I've Never Understood The Logic Behind A "hivemind" - In Other Words, Thinking That People Who Share

I've never understood the logic behind a "hivemind" - in other words, thinking that people who share something in common all think the same. It's kind of like stereotypes, or perhaps racism. It's insulting both to the group and to the individual it's applied it to, and it's one of the biggest reasons we argue and bicker all the time.

This religion is all terrorists or all holier-than-thou stuck-ups, those console fanboys think the other consoles have no good games, and people who do this terrible thing can never be trusted again, ever. Even if you have proof that this is primarily the case, it doesn't mean anything, since any one individual can be the counterexample. It's all just generalizing - a logical fallacy. And people take it seriously!

It's especially annoying when two people who are part of the same group have different opinions, and then people say the hivemind is conflicted/never happy (two people who like the same console can't agree on the quality of a first-party game). How can you not see that it's differing opinions from different people? How do you assume that they're supposed to think the same, all the time? Or, sometimes, people insist that one of them is lying, that they actually believe what the other person said and are trying to save face (peaceful Muslims vs. terrorists, for example). Where's the logic? There is none. It's just stupidity.

In the end, it's no better than being racist. All blacks are horrible people, right? Generalization again. It's the exact same "reasoning." And everyone is guilty of it, to a certain extent - myself included, for generalizing that people who expressly think this way are all idiots (among other things).

"But doesn't that make you a hypocrite?" I'll gladly be the hypocrite if it means I help to reduce the problem as a whole. Not all hypocrites avoid changing themselves too.

Why do schools have uniforms?

Why are people expected to wear a suit when they go to a job interview?

Why do people always worry about how they look?

Why does our society insist on oversexualizing everything?

It's not like outer appearance changes the person on the inside.

Okay thanks guys can I get notes on other posts now?? This is getting ridiculous

Cooking? What is this madness

I think my parents' cooking has convinced me to learn how to cook for myself.

I've been away from home a lot for the past few years. First it was two years of giftie school, now I've been at college for almost a year. Before that, I was homeschooled, from K-10th grade. And all that time I ate home-cooked food. I didn't even realize how good I had it, because it was just "normal."

Then I went away to high school in my junior year. I mostly ate cafeteria food. Apparently the cafeteria food at my school was better than most, but I didn't really notice, because I had grown up on essentially ambrosia. My parents' food was my cafeteria food. And, of course, then I began to miss it.

I suppose it's rather normal to miss home cooking, but there's a little more to it. We live in the south, where many people are known for their cooking. And even though none of my family is really "from" the south, apparently my parents cook really well even by others' standards. So, really, I've had it made all this time, and then I left for school...

In high school I didn't really have much of an opportunity to eat whatever I wanted. My only real option was the cafeteria. Now I'm in college, and I have plenty of options. The cafeteria here is slightly better, and there's plenty of restaurants that accept my meal plan. So I've been eating out a lot, which is better than before, but it's still nothing like home.

I'll be living off-campus after this quarter, so I figured why not learn how to cook? I'll be flipping back and forth between college and home over the summer (probably), so I'll have a few opportunities to learn the secrets from my parents while I'm home, and then when I'm away I'll practice them. Then I won't have to miss my parents' cooking, because I'll be cooking it myself!

I think the best part about this will be inviting other people to eat. I don't know why, I just get that feeling.

NOT AGAIN

Mediation

When two people are arguing and a third person comes in to mediate/bring in a different viewpoint/whatever, I see a few different methods of handling it. I do this a lot myself, actually, and having watched a couple of methods, I have one that I chose as my favorite; however, I get a few bad remarks when I use it, so I wanted to lay out my logic here in the hopes that things are a bit clearer.

As an example: one kid took candy from another kid, claiming that he was owed that candy. A mediator of some kind, be it a parent, a teacher, or another kid, sees the situation and acts on it to bring some resolve. There's three main methods that I see people use in some variation.

Subjective - The mediator chooses a side from the start that they'll support. Perhaps it's not entirely blatant, as it could be an emotional bias that sways their judgement, or some sort of intuition; but whatever it is, it's not entirely logical. Sometimes this is based on good intentions (my friend/son/star student wouldn't do that!!).

Outcome: The favored kid receives retribution from the unfavored kid.

Pros: Usually an emotional bias tends to be for good reason; the kid had to get that reputation somehow. It places less stress on the mediator, with a high chance of being correct, and brings judgement to the situation. The mediator also has a sense of satisfaction for helping.

Cons: It could be a bribe, or the parents could have too much faith in their kids, or it could otherwise be wrong. In fact, it might require a second mediator to determine whether this is true or not. In any case, the mediator can be accused of taking sides.

Most used by: Friends, parents

Objective - The mediator listens to both sides equally and searches for facts and morals. When both kids have had their say, the mediator chooses who is right based on as much logic and evidence as possible. Justice is then dealt out based on the situation.

Outcome: The kid who is deemed the victim receives retribution from the kid who is deemed the offender

Pros: The correct justice is often laid out...

Cons: It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to be objective! Almost all of the time, there is some sort of emotional bias - even if the mediator has never met these kids before. Any use of fallacies completely destroys the mediation as a whole, and even moral "absolutes" vary from person to person. Also, since one kid is told that they're wrong, the mediator can be accused of taking sides.

Most used by: Judges

Impartial - The mediator listens to both sides, attempting to calm the nerves of both kids where necessary. The mediator then tries to get them to forgive each other, without choosing sides or dealing out punishment.

Outcome: Both kids get candy from the office.

Pros: The tension is removed, and the mediator distances him/herself from the situation as much as possible.

Cons: Whoever should have gotten punished did not. In fact, they get away scot-free, and the kid who was wronged receives nothing!

Most used by: Teachers, counselors

Could you tell from my vocabulary which one I like best? I try to be objective, which doesn't always work out for me. But I've been accused by three people now of taking sides when I do this, so I just wanted to make one thing clear:

That's the freaking point!

I hate impartiality! It just promotes further tension between the two parties, because the situation is never fully resolved (so both think they're still right). And it also promotes that the bad guys get to do whatever they want, because the victim does not get any sort of solace, and the offender is never told that what they did was wrong... except by the other party, who they're not listening to anyway.

So yes, I choose sides - after I hear what's going on. Because I'm not going to sit by and watch someone be a jerk to someone else. Even if it means I get into the fight myself and have a chance of being wrong.