Reading this article inspires me. It reinforces the very reasons why I write the way I do in order to counter the dribble that comes from those who on the loony far left; big on rhetoric and useless on substance on offering ideas or analysis in accordance to how humnaity and the world works. Bring back the far left which focuses on materialism, such as Tristan Ewins who at least deals with substantive matters.

The day I (or the world) relies on ideas from psychology (or God) to give ideas or analysis to help save the world, is the day I will give up writing about politics.

Though I am all for every one having a go, as nobody has the answers, you need to pay greater attention to what the bloggers say rather than seekeing a higher being as a space age commentator.

I too used to think we lived in an age of reason, and that reason would trump superstition and groupthink. Alas, no. As Christopher Hitchens points out supernaturalism is in fact on the increase.

There is no requirement that organisations based upon superstition - the church, astrologists, fortune tellers, the Reserve Bank - back up their prognostications with solid evidence, or even with soft evidence. That's what a good PR team is for.

In the end people will believe what they want, and after reading OLO you get an idea how whacky it gets.

Great little thought-piece. Well done!Giving a reason for why we are not reasonable sounds a bit like Russell's Paradox ("the statement on the other side of this card is true/false"). I prefer to think that OLO attests to the view that we are capable of reason, but don't use it very often or very well.

Being one of the herd within a paradigm is a sensible way to survive- if you don't know any other way. The way that I usually suggest is something called education- first, learning to have a wide vocabulary so that one's feelings aren't frustrated for want of a capacity for nuanced expression. Secondly, learning about the physical world, science as we call it, so one knows that events have causality and are not the works of capricious gods. That also takes care of leaders who use the fear of the unknown to manage you. Thirdly, learn about people- from a psychological and sociological viewpoint- both your own society and others. Constant exposure to differences reduces the fearful effects of cognitive dissonance.

Fourthly, practice dealing with differences using one's knowledge. This entails drawing breath and reflecting before reacting. Reflection enables you to draw on your education before fighting, taking flight or retreating to the middle of the herd.

Lastly, laugh. Humour, as Freud saw it, is about cognitive dissonance (just think about puns, for example). Laughter is the exhaling after drawing a breath (see point four) when one "sees the joke" ie resolves the cognitive dissonance. Note that tyrants are invariably humourless as they reject all but one resolution of cognitive dissonance.

Hopefully, OLO can make a contribution to a wider use of reason, by encouraging INFORMED opinion, rather than reactive opinion that insists that you are either for us (one of our herd), or against us (one of the herd to be vanquished)

Great article. A very lucid description of the behaviours involved.

I don't like the conclusion though. David seems to analyse the behaviour of our societies in the same way he analyses the behaviour of a single man, and whats more expects them both the society and man to behave in the same way. It can't be so. They are very different animals. It is like analysing the machine from the viewpoint of the cog, or the man from the viewpoint of a cell. Consequently the way societies interact with each other is very different from the way individuals interact.

rstuart
Society is the sum of the individuls. Nothing changes till the individual changes. The two cannot be separated.

david
you said "Society is the sum of the individuls. Nothing changes till the individual changes. The two cannot be separated".

Is that right. Did you hear that Australians. All we need now is a Dr Phil, or an Oprah to lead by exmaple, and we too can be just as fair and progressive as the US. After all, the emphasis upon the individual is so much greater in the US than any other liberal or social democracy and obviously the non-US nations have trended towards other paradigms which did not do them much good.

David, you need to think about what you are saying, and perhaps take on board what the blogger said to you in responding to your article (which he liked)