Reddit reviews The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics)
We found 40 Reddit comments about The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
True Believer
It's because he (rightfully) feels much more threatened by normal people supporting normal academic thought. It's sorta like Eric Hoffer's True Believer, which talks a lot about how communists were more easily led to being fascists than centrists and fascists were more easily led to being communists than centrists.
/u/Prince_Kropotkin feels more "threatened" (lol because these people already won, idiot) by regular folks than extremists because he thinks at least extremists want extreme change, he just needs to convince them that his way is the best way to do so. Normal people who are like "I don't really like this thing, and we need to change it incrementally using the systems already in place, but not burn it down and replace it with a totally different system" anger him the most, and I think that's cute.
A philosopher named Eric Hoffer wrote a really good book about this sort of phenomenon called The True Believer.
A quote:
>The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.
The truth is that there's no carefully thought out plan. It's anger and bluster. And historically, these movements have not ended well.
There's a good book about that
A classic https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915
You made me google something and now there's another book I have to read. Jerk.
1984 is phenomenal, one of my very favorite books. Orwell was a genius of sociology. However, some of Orwell's best ideas are obscured by the fact that this is a novel.
If you want to have your mind truly blown, please, please, please get a copy of The True Believer.
A work of genius about the sociology of mass movements, short, written in extremely clear, unacademic language.
Sounds like you've encountered a True Believer.
From the wiki about this book:
>"mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, former soldiers, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties' fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either."
>"The book also explores the behavior of mass movements once they become established (or leave the "active phase"). With their collapse of a communal framework people can no longer defeat the feelings of insecurity and uncertainty by belonging to a compact whole. If the isolated individual lacks vast opportunities for personal advancement, development of talents, and action (such as those found on a frontier), he will seek substitutes. These substitutes would be pride instead of self-confidence, memberships in a collective whole like a mass movement, absolute certainty instead of understanding."
When I see these photos this comes to mind.
Thankfully still in print.
No, I don’t know of any other online “cheat” sheets although I’m sure there are some out there. And I mean no offense to the noble efforts of the OP, but I think that a revision of the list would be kind-of pointless.
To be honest, it requires both a comprehensive understanding of the bible and a good understanding of the psychology of the fundamentalist mind in order to effectively crush their absurdist arguments. I’ve actually experienced the most success when I take one of their own absurd positions beyond the realm of the absurd and into the realm of pure insanity, where even they cannot deny it. (When you get them to the point that they are attacking their own beliefs, they usually get very upset and bolt for the nearest exit.)
Here’s a reddit I wrote up 4 months ago.
See what I mean? Stuff like that makes their heads go boom.
But, that being said, it would be a waste of time to study the bible in order to disprove it. I don’t need to read Peter Pan to disprove the existence of fairies.
One book that I highly recommend is “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. It explains the mindset of the fundamentalist with such insight and simplicity that it will leave you feeling stupid for not seeing it beforehand. It’s my favorite book of all time, written by a longshoreman in 1951. I’ve had the book for over ten years but I still pick it up and read it to this day (on my third copy). I guarantee that you will see the world differently after reading it - It's that good.
>does the corporation produce those goods, or do the people who work for the corp produce them? I don't want to trade with the CEOs and the middle-managers; I want to trade with the people whose hands formed the product.
Who knew Karl Marx was so computer savvy, AND has an Atari?
The value is only created by the downtrodden worker, and the rest of the people in the company are but parasites :)
A couple more gems:
>But the fact is is that the economic value of lying and other unethical behavior so far outstrips the value of anything else it gives the liar/scumbag almost total control over ethical players in the market.
Only unethical players succeed in the free market - thus, all rich people are thiefs, thus we need to get our money back from them.
Added bonus - the market is stupid and cannot figure out who consistently lies as time goes by.
>You never truly have a "free" market - that would be a power vacuum, which nature abhors. It's either regulated by a government entity, or if is de facto "regulated" by the strongest player in the market.
I've never said that before on Reddit, but you, sir, are a true believer. I'd highly recommend reading this before you become cannon fodder for the revolution. It might just save your mental health and self-respect (and the conveniently provided amazon link saves you the need to leave the house and see all those scary people outside). Oh, and there is no associate code on the link - you do not have to be concerned about a worthless parasite siphoning off the fruits of your labor. After all, we all agree that information has NO value.
> The parallels I see are.......spooky.
there are parallels, but could also apply to lots of authoritarian movements or cultish groups. though superficially different, these groups tend to use the same tactics and strategies. even when groups are opposed and in conflict, there's usually more in common than not. e.g., Catholics and Protestants fighting throughout European history. In early 20th Century Europe the communists and fascists were fighting in the streets, but always trying to convert each other: both hated capitalism (had different approches for dealing with it), both hated democracy, both believed individual rights were less important than society, etc
great book:
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1/146-9344767-0472412?ie=UTF8&qid=1502838684&sr=8-1&keywords=true+believer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
FenderJazzbass (OP, deleted), first, congrats on your sighting - but be careful not to jump to alien conclusions too soon, as there may just be a mundane explanation for your sighting. Always be on the lookout for confirmation bias in your thinking! There is a great book you might want to check out called The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915)
I'm guessing you are fairly young and relatively new to the subject of UFOs, and your posting history certainly seems to indicate a "desire to believe". You're going to get called out again and again, if for no other reason than your commenting history seems fairly uncritical and leans heavily toward the true Believer end of the spectrum, and, more importantly, relies pretty regularly on ad hominem attacks and ad hoc retractions of posts. This is all very suspicious behavior, if you are really looking to take this subject seriously, and have others take you seriously.
This is not an attack on you. Please take it as constructive criticism and keep looking up!
I'm reading a book right now called "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements". It spends a lot of time delving into what might be the motivation behind people who join any ideological group. The author has some interesting ideas about why. Fear can be one of the motivators, but other possible motivations for joining a mass movement (and adopting their ideology) are:
Anyway, I'm probably butchering the concepts from the book, but the point is that it delves into these questions and comes up with some pretty interesting theories.
Filed under the "anything is better than what I have today" idiot category.
It's right next to "change is always better than status-quo, no matter which change we're talking about" file.
Seriously - please spend a few hours of your life reading The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer - it will help you understand why your post above is so misguided.
P. S. Please skip the "I got positive Karma and that implies I'm right" argument if you care to reply to this post, as popularity has nothing to do with being right.
I have an odd story behind my finding the book I'm going to recommend. Have you seen the movie Serenity? You know, the Firefly movie from Joss Whedon? Without giving too much away, the hero is being pursued by an assassin who works for the (overbearing, tyrannical) authorities. Our hero is in conversation with a friend-counselor of his, discussing his plight, and the friend warns him about how intractable the assassin is. The assassin is a zealot of the regime. The exact words are: "He's a true believer."
The line, "He's a true believer," was delivered so meaningfully that it struck me, while I was in the theater, that there was something behind this. I went home and looked on Amazon for the title. I found this: The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer.
I read the book's description and then ordered it right away. I honestly don't know if Whedon was referring to this book or if this was just a coincidence and my mind jumping to conclusions. But the book is fascinating, and at 192 pages, how can you go wrong?
The True Believer is good. Just go in with the understanding that this covers a lot of what make negative social movements as well(i.e. Nazism) win as well.
I also recommend Eric Hoffer's [The True Believer](The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature ohttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0060505915/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fPNmyb4156PRT) - I am having my US History students read it this term. (This is a coincidence, albeit a sad one.)
Or read this book.
I think you can use it either way, I originally quoted from this book and I think he makes a good point that both theists and atheists, if they absolutely believe God exists or doesn't exist, both rely on a kind of faith since neither can be proven.
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915
this is another great one
extra interesting because the dud is self educated, but unlike most self educated people isn't a fool.
How about you go read a history book or a book on geopolitics or psychology. This violence has little to do with Islam and a whole lot to do with other things. Heck, go listen to Osama bin Laden's speeches for the political causes, or here's a CIA analyst who's book was recommended by ObL.
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/0060505915
True believer. There's a book about it
https://www.amazon.ca/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495212440&sr=8-1&keywords=the+true+believer
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
A lot of people are on here oddly
it's making the front page daily, many are True Believers (READ THIS PLEASE) and I can prove it's turning would-be Trump voters away...and is closely tied to the extreme alt-right and antisemitism.
Es triste que tengas razón en lo que dices, de que la TV abierta es el medio más popular por que es el que todos pueden acceder, cuando es el más manipulador de todos los medios. Independientemente de quién sea el dueño, o cuantos canales haya, la TV siempre tendrá ese poder manipulante. La diversidad en la TV se busca, no para reducir el poder de la TV, sino para distribuirlo y evitar que se concentre.
Creo que en clase de Ciencias Sociales, en lugar de enseñar frivolidades como los mitos de los niños héroes y la independencia de México, deberían enseñarle a los niños a pensar críticamente, a ser algo rebeldes, a debatir, y a que no los manipulen. Irónicamente, dirigir el odio contra los manipuladores también es una forma de manipular! Lo mejor sería enseñarles a detectar una manipulación y a poder reirse de ella, a saber que no son inmunes, y que, mientras sean ellos los que decidan si seguir o no la propuesta, con sus pros y sus contras, eso es lo que cuenta.
En otras palabras, creo que temas como "economía", "finanzas", "historia financiera de México", "Teoría de Juegos", "Neuromarketing" e "Inteligencia Emocional" deberían de ser los temas de la educación básica en ciencias sociales, en lugar de irrelevancias como "historia de México", "arte", "civismo", y esas tonteras sin profundidad...
Por cierto, sobre el tema de la manipulación de masas, te recomiendo el libro "The True Believer" de Eric Hoffer...
Yes; I think the surrounding circumstances and history matter a lot, as described in The True Believer.
I recently read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements which he wrote in 1951, so a fairly short time after the Second World War. It is insightful to understanding the appeal of these groups, the ease with which you can win some people over to your cause however abject. And how violence can be an integral and 'natural' part of that cause. The book is still in print and can be had fairly cheaply on Amazon for instance. Even though it's over half a century old, this book even helps understand groups like IS.
Even if I agreed with your opinion on what causes political/religious violence or how much the individual carrying it out "owns it," its still extremism either way which is what Im getting at.
Also you're really underestimating how much terrorists, regardless if their motive is religion or not, have some kind of believe in an intangible higher power or cause that justifies their actions.
If you have the desire I'd recommend checking out this book about the nature of fanaticism, it makes a pretty convincing argument that fanaticism is about losing your individually regardless if your a religious/political/nationalist fanatic. http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915
To summarize the idea is that fanatics are people who've become so sickened by their lives and the world that they resort to things like revolution/terrorism. Such individuals aren't eager to reinforce their individuality, instead they want to abandon it and join whatever "Holy Cause" is offering them new meaning for their lives. So for example the guy who shot up San Bernadino was probably someone who was so disgusted with himself and his life he decided to abandon that and recast himself as a "holy warrior." But it applies to more than just religious individuals young Germans in the 20/30s were often swept into communist or nazi organizations for the same reasons.
The book makes a good case for the argument in my opinion that there's little difference between fanatics regardless of how different their ideologies notionally may be. So thats why I say extremism and fanaticism is the real problem.
Liberalism
Neither I nor Michael Moore ever claimed that making money is "wrong." He is hardly an important figure here, and it's weird that you latched onto him, who was used as a random example. And he never sued anyone because of "greed." Liar. Have you ever even seen one of his films...just getting your ideas from the tv, are we?
The U.S. is a liberal republic, founded on Enlightenment principles with no established religion. It is NOT an authoritarian country. You're anti-liberalism is troubling, you seem like a ripe little fruit to be plucked by an authoritarian movement. American Fascists:
The Christian Right and the War on America
The U.S. is a liberal republic. If you aren't a liberal to some degree, what are you? Monarchist? Communist? Fascist? All of the above were very much anti-liberal. Learn what words mean, before spouting off about "the liberals" and "the world sucking." You are a teenager, aren't you? Turn off the goddamned tv and video games and pick up a book. True Believer
This book analyzes it nicely as well:
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453406490&sr=8-1&keywords=the+true+believer
Seriously - no one said 1984 yet? It's an amazing comment on humanity and the collective's extreme desire to suppress the base desires that give life meaning. It's an astute commentary on the nature of bureaucracies, the legal system, and sadly the direction in which society seems to be heading.
Besides that? Six Frigates by Ian Toll is a great read if you care about American military history - it's about the first six frigates commissioned by Congress, the birth of the Navy, and the war against the African pirates (of "to the shores of Tripoli" fame).
Candid by Voltaire is exceptional as well.
If you haven't read it The True Believer is one of the few books that caused a paradigm shift for me. It explains mass movements (religion / populist movements / political movements) and why some people are so extreme in their desires. It changed the way that I view the political / religious system and redefined how I interact with people.
In all seriousness, as I've posted a few times, Bitcoin enthusiasts largely fit a profile outlined in one of the best books outlining mass movements.
http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411180962&sr=8-1&keywords=the+true+believer
It should be mandatory reading in high schools imho, the US would be a better place.
I have a mild case of ADD, so I can kinda empathize with you. I would reccomend books by Eric Hoffer. They are nonfiction, but still very fascinating. You can pretty much pick up his books and start on any sentence and enjoy his writing.
I would recommend you start with Reflections on the Human Condition or The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, although Reflections on the Human condition is less structured and more ADD friendly.
The advantage to his books is you don't have to finish them. You read what you want and enjoy it. Daydreaming inspired by his books is something I would encourage.
You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.
First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.
On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.
Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”
“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.
So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.
Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.
Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.
“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…
So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345
http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915
http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419
I agree with Freakonomics, but more than that I think you should read:
True Believer by: Eric Hoffer
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/
User binary_search_tree mentioned a book i should read, and here i mentioned that i was having money issues so i'd have to get it later.
He sent me an Amazon gift certificate for the book. It arrived yesterday :D
Reddit is awesome :D
True believers.
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915
I've known a fair share of Scientists in my life and I can tell you, they are no more immune to political bias than you or I. My father recently retired from his 22 year career with NASA as a Biomedical Scientist, and my mother has been teaching high school level Earth Science classes for nearly as long. In case you're wondering, both of them agree that anthropogenic global warming is very likely but neither is willing to admit absolute certainty, just like the rest of the scientific community, including your own beloved IPCC. Your kind of faith is reserved for the True Believer.
The dangers of extrapolation.