the other day I came across the following definition of the herd instinct on Wikipedia:
Herd instinct is a mechanism underlying the instinct of self-preservation, applicable equally to both people 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 should examine this issue in more detail.
First of all, relying only on , we will show our complete disagreement with all provisions of this definition.
- Firstly, as shown in, there is no independent instinct of self-preservation. There is only a corollary of the same name from the Law (or Instinct) of Gene Preservation.
- Secondly, it is NOT pointless to look for the causes and derivatives of the herd instinct, since it is precisely NOT primary.
Let us recall along the way how primary and secondary statements (or instincts) differ. If statement A implies statement B, but 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 could we explain the regular disintegration of the herd? Especially the constant expulsion from the herd of young males who have entered reproductive age or, conversely, elderly males?
And they are explained very simply, through
- Young, grown-up males begin to pose a threat to the genetic purity of the offspring of a harem of a dominant, but not yet old and strong male.
- Expelled young males leave the herd and begin to look for the opportunity to form their own herd, not out of herd instinct, but with the sole purpose of preserving their gene.
“Why do they expel old males?” -you ask. Yes, for almost the same reason.
- Usually this is an aged dominant male who lost a tournament fight for his harem to a new young male contender, 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 independently obtain food for himself. The end of such old lonely males is always sad.
As we see, no herd instinct works and everything comes down to !
And now the harmful reader should ask: “Why then don’t they expel elderly 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 caring for and raising the offspring of the dominant male, i.e. the reason is always the same: !
Nevertheless, we will continue to use the term Herd Instinct, remembering, 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. This unenviable final fate of male lions and elephants after completing 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 list, sad in relation to males, can be continued for a very long time, and it pushes to even more gloomy thoughts.
Now I am tormented by vague doubts that in the distant historical past they treated our brother “the peasant” in the same way or almost the same way.
You ask: Reasons? I explain: Humanity lived for 3-4 million years, practically no different from the animal world around it, driven only by the same thing. Scientists find traces of human cannibalism in all parts of the world until very recently. The same is true of human sacrifice.
The beginnings of humanistic morality appeared, one might say, yesterday by historical standards, and there is no serious reason to believe that in ancient times males in the human herd were treated better 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 way, because a person has another important option that does not exist in the animal world. This !
The herd instinct resides in man just as in any other herd animal, and the overwhelming majority of people follow it. Is this good or evil? We will try to give here, as exhaustively as possible, an 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 percentage of the entire population.
Once, when I was young, I asked a friend: “If the entire civilization was created by this small percentage, then why did God create everyone else?” 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!
The other day I was listening to a television conversation-interview two the smartest people, Dmitry Gordon and Viktor Shenderovich. They also talked about the herd instinct and came to the conclusion that it, this instinct, is always evil, citing 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, along 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 disasters in the history of mankind.
Let us note that in all totalitarian societies such as fascism or communism, following one’s “herd” or, in other words, nurturing the herd instinct becomes government policy, and any deviation from it is severely punished. Those who lived under the communists or the Nazis remember this very well.
The attitude towards the herd instinct in society, especially among the intelligentsia, is quite arrogant and contemptuous. If you open Google on this topic, you will immediately see a bunch of articles about 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 book “Jonathan Livingston Seagull,” written by Richard Bach in 1970, once served as the anthem for everyone who considers themselves free from the herd instinct.
Now let’s think about whether we should always be ashamed of the herd instinct? Why do we, without thinking, run after the crowd in case of danger?
I am reminded of television images of the tsunami flooding in Thailand in 2004, when crowds of people began to disperse randomly different sides. Only those who competently began to climb the hills or ran up the stairs of multi-story strong hotels, as well as those who ran after them, following the herd instinct, survived.
At the end of their conversation, Gordon and Shenderovich came to the same conclusion that when you see a huge crowd running somewhere, immediately run to the side. As we can see from the examples above, this advice is generally incorrect.
You need to know why the crowd is running, what slogans they have, whether they are encroaching on anyone’s rights to or?
In the 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 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 very Herd Instinct! Who and when proved that the majority was right? Nobody ever! This cannot be explained by anything other than the herd instinct.
But, as the above examples show, Democracy does not always guarantee right choice decisions, which happened in Germany in 1933.
The Democracy's most recent misstep was Brexit, where its supporters won by less than 2%. A mistake, because Brexit does not increase Freedom of Choice in anything, on the contrary, generally lowering its level in Britain. This will become obvious to everyone within a few years of his implementation of Brexit, unless it is completely canceled by a second referendum. The most “advanced” British people foresee this 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 made a mistake, but the mechanisms of Freedom of Choice (democratic institutions) were preserved, then this mistake can be corrected fairly quickly.
There are no special historical paths or national characteristics to hell! There is simply a lead and a lag. And it's easy to prove!
If, for example, there are two states A and B with in different forms boards, 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 behind in development from state A.
We know of many examples of countries where women who traditionally wore the hijab are beginning to take them off at the risk of losing personal freedom (Iran), and we do not know of any examples of a single country where the reverse process is taking place.
This, of course, does not take into account the case when Islamists recently came to power in Egypt for a short time and forcibly put hijabs on women. It was pure short-term fluctuation.
And one more interesting thought: countries where permanent presidents who have come to power try to prolong their power by hook or by crook, forgery and fraud, resemble animal herds or packs of animals, also ruled by permanent leaders, dominant males until their weakened ones are overthrown males are younger and stronger. From here, draw a conclusion which society is closer to its primitive bestial historical beginning.
Well, now, let’s formulate the promised answer to the question posed in the title: Is herd instinct good or evil? Should we follow the herd instinct?
From all that has been said 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 don’t have your own decision, then it’s best to join the group where you most see recognized authoritative and smart people.
Well, if you have to choose a solution at random, then join the largest group, in the hope that there will be smart, experienced people there.
None of these tips will give you a 100% guarantee. Only probability!
Generally speaking, our the world fundamentally non-deterministic. 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 delved into the microworld.
In conclusion, I will give an example from recent news about outbreaks of measles in such civilized countries as France.
The fact is that these outbreaks were the result of some parents refusing to vaccinate their children. Some for orthodox religious reasons, others, having read that vaccination has side effects. Both refer to personal freedom of choice in what concerns their children.
However, if the probability side effect- these are units in thousands, then the probability of a healthy child becoming infected in close contact with a sick person is almost one hundred percent. Moreover, with modern movements of people, it is almost impossible to ensure absolutely reliable quarantine.
So then choose the probability you prefer. In this regard, discussions are being raised in France about the forced restriction of personal information when there is a threat to society, i.e. the rest.
I remember that in the Soviet Union they vaccinated all children without asking either them or their parents. I would not object to such forced vaccination.
Karmak Bagisbaev, professor of mathematics, author of the book
Reading time: 2 min
Herd mentality is a concept used in psychology and other social disciplines, however, is not a scientific term, but rather a figurative analogue for brief description quite a broad 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 human psyche, for example, establishing certain rhythms and cycles - this is how applause in a 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 during tête-à-tête interaction one feels very strongly physical difference and separateness, but being 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 easier to influence 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 us that this is ours, 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 is that not everyone decides to leave the couple, 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 educational 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"
