/lit/ - Literature

You've failed to understand le Bon. A psychological crowd does not exist without proximity. A psychological crowd does not exist without uniformity of purpose and position. Neither of these apply to /lit/. The conscious does not make way for the unconscious, there is no psychological contagion, no hypnotic suggestibility. There is no sublimation of individual minds into a common mind; there is no amplification of emotions to extremes of violence or heroism; there is no dampening of intelligence to an impulsive baseline. There are no leaders that anons instinctively submit to. People are still capable of critical reasoning. People are still capable of premeditation. Even the anonymity is fundamentally different, as in psychological crowds it is born out of mutual recognition of collective strength and guilt, whereas the anonymity of the website is not based on collective strength but individual isolation. That is, the members of the crowd aren't anonymous to each other—they are all to conscious of each other—but, in pooling their actions and mind, they are dissociated from any individual culpability. This does not occur here because each individual is as isolated from each other as they are from any outside observer, so there is no sense of collective strength, action, or guilt. It is security through obscurity, which isn't the security of a crowd.
So /lit/ is actually nothing like a psychological crowd, at least not how le Bon describes it. It isn't 'as bad' either, because it isn't even comparable.
I suggest you take your own advice and read le Bon again.

>>17753280
>A psychological crowd does not exist without proximity.
>tries to write an effortpost
>is self-BTFO from the first sentence
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA never post again on this board brainlet pseud

>>17753355
I thought you might post that, but unfortunately if you had read a few more pages you would read:
>It being impossible to study here all the successive degrees of organisation of crowds, we shall concern ourselves more especially with such crowds as have attained to the phase of complete organisation. In this way we shall see what crowds may become, but not what they invariably are. It is only in this advanced phase of organisation that certain new and special characteristics are superposed on the unvarying and dominant character of the race; then takes place that turning already alluded to of all the feelings and thoughts of the collectivity in an identical direction. It is only under such circumstances, too, that what I have called above the psychological law of the mental unity of crowds comes into play. Among the psychological characteristics of crowds there are some that they may present in common with isolated individuals, and others, on the contrary, which are absolutely peculiar to them and are only to be met with in collectivities.
Now that your first anxiety has been addressed, do you have anything more substantial to say?

>>17753447
He said psychological crowds don't require proximity, but he'll focus on those who need. You said psychological crowds require proximity, and now you're coping.

Come back to me when you grow 20 IQ more points and then you'll realise the internet gave rise to a different type of "proximal" interaction that was not possible without the internet.

Then grow 10 more IQ points and you'll be able to participate in this discussion.

This thread is rapidly turning into a self-refutation of the OP

>>17753523
This thread is rapidly turning into brainlets coping about their inferior intellect

>>17753466
First paragraph
>Under certain given circumstances, and only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing it. The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes. A collective mind is formed, doubtless transitory, but presenting very clearly defined characteristics. The gathering has thus become what, in the absence of a better expression, I will call an organised crowd, or, if the term is considered preferable, a psychological crowd. It forms a single being, and is subjected to the law of the mental unity of crowds.
So the new characteristics of crowd psychology which le Bon describes occurs due to the 'law of mental unity of crowds'. Which, we saw in the above quote only happens at the complete phase of organisation. Which, as he says, are absolutely peculiar to collectivities. In the very next sentence to that you highlighted, he says exactly this, that only when they are brought together do they assume the characteristics peculiar to the acts of a crowd. And no, internet forums do not provide proximity, any more than radios or newspapers do.

>>17753543
>acts
Yes, they needed to be practically capable to act in order act, but the psychological characteristics can exist without the practical acting. You convinced me you didn't understand the essence of the psychological crowd when you started your post with an argument of proximity. Psychological refers to a state of mind. A twitter cancel mob is a psychological crowd as well. You don't understand the book. Post more anime to cope with this fact.

>>17753542

>>17753601
>crowd simpleton angry about being part of the crowd
>can't provide arguments can only communicate in images
Keep raging crowdlet

>>17753568
The point still stands, that the special characteristics le Bon attributes to crowds are peculiar to the complete phase, which is a collectivity. The exact characteristics that i listed in my original post which are not present on /lit/. Where is the extreme suggestibility? where is the lack of rational rational thought? where is the sublimation to a group mind? I can't comment for anyone else, but i have never once felt that way when browsing /lit/. I have, however, felt that way at a concerts and sports matches, where actual psychological crowds form. Perhaps you've never experienced it, but it is a very specific phenomenon. It isn't simply there being 'taboo' ideas that will reliably produce a negative response, or people following particular trends.
I'm not sure what a twitter cancel mob is—i don't use twitter—so i can't comment. But if it is just people liking and sharing an opinion, or tweeting their agreement or support, i don't think that counts either.

>>17753754
>Where is the extreme suggestibility?
Everywhere but most obviously in memes that dictate language and thoughts.
>where is the lack of rational rational thought?
Same as before: look at this poster: >>17753601 >>17753523 Never provides an argument, only communicates in images. There's no rational thought.
> where is the sublimation to a group mind?
In everything. The language, the tastes. This thread from last week for example: >>/lit/thread/S17719236 Most of the replies are made from a group mind instinctively reacting against bad science man.
>Perhaps you've never experienced it, but it is a very specific phenomenon.
I experienced it many times. But the real life crowd that requires proximity is different in that it is more hyponotic wrt making you physically act differently. Obviously this is not the case on the internet as there's no physical acting usually. But it's still reflected in one's mind just the same. Of course Le Bon didn't talk about Internet Crowds in the 19th century, but what he talked about is the essence of psychological crowds.
>I'm not sure what a twitter cancel mob is—i don't use twitter—so i can't comment.
Intellectual dishonesty to pretend you're not familiar with cancel culture. You know what a twitter cancel mob is, and it's not people "liking and sharing an opinion". If you want people to engage with you, reply with honesty.