One way groups can be classified is the naturality of forming the group.
Naturally forming groups of people acting in pure interest in other members just might be able to force out unfavorable members. Such as friend groups.
On another end there is very artificial groups. I would consider astronauts these. Enough options and time to pick out the well- fitting ones.
But on the valley there is the majority of the groups, which are grouped around agenda, be it idea, hobby or profession. Coppers, locksporters, religious groups, Swedes and men named Tom. When the focus is not in the internal nor external selection of members, but gathering around a mutual thing or task, there will be unfit members.
Thus it’s not matter of ‘if’, but rather ‘when’ and ‘how do we react?’
TL;DR: Groups with common interest are susceptible to unfit people.
My own private theory is that of any larger group of people, approx. 30% are complete and utter twats.
deleted by creator
Yeah, bad actors are still an issue.
My son goes to a Lego group once a week, and until this month it’s been a great group of helpful, quiet tinkerers.
Then a mom with kids in a local private school showed up, and now the organizer has had to break up a fight, and basically let them know they won’t be welcome if they keep touching other kids (2 of the 4 kids are too young as well).
Groups that keep certain people out will definitely ferment twats.
I would go the other way around but maybe im the twat and that’s why. Man, this made me reevaluate.
This guy again?
(Kidding…
wait… maybe I’m the twat. …crap)
That’s because 30% of people are complete and utter twats, and two thirds of the remaining people aren’t great either.
That’s a good point: it isn’t that bad apples spoil the bunch, being that “swedes” and “men named Tom” isn’t spoiled by the bad apples therein. Cops in the USA are bastards because the inherent organizing force is bastardy.
And a problem with a lot of people in this day and age is that they like to associate anyone who has a differing opinion than them with those bad apples
Apples should be like astronauts…they are grouped in the bushel based on performance (quality, not being rotten).
If detection slips, or one is massively damaged during handling or a pest sneaks in, the group is fouled. It should not be a normal distribution but a heavily filtered one.
“One bad apple spoils the bunch” because if one rots, it emits a waste gas that accelerates spoiling of nearby apples
Nuh uh not the ones I like, only the ones that do things I don’t like are bad!
The point was never that any group of people should always be perfect. The point is that you have to search out and get rid of the bad apples to prevent spoiling.
This can be repeatedly observed on Discord. You get a great server going and all it takes is a couple of twats to spoil the entire ecosystem.
Hey man, Tom was everybody’s friend, and then just fucked off to do his own thing. Stop bad mouthing Tom.
Welcome to the basis of conservative political philosophy.
The psychopaths aren’t going away.
From that fact, all the rest about fearing big government, people having weapons, free markets, it all comes from that one initial postulate.
Well, the other postulate is: “knowledge is always incomplete”
The problem with the first postulate is it’s easy to ignore if one has been insulated from the psychopaths. Safety permits a blind spot with regard to the existence of evil in the world.
The opposite postulate, that perhaps psychopathy is an aberration which can be eradicated with the right circumstances, is basically the basis of progressive political philosophy.
Quite interesting.
