This book comes from this link.
Today's excerpt begins on page 54.
It cannot absolutely be said that crowds do not reason and are not to be influenced by reasoning.
However, the arguments they employ and those which are capable of influencing them are, from a logical point of view, of such an inferior kind that it is only by way of analogy that they can be described as reasoning.
The inferior reasoning of crowds is based, just as is reasoning of a high order, on the association of ideas, but between the ideas associated by crowds there are only apparent bonds of analogy or succession.
The mode of reasoning of crowds resembles that of the Esquimaux who, knowing from experience that ice, a transparent body, melts in the mouth, concludes that glass, also a transparent body, should also melt in the mouth; or that of the savage who imagines that by eating the heart of a courageous foe he acquires his bravery; or of the workman who, having been exploited by one employer of labour, immediately concludes that all employers exploit their men.
The characteristics of the reasoning of crowds are the association of dissimilar things, posessing a merely apparent connection between each other, and the immediate generalisation of particular cases.
It is arguments of this kind that are always presented to crowds by those who know how to manage them.
They are the only arguments by which crowds are to be influenced.
A chain of logical argumentation is totally incomprehensible to crowds, and for this reason it is permissible to say that they do not reason or that they reason falsely and are not to be influenced by reasoning.
Astonishment is felt at times on reading certain speeches at their weakness, and yet they had an enormous influence on the crowds which listened to them, but it is forgotten that they were intended to persuade collectivities and not to be read by philosophers.
An orator in intimate communication with a crowd can evoke images by which it will be seduced.
If he is successful his object has been attained, and twenty volumes of harangues — always the outcome of reflection — are not worth the few phrases which appealed to the brains it was required to convince.
It would be superfluous to add that the powerlessness of crowds to reason aright prevents them displaying any trace of the critical spirit, prevents them, that is, from being capable of discerning truth from error, or of forming a precise judgment on any matter.
Judgments accepted by crowds are merely judgments forced upon them and never judgments adopted after discussion.
In regard to this matter the individuals who do not rise above the level of a crowd are numerous.
The ease with which certain opinions obtain general acceptance results more especially from the impossibility experienced by the majority of men of forming an opinion peculiar to themselves and based on reasoning of their own.
This series of posts will insure that these free thinkers' works live on in living memory.
If only a few.
There is a reason these books are not taught in the modern skools.
Setting rewards to burn only burns the author portion of the payout.
If you think this type of content should be eligible for author rewards, make your voice heard in this community:
https://peakd.com/c/hive-104940/created
This really leaves me almost helpless, as reasoning is my go to. I shall have to reflect on other techniques of influencing folks in debate, as that certainly hasn't been much use when the crowd has turned on me - or been set on me.
Thanks!
It does require alternative tactics, just making sense won't be enough.
Maybe you should pet a dog, or kiss a baby?
As crowds consist of indivuduals, it must have somewhat a reasoning of power.
I Just read your post and it has me in thought world....
I Ponder; The fundementals that bring a crowd together in the first place is simple and bare and for sure will be based on the unity of an apparent assiciated connection.
At the moment I think the simple foundations that people are standing on are being excercised by a series of complex circumstances that enable people from completely unique life perspectives to communicate and attempt to understand each other in a goal to achieve what is simply good.
Sometimes it seems to be hard to navigate effectively around social outcries in this day in age, But there is also brand new concepts and appreciations we are developing and becoming in a way more "Hive" minded. We are learning why each of us chooses to function the way we do with precise and particuliar values and in a way I think each is each wanting to offer the ultimate perspective which is what makes themselves happily satisfied, which of course that only needs to be addressed when someone is not satisified and in distress.
In some way I see it as All roads lead to rome but in this case All roads lead to discusions about truths and where do they come from.
Is it the same outcome to seek the solution as it is to seek the problem?
and do crowds I wonder lean one way more then the other, perhaps readily having a problem they can can agree on to remove but not really a primary solution which results in everyones' being satisfied.
I also think it is interesting how much social media like tik tok are influencing crowds offering a deeper more intricate way to communicate a more complex logic than available before.
I feel there is definitely alot to think about and crowds may have evolved into something more than a simple unification based on seeable common demoninators.
The influence of ideas to people have more ways to get to each person, and I wonder will this all lead to ultimately contructive debates and positive interactions or will this continually lead to war until ... The End?
Except the audience for a tik tok video isn't a crowd, but at most a couple people. Unless you posit that crowds can now be atomized and addressed as individuals when responding as a collective animal.
That is a very terrifying thought.
Thanks!