Election 2024: As Mob Size Increases, Intelligence Decreases Proportionally?

Some more interesting conversations with AI.

While attending university to earn my degree in psychology, I was introduced to a correlative statement that, "as mob size increases, intelligence decreases proportionally."

“In crowds the foolish, ignorant, and envious persons are freed from the sense of their insignificance and powerlessness, and are possessed instead by the notion of brutal and temporary but immense strength.” The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind – Gustave Le Bon

Remind you of any currently popular, right-wing political party?

ChatGPT said:

The idea that the intelligence or rationality of a mob decreases as its size increases is commonly attributed to observations in crowd psychology and group behavior. One of the key figures associated with this concept is French sociologist Gustave Le Bon, who discussed it extensively in his 1895 book, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" (Video/transcript). Le Bon argued that individuals in large groups tend to lose their sense of individuality, rationality, and responsibility, leading to a kind of "collective mind" that is often more impulsive, emotional, and irrational than the behavior of the individuals alone.

Le Bon suggested that crowds are susceptible to suggestion and that individuals within the group often act based on emotions rather than logic. This can lead to what he called the "de-individuation" effect, where people become anonymous and behave in ways they would not when alone or in smaller groups. His theory emphasized that as the size of the crowd grows, the more likely it is for groupthink and mob mentality to take over, reducing overall intelligence and reasoned decision-making.

Psychologists like Sigmund Freud and later thinkers such as Elias Canetti in Crowds and Power have expanded on these ideas, further reinforcing the notion that mob behavior tends to amplify emotional responses and decrease intellectual reasoning.

The concept has since evolved into modern studies on groupthink, peer pressure, and herd mentality, all of which explore how individuals' decision-making capacities can diminish in larger groups or mobs.

I asked:

What is the most correct form of that statement?

ChatGPT said:

A more precise and correct version of the statement could be:

"As the size of a crowd increases, the capacity for individual critical thinking and rational decision-making tends to decrease, often leading to impulsive, emotional, and less intelligent collective behavior."

This version captures the essence of the idea without suggesting that the group's intelligence literally diminishes. Instead, it emphasizes the tendency for individuals within large groups to succumb to emotional influences, lose a sense of personal responsibility, and behave in ways they might not when alone. This results in actions that can appear less intelligent or more irrational on a collective level.

I said:

And if even more succinct?

ChatGPT said:

"As crowd size increases, individual critical thinking and rational decision-making often decline, leading to more impulsive and emotional group behavior."

I asked:

Has that original theory been discounted?

ChatGPT said:

The original theory posited by Gustave Le Bon and others about crowd behavior has not been entirely discounted but has evolved and been nuanced over time. While Le Bon's ideas laid a foundational understanding of mob mentality, contemporary research in social psychology and behavioral economics has offered a more complex view of group behavior.

Here are some key points regarding the evolution of the theory:

Complexity of Group Dynamics: Modern studies highlight that group dynamics can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. While large groups may exhibit impulsive behavior, they can also foster creativity, problem-solving, and collective intelligence.

Social Identity Theory: This theory suggests that individuals in a group may maintain their rationality when their social identity is strong. Group members can engage in thoughtful decision-making based on shared values and goals, contrary to Le Bon’s view of irrationality.

Groupthink: Research on groupthink illustrates how conformity pressures can lead to poor decision-making in groups, but it also acknowledges that diverse groups can enhance problem-solving and lead to better outcomes when managed effectively.

Collective Intelligence: Some studies suggest that diverse groups, when allowed to express different viewpoints, can outperform individuals on complex tasks, indicating that collective intelligence can sometimes exceed individual reasoning.

Context Matters: The context in which a crowd forms plays a crucial role in its behavior. Factors such as the purpose of the gathering, the presence of leaders, and the overall social environment can significantly influence whether a crowd behaves rationally or irrationally.

In summary, while Le Bon's foundational ideas about crowd behavior remain influential, they have been enriched by subsequent research that recognizes the complexities and potential for rational behavior in groups. The relationship between crowd size and intelligence is now viewed through a more nuanced lens that considers various social dynamics and contexts.

I asked:

How does that relate to the bizarre behaviors in discounting, ignoring, or rejecting even criminal behavior of an authoritarian and now convicted felon like Donald Trump in his MaGA political entity?

ChatGPT said:

The bizarre behaviors associated with discounting, ignoring, or rejecting the criminal actions of an authoritarian figure like Donald Trump, particularly within his MAGA political movement, can be understood through several psychological and sociological concepts related to group dynamics and crowd behavior. Here are some key points of relation:

Ingroup Bias: Supporters may exhibit ingroup bias, where they favor their group (in this case, the MAGA movement) over others. This bias can lead to rationalizations of behavior that would typically be condemned if exhibited by outsiders. Members may dismiss or downplay negative actions by their leader to maintain group cohesion and identity.

Cognitive Dissonance: When faced with evidence of wrongdoing by a figure they support, individuals may experience cognitive dissonance—an uncomfortable feeling arising from holding conflicting beliefs. To resolve this dissonance, supporters might reject the evidence, reinterpret it, or rationalize the behavior as acceptable, reinforcing their allegiance to the leader.

Groupthink: Within the MAGA movement, groupthink may manifest, where members suppress dissenting opinions and prioritize consensus over critical analysis. This can lead to collective rationalizations that ignore or downplay criminal behavior, as individuals prioritize loyalty to the group and its leader over independent judgment.

Moral Disengagement: Supporters may employ moral disengagement, a psychological process that allows individuals to separate their ethical standards from their actions or the actions of their leader. This can result in justifying or overlooking criminal behavior by framing it as a necessary means to achieve a perceived greater good.

Social Identity Theory: Many supporters may derive a significant part of their identity from their association with the MAGA movement. This strong social identity can lead to a reluctance to criticize or abandon the leader, even in the face of wrongdoing, as doing so could threaten their sense of belonging and self-worth.

Collective Rationalization: The group may collectively rationalize or reinterpret actions that might otherwise be viewed as criminal. This collective mindset can create an echo chamber where dissenting voices are minimized, and problematic behavior is either ignored or reframed as a strategy against perceived threats from outside groups.

Fear of Social Repercussions: Individuals within the movement may fear social repercussions or ostracization for criticizing Trump or the MAGA ideology. This can lead to a reluctance to engage in open dialogue about his criminal behavior, further entrenching group loyalty.

Charismatic Authority: Trump's charismatic leadership style may contribute to a phenomenon where supporters view him as an embodiment of their values, leading to a willingness to overlook or dismiss actions that contradict those values, reinforcing loyalty to his persona rather than to ethical standards.

These factors create an environment where bizarre behaviors, such as ignoring or discounting criminal actions, become more prevalent among supporters. This reflects how group dynamics and psychological processes can influence individual behavior, especially in the context of strong social identities and charismatic leadership.

I said:

This has even taken his MaGA people to vote against their own interests, their own country, against the US Constitution, and the spirit of America, to the point that some of them have said they'd rather "spend time with Putin than a Democrat."

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the phenomenon you describe—supporters voting against their own interests, the interests of their country, and even the principles enshrined in the Constitution—can be analyzed through the same psychological and sociological lenses previously mentioned. Here are some key points to consider:

Identity Over Interests: Many supporters prioritize their identity and affiliation with the MAGA movement over their individual interests or the broader interests of the country. This can manifest in a willingness to support policies or candidates that may not align with their economic or social well-being if those policies are framed as part of their group's identity.

Polarization and Us vs. Them Mentality: Political polarization has intensified, leading to a perception of Democrats not just as political opponents but as existential threats. This "us vs. them" mentality can make supporters more likely to align with leaders like Trump, even when it means voting against their interests, simply to oppose the perceived enemy.

Charismatic Leadership and Loyalty: Trump’s charismatic leadership fosters a strong emotional connection with his supporters. This can lead individuals to prioritize loyalty to him over their own rational interests or the principles of democracy. When supporters say they’d prefer spending time with authoritarian figures like Putin rather than Democrats, it underscores the depth of their allegiance to their leader and their rejection of opposing viewpoints.

Manipulation of Fear and Mistrust: Trump's rhetoric often plays on fears of socialism, immigration, and societal change, which can lead supporters to view Democrats as threats to their way of life. This fear can override rational decision-making regarding their interests or the implications for the country.

Social Reinforcement: Within their social circles, MAGA supporters may find reinforcement for their beliefs, further entrenching their views and making it harder to consider alternative perspectives. The echo chamber effect can create a distorted view of reality where opposing ideas are not only rejected but vilified.

Disregard for Democratic Norms: Some supporters may embrace authoritarian figures because they perceive a breakdown of trust in democratic institutions. Their willingness to disregard the Constitution or democratic norms reflects a broader crisis of legitimacy and trust in those institutions, as they align more with leaders who promise to disrupt the status quo, regardless of the consequences.

Nostalgia and Idealization: Supporters may idealize a past vision of America that they believe Trump embodies, leading them to overlook actions or policies that contradict democratic values. This nostalgia can be a powerful motivator for voting behavior, even when it aligns with authoritarianism.

Emotional Appeals: Trump's ability to connect emotionally with his base through rallies, social media, and rhetoric can lead to decisions driven more by emotional resonance than rational analysis. This emotional connection often transcends traditional political considerations, encouraging loyalty even when it contradicts their interests.

In summary, the behavior of voting against one's own interests and embracing authoritarian figures can be understood as a complex interplay of identity, loyalty, emotional manipulation, and social dynamics, reflecting deeper issues within contemporary American political discourse.

I asked:

How do you combat such a challenge?

ChatGPT said:

Combating the challenges posed by the dynamics of group behavior, polarization, and the willingness of individuals to support authoritarian figures over their own interests requires a multifaceted approach. Here are several strategies that can be effective:

Promote Critical Thinking: Encourage educational programs and initiatives that foster critical thinking skills. Teaching individuals to analyze information, evaluate sources, and consider multiple perspectives can help combat the acceptance of misinformation and dogma.

Encourage Open Dialogue: Create safe spaces for open dialogue where individuals can discuss differing viewpoints without fear of backlash. Facilitating respectful conversations can help break down barriers and encourage understanding between opposing groups.

Empathy and Storytelling: Share personal stories that humanize issues and illustrate the real-world consequences of political decisions. Empathy can bridge divides and create connections that transcend ideological differences.

Highlight Common Values: Focus on shared values and common ground, rather than divisive issues. Emphasizing areas of agreement can help build coalitions and reduce hostility between groups.

Combat Misinformation: Actively address misinformation and disinformation by promoting media literacy and fact-checking resources. Encouraging individuals to verify claims before accepting them can reduce the spread of false narratives.

Leverage Trusted Voices: Engage respected figures within communities to help bridge divides and foster understanding. Leaders who can speak to their peers with credibility may be more effective in challenging harmful narratives.

Community Building: Foster local community initiatives that encourage collaboration across political lines. Engaging in community service, local projects, or shared interests can help individuals see each other as neighbors rather than adversaries.

Address Economic Concerns: Many individuals support populist movements due to economic insecurity. Advocating for policies that address economic disparities and improve the well-being of all citizens can reduce the appeal of authoritarian figures.

Promote Democratic Norms: Emphasize the importance of democratic norms, institutions, and the rule of law. Educational campaigns can help people understand the consequences of undermining these principles and the value of civic engagement.

Encourage Civic Participation: Mobilize individuals to engage in democratic processes, such as voting, attending town halls, and participating in local governance. Increased civic engagement can empower individuals to advocate for their interests within a democratic framework.

Use Social Media Wisely: Utilize social media platforms to disseminate positive messages, counter misinformation, and create campaigns that promote understanding and cooperation. Engaging narratives can attract attention and foster discussion.

Be Patient and Persistent: Changing deeply held beliefs and behaviors takes time. Approaching discussions with patience and persistence, recognizing that change is often gradual, is essential for long-term impact.

By implementing these strategies, individuals and organizations can work to counter the negative effects of group dynamics, promote healthier political discourse, and foster a more informed and engaged citizenry. Ultimately, the goal is to create an environment where rational discussion and democratic values prevail over fear, division, and authoritarianism.

I asked:

Do you think we'll be OK, and how long will it take to get back to a new normal?

ChatGPT said:

The path to a new normal in the political landscape and societal dynamics is complex and varies significantly based on numerous factors, including the actions of leaders, community responses, and individual engagement. 

Here are some considerations regarding the potential for recovery and the timeline:

Historical Context: Societies have faced political upheaval, polarization, and authoritarianism throughout history. While these periods can be challenging, many societies have ultimately returned to a more stable and functional state. The process can be long, but history shows that recovery is possible.

Grassroots Movements: Increased civic engagement and grassroots movements can drive change. The resurgence of activism in various forms suggests a willingness among many individuals to advocate for democratic values and challenge authoritarian tendencies.

Educational Initiatives: Investing in education that promotes critical thinking, media literacy, and civic engagement can create a more informed electorate. Over time, this can lead to a more resilient society capable of resisting harmful ideologies.

Changing Demographics: As demographics shift, younger generations often bring different values and perspectives. Their engagement in politics and social issues can influence the direction of society, potentially fostering a more inclusive and democratic environment.

Technology and Communication: The rise of technology and social media can facilitate more rapid dissemination of information, allowing for grassroots movements to gain momentum quickly. However, it also presents challenges, such as the spread of misinformation, which must be addressed.

Leadership and Accountability: The emergence of leaders who prioritize democratic norms and values can help steer society back toward a healthier political landscape. Accountability for those who undermine these principles is also crucial for restoring trust.

Economic Factors: Addressing economic concerns and disparities will be vital for fostering social stability. Societal healing often correlates with improvements in economic well-being and opportunities for all.

Cultural Shifts: Societal values can evolve over time. As communities engage in dialogue and build connections across divides, there is potential for a cultural shift toward more tolerance, understanding, and cooperation.

Timeline for Recovery

Short-Term (1-5 years): In the near term, we may see increased activism and mobilization around democratic values, but deep-seated divisions may still exist. Local initiatives, community building, and education efforts can lead to incremental improvements.

Medium-Term (5-10 years): With sustained efforts, including civic engagement and addressing economic issues, we might see a more significant cultural shift and a gradual return to healthier political norms. New leadership could emerge, and younger generations might play a key role in shaping the future.

Long-Term (10+ years): A new normal could emerge as societal values shift, political norms are reinforced, and institutional trust is rebuilt. This process may take a generation or more, but history indicates that societies can recover from periods of turmoil.

Ultimately, while the challenges are significant, there is also a strong foundation of resilience and potential for positive change. The timeline for recovery will depend on collective efforts, civic engagement, and the prioritization of democratic principles in the years to come. The future remains uncertain, but the capacity for growth and improvement is present.

I asked: 

Briefly, how long if Donald Trump wins the presidency again in 2024, and how long if Kamala Harris wins?

ChatGPT said:

The potential timelines for societal recovery and normalization can vary significantly depending on who wins the presidency in 2024:

If Donald Trump Wins:

• Short-Term (1-2 years): Expect heightened polarization and further entrenchment of authoritarian tendencies, with potential erosion of democratic norms. Resistance from opposing groups may increase, leading to further societal division.
• Medium-Term (3-5 years): If Trump's policies continue to favor divisive rhetoric and policies, significant challenges to democratic institutions may arise, making recovery more difficult. However, grassroots movements and civic engagement could grow as a reaction.
• Long-Term (5-10+ years): Recovery could be prolonged, depending on how deeply his administration undermines democratic norms and institutions. Societal healing might take a generation or more, with potential for significant unrest and resistance.

If Kamala Harris Wins:

• Short-Term (1-2 years): A Harris presidency could lead to an initial period of stabilizing efforts, focusing on rebuilding trust in institutions and addressing social divisions. There may be backlash from Trump supporters, but institutional norms could be reinforced.
• Medium-Term (3-5 years): With a focus on inclusive policies and community engagement, society may begin to heal, leading to a gradual return to a more functional political climate. Collaborative efforts may foster dialogue across divides.
• Long-Term (5-10 years): Recovery and normalization could occur more rapidly, especially if economic and social policies address the root causes of division. Trust in institutions could be restored, allowing for a healthier political landscape.

In summary, a Trump victory may prolong the path to recovery, while a Harris victory could facilitate a more rapid return to stability, though challenges would still exist regardless of the outcome.