That's Preposterous!

That's Preposterous!

Degenerative Truth Claims and Contradiction in Group identity Can be Hazardous to the Mind

Sophia: Welcome, all. Our shared theme, "Degenerative Truth Claims and Contradiction in Group Identity Can Be Hazardous to the Mind," is complex, but I believe your experiences offer clarity. Aristotle, I want to begin with your perspective on mental discipline. To hold an idea in the mind, examining its shape and weight without immediately swearing allegiance to it—isn't that the first shield against confusion?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
— Aristotle (384-322 BC)

Aristotle: Indeed, Sophia. The truly refined mind treats every new assertion not as a decree, but as a temporary guest. It observes the idea's manners, listens to what it has to say, and then, and only then, decides if it deserves a permanent place. To prematurely pledge loyalty to a concept—or a group's claim—is to surrender the intellect. That is how hazards begin.

Sophia: A perfect segue to you, Geoffrey. You spoke of a man whose frantic appearance seemed to outpace his actual accomplishments. When people rush to adopt a group's 'truth,' often they are simply mimicking a fervor. Is that outward display of busyness—of seeming to hold a conviction—a distraction in itself?

Geoffrey: It is, Sophia. I saw it then, and it persists now. Many within a collective are more concerned with performing their identity—appearing to be the most zealous, the most convinced—than with genuinely scrutinizing the shared 'truth.' Their energy is spent on the frantic show of belief, making them seem overwhelmingly occupied, yet they achieve no actual understanding. It's a marvelous camouflage for an unexamined mind.

Nowhere so busy a man as he there was, And yet he seemed busier than he was.
— Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400)

Sophia: That frantic energy, that focus on the external performance, seems to make one vulnerable to sudden shifts, doesn't it, Robert? You observed the sudden fracturing of deep bonds over trivial matters. When a group's identity is founded on a superficial, performance-based belief, rather than deep, shared wisdom, what happens when a small, shiny object of disagreement appears?

Robert: The whole foundation crumbles. Friendships that withstand true hardship often shatter over the smallest offenses—a slight in status, a perceived deviation from the party line. These 'truths' held by the group are brittle; they are masks, not faces. When two people are truly bonded only by their shared performance of a group identity, the smallest toy—a minor point of doctrine, a fleeting rumor—is enough to make them see each other as enemies. The stakes always become astronomically high over practically nothing.

Old friends become bitter enemies on a sudden for toys and small offenses.
— Robert Burton (1577-1640)

Sophia: And that brings us, sadly, to the profound cost of this breakdown. Edgar, your struggle with clarity offers a tragic counterpoint to Aristotle's ideal. When one is tossed between the degenerative claims of a collective and their own suppressed judgment, what is the ultimate psychological toll of that contradiction?

Edgar: It is a shattering. When the mind is forced to live a lie—to accept the group's hazardous claim while a deeper, truer intuition screams against it—the result is a terrifying kind of internal civil war. I knew moments of clarity, bright and agonizing, where I saw the madness clearly. But those moments were quickly swallowed by the pressure to conform, the resulting self-doubt, and the sheer insanity of a divided mind. The continuous push and pull between what you are told is true and what you know is true makes the world unrecognizable, and the brief periods of lucidity become the true horror.

I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.
— Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

Sophia: Thank you all. The wisdom here is clear: true mental health depends on Aristotle's independent thought, resisting the performance of Geoffrey's faux-busyness, understanding how Robert's trivial disagreements reveal a fragile group-bond, and avoiding the mental fracturing that Edgar so vividly described. The intellect must remain sovereign.

Does exploring the modern examples of these group-think hazards—perhaps in social media or political movements—help to further illuminate the danger?

The planksip Writers’ Cooperative is proud to sponsor an exciting article rewriting competition where you can win over $750,000 in prize money.

Figures of Speech Collection Personified

Our editorial instructions for your contest submission are simple: incorporate the quotes and imagery from the above article into your submission.
What emerges is entirely up to you!

Winners receive $500 per winning entry multiplied by the article’s featured quotes. Our largest prize is $8,000 for rewriting the following article;

“I see!” said Homer

A deluded entry into Homer starkly contrasts the battles and hero-worship that united our Western sensibilities and the only psychology that we no? Negation is what I often refer to as differentiation within and through the individual’s drive to individuate.

planksip®Heraclitus

At planksip, we believe in changing the way people engage; at least, that’s the Idea (ἰδέα). By becoming a member of our thought-provoking community, you’ll have the chance to win incredible prizes and access our extensive network of media outlets that will amplify your voice as a thought leader. Your membership truly matters!