A Condemned Species

[kingsgate]

I don't think anyone on here uses these terms because they think they are a superior race. I think these references are used to try and explain the posters frustration at the fact that all their friends and family (population in general) have thought about nothing else but themselves for the past decade, worrying about who's house is worth more and who's got the bigger plasma tv etc etc.

This kind of behaviour is tragic and sheep like IMO.

Who gives a toss about working/middle class insecurity?? 95% of the population do for some crazy reason.

Time and again I see these references to how most people (sheeple) just bray insincere sh*t at each other about house prices, big TVs and other "flash possessions".

I have come across no-one I know who wibbles on about their plasma TV, or their new car, etc. And certainly no-one for whom possession of a new telly is the be-all and end-all of their existence.

Calling everyone else "sheeple" is indicative of a superior and somewhat smug attitude, and coupled with attempts to suggest that these so-called "sheeple" ONLY think or care about tellys, holidays and houses is insulting.

[Wait & See]

Time and again I see these references to how most people (sheeple) just bray insincere sh*t at each other about house prices, big TVs and other "flash possessions".

I have come across no-one I know who wibbles on about their plasma TV, or their new car, etc. And certainly no-one for whom possession of a new telly is the be-all and end-all of their existence.

Calling everyone else "sheeple" is indicative of a superior and somewhat smug attitude, and coupled with attempts to suggest that these so-called "sheeple" ONLY think or care about tellys, holidays and houses is insulting.

How did we get into this situation then?

It was by most, not all, UK/American/European individuals spending more than they earned to project an image of themselves that was false.

Most people need to wake up to the fact that they are not wealthy and no amount of borrowing will change this.

[Guest X-QUORK]

By definition, altruism is a form of behaviour that is truly disinterested. That is to say, there is no interest whatsoever underlying such behaviour. Either directly, or indirectly.

This is quite different from altruism where there is no expected gain, short or long term, direct or indirect.

I'm no anthropologist, but I suspect that even where there is no expected gain from helping another, we are unconsciously performing an act that will either benefit the wider community (and therefore indirectly us), or doing something that we know benefits others and through learned behaviour this makes us feel good.

Of more interest to me are the good acts we perform to ease a sense of guilt over our own good fortune, such as the wealthy who give anonymously to charities. Hard to see the evolutionary roots of this kind of thing.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I'm not so sure it's as easy to say that 'greed' is the basis of life. Just because we often act out of self-interest doesn't mean we are greedy.

If try to avoid an oncoming car in the road I am acting out of self-interest but I wouldn't consider myself being greedy for more time on the planet.

If I hoard cash for fear of times of hardship to gain security I am acting out of self-interest, but I wouldn't consider myself greedy. Concerned about security in lean times, yes.

I think greed goes way beyond the average level of self-interest & is particularly marked by attempting to gain things at the expense of others rather than at the service of others.

I need to be more specific here becasue I think we are all getting lost in words and their meanings

All life is geared towards maximum profit and least loss possible.

In other words the biggest return for the least effort.

The above can be expressed in a variety of ways, some obvious, some less so, some direct, some indirect, some short term, some long term.

You can call the above, greed, self interest, reciprocation or whatever else you wish. They are just words.

The genetic imperative remains

Edited October 16, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Bloo Loo]

Time and again I see these references to how most people (sheeple) just bray insincere sh*t at each other about house prices, big TVs and other "flash possessions".

I have come across no-one I know who wibbles on about their plasma TV, or their new car, etc. And certainly no-one for whom possession of a new telly is the be-all and end-all of their existence.

Calling everyone else "sheeple" is indicative of a superior and somewhat smug attitude, and coupled with attempts to suggest that these so-called "sheeple" ONLY think or care about tellys, holidays and houses is insulting.

no, it definately refers to a group of people who act like sheep, shepherded unwaveringly through life by the shepherds and their dogs. There are plenty of them. Political power relies on them.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I'm no anthropologist, but I suspect that even where there is no expected gain from helping another, we are unconsciously performing an act that will either benefit the wider community (and therefore indirectly us), or doing something that we know benefits others and through learned behaviour this makes us feel good.

Of more interest to me are the good acts we perform to ease a sense of guilt over our own good fortune, such as the wealthy who give anonymously to charities. Hard to see the evolutionary roots of this kind of thing.

Please see my previous post X-Quork

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...t&p=1397777

[toodimm]

OK, I suppose it's because there's a general tendency to group together people one doesn't like (religious groups, ethnic groups, people with non-standard sexual tastes, enemies in war) and attach a derogatory name to them (Fenians, *****, Poofs and Huns). This makes it very easy to discuss people in contemptuous terms - the label just summons up a caricature which generally doesn't reflect in any way the variations in opinion and behaviour within the group. It's just name-calling, which never tends to achieve anything constructive. The S-word seems particularly pernicious because it's so general; its sole purpose seems to be to establish the superiority of the speaker over the general mass of humanity. Having said all that, if someone wants to call people sheeple then let them go ahead.

I am a sheeple.

I think that there is a distinction that you are not making.

There are groups to which we belong that we have no option of our membership, for example: race, gender, sexuality, age etc. Then there are groups to which we have either directly or implicitly chosen to align ourselves, for example: Football team, political party, religion etc. There are also some ambiguities such as the Jews, who fall into both the category of religion and race.

The acceptability of attacking members of the first type of group is debatable, personally I find it objectionable. However the members of the second type of group are fair game due to their choice to join that group.

I feel that the word sheeple fits firmly into the second category. When a person has not bothered to think about the consequences of their actions (buying a £150,000 house when on a salary of £19,000), because they have just relied on the opinion of others and the media, then I think they forfeit the right to be considered as an individual in this context. Either they are stupid, or they are lazy and have just gone with the crowd opinion (sheeple). I still have enough faith in my fellow man to think the latter is more likely than the former.

I do accept your point that there is a danger in using derogatory language, as it can be extremely divisive. However I think this is more dangerous in the case of unchosen groups, rather than chosen groups.

Words pick up negative connotations because of what they refer to, not because of the words themselves. Calling your shithouse a lavatory doesn’t make it stink any less.

Rather than changing a noun, it would be better to address the underlying problem; otherwise the new noun will just pick up those same negative connotations. For example the work N***er became unacceptable because of the negative connotations it picked up from the underlying racism in society, the word in its own right is not offensive. Rather than changing the word to Black and then African American, it would have been far more productive to address the underlying racism in society. However when a word does attain sever negative connotations, then I agree that it should be removed from common parlance to prevent it being used in a devices way.

I may have been childish to use the work sheeple, and I will happily concede that point if you can provide me with an alternative noun that encapsulates the same ideas.

Edited October 16, 2008 by toodimm

[Guest X-QUORK]

Please see my previous post X-Quork

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...t&p=1397777

Fascinating post Steve. Are you a scientist involved in studying this sort of thing?

[Scunnered]

I think that there is a distinction that you are not making.

There are groups to which we belong that we have no option of our membership, for example: race, gender, sexuality, age etc. Then there are groups to which we have either directly or implicitly chosen to align ourselves, for example: Football team, political party, religion etc. There are also some ambiguities such as the Jews, who fall into both the category of religion and race.

The acceptability of attacking members of the first type of group is debatable, personally I find it objectionable. However the members of the second type of group are fair game due to their choice to join that group.

I feel that the word sheeple fits firmly into the second category. When a person has not bothered to think about the consequences of their actions (buying a £150,000 house when on a salary of £19,000), because they have just relied on the opinion of others and the media, then I think they forfeit the right to be considered as an individual in this context. Either they are stupid, or they are lazy and have just gone with the crowd opinion (sheeple). I still have enough faith in my fellow man to think the latter is more likely than the former.

I do accept your point that there is a danger in using derogatory language, as it can be extremely divisive. However I think this is more dangerous in the case of unchosen groups, rather than chosen groups.

Actually, I agree with you to some extent, and in fact a little while ago I added a note to my original post withdrawing the remark about "sheeple" being particularly pernicious. I don't think anyone would really care if you called them a sheeple, but a lot of these other labels can be really offensive.

I probably overstated my case a bit, but I still think that this business of lumping people together under a blanket term is a little dubious. We see this with various terms like "nimby", "envirofascist" and "tree-hugger" which have appeared in recent years. Suppose someone wants to build a new motorway through the habitat of some rare moles and the locals object. The kind of response you often see is "Oh no, here come the nimbies. " Now everyone knows what nimbies are like, so it makes it easy for people to ignore the objections. This is what I don't like: groups of people become subsumed into some kind of inaccurate caricature that makes it easy for others to dismiss them as being unworthy of notice (and maybe this kind of thing is inevitable given the vast number of interests and counter-interests that people have). Maybe "sheeple" doesn't quite fall into this category, but still I find that it makes me a little uneasy when I see it. I guess that it makes me tend to feel that the speaker/writer is placing themselves among some kind of elite that's above the common people; that's not necessarily the speaker's intention, but that's how it comes across sometimes.

I kind of like the idea of coming up with some other term, but it would probably just end up sounding ridiculous, like these attempts people occasionally make to come up with gender-neutral pronouns to avoid using the words "he" and "she". Go on calling them sheeple and I'll just grit my teeth. We are all someone else's sheeple.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Scunnered

[Guest Steve Cook]

Fascinating post Steve. Are you a scientist involved in studying this sort of thing?

Thank you X-Quork

My degree was in psycholgy at York

My field of interest was in the area of evolutionary psychology.

More commonly known as ethology, a branch of zoology.

I still retain an interest in the subject and try to keep abreast of developments

[toodimm]

We are all someone else's sheeple.

I agree, I think that (as another poster has already suggested), I am guilty of jumping on the bandwagon and unthinkingly using the term.

I do think that the term nicely sums up a particular trait that all humans show from time to time. However, if you are prepared to grit your teeth if I need to use it, then I will attempt to find other more imaginative descriptions in future, and use my own words, not others.

Edited October 16, 2008 by toodimm

[Guest X-QUORK]

I kind of like the idea of coming up with some other term, but it would probably just end up sounding ridiculous, like these attempts people occasionally make to come up with gender-neutral pronouns to avoid using the words "he" and "she". Go on calling them sheeple and I'll just grit my teeth. We are all someone else's sheeple.

The PMI?

(Property Market Illiterati)

[toodimm]

Thank you X-Quork

My degree was in psycholgy at York

My field of interest was in the area of evolutionary psychology.

More commonly known as ethology, a branch of zoology.

I still retain an interest in the subject and try to keep abreast of developments

Really enjoyed your original post as well, thanks. I particularly enjoyed reading books on these topics, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley and Edward Wilson. Can you recomend any that are above this sort of pop science level.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Really enjoyed your original post as well, thanks. I particularly enjoyed reading books on these topics, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley and Edward Wilson. Can you recomend any that are above this sort of pop science level.

yep. at work at the moment. will check some out for you tonight

Edited October 16, 2008 by Steve Cook