19 February 2008
Cow Mentality
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Presidential Election 2008; Rejecting Herd Mentality .
Guest Blog by Charles A. Castleberry
This afternoon I was driving with my family from St. George to Sandy, Utah coming home from a soccer tournament.As we drove my beautiful wife was asleep in the passenger seat, and my daughter in back with ice on her injured hip listening to music on her ipod. I had a lot of time to think. Mostly I thought about Ed Elsberry’s Item #1, “Cows”, and ruminated on cows, herds and politics.
When I was young we lived on a small farm in Oregon. It was my job to occasionally stake Barbara (our Guernsey milk cow) in the orchard where she could eat the grass between the trees. I would pound a metal stake into the ground, around which I placed a ring at the end of a twenty foot chain. One day I pulled the stake from the ground in preparation to move her and she bolted. Through the orchard she ran, jumped a ditch and crossed the gravel road. Then on she ran until she was well into the neighbors wheat field, where she stopped, thinking she had found cow heaven.
Thing was, I (in cut-off jeans) held onto the other end of the chain and was dragged on belly and knees through the orchard, into and out of the ditch, across the gravel road and into the wheat field. Holding onto that chain had zero effect on where and when she stopped. Why didn’t I let go of that darn chain? Why did I have to get all bruised and bloodied? I guess I just didn’t want to lose our cow.
After she had eaten a little of the grain Barbara allowed me to lead her back to the orchard. It was a good thing too, because if she would have stayed much longer she would have become bloated from the grain and been in bad shape.
Why the cow story? I kind of feel like conservatives are being dragged along by Republican Party Bosses just like I was by Barbara. We hold on because we don’t want to lose the party. Are we to become bruised and bloodied? Is there any way we can stop the mad dash? Should we just let it run a bit, prepare ourselves, and then help lead the party back to where it needs to be before it becomes fatally bloated?
Next I thought about how the party is being moved to the middle by John McCain and others that “know best”. This made me think about Herd Behavior.
Herd Behavior
As explained in Wikipedia, Herd behavior describes how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction. The term pertains to the behavior of animals in herds, flocks, and schools, and to human conduct during activities such as stock market bubbles and crashes, street demonstrations, sporting events, episodes of mob violence and even everyday decision making, judgment and opinion forming.
Herd Behavior in Animals
A group of animals fleeing a predator shows the nature of herd behavior. In the often cited article “Geometry For The Selfish Herd,” evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton said each individual group member reduces the danger to itself by moving as close as possible to the center of the fleeing group (Italics added). Thus the herd appears to act as a unit in moving together, but its function emerges from the uncoordinated behavior of self-seeking individuals.
Herd Behavior in Human Societies
Psychological and economic research has identified herd behavior in humans to explain the phenomena of large numbers of people acting in the same way at the same time… Social scientists explored behaviors related to herding, such as Freud (crowd psychology), Carl Jung (collective unconscious), and Gustave Le Bon (the popular mind)… (note: I love the term “Collective Unconscious”. It speaks volumes.)
Religious and Political Affiliations
Followers of certain religious and political movements have exhibited herd behavior, often involving a cult of personality. The behavior may be deliberately coordinated to some degree, but each individual follows the group in ways that clearly place health or life in peril. In political movements, the dictators Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin relied heavily on a cult of personality.
I have read on this blog that we are told what and how to think. But what group in actuality exhibits a herd mentality? Many people I have listened to in “on the street interviews” have exhibited a herd mentality. They are generally ill-informed and consider themselves Democrats or Liberals. They say they want to see Hillary elected because she has so many ‘great ideas’, and ‘we need a woman in the White House’. But, inevitably, when asked what ideas she espouses they have no clue.
And now we have women fainting over Barack Obama. Talk about a herd mentality! He has become a cult figure. And make no mistake, he knows what he is doing. His mannerisms and delivery are a practiced art and it is easy to be taken in. (Women fainting at Obama rallies)
Obama has been compared on this blog to Hitler as a charismatic figure. It is an accurate portrayal. I remember newsreels of women wiping tears of joy from their eyes and screaming in ecstasy as Hitler would drive by in a parade in the mid-30’s. Group psyche drove those unfortunate people to hysteria. How did they feel in the aftermath of WWII?
So, where does this all take us? Well, we are not animals. And we don’t have to make decisions in the midst of passionate hysteria. We can be analytical, measured and reasonable in our approach. Let’s be intellectually and spiritually engaged as we examine the issues and prepare to make choices.
I don’t have all the answers, but I will not hide in the middle of a herd like a dumb buffalo. I won’t go there.
32 Comments so far...
Stock Market » Cow Mentality Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:31 am.
[…] In God We Trust wrote an interesting post today on Cow MentalityHere’s a quick excerptThe term pertains to the behavior of animals in herds, flocks, and schools, and to human conduct during activities such as stock market bubbles and crashes, street d… […]
Cavetrollhead Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:24 am.
Holy cow Chuck. Good one. I guess instead of saying Baaa, we will have to say Mooo when talking about herd mentality.
Remember how the buffalo were run off a cliff by Native Americans? What does a buffalo say?
I am telling you, Obama really scares me. That much charisma has to be supernatural to make women weep and faint. I know- I sound like a superstitious nut, but I really believe it.
Mac Says:
19 February 2008 at 8:30 am.
I hear these people on talk radio who want Hillary or Obama and when they are asked why they never have a good reason. You’re right Chuck. Here we are actually trying to find the reasons behind what we do. We are thinking.
Angela Rogin Says:
19 February 2008 at 8:45 am.
You guys are really making me think this morning. We need to stick together in winter camp but not with herd mentality. I wrote in another comment about the founding fathers finding true principles. We follow the Constitution because we are using our minds and believe there are truths in it. We don’t have herd mentality because we have planned direction. We sure aren’t moving together to avoid danger. It would be a lot easier to move to the middle and be like everyone else. I think we are the opposite of herd mentality. I am glad there are definitions here. It seems to me that the more we discuss these things the clearer it becomes that there really are specific points to identify that can help us make decisions. I think this is a gift that comes from God and he means us to learn to do this.
Cameron Says:
19 February 2008 at 8:55 am.
You’re right Angela. It hurts to think this hard before my second cup of coffee but I love this. I think we need to still fight for the Republican party. Or if you are in another party then fight hard for that one to work with us to not move left.
I agree about the passionate hysteria especially when it comes to Obama. It is so weird hearing about all those women fainting. I just don’t get it.
Joy Bischoff Says:
19 February 2008 at 10:35 am.
I think we are just beating ourselves in the head to try and stop the herd right now. Let the cows run. In the meantime, we have our own work to do that actually will bring about something better than scrapes and bruises. We study, learn, and each make personal decisions regarding whether or not there are absolutes truths, or if everything is relative, truth changing according to circumstances; one man’s truth is just as valid as another man’s. This is what is taught in the liberal universities of our day. What do you think?
Personally, I understand that some things are relative but I also am convinced there are absolutes. Like Angela said, our founding fathers studied for years to identify eternal truths that never change. They applied those to government and came up with an inspired document. If we are accused of thinking alike here, I wouldn’t buy that. What I would buy is that those that come here, for the most part, have learned there are a few basics absolutes that create the foundation for our society. Good for you.
Anon88 Says:
19 February 2008 at 11:07 am.
Maybe you could look at it like this. Informed people are like a flock of birds working in tandem, moving toward a shared goal based on correct internal information. Compare this to a herd of cows stampeding in the direction of least resistance and causing a lot of damage along the way.
CindyL. Says:
19 February 2008 at 11:26 am.
I’d rather be a bird than a cow. This was great, Chuck. I just hope our Republican Establishment cow doesn’t bloat on the grain before it comes to its senses and comes home. We might have to get a new cow.
Matt Says:
19 February 2008 at 11:37 am.
each individual reduces the danger to itself by moving to middle of the herd
I never knew that but it makes sense and we can see so many republicans doing that. It is hard to think straight when everyone around you are panicking.
Resident Liberal Says:
19 February 2008 at 11:40 am.
It is very arrogant of people to think they are so smart that they have identified the ultimate truth. You shoot yourselves in the foot by spouting off about absolutes. It is so 19th century.
Chuck C Says:
19 February 2008 at 11:52 am.
Liberal, nobody said they had the “ultimate truth”, unless I missed it somewhere. At least I know I do not believe that.
But truths that have been found and illustrated by our Founding Fathers are worth learning about aren’t they? We have another place that we can look to for guidance and truth - the Bible.
The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.”
One thing we can learn from Paul is to “speak the truth in love”. But please answer this honestly… does truth change with the tide, or are their absolute truths that we should at least seek?
Is it true that the human condition is better served by a country that is built upon free will rather than the force of a totalitarian dictator? If that is not true, then there is no truth that I care to work for. I might as well give up. If it is arrogant to seek for ways to improve our condition and secure our freedoms, then call me arrogant. When I find the “ultimate truth” I’ll be sure to let you know.
Jan W. Says:
19 February 2008 at 12:20 pm.
I believe I have the ultimate truth. I believe God lives. I believe he has given us our free will. I believe we were meant to learn how to make choices. From everything else you wrote Chuck, I think you believe in some ultimate truth too.
T. Fan Says:
19 February 2008 at 12:27 pm.
Absolutes are the hub of the wheel. God and the truths he teaches us. That is what we hold onto to keep from getting tossed by all those ideological winds.
Chuck C Says:
19 February 2008 at 12:40 pm.
What I meant by what I wrote is that we do not have all of the absolute truths that we need to make decisions in this life. Otherwise, choice and agency would mean nothing.
Should the new highway go through my property, or my neighbors? What will the impact be if I make the wrong decision? I wish I had the absolute truth to make that decision!
What about the proposed dam up the canyon. Who gets the water, the farmers upstream or down? How much will go to the cities, and how much should we send on to California? Oh, I wish I had all truth so I could tell everybody how to vote.
Of the two candidates running for the senate, I am glad that I have all truth so I can tell which one’s heart is pure. They both sound so convincing, I am glad for the ultimate truth to show me the way.
Yes, we do have history from which to learn. And we can study it out in our minds and then go to the Lord in prayer to ask for guidance. We can go to the fount of all knowledge, but will our hearts be open to receive the right answer? If that would be so, then why do praying, sincere, God-loving people sometimes disagree on His direction.
A little humility please. God has given us agency. He has given us His Son to show us the way. He has saved us from our sins. And He has given us agency to choose. He is perfect, but we are not. Let’s give our opponents a little room to differ with us without calling them evil. We deserve the same.
T. Fan Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:20 pm.
Sorry I can’t agree with your definitions. Absolute truths are eternal truths that come from God. It isn’t arrogant to believe in him and his teachings. Yes a lot of people disagree on those but most reasonable people know there are a few absolute truths that can be agreed on. The things you are talking about are relative truths that apply to different issues. Issues are different than principles and need to be separated.
E.E. Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:35 pm.
I took these definitions of moral absolutes and moral relativity from Wikipedia. I love the last line of the first one on absolutes. Carefully read each definition and I think it will be clear that liberals take their ideas on tolerance from their belief that everything is relative while conservatives believe there are a few absolutes. Liberals are tolerant of everything except those who disagree with them, especially if they claim there is a God. They think we are very arrogant to make that claim and to believe anything can be depended on to be a constant.
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. “Absolutism” is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.
Morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will or character of a God or Gods, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.
In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.
Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.
In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to access an ethical proposition’s truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals’ moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity.
Moral relativism differs from moral pluralism — which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Moral relativism, in contrast, grants the possibility of moral judgments that do not accept such limits.
Philosophy Portal
In popular culture people often describe themselves as “morally relativist,” meaning that they are accepting of other people’s values and agree that there is no one “right” way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people’s moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks.
Cameron Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:40 pm.
True courage comes when you know your cause is just. The patriots had to know they were in the right and the British in the wrong. I loved the bird analogy. Cows don’t know where they are going when they stampede but birds have a built in sense of where they are heading. I think we do to. It is called a conscience and we get help from the word of God. We can throw that in people’s face in an arrogant way or a humble way but we shouldn’t move from our position of believing.
Peter Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:42 pm.
Believing in God doesn’t mean you have to believe a set of rules. No one can know for sure which rules are right and how to interpret them. It is always a personal thing. So if anything is absolute it can only be decided what that is on a personal level and no one has the right to tell that to anyone else.
Jan W. Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:48 pm.
Peter,
A room full of men got together and decided on some definite absolutes. I believe they were inspired by God. I believe the Constitution does have some absolutes. Not every word but the main points come from God. We are suppose to identify those and use them in our personal lives but also in our families, communities and definitely in our Constitutional government. No one has the right to force anyone else to agree but we have to have public discussion about them because without true principles, we have nothing to try and preserve. The liberals would be right about a living breathing Constitution that has to change according to circumstances.
The reason I stayed with this site is because I read absolutes here. I read that our founding fathers identified timeless values and put them down on paper. They agreed together to use them to govern ourselves.
Chuck,
I didn’t see anyone calling anyone else evil because they believed differently. I think that most people here are very tolerant. Saying you believe in absolutes doesn’t mean you are intolerant. We can’t please everybody because some are only pleased if you agree with them in everything.
Chuck C Says:
19 February 2008 at 1:59 pm.
T. Fan, I agree with you that there are absolute principals to guide us. But how many absolutists were in the crowd stoning the adulteress, or the prophets, or answered Pilate with the cry “Crucify him, crucify him.” I am wary of people who have the absolute truth about everything I should do.
You may be standing on firm ground, but how to get others to join you takes tact and tolerance. No wavering, but tolerance. Let’s use logic and good information, not declarations of infallibility.
Cavetrollhead Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:10 pm.
Right Peter - Lets let children decide if they want to study or take drugs. Lets let women decide for themselves weather to kill a fully developed baby who is as capable of living as any other baby. Lets let murderers out of jail.
OK I know this is hyperbola, but to pretend that we don’t have to assume some things are absolutely true for everyone is very unwise. We accept we may get it wrong. But we can’t fail to judge and act.
If we don’t try to decide absolute truth (even at the risk of getting it wrong) then there is no place for laws, governmental influence or for that matter ethics, physics, chemistry, electricity. Can you imagine if we didn’t accept absolute truths of science, or nutrition? Why do we think that the at least some absolute truths of government, human nature, etc are beyond our capacity?
“We believe these truths to be self evident . . .” This is the foundation of our Government - that some truths are self evident.
Any household government (parents) knows there are some absolute truths that apply too all children. Of course we get it wrong sometimes but we act anyway because failing to decide is negligent.
Some of us believe the constitution was inspired by our heavenly parent. So when liberals like McCain act to take away our freedoms or dilute our national sovereignty, we say no and strip these bills or laws away as we can to get back to the constitution. If we fail to act we are negligent. To assume we cannot pretend to know absolute truth is just an excuse to follow the herd and abdicate our responsibility and duty.
Mac Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:31 pm.
Well said Cave. I have read through this whole thing and I don’t get where someone was saying that everything is absolute. People are trying to say that there are a few that we should be able to agree on if we believe in God. That we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Those are absolutes. There may be more than the ones in the Constitution but we are supposed to agree on those if we are conservatives. No one here is calling names or being at all arrogant to say they believe firmly in a few absolutes and that there are also a lot of relative things out there. How wishy washy would it be to grovel and apologize for believing what is in the Constitution?
Resident Liberal Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:34 pm.
Just one problem with your thinking, Mac. No one here can know for sure if there is a god so the things this “maybe” god says can’t be interpreted as absolute. I don’t think there is a god but I can’t be arrogant enough to say for sure there isn’t. Chuck is honest enough not to say for sure that there is. Nothing is certain.
E.E. Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:39 pm.
I think Chuck believes in God. I just think he didn’t read the definitions I posted. I really think it comes down to semantics.
Anon88 Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:45 pm.
There is a constant raging debate about absolutism and relativism in academia. I hate to say it but relativism is winning hands down. That is because we are being shamed to the point of not wanting to claim that there are even a handful of stable truths on which to found a government.
Beginning with FDR, many federal judges no longer felt the need to base their decisions on the Constitution. Moral relativism was blossoming and each liberal judge claimed that personal judgment based on his own wisdom superseded the Constitution. The poison of this kind of arrogance has poured into every area of life until now even conservatives are afraid of being called close minded when they hold to principles.
Joy Bischoff Says:
19 February 2008 at 2:48 pm.
I have to jump in here. I happen to know that Chuck believes firmly and immovably in God. I think more than anything else, he is trying to stimulate thought and discussion here. At least he is getting a lot of response.
Cavetrollhead Says:
19 February 2008 at 4:05 pm.
I love this blog. What a great discussion. As ardently as I think I disagree with Peter and Resident Liberal, they have added so much to the discussion. Can you see how their opposition refines the rest of our arguments- in concept as well as in articulation?
Chuck C Says:
19 February 2008 at 4:22 pm.
These discussions have been interesting, and yes, they do come down to semantics in many ways.
First, I do not believe there is a God. I KNOW there is a God, and it has been proven to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. He is the Father of my spirit. His Son Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer. These things I know. And, no Resident Liberal, I don’t believe these things, I know them to be true, just as much as anything I have ever experienced. I won’t go into them here. They are too personal. But suffice it to say, I know that God does live.
Other things I know are subservient to those stated above. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. I know that I will one day be judged by Jesus Christ. He is not only my Judge, He is my Advocate to the Father. I will be accountable for what I did with the Talents He gave to me. I will be judged for how I treated my neighbors. I will be judged regarding my honesty, charity, and morality.
Many things I do not know for certain, but the happiness and peace that comes from these things I DO know has provided a foundation for raising a family, without which I would be lost.
Some truths are absolute. Application of others is open to debate. But I will not ridicule you if you do not know for yourself that these things are true.
E.E. Says:
19 February 2008 at 4:40 pm.
I thought so. Nice testimony, Chuck. I liked your summation line.
Chuck C Says:
19 February 2008 at 4:55 pm.
Jan W.,
I have not read on this site where any participant was called evil. I think that liberals think we are saying that. Thank you for having faith in others. Sorry if I did not state things very well.
Peter,
There is a set of rules I believe in. They are summarized in Matthew 22:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Some other rules are (there are 10 of them):
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’
TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’
THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’
FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’
FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’
Cameron Says:
19 February 2008 at 5:14 pm.
Right! And it was the exact laws that Chuck puts down that the founding fathers said they used as the basis of the principles behind the Constitution. That is why we work so hard to preserve it and believe it is inspired of God.
Pickles Says:
19 February 2008 at 5:31 pm.
If I didn’t believe there were any absolutes, I wouldn’t try and save the constitution. I would agree with my teachers who tell us it was only meant to govern in the 18th century and doesn’t apply to us. That is the whole reason for this blog right? Identity the principles that all conservatives should recognize are true so we can work together to save them. The things that are just relative we can agree to just kind of not fight about so we can get the most important thing done. In my church I learned in primary that the constitution was inspired so when my teachers and textbooks try to brainwash me they can’t do it. I know there are absolutes.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.