Is /sci/ a good place to talk about a perceived collective entity?
I'm trying to start a discourse on how groups of people in a "safe space" will perceive those outside of it as an opposing, unified person or entity, instead of a group of people.
Also here's a rock.
>>7964195
/sci/ is more like /natsci/, so this might not be the best place to ask.That said, when arguments not necessarily on natural sciences kick off, some intelligent /sci/ posters will often offer their (mostly) based insight in the subject.
Your OP however seems like a barrel of dynamite waiting to go off. Someone could point out that the safe space you are referring to could represent /pol/ or /SJW/, and there goes any hope of rational argumentation.
>>7964211
I figured that much, but I was still hoping to talk or learn about how it can be used as a logical fallacy. There doesn't seem to be a lot of elaboration on it as is, and I'm trying to scrounge up what I can.
>>7964221
How do you think it can work as a logical fallacy?
>>7964195
Not a psychologist here, but some psych training in med school. There is a principle in psychology, sorry don't have any references, that a group comes together with a shared aim, and outsiders are then seen as 'other' to the group, and inherently unsafe. So maybe this answers your question.
What is interesting about this principle is that egos can't cope with safety, and will always eventually project out their own fears onto others. So in the 'safe' group, there will eventually be a split as some issue surfaces which divides opinion.
>>7964195
I like to think of it as a collective conciousness. Like neurons in a brain or proteins in a nucleus. There are different tiers of conciousness, and collectivism/nationalism is the next tier.
