'Protection' in Numbers

I was wondering why people and animals feel they are better protected in numbers, but humans especially. For example fish congregrate together as a way of protection against predators. A larger group of humans will feel safer in a hostile situation than a smaller group. The immediate answer that came to my mind was that the individual felt that they were less likely to be victimised.

However, we humans understand logic, and we understand ratios. Then why is it that even when knowing that same probabilities exist regardless of the number of people, that the same percentage will get victimized, we still feel better protected in numbers
Take these two scenarios
1. 25% of 100 people in a room will get killed
2. 25% 1000000 people in room (large fucking room, neh?) will get killed.

People will prefer to be part of the second scenario. Even mutherfucking mathematicians. I know that deep down I would prefer the second scenario. But why? You have the same chance of getting killed. You have a higher chance of getting killed in a car on a freeway than you do in an airplane, and yet people feel safer in a car going 80 miles per hour along with thousands of people some who are drunk, old, or cannot drive and still feel safer than flying in a plane with someone carefully trained. I cannot understand this. Maybe I am missing the obvious. Does anyone know why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no clue. Anyone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps the person is driving their own car and because they are in control they think they can avoid problems better than anyone else. If there was a plane and you were just a passenger do you feel that your in control....NO! So some people are very nervous about letting someone else control their lifes destiny instead of they themselves. I always prefer to drive rather than letting someone else drive that I would be going out with because I feel that I can handle situations better than the next guy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We understand what logic is, but this does not automatically imply that we think logically.

Remember that in spite of the impressive trappings of civilization which we have surrounded ourselves with, at bottom we are still using the same old "monkey" brain that has been "in service" for millions of years, and still "suffer" from what might appear to civilized, "logical" people as the glitches and peculiarities associated with the... err... "leftover programming" (?)
It could be that the same instinctive behavior which causes fish or herd animals to form into groups in response to a threat by predators was followed by early/proto humans, and that now useless response has been sort of "hardwired" into human thinking patterns by the millions of years of evolution preceeding the 10,000 years or so of human civilization.
So even the threat of "victimization" you mention triggers the age-old response.

 

Yeah within a fish population then statistically there is less chance of one particular fish being picked out, so the more fish there are then the less chance there is of each fish being chosen. Also for fish in large populations, it is harder for a predator to pick out one particular fish, because it's harder for predators to keep their eye(s) on one particular fish.

However, because there are no predators for humans, then this theory doesn't really follow.

Yeah but in the second scenario less people will die! It's as simple as that. Anyway, humans don't really hang around in groups anymore. The dominant value being fed is individualism, which I think is wrong.

 

Thx for replies...

Hemlock
think equivalent ratios...

cosmic

I suppose control does play a part in the example I gave, so what if we took awaycontrol and made all the cars chaffeured? Problem still exists.

Killjoy

Hmmmm. We can and do think logically if we are not under a streeful, dangerous, etc situation. So what if participants are allowed to premeditate (think, choose) before particpating in the two scenarios, I still think most would pick the second scenario instead of a 50-50 breakdown. But that's insteresting...

 

Re: Re: 'Protection' in Numbers

Well said.
I now don't have to reply to this thread

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...... oh crap! well its too late now, might as well press the submit button...

 

Shame on me but my gut feeling would be that there'd be more people around me that I could grab and put between me and the killing thing.

 

I'd say a high number such as a million as you've mentioned speaks to our subconscious as something that we cannot quite comprehend. As a result, it evokes our emotions.

Someone once said to me that people either react to things emotionally or intelligently.

Obviously, if someone reacted intelligently to whether or not they'd die with the 100 or 1,000,000 people, there'd ideally be a 1/1 ratio of people that chose both. The higher number triggered the emotional part of the brains of the people which caused them to choose irrationally.

 

Wouldn't a crowd of 1,000,000 people be much more diverse than one of a 100? So, even though 25% of both crowds would die, the larger crowd would be more likely to contain people who'd be easier prey than yourself (the old, slow, sick etc.)

 

I think MacZ has got it. They why of the deaths. if the deaths are random, then the only thing that the group has going for it is forewarning- more eyes make it more likely that the thing doing the killing will be noticed early on, allowing for some preventivie measures to be taken.

If the death is selective, such a s a hunter is picking out those individuals who are easier to take down, and still provide the most raw material, then being in such a group would improve your chances that someone else would be chosen over you.

However, the fish methodology is a very good one; by increasing numbers and also increasing distractive body forms (reflective sides, for instance) the huneter have a harder chance to pick out any individual at all. Stay with the group, and you will be 99% safe. straggle, and you're dinner.

 

Mac, river-wind;

This is a situation without control. When humans are able to control their paths, the strong do not want to mingle with the weak. The weak do not want to mingle with the strong. This is an uncontrollable situation where the hostility affects the group in ratios--regardless of the strength, age, etc of the individual.

In a group of 100, the 25% picked are random. What bugs me is that we humans are inherently built on the family structure. In order words, we feel more attached and protective towards our families. So even if we had control of such a situation, individuals would be more prone to protect their family units and forsake the others in the group. The thing is we FEEL better protected in a hostile situation when we are in larger groups, even when the sitatuation is uncontrollbale and in this case with the hostility even distributed. Something innate is at work, and it bugs me that I must be more of a beast than my social structuring would make me think.

 

Even from a detached, non-emotional viewpoint, protecting one's family as opposed to strangers is a logical course of action, for they share the most genetic material. Thus protecting them is essentially the same as protecting one's self.

 

That's a good point. But you see, it is a creation of society to see the similairity. If you did not grow up with your family and did not know for instance your sister or mother, you could very well wind up killing them or sleeping with them. So if such a distinction given by society can still exist, be realized and acted upon if in hostile situations, then how come another distinction-- math--ratios--logic-- does not?

 

Sorry, but this is not a creation of human society, birds beat humans to it. There are some species of bird (and other animals as well) who forsake reproduction in order to dedicate their lives to protecting their relatives and their relatives offspring. This behavior is called kin selection, and a good explanation of it is given here: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection.

Animals (this includes humans, who are animals by the way) behave to further their own survival and that of their genes. This is true even in today's society. If it were not, people would kill themselves whenever they felt like it, rather then when they are severely depressed, because their survival instinct tells them that it is bad to die.

Knowledge of Mathematics and Logic is not something that humans are born with, thus, in tense situations, when conscious thought is silenced, they go out the window. You cannot expect people to behave in an ordered way when their life is in danger, because behaving in an ordered manner is not generally conducive to survival.

An example of this is when a gun is fired in a crowd. Surely you know what happens next. Parents grab their children, families stick together, and everyone runs like a madman, which leads to people being trampled. The survival of the group would greatly benefit if a small group of people attacked the shooter and subdued him/her. However, we know that this is a rare occurrence. But, there is one significant exception, when kin selection kicks in, i.e. if the gun is aimed at a family member. I doubt that there are many on this forum, and many in the world who would not attack the shooter if the gun was aimed at their child/sibling/parent, because people are programmed to do so. To not attack the shooter requires a conscious decision, but the decision to attack requires little to no conscious thought, since it is one's natural instinct to behave in such a manner.

In short, humans still retain what many would consider "base animal behaviors" because it is what has kept them alive, and propagated their genes. Mathematics and Logic are tossed aside when one's life, or one's family is in danger.

 

Dapthar...

Not saying we were the first...

Kinship beyond the family group is not natural to humans. It is a social creation. 1000 years ago in Europe, the notion of kinship was different than it was 500 years ago; In Japan, it was also different, same as in China, Africa or any where on the planet. The only group natural to the human animal is the family group, for it is ubiquitous. But even then, if there is no bonding between the mother and child, or society does not enforce such bonds, it is nonexistent.

I provided you with example of a child separated from the family group because it is very important. Familial bonding or any type of bonding that we humans develop is a product of shared experiences, knowledge, etc. It is not instintive and must be developed. Understanding and belief in the sciences or logic is likewise taught or developed. A mother protects herself--this is natural. An uncle protecting his nephew is not.

 

Learned behaviour is instincts in mammals. Not all learned behaviour, but the behaviour that the "teacher" isn't consciously "teaching".
For example, have you ever seen a mother saying to her baby "who's that? Who's that there? Yeah its uncle leroy, yes it is"
Is she thinking "ok now I'm going to introduce baby peter to uncle leroy, thus reestablishing the clan to include peter and possibly saving his life, I'm brilliant!"?
No, frankly she's not thinking at all(sorry mum), she's acting intinctively. Her instincts are still getting down to serious business cause they think lions have their eye on that baby.
It is very natural that an uncle protects his nephew, if the mother lets the uncle know about the new baby, which in itself is a natural occurence.
Humans are supposed to be in clans, and like other clan animals there are instinctive unwritten clan politics to go with that.
Ones that we aren't even consciously aware of, hence I would call them instincts. The seperation between learned behaviour and instincts is not necessarry. Learned behaviour was just a new way mammals developed to ingrain instincts.
Granted they aren't as solid as traditional instincts, they rely on everything going smoothly, they can be altered and tampered with in the early stages of life and mammals can end up having defective instincts, but I would still call them instincts.
Sea otters need to be taught how to swim, but i would still say swimming is instinctive for otters. What are they without it?

 

Lou,
That was speculation. Define instincts. Explain how you differentiate between the learned and the not. Take walking upright-- humans have been doing this for millions of years now. And yet it is not instinctive, it is learnt behaviour. If any behvaiour we currently partake in now has been with us for that long and it still must be learnt.... finish this Lou.

 

Define instincts?
Well I can see how you are defining it, "behaviour thats not learned", thats fine, but then that doesn't make learned behaviour any less.... how should I put this? natural? No thats not it. Damn it. I'll try again.
I prefer to not categorise built in and learned behaviour as "instincts" and "not instincts".
That is very misleading.
I know traditionally the word "instincts" means built in behaviour but they need to create a new word that refers to the set behaviour of a species.
I use instincts to describe that because whether it is built in or learned is irrelevent so why waste a good word?
Traditionally, or ideally, learned behaviour isn't any more flexible than built in behaviour.
Wait(god I suck today) by learned behaviour I mean "taught" behaviour, not behaviour learned through life experience, which is flexible.
But thats not what we are talking about here, an individual person doesn't learn to hang in groups after being killed a few times for not doing so do they?
Its instinctual, its not born into the individuals psyche exactly, but he is born into a group that was "born" with a social instinct.
Ahhh now we're getting somewhere.
When you get into the realm of social animals you need to start thinking of the clan as an organism with instincts. What a new piece of the clan learns are the instincts of the clan.
The example of a child seperated from the group can be explained by this, a child removed from the clan is a disposable piece, see ya later kid, he's like a skinks abandoned tail. It doesn't matter what he does.
He hasn't had the clan instincts taught to him, so he isn't a valuable part of the species, he's food.

walking upright? Thats really proving my point.
As far as evolution is concerned, the clan is required to teach the newcomer certain things, just like a lizard is required to be born "knowing" certain things. The responsibility has just been placed in the clans hands as opposed to the incubation conditions. The gamble is on their competence as a clan, and if they aren't competent at teaching youngsters the clan will die out.
This has fine tuned clan instincts instead of individual instincts.
Individuals need to be born sponges, preferably sponges specially suited to absorbing the right kind of mess, and thats what we are born as. Thats what all social mammals are born as.
When a species becomes social, the social group takes on certain solitary organism traits. This is because the individuals aren't the ones being directly tested by natural selection, the cooperative group is.

This is such a complicated situation and I'm not feeling my sharpest, I can't even remember what your problem is.
I'll definately be returning to this discussion to seriously renovate my argument.
Take my next post as my actual stance, or maybe the one after that, I'm not sure yet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you hold a newborn baby upright (don't forget to support their head!), they will move their legs in a walking motion naturally. They just don't have the strength or motor coordination to yet stand, let alone walk. The motion is pretty much ingrained int he physical form of the body, though.

Were a crawling baby to be seperated from all humans, but still survived long enough, I'm sure it would learn to walk (though without examples, it might take longer than normal), simply because that's how our musculature/joint structure is designed.