-

-
Visit TOUK main site

Sunday 14 October 2007

INTRODUCTION

With a longterm interest in human behaviour and the 'weird', I still find myself wondering what really sways a person or situation. Probably it's a combination of factors but do we really know? Do experts really know? They certainly don't agree. I recently watched a TV programme which was about scientific evidence. People on both sides of the argument put their case and were questioned. Nothing was clearcut by the end, and no-one said 'of course if I'm wrong about this aspect it could change some or all of the rest'.

What tends to happen with me is I find an author's perceptions very useful - up to a point - then they seem to go off on some idiosyncratic track that I can't agree with. Maybe I do the same! The trick is probably not to throw baby out with the bathwater, and to keep what is important.

A particular book or website can suddenly set us thinking about something, or feeling we've found an answer. Maybe that stays with us, maybe it changes the next time something useful comes along, maybe our views take a diametric turn.

The fact that we have an adversarial legal system throws up interesting questions about what is just, fair, appropriate. More importantly, it shows how some lawyers are able to sway a situation which looks hopeless for their client into an acquittal. But as the case proceeds, often the truth becomes so multi-faceted that 'reasonable doubt' enters the equation. How does that happen? How do a significant number of people get wrongfully accused and convicted? Surely our system should iron out these huge wrinkles.

Our jury system works on a principle of a group of people coming to some kind of consensus or majority about what they feel is the guilt or innocence of someone, based on the evidence available at the time. Why then is so much time and money spent in the United States on jury selection according to some kind of profiling, or information about potential jurors' lives? Why do marketing companies do likewise? It must pay off - for those on the winning side.

People say our modern businesses bear increasing similarities to religion, taking on more importance in our lives as we are expected to do more for 'the firm'. Businesses and organisations can have neuroses of their own, affecting how they interact with the world and within their grouping. Thus individuals who enter them can be affected, the more sensitive being the more affected.

The same apparently happens when people join a cult, or as they are often called these days 'new religious movement' or NRM. Views about a particular group or cult are likely to include what is in the 'eye of the beholder' but generally there's a concept of what the term means.

Could
all beliefs simply be a matter of which memes get spread around the most or stay the longest?

Or is there something else at stake?
 

What!
- - - - - -


See also Like any normal day posted below and SUMMARY posted near the end, and anything that grabs your attention on the way.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are also phenomena like trends and critical mass, for instance 'The Tipping Point' and Ball's 'Critical Mass' - sorry I don't have fuller details

Touk said...

Thanks. I've added those to the main BOOKS list near the end plus 'The KC Factor' and 'Freakonomics'.