Some help with human behavioral studies

In talking with my wife today, the topic struck an idea within me: human society is structured around people ('nodes') that drive aggregation. The node could be a social aggregate, political, ideological/religious, etc.

I am now wanting to read studies on this concept, and presume that there must be some somewhere (i can't be inventing hypothesis in my head with all these smart people in the worlds history).

Can anyone throw me a bone? I tried searching, and think I am having a problem formulating a search query using the correct vernacular.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Google Scholar can be your friend

You're going to have to sift through all human behavioural papers to find one that suits what you're looking for

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

...human society is structured around people ('nodes') that drive aggregation. The node could be a social aggregate, political, ideological/religious, etc.

I'm hoping that I will come up with more thoughts and links over the weekend, but for starters there's this:

Tipping point (sociology)

Oh, hey, scroll down in that Wiki link to "See also:", I'm thinking that the Hundredth monkey effect thing might also be useful.

For definition…

aggregation

Not sure what aspect you are looking for, Mob rule, Nationalistic Pride, a lynch mob?

How far you want to go back, to the development of flags, planting flags, conquering, Deutschland ubbe alles?

Do you have a specific question as its all a bit vague at the moment

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yeah baby!!!

Agent-based computational economics

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I highly recommend watching these lectures by Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky.
It's human behavioral biology.

Here's the link

a reply to: intrptr

Im interested in how individuals drive social phenomenon. For example: is there any mathematical analysis for a "tipping point" of "followers" to cause a tribal split?

Has there been a critical mass established for what drives a social change on a macro scale?

Throughout humanity, has there been a study of how individuals can cause people to aggregate around them in either social, political, or religious ways? For example, a really smart person...how does that impact those around them, and how does that drive the movement of people toward them in a social, or work relationship?

Social connections seem to have a rhyme/reason behind them. Im interested in studies related to how people connect, and what those connections mean.

It is a very nebulous question. Because im working on a very new idea in my own mind, and wnat to see what others have said about it while I work through it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

individuals can cause people to aggregate around them

May I humbly offer the idea that it's the story that causes the impulse towards aggregation, not the person.



P.S. Nice demonstration of stellar reading comprehension skills!

Cultural Capital

This is the guy America is lacking from its curriculum of learning.

His ideas are presently being leveraged by Americans seeking change and they don't even know where the GD ideas are coming from:

Pierre Bourdieu

Sociology is a martial art. -Pierre Bourdieu

Back later.

Happy Saturday!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I tried searching, and think I am having a problem formulating a search query using the correct vernacular.

Sociology is a complex field of study.
scholar.google.com...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Im interested in how individuals drive social phenomenon.

By connectivity i imagine. In person when associated with groups, and today in the age of internet, instant communication across vast distances.

The hive mind, the communal 'knee jerk'. What tips it from peaceful room of discussion to a rabble calling for their heads?

Good question, I get it now. I don't have any short studies on this, but if you get the chance you could read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", by William Scherer. Or Gulag Archipelago, See Logan's Run and watch the part about Carrousel, the original Roller Ball with James Caan. Hitler understood raising the crowd to fervent complicity.
The Roman Coliseum, the NFL, WWE, Elections, lol.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think it is more the opposite.

People flock to resources.

Sure some people see 'drivers' as resources, but mostly it is the 'drivers' that see others as resources and thus go to them.


Edit, I just read your second post and it is like you are just now discovering spirituality but you do not have the words to conceive it. (It is so weird to see someone self-discover spirituality like that.)

Anyways...

Just as you posted asking for answers (fruit/form), what we're all ultimately looking for is good conception. And it is in our endeavor (our will/spirit) to produce good conception (awareness), that we seek out the forces (spirits) that produce good fruit (images/body) so that by eating of their fruit, we can, ourselves, produce good fruit for conception. See, conception is not of itself - it is of the will or spirit to produce good awareness, and it is not for ourselves, but for good conception himself. (For the glory of God.) Does that make sense? (We do not do it for ourselves but for the one who made us - it is his will that we produce good conception - it is his will to produce children or spirits like him and not for us but for his own pleasure, as it is his spirit that wills us.)

More, it isn't enough for fruit to be pleasing to the flesh. For something to be good fruit, it has to be pleasing to the spirit, and for that, it has to be righteous. (righteous = solemn or holy + true.) Hence laws and order. If someone is pleased by the fruit itself then it is in their spirit to be worldly as such.

Oh, and you might also want to research ethnics, or any divergence in life, to see that what you're looking for and at is the will or spirit of life to reproduce good conception. Each ethnic group, for example, having their own conception of what is righteous translation/conception [of the spirit to conceive]. (Remember good must = righteous.)

Hope that helps. Good luck.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.[1] The book chronicles its subjects in three parts: "National Delusions", "Peculiar Follies", and "Philosophical Delusions". MacKay was an accomplished teller of stories, though he wrote in a journalistic and somewhat sensational style.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

For example: is there any mathematical analysis for a "tipping point" of "followers" to cause a tribal split?

Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.

The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion.

The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

In this visualization, we see the tipping point where minority opinion (shown in red) quickly becomes majority opinion. Over time, the minority opinion grows. Once the minority opinion reached 10 percent of the population, the network quickly changes as the minority opinion takes over the original majority opinion (shown in green).

Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities

Lots of reading material that Ill chew through this evening. I spent my Saturday helping my sister get her LTC (license to carry) certification, so had to duck away for awhile.

What threw me in the direction of this question: I noticed that people tend to aggregate around certain people within the community. Typically because of a quality they have.

Think of a billionaire living in a town of 30k people. He would literally own the town, and everyone would know him and treat him like the king of the town. He'd likely be able to exert his will on any governing body simply because he has enough cash to upend entire families lifestyles. Like, if i were an owner of a rent to own store, and pissed him off, he could go into business as my competitor and undercut my pricing. So his cash is a resource that drives aggregation.

There's a guy that lives on the north side that is incredibly bright. Even more, he seems to be above reproach ethically and morally. He leverages his intelligence for the benefit of those around him, and people aggregate around him. When he walks into a group, minority or not, people know who he is. But the impact he has on his neighborhood is something to make note of. He is the brains that everyone who doesn't have a brain uses.

A few years ago we produced an NFL quarterback. While he was here he was a fairly solid ball player (his youngest brother is better, though), and in his peer grouping (high school students within the county) he was treated like royalty. It doesn't hurt that he is charismatic, too.

Maybe i should have taken some more time to formulate what im actually asking, or what im taking note of here. But immediately, in my mind, i saw a global chart that looked like one of those webpages that shows the amount of hacking activity. People, as little bubbles of influence. Some people, like our President, are a much larger bubble than others (like a homeless guy who is so insane he cannot even make social connections....that is a bubble of 1).

Obviously, its more complicated as I influence my small grouping (family, etc), who are then aggregated into other groupings that I am not even involved with. And obviously, the notion of "one is all" is not lost on me.

Im interested in the dynamics of those little bubbles. What creates them. How they interact with each other. Etc.


Now im off to read the fruits that you have brought to me.

a reply to: Bybyots

This is an interesting study. Ill be waiting to see the results of the study of 2 opposing viewpoints, and how that plays out. I suspect the "tipping point" is in the range of 20% or more.

But I have noted that if you can convince the folks on the lower half of the IQ scale, you can use them as your mob to convince the folks on the upper end of the IQ scale. You just have to create a seeming consensus by convincing people aren't really all that bright to begin with.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Okay, it's April, and you are fixated on Turkey?

What are you doing to the Turkey that makes it so unforgettable? High-temp-roast breasts? With a rub?

Now I need Turkey.

Thanks.

a reply to: Bybyots

i don't follow

Not sure if I get it if I am completely off topic my apologies


Past:

I am thinking of eg. And what ever reason they had for splitting

A)hunters/gatherers

B)Egypt: Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Periods · Egypt: Old ... Egypt: Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period

C)Romans/Greeks

D)medieval era/what the use of machinery era/colonisation

E) j think the wars apply here too




Now:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow (1943) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs. When one need is fulfilled a person seeks to fullfil the next one, and so on.

The earliest and most widespread version of Maslow's (1943, 1954) hierarchy of needs includes five motivational needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid.

This five stage model can be divided into basic (or deficiency) needs (e.g. physiological, safety, love, and esteem) and growth needs (self-actualization).
The deficiency, or basic needs are said to motivate people when they are unmet. Also, the need to fulfil such needs will become stronger the longer the duration they are denied. For example, the longer a person goes without food the more hungry they will become.

One must satisfy lower level basic needs before progressing on to meet higher level growth needs. Once these needs have been reasonably satisfied, one may be able to reach the highest level called self-actualization.

Every person is capable and has the desire to move up the hierarchy toward a level of self-actualization. Unfortunately, progress is often disrupted by failure to meet lower level needs. Life experiences including divorce and loss of job may cause an individual to fluctuate between levels of the hierarchy.

[bold] Maslow noted only one in a hundred people become fully self-actualized because our society rewards motivation primarily based on esteem, love and other social needs [/bold]

www.simplypsychology.org...

Future:

My personal believe is that the next step in human evolution is the devision of society into 2 groups

A) something like the community here on ATS

B) everybody else that has different interests basically your "FaceBook" friends

Problem the two groups will be driven by opposite of spectrum desires (etc) hence they will have completely opposing idea about how politics, economy, social needs what ever else belongs here to run (manage, operate in society, future goals, visions, needs) where does the PROBLEM lie ? No place or way to mass migrate so you live in the desired society it's basically impossible (eg you and your children may have completely different idea of where they want to belong)

Ideally 1/2 world would be ATS 1/2 I-do-what-eva-I-want peeps exchanging the material stuff but not the ideology of the social group