Fanatacism

[Yoused]

This issue has begun to intrigue me as a matter of social/behavioral science. Being drawn into discussions, as an outsider, with a group of fanatics, balanced in large part with their opponents, is what piqued my interest in the subject. The (unspecified) fanatics go to great lengths to prop up their untenable position, and both they and their opponents are wont to hurl demeaning insults at each other.

This clearly shows that social bonding is a typical component of serious fanatacism, resulting in an in-group/out-group boundary. We ourselves have witnessed this in the war between Apple and MS (Wndovs) as well as Apple and Google (Android). To me it appears that there are positives and negatives to fanatical adherence, but in general, it seems to tip somewhere on the negative side of the scale.

In order to avoid a WoT OP, in subsequent posts, I will attempt to explore and analyze the basic components of this behavior pattern and perhaps discover some strategies to mitigate its negative side-effects. The analysis will be entirely generic, avoiding identification, even implicitly, of any specific group, and I ask that anyone posting in this thread similarly refrain from such specifics.

 

[Yoused]

The starting point is human intelligence. It appears that humans are not, in and of ourselves, significantly more intelligent than other higher animals, and some other animals exhibit signs of intelligence in certain areas that appear to perhaps exceed our own.

The critical factor for human intelligence is language. We are largely (tiough not entirely) tabula rosa at birth, with a minimal amount of hardwiring (ROM, as it were) and the lion's share of our intellectual ability is learned through communication with other people. There is also observation, experience and deduction, but these are not exclusively human traits.

Hence, intelligence is a social function. Humans on their own or isolated from others tend to develop less fully, at least in the context of what we consider full development, than those that have a diverse human circle of learning (I think interactions with non-human mentors may be able to add value as well).

 

[Yoused]

I believe that even the structure of language plays an important role in our development. Language is inextricably entwined with its founding cultural, forming a symbiosis. As we learn how to talk, we learn things about how we are supposed to be. And the blank slate of language learning is fairly or entirely unique to humans – other animals are able to engage in elaborate communication, but it appears that those patterns are more directly encoded than is speech and grammar in humans.

The obvious turning point for us was the scroll. Once our words could be portably inscribed, the reach of language and learning expanded greatly. It also appears that learning to read improves the stability of a person's memory. And, obviously, the written word carried with it tremedous social impacts.

Understanding the social basis of intelligence is vital for the study of a social behavior like fanatacism.

 

[Citysnaps]

The (unspecified) fanatics go to great lengths to prop up their untenable position, and both they and their opponents are wont to hurl demeaning insults at each other.

I'm not sure if this is on point for what you had in mind, but here goes...

I've learned that simply using the word "you or your" to make a point in a back-and-forth spirited discussion can often make things very personal. Which can result in a sideways retort, and the discussion ratcheting downhill pretty quickly.