Surrounding yourself with "like-minded" people

[Phi for All]

One one hand, it's encouraging to be around people who share your goals, who have a special insight into what motivates you. If you want to be successful, hanging around with successful people seems rational.

 

On the other hand, surrounding yourself with like-minded people can lead to compound mentality (cults blindly following a leader due to limited outside interaction). It seems irrational not to have diverse input from lots of different personalities, and different experience and knowledge levels.

 

It seems like this could be a definition problem. "Like-minded" can mean both those who share a specific interest, as well as those who are in general of the same disposition. It seems logical that I would learn physics more productively if I surrounded myself with physicists. But can I apply the same logic to my culture? If I'm a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, should I seek out like-minded people to surround myself with, or is my culture not a matter of mind?

 

I think there is a danger inherent in surrounding yourself with those who's tastes and opinions are like your own. I appreciate exposure to different perspectives, and it's one of the ways I shape my own. It seems like it would be more difficult to find something better if you're convinced your group is best already. But I can't discount the effectiveness of being with people who share my views and can help me progress.

 

What do YOU think?

[s1eep]

There is danger inherent with this natural phenomena, but not all cases are dangerous, as you said sometimes it's profitable. I think it is rational when applied to real stressing issues, such as the mind, or the planet.

 

A lot of cultists are attracted to the people that aren't like them, and try to force their beliefs upon others, or even merely observe these people because it entertains them; cults often have wide-interest in those alien to their beliefs.

[Ophiolite]

Being with someone who is different to you in many fundamental ways and who disagrees with you vigorously on most matters is undoubtedly a natural state for humans. That's why we invented marriage.

[Phi for All]

There is danger inherent with this natural phenomena, but not all cases are dangerous, as you said sometimes it's profitable. I think it is rational when applied to real stressing issues, such as the mind, or the planet.

 

I can think of issue-dependent circumstances involving the mind or the planet where surrounding yourself with like-minded people might not be good. In fact, I think many of our leaders surround themselves with too many like-minded people, and that may be why climate change gets ignored, or scientific research goes unfunded.

 

A lot of cultists are attracted to the people that aren't like them, and try to force their beliefs upon others, or even merely observe these people because it entertains them; cults often have wide-interest in those alien to their beliefs.

 

I don't usually think of cults this way. Do you have any links to supportive evidence? I usually think of cult leaders as charismatic individuals who sway rather than force, which means their "flock" often comes to them for guidance. I wouldn't think they'd need to bother with those who aren't already predisposed to their mindset.

[s1eep]

 

I don't usually think of cults this way. Do you have any links to supportive evidence? I usually think of cult leaders as charismatic individuals who sway rather than force, which means their "flock" often comes to them for guidance. I wouldn't think they'd need to bother with those who aren't already predisposed to their mindset.

Sin is a broad subject in religions, they obviously have studied sin to some degree.

 

There was a case with Eliot Rodger (the murderer), where religious people were close to him, being supportive, general interest in his problems. Priests often turn up in mental hospitals or prisons, but I haven't got scientific proofs, no, just my own observation.

 

And as for the first part of your post, I can see dangers where the Earth was concerned too, but I cannot apply it to every case of surrounding yourself with "like-minded" people, some wouldn't be dangerous at all, and are actually productive, as you mentioned with physics.

Edited August 19, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

And as for the first part of your post, I can see dangers where the Earth was concerned too, but I cannot apply it to every case of surrounding yourself with "like-minded" people, some wouldn't be dangerous at all, and are actually productive, as you mentioned with physics.

 

Maybe the problem is with the interpretation of "like-minded".

 

It's one thing to have goals you've assessed as positive and helpful, and then to surround yourself with people who are striving for the same goals. As long as the goals are productive (by whose judgement?), this seems like a great way to enhance the process.

 

It seems to be completely different when you just want to be around people who think the way you do. Is this one of those instances where what you think you want and what you need are different? An old friend used to tell me, "If you and I thought exactly alike, one of us would be unnecessary". I can see where it might be comforting to hear someone parroting the same things you say, but I don't think we grow as much intellectually if we're not mentally challenged on a regular basis.

[s1eep]

 

Maybe the problem is with the interpretation of "like-minded".

 

It's one thing to have goals you've assessed as positive and helpful, and then to surround yourself with people who are striving for the same goals. As long as the goals are productive (by whose judgement?), this seems like a great way to enhance the process.

 

It seems to be completely different when you just want to be around people who think the way you do. Is this one of those instances where what you think you want and what you need are different? An old friend used to tell me, "If you and I thought exactly alike, one of us would be unnecessary". I can see where it might be comforting to hear someone parroting the same things you say, but I don't think we grow as much intellectually if we're not mentally challenged on a regular basis.

"Like-mindedness for like-mindedness' alone is dangerous, but with a reason such as "prosperity of the human species", it becomes something, which enhances the process, it is essentially a way to accomplish the goal. Sometimes it's good to see things out to the end.

 

I agree that people should accept other perspectives to challenge their own, but I don't think one should neglect the objective of one perspective if it is important.

 

For example, I don't think anyone should have a right to be wrong; I'm sure of this, should I accept other perspectives, but wouldn't these be the ones I've deemed as guilty?

Edited August 19, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

"Like-mindedness for like-mindedness' alone is dangerous, but with a reason such as "prosperity of the human species", it becomes something, which enhances the process, it is essentially a way to accomplish the goal. Sometimes it's good to see things out to the end.

 

I agree that people should accept other perspectives to challenge their own, but I don't think one should neglect the objective of one perspective if it is important.

 

What if I've determined that getting every last drop of oil from the planet will help the "prosperity of the human species"? Or that it's in our best interests to not have so many mouths to feed and enemies to fight, so I gather all those like-minded people around me so we can destroy the 25% of Earth's population that doesn't like us?

 

Historically, every conqueror sees themselves as a good, strong person helping his/her people. It's too easy to justify the things we do and assign "goodness" to it. Importance is another subjective justification.

 

For example, I don't think anyone should have a right to be wrong; I'm sure of this, should I accept other perspectives, but wouldn't these be the ones I've deemed as guilty?

 

I've heard this before. It sounds clever, rights vs wrong, wrong or right, the right to be wrong. Take away the mixed meanings though, and you'll find that being wrong is such a fantastically wonderful phenomenon that it warrants being given as a right. We're fallible creatures, our senses often deceive us, and we have an obnoxious habit of assuming that what's right for us is right for everybody else.

 

If you don't recognize us as fallible humans who can build on error and make something right that was once wrong, you're undermining the scientific methodology that has been so successful in explaining our universe. Knowing we could be wrong allows us to think critically. Without it, how would we know we were ever right?

 

In the same sentence, you've stated that:

1) You should never be wrong because you don't have that right,

2) You're sure of this (100%?), and

3) You've deem others to be guilty of being wrong, but not you.

 

What about when you think someone is wrong but it turns out to be you? If you don't have that right, how are you ever going to learn that you were wrong? This seems like a pretty tortured way of getting to use a clever sound byte about the right to be wrong.

 

edit to add: or is this just semantics, the way I've argued before that we may have reasons for misbehavior, but not excuses for misbehavior? Are you assigning an undefined significance to the word "right"?

Edited August 19, 2014 by Phi for All
additional

[s1eep]

Existence is not 'tranquil' (and the semantics I'm using here are something along the lines of "lack of magic", "lack of imagination"); and what I mean by that is, we can imagine things different from the self, and we are affected by other things.

 

It's not all about oneself, and to think that the self as this depiction from the third person, does not address a majority of the nature about the self experienced from the first person.

 

"No-one has a right to be wrong", does not imply I'm right, and it's not saying it's impossible to be wrong. It could be what's beneficent for an objective, again, "prosperity of the human species" (in which case I would be right).

Edited August 19, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Existence is not 'tranquil' (and the semantics I'm using here are something along the lines of "lack of magic", "lack of imagination"); and what I mean by that is, we can imagine things different from the self, and we are affected by other things.

 

It's not all about oneself, and to think that the self as this depiction from the third person, does not address a majority of the nature about the self experienced from the first person.

After tranquil = lack of magic, the rest is word salad to me.

 

"No-one has a right to be wrong", does not imply I'm right, and it's not saying it's impossible to be wrong. It could be what's beneficent for an objective, again, "prosperity of the human species" (in which case I would be right).

It seems to say that being wrong carries more weight to it than just being wrong. It seems to say that you can breathe the air, expect a fair trial, and be protected from enslavement, but you don't get to be wrong about anything.

 

I think this is something that made sense to you at one point but has possibly failed to scale to reality? Or you're using more non-mainstream definitions I don't understand?

 

Because having the right to be wrong has led to some amazing discoveries. From penicillin to pacemakers to anesthesia, being wrong was the most beneficent thing that could have happened to those inventors and inventions. WD-40 is a great product and a great company, but their first 39 attempts were wrong. Wrong that ended up teaching them how to finally get it right. How can you discredit such a process?

 

I think we have a right to be wrong, and it's helped us immensely. If you remove that right, a lot of great ideas will never happen.

[s1eep]

Whatever...

 

I agree with the OP to some extent.

[Phi for All]

Whatever...

 

Wow, thanks. I appreciate your removing any and all restrictions on the way I reference this subject. I'll still try to stick to statements I can support.

[s1eep]

 

Wow, thanks. I appreciate your removing any and all restrictions on the way I reference this subject. I'll still try to stick to statements I can support.

I don't have anything to say...

 

Okay, let me explain again, and then I'll respond to whatever you say.

 

I agree that like-mindedness can be dangerous, but as you said, in physics, surrounding yourself with like-minded people is actually productive, but I suppose we still need to assess it's danger.

 

I guess like-mindednes is danger-inherent, but it's in my belief this danger can be overcome with mental power

[CreativeCatastrophe]

I think it really depends on what you mean by like-minded.

 

My husband and I both have the same ideals, goals, and about 90% of our interests are exactly the same. We almost always agree on what must be done in any situation. Some would call this like-minded, and in this way we are.

 

However, our minds work in a completely different manner, and we have different talents. He is better at math than I am, and I am better at all things artistic. We may come to the same conclusion on something, but the path we take to get there is different. He thinks ina more logical manner, and I think in a more creative manner. So when we work together, he is able to bring more logical thinking to my train of thought and I am able to bring more creativity to his.

 

I would have to say that generally it is best for the people closest to you to be at least somewhat like minded, but that it is healthy to regularily correspond with people who are not, but only if you don't get overly worked up by conflict. It's pretty difficult to learn and grow in an environment of conflict.

[Marshalscienceguy]

One one hand, it's encouraging to be around people who share your goals, who have a special insight into what motivates you. If you want to be successful, hanging around with successful people seems rational.

 

On the other hand, surrounding yourself with like-minded people can lead to compound mentality (cults blindly following a leader due to limited outside interaction). It seems irrational not to have diverse input from lots of different personalities, and different experience and knowledge levels.

 

It seems like this could be a definition problem. "Like-minded" can mean both those who share a specific interest, as well as those who are in general of the same disposition. It seems logical that I would learn physics more productively if I surrounded myself with physicists. But can I apply the same logic to my culture? If I'm a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, should I seek out like-minded people to surround myself with, or is my culture not a matter of mind?

 

I think there is a danger inherent in surrounding yourself with those who's tastes and opinions are like your own. I appreciate exposure to different perspectives, and it's one of the ways I shape my own. It seems like it would be more difficult to find something better if you're convinced your group is best already. But I can't discount the effectiveness of being with people who share my views and can help me progress.

 

What do YOU think?

While Diversity might be good for things such as knowledge, exposure, problem solving its not necessarily always a good thing. If no one is appreciating each others good qualities that person has no place in that group. So you have to be with people similar enough that they are willing to accept parts of you that are not necessarily the same of that and for this it would require an open mindset and there is a lot of close minded people who are all about ME ME ME and want no one elses opinion ever. So if you put an A with a B and that B says they only like people who agree with B clearly the A is not going to want to be anywhere near that person. That A is going to find other letters maybe C, D or E because the C, D , E character are open minded enough to accept and understand the A for why they are special and the B was just too narrow to do so.

[Phi for All]

I would have to say that generally it is best for the people closest to you to be at least somewhat like minded, but that it is healthy to regularily correspond with people who are not, but only if you don't get overly worked up by conflict. It's pretty difficult to learn and grow in an environment of conflict.

 

I'd like to define conflict. I think conflict is inevitable. There's too many of us not to disagree often. It's aggression that's avoidable as a poor resolution to most conflicts. Aggression is what adds stress to normal instances of conflict.

 

I think you're right about regular exposure to different perspectives being healthy. It's a mental challenge to step outside your comfort zone and talk to people who don't share your POV. I guess the key there is to remember that an open mind can take in new information as needed. It's difficult to learn from someone if you start a conversation with the premise that everything they're about to say is wrong.

My husband and I both have the same ideals, goals, and about 90% of our interests are exactly the same. We almost always agree on what must be done in any situation. Some would call this like-minded, and in this way we are.

 

However, our minds work in a completely different manner, and we have different talents. He is better at math than I am, and I am better at all things artistic. We may come to the same conclusion on something, but the path we take to get there is different. He thinks ina more logical manner, and I think in a more creative manner. So when we work together, he is able to bring more logical thinking to my train of thought and I am able to bring more creativity to his.

 

This adds some new layers to the discussion (thank you!). In a working relationship, is it better to be same-goal oriented, same-talent oriented, or same-mind oriented? It would seem, in your case, that you have a broader skillset as a team. But is that preferable to a relationship where you have the same skillsets and can challenge each other to get better, to grow in your skills?

 

I've always thought the complimentary relationship was best, but it makes sense that people with the same skillsets can challenge each other to grow within those skills more effectively. Two neurosurgeons will learn more about neurosurgery if they're together often, right? But in a personal relationship, those two might not be the best compliment because they wouln't have a broad enough skillset to handle non-neurosurgery incidents together.

 

I have a bias that people who share like views shouldn't close themselves off to other perspectives. I don't think it's healthy to immerse yourself solely in a single culture. But cultural heritage is very important to lots of people. Can you surround yourself with people from your own culture and still expect to grow your knowledge effectively?

[MonDie]

I think having trust in the majority is a type of heuristic (a mental shortcut). Let's call it grouptrust (as opposed to groupthink). Such shortcuts can be great since we all have limited cognitive capacity. Whether one should rely on such shortcuts, however, depends on whether they have a special duty to inquire into that particular matter. If you have a duty to inquire, then you need to avoid groupthink by consciously seeking out alternative viewpoints—hence you should not surround yourself with like-minded people; you should be versatile.

 

However, if it's a matter where groupthink is rampant (e.g. politics or religion), then perhaps you automatically have a duty to avoid unknowingly infecting others with it through naive grouptrust, sort of like washing your hands.

Edited August 30, 2014 by MonDie

[Ophiolite]

If you have a duty to inquire, then you need to avoid groupthink by consciously seeking out alternative viewpoints—hence you should not surround yourself with like-minded people; you should be versatile.

This is only relevant if by like-minded you mean people who share your opinions. For me like-minded people are those who share a sceptical, critical and logical process for arriving at conclusions. Diversity of input data, processing details and time devoted to analysis can still produce differing perspectives and conclusions. So, I would far prefer to be surrounded by scientists than by Christian fundamentalists.

[Phi for All]

This is only relevant if by like-minded you mean people who share your opinions. For me like-minded people are those who share a sceptical, critical and logical process for arriving at conclusions. Diversity of input data, processing details and time devoted to analysis can still produce differing perspectives and conclusions. So, I would far prefer to be surrounded by scientists than by Christian fundamentalists.

 

I've been focused on the former. For me, a logical process is a tool anyone can use to arrive at differing perspectives. It's more of a mind-working-similarly thing as opposed to being like-minded in your opinions.

 

Perhaps it has more to do with my own bias on what kinds of opinions people shouldn't be isolated with. I think there are similarities between people who live in armed survivalist compounds with little outside contact, and those who only associate with people who share their distrusts and fears.

[Ten oz]

@ the OP, this is a good topic. For some time now I have thought about the pros and cons of how insulated people are becoming. With modern media people can pick and chose information that caters to their preferences. There was a time when media, imperfect or not, was at least mutual. Most people experienced the same media and water cooler talk at least was grounded in the same basic information. Today that isn't true. Some people exclusively focus on cat videos and and ice bucket challange fails while others prefer climate change denial.

It goes beyond media though. Things like dating web sites and hook up apps allow people to find each other based on preferences, commonality, or like mindedness. I recall as a young man having to be on my best behavior during dates. Not knowing the religious, political, or basic modern trends my dates may be most favorable toward made me mindful and respectfully of all possibilities. Today I suppose such formalities are less necessary. If two people agree to date off of a website designed for atheist there is no need for either to tip toe around the issue of religion for example. Empathy becomes a less neccessary trait?

The genie is out of the bottle now though. Not sure it can be reversed. We all insulate ourselves to a point these days.

[Phi for All]

With modern media people can pick and chose information that caters to their preferences. There was a time when media, imperfect or not, was at least mutual. Most people experienced the same media and water cooler talk at least was grounded in the same basic information. Today that isn't true. Some people exclusively focus on cat videos and and ice bucket challange fails while others prefer climate change denial.

 

Great example! Seems like a good idea to be around people who like the same things you do, but that does nothing to challenge you to try new things, which is something most people equate with personal happiness (if the documentary Happy can be believed). Apparently, we claim to like safety and surety, but we're often happiest when trying something new. We're explorers at heart but we can be intimidated by fears projected upon us.

[For Prose]

Phi, I believe that both are required, in somewhat different proportions. Most time should be spent with like-minded individuals, while a small portion should be designated to interacting with those who are not like-minded.

 

If all your time is spent interacting with people who think differently than you, there is a tendency to consume that state of thinking for yourself, even if not completely. I fell victim to this in my younger years. Hanging around people who were not like me in many different ways, led to me doing and thinking in ways that I had never done so before, and not in a good way. I found myself caring about things I would have never normally shown any interest in, and abandoning the true values I have always held dear, such as logic, science, and the pursuit of connectedness with things around me.

 

But now that I am back to my roots, I have also seen what happens when you spend too much time around those like-minded individuals for too long. I find myself not questioning everything, including proven science (which I think everyone should question, as many scientific paradigm shifts have been made through questioning), as I normally would, as MonDie hit on with groupthink.

 

I find that if I try to evenly balance my time with people who are nothing like me in short bouts, with people who are very like-minded, it allows me to disconnect when I need to, and sometimes question things that I feel my like-minded brethren may tend to overlook or not question. Sometimes, when people say some ridiculous things, it actually cause me to think about something in a different way, even if it is not the way they are describing it, which is part of the reason I even spend any time at all browsing the Speculations or Religion Forums in this community. I rarely find anything that I agree with, but it still allows me to look at why I don't agree and maybe see some kind of flaws in my own thinking.

[davidivad]

you have a good head on your shoulders.

Edited October 18, 2014 by davidivad