leaf

Culture#

Culture is an important social context that distinguishes groups of people in various ways—institutions, power, hierarchy, class, language, historical memory, objects, and customs—dividing them into different groups. From culture to individuals, from context to behavior, people's attitudes towards different cultures and their reactions in cross-cultural situations are influenced by various factors. When cultural mixing and collision occur in the material realm of daily life, people tend to have a positive and accepting attitude towards cultural mixing; foreign cultures represent novelty and fun in their eyes, enriching their lives. However, when cultural mixing occurs in the symbolic and sacred cultural realm, people's attitudes towards foreign cultures become negative and exclusionary, viewing foreign cultures as dangerous, threatening, and aggressive, potentially swallowing and assimilating the in-group culture.

In the field of cultural psychology, several cultural values are named: cultural essentialism, cultural color-blindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism. Those who hold cultural essentialism view culture as a unique, stable, and unchanging entity, seeing more of the unchangeable differences between cultures when in a culturally mixed environment.

Identity: The psychological mechanism connecting individuals with groups and cultural contexts

"Identity" was originally a concept in individual psychology, later applied in anthropology, sociology, political science, and social psychology to refer to the psychological mechanism through which individuals connect themselves with ethnic groups, society, nations, and various groups. Through "identity," one can clearly see how the external environment shapes individuals and the process of establishing emotional connections with the outside world. "Identity" is also an important variable in interpreting the relationship between culture and groups from a social psychology perspective.

The constructiveness of social identity or group identity is also reflected in the fact that the same individual may have different social identities or group identities, and the relationships between different identities may be negotiable or oppositional. Individuals who have lived in different social cultures may coordinate their ethnic identity obtained from different group cultures through cognitive strategies such as integration, transformation, and collaboration. When the cultural identity of immigrant minority groups becomes prominent and is rejected by the mainstream cultural group, cultural adaptation pressure arises, leading to opposition or even conflict between the original ethnic identity and the new social identity.

Play and fun are shared natures of animals and humans. In play and games, both animals and humans can learn basic skills for future survival, such as muscle and brain development, and also learn the basic rules needed for social and group needs, gaining community identity and group attributes. People satisfy four different needs through the use of toys in play: imitation, obsession, competition, and opportunity-seeking. For example, knight puppets allow children to imitate power and adulthood, while board games teach individuals competitive skills while requiring children to accept the concept of opportunity and experience life's uncertainties. Child psychologist Jean Piaget pointed out that infants learn skills through play, training physical skills, and from 18 months old, infants begin to role-play in games, rehearsing the rules of adult society, completing the process of socialization.

However, with the advancement of industrialization, social division of labor has become increasingly refined, and knowledge systems have become more specialized, leading to higher professional skill requirements for individuals in their work. This social change has brought about changes in educational concepts, reflected in people's attitudes towards "play" and games: the concept of systematic upbringing has made the playful "play" increasingly artificial, systematic, deliberate, and even industrialized. Relevant studies have found that since the 1960s in the United States, the parenting style of middle-class parents has undergone significant changes, with parents investing more time, money, and capital in their children. Various casual, natural, and informal "play" activities have begun to be replaced by organized, collaborative "play," such as neighborhood games of hide-and-seek, house-playing, hopscotch, and marbles being replaced by baseball games, choir rehearsals, and summer camp activities.

Education is an important means of class reproduction because it can cultivate people to form different "habitus," which enables individuals to respond to culture, society, and self in different forms, thus providing individuals with different cultural skills, social relationships, behavioral adaptations, and even various cultural capital. From this perspective, the current systematic, collaborative, and purposeful play education can also reflect class separation.

In society, "play" is no longer a carefree exploration of the unknown environment and things, but has become a planned content in family education. In middle-class families, "play" has become an important part of collaborative upbringing, characterized by strict planning and a sense of rules, presenting standardized, systematic, and consistent features overall. For migrant worker families, "learning" is the focus of family education and an important way to change living conditions and socio-economic status, while "play" is precisely the content that is excluded from family education.

Comparing the parenting concepts of parents from two different class groups reveals different family education philosophies: for middle-class families, emphasizing comprehensive development, parental collaboration, and cultivating children's abilities from multiple aspects is an important goal of family education; however, for migrant worker families, due to limitations in time, energy, and economic conditions, the focus of parental family education is mainly on academic performance, with the expectation that further education becomes an important path for social mobility. In this context, constructing a "diverse evaluation system" is not only an important concept for improving the drawbacks of exam-oriented education but also an operational way to address the class inequalities present in family education.

Group Thinking and Team Thinking#

Throughout my growth, I have always been taught to lead others, not to follow. Who hasn't heard their parents say, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?" The era and cultural environment we live in place great importance on individuality and independent thinking without being influenced by others. In the era of group thinking, a new paradigm has emerged that emphasizes collective wisdom and collective problem-solving. Groups are much smarter than individuals. In his 2004 book "The Wisdom of Crowds," James Surowiecki proposed that under certain conditions, many people can be smarter than a few individuals. The key to the theory of collective wisdom is that if you select a large group and pose a question, the wisdom of the group will be on par with expert answers.

Through group thinking, utilizing collective wisdom does not mean blindly following others. We do not abandon autonomy or independence; it is we, not the group, who make decisions. However, through group thinking, we can gain information, insights, and knowledge, greatly improving our thinking and lives. Don't get it wrong; group thinking is not team thinking. By definition, team thinking refers to a small group that, due to being misled, blindly adheres to the group or makes erroneous decisions in pursuit of harmony over truth. The moral "correctness" of the beliefs or values of the group often rationalizes this consistency. Team thinking lacks diverse opinions or different voices and inherently does not welcome independent thought.

But group thinking can only occur when independent thinking is present, and the group is diverse and heterogeneous without presupposing any "correct" decisions or outcomes. Only when a large group composed of individuals of different ages, backgrounds, and interests generates different or opposing viewpoints can collective wisdom emerge.

Group thinking is the opposite of team thinking. Group thinking is a purposeful and directed effort to acquire collective knowledge from humans (or at least from large social networks).

When we make decisions or solve problems, we begin an important cognitive process. By utilizing group cognition, group thinking promotes our individual cognition or cognitive processes. Whenever a group collectively solves a problem or makes a decision, it is collective cognition, and the ultimate result is collective wisdom.

Those seeking collective wisdom must invest resources, seek out large groups, and interact with them. Nowadays, many people have hundreds or even thousands of social network friends within their groups. If you belong to this situation, you are fortunate. When faced with urgent problems requiring professional answers, you can leverage the collective wisdom of your friends.

Weak ties are the most important. Granovetter defines weak ties as acquaintances who are not close friends or family. For example, if Joe knows Bob from community A and Bill from community C, then Joe is the weak tie connecting the two communities and is the only link between Bob and Bill. Granovetter explains why social networks with more weak ties can achieve easier coordination and faster change. Individuals with more weak ties (think of all the acquaintances of acquaintances online) also have higher mobility and can access more resources. Weak ties are the bridge connecting us to all the innovations or effective changes we wish to achieve in life. Weak ties are also the means by which we gain more new information, ideas, and different specialized knowledge.

Strong ties are often those who are very similar to us, but weak ties connect us to the heterogeneity needed for group thinking and collective wisdom.

Weak ties are your bridge to other networks and different groups; they are the friends who have the most profound impact on your group thinking and help you gain collective wisdom. Collective wisdom can be a very powerful asset. Just as a president always has a specialized team of advisors, when you face problems or dilemmas that your personal knowledge or expertise cannot solve, you can also seek help from smart advisors who are close at hand. You will learn how to cultivate and manage interpersonal relationships in the digital world and use group thinking to promote your career development, enhance your quality of life, and achieve all the goals you can imagine. This is not profound. This simple approach can unlock the full potential of your social network.

Collective Thinking#

Group thinking is a crowdsourced thinking process aimed at solving problems, making decisions, gaining creativity, and making life easier and more enjoyable. We do not think alone; rather, we use social technologies and large groups to think collectively. This process involves posing questions, analyzing feedback, and deriving answers based on collective wisdom.

Has the group become smarter?
Crowdfunding is another example of crowdsourcing. Crowdfunding is not about finding one investor to put a large sum of money into a project but rather about finding a large group of investors, each contributing a small amount. After all, 100 investors are better than one, right? What about 10 million investors? Isn't it safer to not put all your eggs in one basket?
When startups need funding, they traditionally pitch their ideas to banks or venture capital firms, hoping that someone sitting across the table will agree and be willing to invest. With crowdfunding, entrepreneurs can present their amazing ideas and ordinary ideas (the crowd will decide which is which) directly to a large group of potential investors in hopes of securing investment.

Managing the crowdsourcing process requires a significant investment of time and resources. Group thinking allows you to gain equally powerful resources through social networks in your daily life. On Facebook or Twitter, you can not only post your location, who you are with, what you had for dinner, or videos of your favorite cat; you can also gain the collective genius and power of your friends, friends of friends, and even the entire human brain in a novel, unique, and simple way.

Now you might be thinking, "Am I using group thinking every time I type a question into a search engine?" The answer is no. Because when you use a search engine, you are not having others think with you; you are using algorithms to find relevant information. In many cases, this information comes from organizations that want to sell you something. For example, if you want to find the best vacation spot and type that question into a search engine, you will see a lot of information provided by companies that have invested in a particular vacation spot, hoping to get you there to spend money.

In group thinking, your choice of the perfect vacation spot depends on what you have expressed as valuable and meaningful to you. Group thinking has no motivation—you actively seek out your group, and the expert advice it provides is based on what you need, want, and value, not what the group wants to sell you. Search engines are helpful for finding information, facts, and data, but they are not effective decision-making tools. Group thinking does not outsource your decisions; it supports them, with innovation and uniqueness at its core.

"Benefiting from crowdsourced social production" is a new production model in the networked society. Society no longer relies solely on industrial or organized production, as interconnected groups can create value in entirely new ways. Group thinking provides a new production model for human intelligence in the social network era. Professor Benkler predicts that social production will not only be a trend but also a crucial economic and cultural transformation capable of changing society.

When we rely on collective wisdom through group thinking, we can make better, wiser, and more valuable decisions. Success in any field can come from competitive thinking or cooperative thinking. Some even argue that cooperative thinking leads to greater success. However, to fully tap into collective wisdom, you must first cultivate the group.

When sharing things with the group or seeking help, whether asking strong ties or weak ties, the act of questioning itself exposes your vulnerability. In a transparent culture, people are often fearful of over-sharing.

In group thinking, our most valuable capital is our authentic selves. We are all human, struggling, growing, learning, trying, and failing. The more we share these human aspects with the group, the more interaction we will have with the group. Groups are not interested in public relations; they are very interested in real human emotions. This is why most of us are indifferent to advertisements but are captivated by dramatic stories.

The need to project a certain image or "status" to the world drives social media. Look at my happy family, look at my beautiful vacation photos, see how my partner publicly declares their love, congratulate me on my promotion, buy my product...

Group thinking is not about comparing externals; it is about sincerely sharing internals. Its essence lies in mutual dependence in business and personal life, with genuine connections and shared values as its foundation. When we see someone's status asking "which luxury car to buy," we do not respond to this "Cadillac question" and instead move on to other matters. However, when we encounter genuine group thinking (someone feeling anxious about changing jobs and needing advice, or feeling lonely and seeking connection), we resonate with that vulnerability and openness, wanting to connect and reciprocate value. Conversely, whatever we share is the same. We instinctively know when something or someone is genuine and when something is wrong or when someone is trying to manipulate others.

Vulnerability is powerful; only those with courage dare to show their vulnerability. Perhaps what you share is your search for more meaning and purpose in life or your career. This may be a bit scary. But I assure you that every genuine question you post, every authentic thought you share, will yield ten times more from collective wisdom than you put in. After reading this book, give it a try. Try it within your group. Start small and take your time. At first, I was afraid to quit my job at Microsoft, and all the fears or doubts about sharing with the group were alleviated by the group. In the end, the group will always support you.

Blogging
Strengths:

• Tell your story in a coherent and more detailed way, allowing you to describe yourself and the things you are passionate about more during group thinking.
  Advantages:
• This is the best way to provide value to a large audience and is not limited by time or word count.
• Your blog will not be drowned out in pushes; compared to other forms, it can still be searched long after it has been published.
  Disadvantages:
• Time-consuming. Creating and managing an active blog requires a lot of time, and the group also needs to spend more time reading.
• Cultivating a loyal readership committed to group thinking is challenging and also takes time.

LinkedIn
Strengths:

• Group thinking among experts.
  Advantages:
• If you have professional questions, LinkedIn is the best place for expert group thinking.
• Even if you are not active on Facebook, you can still reach large groups and engage in group thinking in areas and target groups that interest you.
  Disadvantages:
• Searching for and joining relevant professional groups requires time investment.
• Some groups are very large, and your questions may go unseen for a long time, making it difficult to get the number of responses needed for group thinking.

Twitter
Strengths:

• Simple, easy-to-understand questions can receive equally concise answers (up to 140 characters).
  Advantages:
• The fastest way to engage in group thinking, with immediate comments. It is the closest to real-time group thinking.
  Disadvantages:
• If your question or decision is complex, it is difficult to express it clearly in 140 characters or less.
• Like Facebook, you need at least a few hundred "followers" to form your group.

Quora
Strengths:

• Complex or tricky questions that require a large group to solve.
  Advantages:
• One of the largest group thinking platforms currently available.
• You can remain anonymous, without needing to involve Facebook friends or Twitter "followers."
  Disadvantages:
• Like on LinkedIn, your question needs to be interesting or thought-provoking to receive answers in this large community. Unlike questions posed to Facebook friends (who are closer to you and may respond even to the most boring questions), meaningless questions will not receive answers on Quora.

Google
Strengths:

• Similar to group thinking on Facebook, it can also be used for specific questions that require detailed answers.
  Advantages:
• More business-oriented than Facebook, but with a smaller, more personalized group.
• Suitable for technical questions, and users are often very enthusiastic.
  Disadvantages:
• It is still difficult to accumulate the number of people needed for group thinking.
• Not anonymous.

If you want the group to take time for group thinking, you must be genuine to create real value.

Value is Key.#

Providing value through social media means that the content you share can educate, inspire, or help others do their work better or benefit their personal lives. Value is about making others laugh, think, or feel. Providing value cultivates your group, so every time you engage in group thinking or interact with the group or network, ask yourself what value you are adding. When it comes to your career, value is more important than a fancy business card, a bus advertisement, or a promotional photo on the back of a shopping cart. It is even more important than the phrases on your resume. No matter what profession you are in or what you are passionate about, when you provide value to others, they will pay attention to you and remember you; if you are looking for a new job or a promotion, they will hire you. When you create value, you also create an interactive group. In this book, you will gradually see that once you have an interactive group, you will be unstoppable.

Where to Get Value?
Value can be anything. It can be something you write, an interesting article or video link, thought-provoking questions, or other information that is meaningful to you or your life. When you share this valuable content, it creates value for your group. Value can make people laugh, cry, or marvel at the wonders of life. The value in group thinking can also be something more practical: helping others achieve their wishes, saving others time by sharing knowledge, information, and experiences. Value is subjective, that is for sure, but value is usually not a video of a cat or a photo of you eating a lavish meal. Providing value is about giving. It is not about public relations or selling products; it is about making people think and feel, and it is about clear beliefs and viewpoints. From the feedback the group gives you, you will know whether your sharing is valuable. Do they like your posts? Did they share them? Did they engage in discussions about the viewpoints or questions raised in your posts (or blogs and tweets)? Did they enrich that dialogue and bring people from their networks into the conversation? When you provide (in various forms) value, the group will grow. This may be a gradual process, but over time, as long as you provide value, you will become unforgettable. The first lesson in marketing and group thinking is: to be remembered. If you sincerely share who you are and what you care about, the group will respond to you, engage with you, pay attention to you, and invite others to pay attention to you as well. If you care, the group will care. Interacting with the group and gaining their attention takes time and energy, but once the group cares about you, the superpower of group thinking can be harnessed for your benefit.

Using the Group to Solve Company Problems
Group thinking can help you gain work experience, but companies are also using group thinking to find employees, fill vacancies, and solve the biggest challenges they face. In the field of employment, group thinking is a two-way street.

Group Thinking and Chief Listening Officer
In an era where CEO, COO, CFO, and other three-letter abbreviations represent important positions within organizations, it is becoming increasingly necessary to establish a CLO (Chief Listening Officer). Whether on LinkedIn, Twitter, or elsewhere, your customers and employees are discussing your company, products, and corporate culture. The CLO is responsible for listening to these opinions and is likely also responsible for facilitating internal group thinking. Listening takes time, but failing to listen can come at a huge cost.

All group thinking requires mastering the art of listening.

When cultivating a group through group thinking, remember that this is a long-term endeavor. You are looking for long-term relationships, not one-night stands. Cultivate interpersonal relationships accordingly; do not be too impatient, impulsive, or greedy. In other words, complete a home run after running all the bases.

You need to understand your group, and your group needs to understand you, in order to cultivate trust and intimacy. If you are looking for a group thinking relationship that does not require much investment, go to large external platforms where you can engage in group thinking with large groups without them needing to know who you are. You don’t even have to give your real name. Just ask questions, get answers, and then walk away. This is the "click and exit" model in group thinking. This may not be a particularly fulfilling relationship, but it achieves the goal.

When cultivating internal networks, it requires time, energy, and patience. You will not have thousands of "followers" overnight, and they will not be ready to make every decision in life with you overnight. However, if you capture this group, "date" this group, and respect this group, in the end, both sides will be very satisfied with this relationship, and you can engage in successful group thinking for a lifetime. The "mutual loyalty" between you and the group may take months or even a year. You may already have a large group and are ready to take it to the next level. When managing digital relationships, whether you are cultivating the group one by one or already have a willing and capable group, some behavioral codes remain unchanged.

When I write a blog, I often feel a profound sense of loneliness. Is anyone reading? Is anyone reading what I write? Is the time and energy I spend worth it? I want to gain the love of a large group, but I am not sure how to do it. I decided to be sincere.

Group thinking requires us to strive to be authentic and never compromise because the group will always discover your hidden motives. At first, I did not have many readers, but I chose not to compromise and persisted. Over time,

Value is a subjective concept. Both you and the group determine what is valuable, so it is best to ask yourself these questions: What makes me think? What makes me curious? What inspires me? What brings humor to my life? What makes me think of others? What makes me a better person today compared to yesterday?

Collective wisdom is on par with expert wisdom. The method is simple: seek the consensus of the group, which is often what most people think is the best answer. If it is a quantitative question (like guessing the weight of a bull), calculate the average or median. If it is an open-ended question (like what car I should buy), choose the most common answer.

Wikipedia is a great example of a consensus platform. If Wikipedia authors (the contributors to Wikipedia articles) have differing opinions, they first reach a consensus before making collective decisions about the content of the article. This reflects the collective intelligence of authors and editors. When the group reaches a consensus, it creates a treasure trove of group thinking.

If you are not seeking group consensus or the best decision but rather a creative idea, then there are other group thinking strategies and methods. If you receive only a few responses in group thinking, you can easily look through all the answers and select the best one—a particularly outstanding and creative new idea. (Afterward, you can share this idea with the group and see if they collectively recognize its wisdom and creativity.) But what if you receive hundreds or even thousands of ideas? How do you sift through them to find that hidden gem?

You need a sieve to distinguish between good and bad or to differentiate between highly relevant and less relevant ideas. If your group is of high quality (which we will discuss in the next chapter regarding when quality groups may deteriorate), the group will self-regulate, and you can filter ideas by clicking "like" or giving thumbs up (depending on the platform) for a particular idea or creative thought.

Group Stupidity#

As a child, I loved fairy tales, especially Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes." When I first read the story, I was captivated by the idea that "those who are unworthy of seeing the clothes cannot see them." Later, I saw a child shout in the crowd, "But he isn't wearing any clothes!" I felt very confused and surprised. How could so many people not see that the emperor was naked? This question puzzled me for many years. Even as a young child, it seemed unreasonable to me that a large group of people could make such a foolish mistake.

As I grew older, I understood that groups could be irrational, foolish, and even dangerous. In my teenage years, I read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies." It tells the story of a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island who attempt to govern themselves but descend into barbarism. At that time, I also learned that in Nazi Germany, Hitler came to power through democratic elections.

As an adult, I wondered why no one saw the internet bubble. Why do so many people smoke even though they know cigarettes are deadly? Throughout my life, from childhood to adulthood, there have been many examples around me showing that groups can make terrible, catastrophic, and dangerous mistakes.

Pretending not to see a naked person is not collective wisdom. Falling into mob mentality is not collective wisdom. Claiming that growth is more important than profit is not an appropriate business model; this is not collective wisdom. The emergence of Nazi Germany is not collective wisdom.

Sometimes high-quality groups can go bad; if so, the result is not group thinking and collective wisdom but rather group stupidity.

Group Manipulation#

One of the most common reasons high-quality groups go bad is manipulation within the group. Whenever someone intends to influence the group or guide its behavior, manipulation occurs. We can see brands attempting to manipulate consumers in advertising. We can also see stakeholders manipulating stock prices in financial markets. The suppression of free speech and independent thinking is evident under various regimes worldwide. If you want to engage in group thinking and someone tries to make the group think in their way, the results will be inaccurate and unreliable. Your group must consist of independent individuals with diverse viewpoints. It is the collective intelligence and knowledge of each individual in the group that leads to better decisions or provides expert-level solutions or innovative ideas. Deliberately guiding the group is not group thinking. You do not want one person's opinion or idea to be dictated by another.

Successful group thinking relies on people's collective thinking, not on everyone being forced to have the same idea.

Wikipedia has established its own aggregation mechanism, allowing Wikipedia authors to engage in dialogue, track changes, and make collective decisions. In group thinking, aggregation is simpler; it is about looking at comments. On Facebook, there will be comments after a status update. On Twitter, there will be replies. On blogs or Q&A platforms, every post you write can be commented on.

The advantage of this aggregation mechanism is its simplicity; it easily attracts groups and engages them. Its disadvantage is that when the volume of replies is large, as we mentioned earlier, it requires a significant amount of time and effort to aggregate information and distill collective wisdom.

Group thinking is democratic; it allows for freedom of speech. However, like people, groups often self-monitor and self-correct when someone tries to turn collective wisdom into their personal performance or manipulate the group. In most cases, when identity verification is required on social networks, the conditions for achieving collective wisdom are already met, ultimately resulting in collective wisdom rather than team thinking or group stupidity. If you ask a question incorrectly, or if your group is too small, or if someone wants to manipulate the answers, then be cautious of the "Lord of the Flies" in the virtual world chasing power and control. If your group starts to become barbaric, then light the signal fire, be cautious, and expect the troops to come to your rescue.

Or you can delete the post, assess which criteria for achieving collective wisdom were not met, and then try again. When the group deteriorates, whether you are engaging in group thinking as an individual or a company, you can always call off group thinking activities and start planning again.

Caution. There are many good people on the internet, but there are also many who are not so kind.#

When you open up to the group and seek to establish more connections, keep in mind that the group cannot possibly vet every person you connect with, especially when you are looking for a significant other outside of your usual social media. When your degree of separation is high, try to gather as much detailed information about your date as possible. When you transition from the digital world to the real world to start dating, choose public places, let your friends know where you are going, and trust your instincts.

Just as a nation is an imagined community, individual identity is largely imagined as well.

Why is identity important? Let’s consider two ways in which identity plays a role: First, at the individual level, identity directly influences the action orientation between individuals—whether they are enemies or friends depends on whether the other belongs to their group.

Second, the importance of identity is likely related to certain structural conditions. When these conditions arise, individuals as members of a dominant group gain certain potential benefits. If a particular ethnic group gains power, the interests of other groups may be harmed, thus providing a collective rationale for people to rise up and fight. People suddenly find themselves in a Hobbesian state of nature, lacking a powerful authority to ensure peace.

Once conflict is triggered, the groups in conflict have no internal (or self-help) solutions other than to eradicate each other—based on fear of the future and the desire to eliminate future threats, genocide becomes the ultimate form of this conflict. However, the various peoples on Earth have coexisted peacefully for a long time. Our ethnic identities do not include atrocities and ethnic cleansing—they are merely one means of protecting ethnic identity. If so, rather than exploring the psychological mechanisms of ethnic violence, it is better to suppress the conditions that trigger group conflict. From this perspective, the problem lies in the game and institutional rules; we need structural solutions that can change behavioral motivations, including intuitive, self-interested, and even moral considerations. Rational choice theorists are often criticized for their emphasis on self-interested motives. The answers they provide usually indicate that self-interest drives various aspects of market fields and political life, even constituting the driving force of biological evolution. In group identity and the collective actions it triggers, the role of self-interest is indispensable, which will be discussed in the following chapters.

The importance of self-interest in group identity depends on whether it is mobilized and used to support or reinforce other behavioral motivations—especially to support specific norms.

Group (such as ethnic) identity can form tremendous power. Power is often associated with control over resources—such as weapons and money. If revolutionary organizations can obtain such resources, they will naturally not reject them, but even without these resources, they can often thrive. Similarly, groups that spontaneously organize based on individual identity, despite lacking the resources defined above, can still dominate. It can be said that the immense power of these groups comes from the cooperation among the majority rather than from resources.

Groups that rely on cooperative power can accomplish some extraordinary tasks, which is very different from organizations that rely on resource or exchange power. In contrast, the former lacks inherent flexibility because they depend on the commitment of their individual members, and their actions must be very focused; otherwise, it is difficult to maintain that commitment. This means that compared to motivations that pragmatically seek development, hostility towards existing institutions, actions, or orders is easier to mobilize members of such groups; crises or moments of suffering highlight the importance of these groups more than times of peace and progress.

For example, when economic stagnation weakens union power, ideology may stimulate mobilization, but the mobilizing effect of ideology mainly promotes cooperation among people by moralizing the conflicts of labor relations. However, the more specific way ideology works is to clearly present the existence of collective rather than individual conflicts.

The importance of group identity is self-evident, but how is it formed? Most relevant discussions assume that identity is a primordial, moral, or irrational phenomenon. Irrationality seems to be a large analytical category, but unless it refers to a specific instinct or manic behavior, this category often becomes hollow. Setting aside seemingly primordial instincts, acquired irrationality can only be a form of mania. It is quite incredible for a person to dedicate themselves to a group that contradicts their own interests and lacks moral justification. The cults seen in Jonestown, Guyana, and Waco, Texas, which exhibit individual abuse and suicidal tendencies, may belong to examples of induced insanity.

Viewing group identity as primordial may only be a perspective from sociobiology. According to this view, people attribute their suffering and losses to others, which is a predestined behavior that has been naturally selected in evolution.

People generally view self-interest and rational choice as present and future-oriented—after all, choices are only about what is about to happen. The past need not be entangled.

In fact, the "past" influences rational choice in at least two ways. First, the rationality of people's choices is related to the knowledge they already have or can acquire. Imagine that you suddenly have a heart attack; if I am a doctor, my choice may be to save you in time; if I am not a doctor, I can only offer you some comfort and watch you pass away. Both of these choices are rational in the context of the situation.

Various choices in our daily lives emerge endlessly, although such dramatic examples are rare. In that situation, I must make choices based on common sense rather than some perfect understanding. Suppose I do act according to ideals; then saying my behavior is irrational means I lack some necessary knowledge, which also means I should have known what knowledge I needed to acquire from the start—this means I was irrational from the beginning. However, before things happen, my decision to acquire certain knowledge and skills rather than others is the result of rational weighing. In the earlier knowledge selection process, I could not have anticipated the specific situation of needing to rescue someone having a heart attack. For me, the choice of what knowledge to acquire beforehand mainly depends on the cost of acquiring various knowledge at that time. If knowledge comes with some attractive activities, then it can be easily obtained. In my case, I did not choose a language until my later years; however, now I choose to speak English in most situations, which is undoubtedly rational.

Second, people's interests are largely products of life experiences. For example, I derive great pleasure from a certain type of music; I am very familiar with it and thus resonate with it. If I decide what to do tonight, it will depend on the preferences formed in my experiences. Similarly, for members of a particular community or culture, their ways of behaving reflect the ways of dealing with things formed within that community. In an epistemological sense, this behavioral preference can construct a strong sense of obligation, thereby defining the characteristics of the group to which the individual identifies.

Many norms have this characteristic—behaviors guided by them can be reinforced by self-interest. Thus, these norms have both normative dynamics and incentive benefits, both driving and maintaining the stability of the norms. Certain group norms—namely, exclusive norms and differential norms—can especially be reinforced by self-interest. The collective interests contained in these norms can facilitate individuals to cooperate for them. Thus, these norms overcome the collective action dilemma—people generally believe that in such dilemmas, rational individual actions are difficult to produce collective benefits.

Among all effective social norms, the most remarkable is the honor displayed in the noble duels of European history. For the sake of honor, nobles would engage in deadly duels over matters that seem trivial today. The norm of honor reinforces the superior status of nobles over non-nobles, and it seems to have a certain general capacity for collective mobilization. However, risking one's life to argue over which of two deceased poets is superior seems to offer little incentive or self-interest for individual nobles. Nevertheless, in fact, this norm seems to have extraordinary coercive power, leaving many nobles with no choice.

There are many norms that can be used to distinguish groups from society, and they can be reinforced by self-interest. This means that exclusive norms require a sense of group isolation or even exclusion, and they often require an external hostile force to give value to their existence. Difference is a relative value that depends on external reference points. If a particular group lacks an alternative force, then discussing its differences is clearly meaningless.

This means that for a group, exclusive norms are also inclusive norms for the relevant group. Differential norms aim to make individuals accept the values recognized by the group and thus adhere to that group. However, for some marginal members of the group, holding a weak group identity can bring alternative benefits, and they may even feel tempted to betray the organization under inducement. Because of alternative loyalty objects, I may wish to gain the benefits of being a group member without bearing any obligations to the group. Compared to those who contribute more to the group, I belong to the marginal members of the group. If the group ignores this behavior, then complete betrayal may not be necessary; however, even for very slight betrayal, the group may react with exclusion. For individuals, the incentive structure for betrayal is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, in which partial betrayal, rather than complete betrayal or exclusion, benefits both the individual and the group. However, for the group, taking complete exclusionary actions can bring strategic benefits—exclusion can increase the cost of partial betrayal, thereby seemingly reducing the likelihood of betrayal events. Therefore, the utility of group norms lies in increasing the cost of betrayal, thus reducing the scale of the prisoner's dilemma fringe.

An institution or behavioral pattern X can be explained as a function F of group G:

1. F is the effect of X;
2. F is beneficial to G;
3. F can maintain X through a causal feedback chain via G.

In the example we are discussing, X is the norm of slang or style of the group, F is group identity, and G is the members of the relevant subgroup (such as certain Black individuals). The complete explanation is as follows:

1. Individuals who use a certain group's slang or similar style will have a stronger sense of identity with that group because they find that adopting these slangs and behavioral styles (compared to not behaving this way) brings them more rewards in their lives within the group.
2. It seems difficult to demonstrate that group identity benefits group members, but there are many reasons to support this conclusion (which may not hold true depending on the situation). Close group ties can reduce the cost of acquiring everyday knowledge, thus benefiting people's daily activities. Such ties can bring benefits, such as obtaining a job from the group.
3. Thus, we can find that through a causal feedback loop among members of the relevant group (G), group identity maintains the norms of using slang and style (X). Members with a strong sense of group identity are more willing to invest time in maintaining their norms than those with a looser sense of group identity. They find it natural to enjoy and even promote the group's slang and style. Consequently, the development of slang and style will increase and reach its peak, not because the group insists on it, but because the individual motivations of the members with the strongest sense of group identity drive it.

People maintain closer ties with some subgroups at the cost of becoming relatively distant from other groups—including those groups that have more economic and social development opportunities than their own. For some, this cost may outweigh the benefits mentioned in the second point; in this scenario, differential norms may not offer any benefits. However, this cost may be imposed by an alternative external group, leading the group to adhere to its isolationist norms without fear of the loss of benefits brought about by exclusion from other groups.

1. F (group identity) is an unintended consequence of the actors producing X (group norms); and
2. F (or at least the causal relationship between X and F) is an unrecognized consequence for the actors in group G.

The epistemological comfort of one's hometown can be self-reinforcing. However, self-reinforcement only occurs when feedback is potential rather than explicit. Explicit feedback can almost destroy the self-reinforcement mechanism. To feel comfortable in one's hometown, one must internally maintain indifference to alternative identity objects; however, if some individuals break the function of this indifference that reinforces group interests, these individuals may strive to oppose this indifference. Most of the other norms discussed here, even if fully explicit, may still effectively self-reinforce.

The Power of Normalization#

On the surface, templates (laws) seem like tools in people's hands that can regulate some deviant behaviors. For norms to have significant meaning, they must impact behavior, which means they should be enforced. So how are norms successfully implemented? They can almost self-implement through the incentives they create in two relatively direct ways. Group norms gain enforcement power by giving group members strong incentives—namely, the implicit threat of group exclusion. Universal norms typically lack such mechanisms, although evasion may be effective in cases of violating strict family rules or religious norms. Duel or other exclusionary norms are self-enforcing because they enhance isolation and differentiation, which may not necessarily be the result of some individuals' intentions.

For many of the most important universal norms (telling the truth, fidelity in marriage, fair trading), their attractive and available enforcement mechanisms are directly embedded in certain relationships where universal norms play an important role. If your interaction with me is repeated, then even if telling you the truth may be detrimental to my current interests, it aligns with my long-term interests because it ensures that we can have valuable interactions in the future, and I can earn a reputation for honesty. The value brought by the repeated nature of interactions surpasses the temporary benefits I gain from rebellious cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma. The motivation for expecting repeated interactions is only seen in binary relationships or small groups. For norms that regulate behavior on behalf of a large group, this motivation is usually ineffective. Therefore, it is useful for norms like telling the truth and keeping promises, but for important but non-binary behaviors like voting, donating to large charities, obeying laws, honestly paying taxes, and others, this incentive is ineffective.

From customs to rules enforced by institutions, we can see the existence of norms. Whether customs or rules enforced by institutions, they can function because they are supported by individual interests. Customs like driving rules have spontaneity, and their incentives are formed through the accumulation of practice.

In contrast, rules enforced by institutions are cautious and meticulous, although this enforcement may be erratic—such as the enforcement of traffic laws and criminal laws. Generally, the maintenance and enforcement of norms are spontaneous rather than deliberate or organized. However, they are always supported by substantial backing from larger communities, allowing them to be enforced. It is this structure that sometimes allows exclusionary norms to unleash extraordinary power. Spontaneous actions support these norms and effectively put them into practice.

Enforcement behavior involves two aspects—punitive actions and costs incurred. In light of this, people usually analyze their actions cautiously. However, individuals act and respond based on interests, and in this sense, every aspect of enforcement behavior can be entirely rational. The motivation required to exclude those who violate norms is simple; it is merely discomfort due to an inappropriate atmosphere. The cost incurred by individuals being excluded from the group is simply the loss of comfortable relationships. What is lost may also be opportunities, such as economic opportunities gained through relationships, such as finding jobs or benefits—losing these opportunities increases the cost of being excluded by the group.

Being a member of a group (or membership in an alternative group) can bring benefits, and when the demand for these benefits is asymmetric, exclusionary norms are enforced. This asymmetry defines the core and margins of the group; those with lower dependence on the group are on the margins and may face sanctions or exclusion. Of course, membership relies on subjective loyalty to the group rather than any objective characteristics. For core members of those groups, strong exclusionary norms may never harm their interests—in fact, reinforcing such norms may always bring them more benefits. Clearly, if norms can align with the interests of members loyal to the group, they will have a greater chance of being sustained and seem less likely to be violated than norms that consistently contradict members' interests. In discussing norms that would fundamentally harm interests, namely large-number universalistic norms, such norms are inclusive rather than exclusive. In reality, both types of norms exist because they serve a purpose—to prevent people from taking actions detrimental to the collective for self-interest. However, theoretically, exclusionary norms are more likely to successfully achieve this purpose because they mobilize self-interest against self-interest, while universalistic norms rely on collective or other normative loyalties to overcome self-interested behavior.

Guilt can take two forms: group-specific and universal. Just as driving customs cannot fully align with the ideal model of pure cooperative norms, the actual forms of guilt norms may not completely match ideal types. However, we can say that the forms of guilt in Judaism and Catholicism each align with the characteristics of the two rational types mentioned above. Group-specific guilt norms have an indirect effect of reinforcing group identity. Thus, as a norm, it has the function of differentiation or distinction. Below, I will risk distorting the original meaning to briefly summarize these two.

The Justification of Guilt#

A person feels guilty for a certain wrongdoing generally means that this person has produced some consequences they should not have produced. In moral life, a person's sense of guilt comes from their wrongdoing, meaning that their actions led to a bad outcome, or they violated a moral rule. Similarly, in civil law, if people inadvertently commit illegal acts but do not cause serious consequences, they may still feel guilty. For example, if I speed or fail to stop at a traffic light, I will feel guilty in the face of traffic laws, even though these actions did not harm others (in legal practice, arrests must be based on the fact that the individual's actions caused harm to others, not merely on actions like speeding).

The two forms of guilt mentioned above have important psychological differences. If my guilt comes from the harm caused by my actions, then even if I do not see any wrongdoing in my actions before the harm occurs, I will still recognize the wrongful nature of that behavior. For example, I might feel guilty due to insufficient prior consideration rather than the specific circumstances afterward; if my guilt comes from the violation itself, then even if I am aware of the laws and know that certain actions are illegal, as long as I violate them, I will gladly take responsibility. Of course, I may think there are mitigating circumstances—for example, in my situation, my actions may conflict with another rule. However, if I violate the law due to ignorance or negligence, my sense of guilt may be minimal, or I may not feel I should blame myself.

Early Instruction of Guilt#

Culture can shape guilt in two ways: intentionally and through certain values and practices.

If a community as a whole adheres to a specific norm, it may create an action dilemma: even if the community norm is destructive to its members, most members cannot gain benefits from unilaterally withdrawing from the action. For example, truly breaking the Jewish sense of guilt would mean an individual severing ties with that community.

Communities often elevate their customs to moral rights, which is an erroneous deduction from "is" to "ought," from factual judgments to value judgments. They claim that violating community norms (whatever they may be) is always wrong. This is an invalid simplification, although it may stem from good intentions or be limited by epistemology. Sometimes people believe that the norms of the community deserve respect because they have strong efficacy. The norms of the subgroups we are discussing seem to have stronger self-implementing capabilities than universalistic norms. In this sense, they are more powerful or have greater sustainability (setting aside situations where norms and groups are equally fragile). However, this does not imply that they are more moral in any sense.

Community Consensus or Agreement#

One of the most widely supported principles of political defense in this era is the various "consensus" theories. For duelists, the most standard and possibly the most powerful moral defense is that both parties agree to take responsibility for life and death. "Unanimous consent" seems to have powerful persuasive power, so much so that even the most difficult-to-convince political theory of social contract has many adherents. The arguments of its supporters seem to treat communitarianism as a kind of "consensus theory"—we respect the pursuits of a community because that is what the members of that community need.

There are clear objections to this; agreement does not imply correctness. Although this objection is often overlooked. Therefore, various versions of "consensus" theories, including social contract theory and most communitarianism, are not true moral theories. For illegitimate purposes, people can also form contracts or communities.

In fact, when consensus theorists defend their contracts and gatherings, they often construct their legitimacy based on the ability of contractual arrangements or community arrangements to meet the interests of the contractors and community members, rather than because these arrangements meet some other interests, such as more universal interests or the interests of others.

Even if communitarian theory does not appeal to explicit contracts or elections, it will rely on traditional customs to form consensus or establish contracts.

Reaching agreement on customs within a group often involves some degree of violent coercion at the margins of the group, even much violent coercion, as analyzed in exclusionary norms. If consent itself does not create correctness, then consent under coercion certainly does not produce correctness.

The sense of obligation in communitarianism is itself legitimate or moral, but the critique of communitarianism reveals its ugly side, making it one of the most bizarre and immoral movements in human history. Its numerous negative consequences are evident in the actions of those social organizations—people vividly remember ethnic cleansing and genocide. Countless great communitarians throughout history have often committed notorious crimes. The tedious and hollow defenses of communitarianism often obscure its historical practices.

The power of integration and exclusion norms in many groups effectively demonstrates their harmfulness. If they cannot be used to suppress, coerce, or even exclude those marginal members of group identity, then these norms are meaningless. Group loyalty is not inherently good or bad.

The more individual members focus on norms, interests, and group needs, the more likely they are to become destructive forces.

The definition of individual rationality differs from the definition of individual rationality in collective action.

In collective action theory, I take individual action on behalf of my group, and this action must be beneficial to me, and the benefits must outweigh the costs. Merely asserting that all of us taking such action will benefit everyone is not enough. However, if we assume that voting is in the interest of our group, then we can substitute the latter viewpoint (acting for group interests) for the former viewpoint (acting for self-interest).

In voting, each person in the group can believe that the provision of group benefits depends on the contributions made by people to those group benefits. I do not pay taxes, so I hope others do not either. Only if our votes matter will I pay taxes, and only then can everyone pay taxes. If communitarianism is a consensus formed based on traditional customs, then each person in the group will effectively vote for the common good.

Therefore, the main issue we focus on is the epistemology of how people reach consensus. In a sense, our community's "consensus" is the aggregation of members' values, and member values are formed based on the knowledge individuals possess.

The "Community" of Society#

However, in the usual sense, such communities do not captivate people; they are not important components of our lives, nor do we expect loyalty to them. Additionally, there are some communities—including support groups, neighborhood organizations, work organizations, religious organizations, gaming organizations, and similar organizations that are very important to us—that do not produce their own morality.

People have reasons to feel panic about communities, one important aspect being that people are asked to establish group identity, and this call can become distorted, with the distortion stemming from various self-interested mechanisms—such as exclusionary norms. What connects members to the community is often personal interest rather than the ideals or plans of the community. Even if individual interests are kind, they are often entangled with evil, as illustrated by the following two aspects of individual interests. The first benefit of submitting to a group is the epistemological comfort of home, which sounds wonderful.

Universalism#

Self-interest can drive exclusionary norms, but universalism lacks this driving force because universal norms are not inherently reinforced by self-interest. Indeed, the driving force of universalism is always so weak that it is always distorted, becoming various forms of norms driven by self-interest—societies governed by genuine norms of hatred may not exist, but if specific events become a stigma, then hatred can evolve into a vendetta. Vendettas have an inherently different incentive structure from other norms, and they can bring about a different epistemology regarding the behavior of others. Vendettas cause hatred between groups (such as families) to be passed down through generations. Vendettas are only occasionally triggered by specific incidents, but they are more likely to be exacerbated by the indifference they cause, even driven by it.

Forming group identity means losing personal identity. Advocates of ethnic identity obscure this loss, claiming that personal identity and ethnic identity are largely indistinguishable. By merging the self into a larger social whole, the aforementioned personal loss occurs, which is the project of many thinkers and leaders, whether good or evil.

In the book "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind," the author proposes the "law of mental unity." He points out: "As individuals, people are independent, usually rational, cultured, educated, and responsible. But once gathered into a group, as the number and scale of participants gradually increase, individuals will inspire, infect, and influence each other, and the ideas and behaviors of members in the group will show convergence, with irrational and violent tendencies becoming apparent, and autonomy diminishing."

Collective grinding and collective excitement. Members in a group exhibit tendencies of anxiety and blind conformity during the collective grinding phase; in the collective excitement phase, as feelings of anxiety rise, members influence each other and generate a shared sense of dissatisfaction; in the social infection phase, as the infectivity and anger among group members increase, the cyclical reaction ultimately leads to the outbreak of collective behavior.

Social structure includes three levels: the public, middle organizations, and political elites. He believes that the role of middle organizations in society is to exert organized and democratizing influence on political elites, preventing political elites from being controlled by populism while ensuring that the public is not manipulated by political elites; providing a platform for interaction and discussion between political elites and the public. Middle organizations are characterized by diversity, which also leads to the diversification of their sense of identity and interests, thereby reducing the likelihood of the public engaging in collective events. It is evident that in a mass society lacking middle organizations, elites often directly control public behavior, or populism directly controls elites. The structural defects caused by mass society inevitably face totalitarianism and instability in social order.

Group Mimicry#

The group psychology that triggers group interaction, group pressure, group unconsciousness, and group polarization behavior has a group influence in the formation and dissemination of online public opinion information. The herd mentality is a major social psychological inducement for group events. From the perspective of the formation of group events, when an individual exhibits a certain emotion and engages in a certain behavior, if they do not gain the recognition and imitation of the surrounding crowd, they will feel lonely and helpless, thus doubting the correctness and rationality of their behavior, leading to self-restraint in the amplitude of their behavior and emotions, making it impossible to influence others. Conversely, if their behavior gains recognition and imitation from others in the group, they will confirm the rationality of both individual and group behavior in a shared emotion, thus mutually influencing and reinforcing each other, evolving from individual behavior to group behavior, from individual actors to action groups, and social norms will be broken by group behavior, leading to the occurrence of group events. Social psychology believes that individual emotional responses in a group are much stronger than when they act as individuals.

Individuals in group events often exhibit an anonymous psychology and a "reasonable" psychology of behavior. Individuals in group events do not appear as "individuals" but exist as members of the group, with their behavior being "assimilated" by the collective behavior of the group, exhibiting group commonality and consistency. Individuals in the group feel like "nameless" people, not knowing each other, often experiencing a "law does not punish the crowd" mentality, leading to a loss of moral judgment and values, relaxation of self-restraint, and a decrease in sense of responsibility.

There is a saying: "On the internet, no one knows you are a dog." This statement fully illustrates that the anonymous dissemination on the internet is a norm, making behavior and thoughts unbound by the constraints of real society. Coupled with the influence of the "law does not punish the crowd" mentality, it allows individuals who originally dared not or could not express their demands to realize them through group events. Under the anonymity of the internet, netizens are in a special state; "an independent individual may be a cultured person, but in a group, they may become an uncultured person—an animal driven by instincts, exhibiting involuntary, violent, and cruel behavior, showing the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive people, in an unconscious state, their personality, will, and discernment disappear, and under certain suggestions, they may be incited to engage in certain behaviors." It is evident that the anonymity of the internet can trigger and facilitate the release of the id, especially the darker aspects of human nature, such as a frenzy for chaos or disorder, forming a "dual personality" interwoven with behavioral norms and deviance. It strives to shape a personality different from one's real-life identity, thus obtaining a role replacement and corresponding social relationships that align with one's expectations, compensating for various deficiencies in the real world. Most of the time, netizens' responses to public events online are largely a release of accumulated pressure rather than a maintenance of public rights and responsibilities. It is evident that the online public opinion of group events is a virtual dissolution of real-world pressures.

The behaviors and psychology of individuals in group events include two situations: first, the group demands are indeed legitimate, but due to the failure of government functional departments to handle policies properly and timely, they cannot resolve their demands, or due to some other obstacles, their demands cannot be met. In the absence of a correct understanding and attitude towards solving problems, they resort to methods such as protests and gatherings to achieve their goals. Individuals participating in such group events believe that since their demands are reasonable, the behaviors they adopt are also reasonable.

Second, members of the group believe their demands are reasonable but have violated national laws and regulations. When their demands are not met, they create incidents to amplify their influence.

Individuals in group events often exhibit gullibility, contradictions, release, and venting psychology. Under the influence of herd mentality, individuals in group events easily become gullible and paranoid, lacking discernment and resistance to unfounded rumors or deliberately fabricated news that are popular in society.

The emotional response of the group triggers events, and the online dissemination of group events leads to widespread group public opinion, resulting in group identity events. This leads to the online event's public opinion explosion point, which derives into discussions and dissemination of group events, creating a cyclical pattern of online public opinion.

The internal process of forming online public opinion for group events is a sequence of an opinion event (or group event) → various intertwined viewpoints online → online public opinion → the process of group events.

Although in reality, they belong to heterogeneous groups, under the polarization effect of the internet, many heterogeneous groups gradually merge into homogeneity. The anonymity, depersonalization, and depersonalization of the internet make it extremely difficult to generate rational critique and expand rational thinking. Some rational voices are often drowned out by the "mainstream discourse" within polarized groups, and irrational voices gradually dominate, leading to more rational voices turning to "silence," exhibiting a one-way spiral evolution process of silence. As members within the group are deeply influenced by these polarized statements, they exhibit blind conformity in action. Once the blind conformity and polarization from the virtual world are brought into reality, it leads to the escalation of group events.

The process of rumor dissemination reveals a formula: hearsay (human nature leaks) + text messages + the internet + interpersonal discussions = a complete distortion.

The immediacy of the internet also accelerates the speed of rumor dissemination, causing it to spread geometrically, thus posing significant harm. Some malicious individuals may exploit this characteristic to spread rumors, intensifying conflicts and complicating group events.

When an event is resolved and the crisis is eliminated, group events enter a retreat phase. At this time, group psychology and behavior gradually return to a rational state, and the social public order disrupted by group events returns to normal. Online public opinion gradually diminishes, with content shifting from intense discussions to discussions about the handling and aftermath of group events, eventually returning to a non-public opinion discussion state.

For a controversial topic, people will form perceptions of the "opinion leaders" around them while judging whether their opinions belong to the "majority opinion." When people feel their opinions belong to the "majority" or are in the "advantageous" position, they tend to boldly express those opinions. When they realize their opinions belong to the "minority" or are in the "disadvantageous" position, they may choose to remain "silent" to avoid "isolation." The more people remain silent, the more they feel their views are not accepted, leading them to continue to remain silent. After several repetitions, the opinions in the "advantageous" position become increasingly powerful, while the voices of those holding "disadvantageous" opinions grow weaker. This cycle creates a spiral process where "one side increasingly cries out loudly, while the other side increasingly falls silent."

This is the result of the interaction between online dissemination, interpersonal dissemination, and people's perceptions of the "opinion environment." The opinions emphasized by mass media in highlighting events, due to their public nature and widespread dissemination, are easily perceived as "majority" or "advantageous" opinions.

Second, the expression of individual opinions is a social psychological process. When individuals discover they belong to the "majority" or "advantageous" opinions, they tend to boldly express their viewpoints; when they find themselves belonging to the "minority" or "disadvantageous" opinions, they may yield to environmental pressure and turn to "silence" or conformity. As social animals, people always strive to seek support from their surrounding environment to avoid falling into isolation; this is human "social nature." (Social groups)

Third, the expression of opinions and the diffusion of "silence" is a spiral social communication process. In other words, one side's silence strengthens the other side's opinions, making the "advantageous" opinions appear even stronger. This strength, in turn, forces more dissenting voices to turn to silence.

Fourth, dissemination influences and constrains public opinion by creating an "opinion environment." According to Neumann's perspective, the formation of public opinion is not the result of "rational discussion" among the public but rather a product of the pressure of the "opinion environment" acting on people's fear of isolation, forcing them to conform to the "advantageous" opinions in a non-rational process. The "strong influence" reflected here goes beyond the cognitive stage and includes the entire process of "cognition → judgment → emotional rendering → action → conflict → negotiation." This hypothesis posits that the media has the immense power to "create social reality."

The effects of dissemination include three dimensions: cognition, attitude, and action, playing a role in promoting the social "agenda." Its dissemination "agenda-setting" focuses on the effects produced in the initial cognitive dimension of the formation of dissemination effects by mass media.

The first stage is the initial dissemination stage, characterized by the existence of inducements for online public opinion related to group events, but due to insufficient energy or lack of strong triggers, it has not yet manifested as group events.

The second stage is the rapid dissemination stage, characterized by the rapid accumulation of online energy, the emergence of opinion leaders, and a significant increase in attention. Online public opinion gradually polarizes into prominent viewpoints, with a relatively stable number of people paying attention and a balanced level of heat. The third stage is the retreat stage, characterized by a decrease in attention and a decline in the number of comments. The characteristics exhibited by online public opinion at different stages vary.

Viewing the online public opinion of group events as a complete lifecycle, we specifically elaborate and summarize the evolution stages of online public opinion for group events, constructing a model that divides the initial formation, diffusion, and retreat of online public opinion for group events.

Rationality is one of the most important values possessed by humans. Whether a person can think and act rationally determines their level of happiness and joy.

Expected Value and Subjective Expected Utility#

Decision-making situations can be divided into three parts:
(1) Possible actions; (2) Possible events or states that may occur in the world; (3) Evaluating the outcomes produced by different behaviors in each possible external state. Since the future world almost always has multiple possible states, we do not know which situation will occur and cannot judge the outcomes of actions, so any action can be seen as a gamble with unknown results. From this perspective, life itself is a gamble (because we cannot accurately know the state of the future world, we cannot accurately predict the outcomes).

Outcome Bias#

It is very important to objectively assess whether others' decisions are correct. Judges must possess this ability. Similarly, many other professions, such as doctors, teachers, politicians, and coaches, require some degree of commentary and critique. We adjust our beliefs about others based on our evaluations of the quality of their decisions and implement rewards and punishments. However, there is a special bias that affects our evaluation of this process. Sometimes it is precisely because of this bias that we find it difficult to judge whether a decision is good or bad. For example, we often exhibit a bias toward outcomes. This bias manifests itself in that even when decision-makers in two situations face the same known information, respondents still believe that decisions leading to positive outcomes are superior to those leading to negative outcomes. In short, we do not consider the impact of good or bad luck on the results of the chosen actions beyond the goodness or badness of the actions themselves.

Values are a major incentive for initiating evaluations of needs. The inconsistency between action/value indicates that we need to normatively critique and evaluate first-order needs and their values. Therefore, values provide a motivation for the possible reconstruction of the structure of needs, making human rationality a broad rationality, where the content of individual needs is also significant, differing from the narrow rational characteristics of gorillas and other animals.

"Throwing garbage" is a multi-participant game known as the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968), which shares a similar logic with the prisoner's dilemma. Suppose I am driving through a distant city, and if I throw a drink paper cup out of the window, I can gain many benefits. Since I will never see that cup again, it has no negative utility for me because it does not pollute my view. On a very narrow level, throwing it out is rational for me—this is an NR response. The problem is that it is a narrow rationality for every driver. However, if everyone makes NR responses, it will create a completely dirty environment (which we all do not want to see). The C response is better at the collective level, but we must note the harmful dominance of NR responses: if you all choose to cooperate and not throw cups, then I can throw my cup and gain the benefit of not polluting the view while also enjoying the convenience of throwing the cup (which is better than the result I get from making a C response); and if everyone else chooses to throw cups, then choosing to throw my cup (NR) is still better because if I do not throw it, the view is still polluted, and I give up the convenience of throwing the cup. The problem is that everyone sees the same dominant logic, so everyone chooses to throw cups, leading to a less happy outcome compared to everyone making C responses.

The prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons illustrate that rationality must supervise itself. As issues like global warming approach, human history may enter a stage where demonstrating meta-rationality—using rational judgment to test the applicability of rationality itself—is extremely important. This is because the market's influence on our lives may have begun to pose a threat to our broad rationality. The rational models drive some of the most successful institutions in our society, such as companies and financial markets, but these models may be narrow, leading to negative effects.

Meta-rationality: questioning the applicability of rational principles
Devoting oneself to a critique of meta-rationality can also be seen as a way to reconcile the overly optimistic and social reformist positions. Social reformists emphasize the importance of normative rules and the necessity of adhering to these rules, and they must correct their behavior when our actions deviate from them. Overly optimistic individuals emphasize that such deviations may only be superficial and that sometimes they are the result of improperly applying normative rules.

Individuals are masters of using "hard power": adopting a masculine stance and succeeding with an "iron fist." The problem with this approach is that many of them maintain an iron-fisted and guarded state at other times. Conversely, using "soft power"—that is, employing diplomacy, collaboration, compromise, and intuition to win hearts—can be effective. As long as you know when to use it and how to complement hard and soft power, soft power is not weaker than hard power.

Why do we become strong? It relates to our personalities, education, and upbringing. I was raised by parents who were doctors, so some leadership came naturally to me. Although I am generally a quiet, contemplative type, I learned to emulate my parents' authoritative handling of emergencies and quick decision-making to save patients' lives, inheriting the strong will required to complete medical school. Throughout my life, I have seen many particularly strong female role models. For example, my mother insisted that her epitaph read: "Never say 'never,' say 'maybe.'" Therefore, knowing such strong women and loving such strong women has significantly influenced my view of power.

I understand that being strong helps achieve success. However, it is also important to skillfully use soft power in life, to love more and fight less. Understanding your biological instincts can allow you to balance hard and soft power.

Neurochemicals that Ignite Power#

Biology plays a crucial role in the process of individuals becoming strong. For both men and women, specific neurochemicals support specific types of strength. However, you can decide which neurochemicals to submit to. This is not a passive approach as many people think. Here are some basic neurochemicals and how they motivate individuals; knowing these can help you choose which type of strength to pursue or what kind of person to become.

Hard Power#

Hard power is ignited by a set of strong neurochemicals that can generate a surge of energy. Strong individuals are invigorated by this pleasure and may become addicted to it.

• Adrenaline: The fight-or-flight hormone. Whether closing a deal or defeating an opponent, strong individuals pursue the adrenaline rush triggered by challenges and battles. The goal is to become the tiger that dominates the jungle.
• Testosterone: The hormone of sex and power. High testosterone levels are found in male strong individuals. This hormone is associated with strong sexual desire, love for hunting, adventure, status, and competition, which can refer to games, romance, debates, or war. Success sends testosterone soaring, while failure causes it to plummet. Thus, biologically, this explains why strong individuals are obsessed with success. But this is a causal cycle: aggression and violence increase testosterone, and testosterone may also reinforce aggression and violence. Testosterone decreases with age, and men with low testosterone are more inclined to cooperate rather than compete. Women also experience increased testosterone during competition, but winning or losing does not change their levels.
• Dopamine: The pleasure hormone. Strong individuals crave activities that stimulate dopamine release, such as intense exercise, competition, or even watching action movies. Dopamine is related to addiction and the brain's pleasure center. Cocaine, nicotine, sex, food, and power can increase dopamine release, making them easy to become addicted to.

Soft Power#

Neurochemicals that promote soft power can calm you and open your beautiful heart. You can enhance the secretion of these neurochemicals by exercising, meditating, or connecting with spirituality and compassion to relieve stress. They can balance hard power, making hard power more effective. Otherwise, you are merely seeking control through coercion or manipulation. My teacher said, "You should pursue relaxation as diligently as you pursue achievement." While soft power brings a sense of the sacred, it can also lead to a healthy addiction to it, but it lacks the surge and stimulation of hard power, so strong individuals need to cultivate the habit of skillfully using soft power.

• Endorphins: The feel-good hormones. These are natural painkillers secreted by the brain, akin to opiates, bringing the "runner's high" after exercise and also produced during meditation and other relaxation activities, providing comfort and even excitement. Strong individuals enjoy the stimulation of endorphins from competitive sports, but they instinctively do not feel the same attraction to the power of meditation or spirituality-oriented activities.
• Oxytocin: The love or hug hormone. Women secrete more oxytocin than men. It surges during orgasm, childbirth, and breastfeeding, promoting emotional closeness among women with friends, creating a warm, soft "baptism of love" effect that makes you feel a connection of love. Strong men often only experience this feeling as they age and learn to balance hard and soft power.
• Serotonin: The happiness hormone. This mood-regulating hormone alleviates depression and anxiety, making you more successful and happier. When serotonin is low, individuals become weak, emotionally downcast, and fatigued, leading to decreased achievement motivation. Stress, overwork, and excessive labor can reduce serotonin levels. Exercise, meditation, spiritual practices, eating high-protein foods, and maintaining a positive attitude can all increase serotonin levels, and eating chocolate can help too!

The Practical Role of Money#

The Bright Side#

• Meeting Basic Needs: It allows you to eat well, dress warmly, have shelter from the elements, and maintain a livelihood to cover daily expenses, freeing you from suffering and providing a stable life.
• Providing High Quality of Life and Safety Nets: This includes education, healthcare benefits, material comfort, and enjoyment, such as travel, movies, and healthy food.
• Buying Leisure Time: You can relax, play, exercise, create, and enjoy time with your children without having to hustle for a living.
• Helping You Connect with Influential People and Gain Opportunities: Money can help you break through barriers, give you veto power, increase your influence, and draw more attention to you and your goals. Money can also fund your dreams, such as starting a new business, allowing you to escape a job you dislike.
• Helping Others and Rewarding Good Performance: Charitable donations can alleviate others' suffering, and using money for humanitarian purposes can eliminate poverty, establish schools, and find cures for diseases. Additionally, generously paying salaries, tips, and bonuses is a way to express gratitude for others' work and efforts, encouraging them to do their jobs well.

The Dark Side#

• Cannot Make an Unhappy You Happy: Research shows that wealth does not guarantee happiness; it may even hinder your ability to enjoy small pleasures.
• Cannot Make You More Important Than Others: Money cannot elevate you above others; in fact, studies show that money can make people more reckless and less empathetic.
• Cannot Buy True Friendship or Love: Surveys show that even if employees are friends with their boss, they are reluctant to speak the truth for fear of losing their jobs. In interpersonal relationships, if one party has a financial obligation to the other, money often prevents both parties from being honest with each other and from offering unconditional love. Moreover, wealthy individuals often lose friends after losing their wealth.
• Cannot Replace Personal Self-Esteem: Money can boost self-esteem, but many factors can make you feel great; money is just one of them. True confidence must also come from within, compensating for external sources. Otherwise, confidence cannot be sustained.
• Cannot Fill the Holes of Loneliness, Loss, or Lack of Spiritual Connection: Money cannot keep you warm at night, serve as a substitute for love, or provide inner healing resources. Spiritual achievements are not for sale. Money cannot connect you to a greater, loving intelligence. You must cultivate it.

Money is a human invention that belongs solely to this world. At this moment, we can use it well, but when the day comes to leave this world, money cannot accompany us