The Rundown: Who is the greater fool? Any fool. But what if foolery is undiscovered? What happens when a group of people are fools and don't know it? Outsiders know this as "The Bandwagon Blues". Be careful when approaching this situation, lest you act the fool, yourself!
Who is greater, the fool or the fool who follows?
This question has crept about humanity for a long time. Many answers and opinions have been brought to the table, and TSOD will not excuse itself from this examination. But if we wish to address this in a logical manner, we can not use a simple opinion. Is there a logical answer to this riddle?
It has been said that we are what we eat, but fools are not fools unless they are secretly cannibals eating other comedians. Thinking universally, however, we understand that not everyone eats fools (but to each their own; I think they taste funny). Given that even those not cannibalistic can be fools, it is safe to say we are not what we eat.
A carpenter does woodwork. A mason lays bricks. An architect designs structures. A comedian tells jokes. So a fool must participate in foolery. Otherwise, they are not the fool. By this standard, we can determine that one who does anything foolish, is, for that given moment, a fool. So it can be said that indeed, we are not what we eat, but rather we are what we do. It is not a question of whether they intend to live up to such a label. It is, however, noted as foolish to those who observe it as such. To keep in tune with the spirit of the original question, we shall assume that those fools intend to have performed their actions, but are none the wiser to the folly of said actions.
Foolishness is dependent upon the criteria that are placed upon it, as are all other concepts, so there is actually a small difference between the fool and the follower. The original fool is just that, the original fool. They have engaged in foolish behavior with no pretext. The follower, however, is observing from an outside perspective to the first fool, giving them an outside look to the actions of the originator. Does this make them a greater fool because they have had the chance to examine the originator's actions?
For some, the answer may be surprising: No.
This is because no natural requirement exists to check everyone else's work (much less twice). Also, one is only physically capable of distinguishing wisdom from foolishness using their own experience. Experience, being empirical in nature, creates completely unique values in each individual's brain. So in no way can the follower give perfect light to themselves about the logic of the originator, and therefore make a proper decision about whether they are truly right or wrong about something. This in mind, the follower is acting in agreement with the displayed information, not the preceding reasoning. The originator, themselves, could have made their decision based on an external stimulus, so that rules out the differential of stimulus as a factor of size. The analysis, then, is proprietary to the individual. If the follower were to exhibit seemingly "foolish" behavior, then yes, by definition they are a fool.
So their experience frees them from being a bigger fool when compared to one another. What about from the observer's perspective?
To outline, let us observe a fictitious society, where the standard method for a human to greet another human is to give them a solid punch on the arm instead of a verbal transmission. The originator (let's call them person A) punches someone on the arm. It is correctly interpreted as a greeting, for argument's sake. The follower (let's call them person B) returns suit, with a punch, but it is a fair amount more intense than the prior greeting. Person C, an outside observer, assimilates this interaction from a distance.
Person C is accustomed to understanding that punching, in any form, is foolish. To person C, they are both fools, no matter their experience, for they both engage in punching. Does making a bigger punch constitute a bigger fool, though? To become a fool, both person A and B needed to engage in the punch. That criteria has been met. It is now a matter of whether person C regards intensity as a proponent for measuring the "bigness" of a fool. If person C does, then the bigger fool is person B. If person C does not, however, it is not determinable which is a bigger fool, unless some other criteria are established (e.g. one area in which the punch was delivered could be rated more foolish than another).
A quick recap:
- The criteria for what qualifies as foolishness is subjective
- The criteria for the magnitude of said foolishness is subjective
The answer, then, lies in the subjective individual. But the question implies that they have met the criteria in the first observation. The second observation, noting the inherent subjective meter, leads to the answer being by all objective standards, subjective.
But existence of preposterousness having been met, isn't it splitting hairs to say that one is a greater fool? Is any shade of the color red more "red" than another? Is any tone any more "musical" than another? The inherent subjective nature of the size of foolishness means that there is no objective answer, therefore no official quantifiable measurement can be made. Given this idea that foolishness is a negligible quality to the measure of fools themselves, we can determine that neither is the bigger fool, for they both have met the minimum requirements (implied in the phrasing of the question), but no quantifiable value can measure anything beyond the label in which has already been implied. This leaves person A and person B equally foolish at 100% each.
Can they escape such foolishness? We know that fears can be difficult to see from the inside perspective, but what about foolishness? It is similar to fear, in that one can be foolish and not know it. Multiple people can be foolish and know it. In fact, multiple people being foolish can perpetuate such activities as not 'foolishness', but 'regularity'.
A direct method would be for the community of people to exercise groupthink. This is a term loosely coined by Willam H. Whyte which means that the group praises unanimity rather than individual interpretation of a particular concept. Often this can mean overriding individual interpretations for the purpose of staying with the majority.
To the contrary, an indirect method happens all the time and we don't know it. It is a loose subjective reinforcement of concepts between individuals by absence of alternative. The absence may spread through any number of individuals. It is not openly acknowledged because it is not seen. It is not regarded as a problem because it occupies every day life with no apparent recourse. There is no question because there is no alternative supplied. It is subversive group reinforcement. I call it "The Bandwagon Blues". It's when a group has a problem (subjective) but they don't know it.
But such a concept is as difficult for the group to see as a fear is for the individual. People act as strings of logic in the group (as a thought is to an individual), reinforcing the idea in others by enacting it and feeling no remorse. It becomes the humdrum, the norm also by the absence of a negative reinforcement. It may not be a problem to the participants, but an outsider might step up and say:
"Doesn't it hurt to punch people in the arm to greet each other?"
The struggle begins. Now the group (the pair of person A and B, in our continued example), in their collective knowledge, justify the action in return because it was not regarded as a problem:
"It doesn't hurt. It's what we always do, and have always done."
That was a fair answer. To their knowledge they have no alternative in which to compare the pain levels. The outsider, however, is keen to the ways of outlining a duality. He provides his subjective solution:
"I suggest it would be more comfortable to say hello with your voices rather than punching each other!"
The group is confused. They had not thought of the passive alternative. They now have the opportunity to weigh the passive alternative. Individual thinking takes over (provided groupthink is not enforced) and each examines their actions in comparison to the new alternative. Some may justify a change in habit. Some may justify a continuance of the old method. Change may be as quick as an epiphany or as slow as a detailed experiment outlining the effects between the alternatives.
This subversive reinforcement sustains itself when there is a lack of self-analysis as a community. When people don't question why they do things, they are left to repeat history. The concepts of activities in question can range from fear, foolishness, wisdom, intelligence and other such subjective concepts.
But we know that whole processes can even be regarded as foolish, unintelligent, unintuitive, and the like. So it is not limited to the 'whats' but also the 'hows', 'whens', and 'wheres' of a community.
If this subversive group reinforcement is found to be supporting a problematic behavior, here are some solutions:
- Examine your own reasoning for enaging in the targeted behavior. Make changes to your reasoning and behavior accordingly. Represent yourself in the group as a positive example.
- Prepare, and engage in, a methodical approach to introducing alternatives into the group as a means to stimulate fair analysis and positive behavior change.
- Point out in a polite way the negative benefits of current behavior. Sometimes negative signs can go unnoticed.
Of course, there are some warnings:
- Be patient, as you would with any restructuring of mind.
- An idea is a delicate object, so care is encouraged.
- People have a tendency to gravitate towards things that work. It may be considered aggressive or needlessly nitpicking to address underlying habits.
- Remember that nobody is morally wrong, just in a different standpoint.
- You can make mistakes. If you propose an idea that turns out to be a detriment to change, don't worry. You are not fool-proof.
- A direct approach is usually more effective and kind than a passive-aggressive approach. Be fair and objective and you are more likely not to make someone angry.
- Do not create a false need for change! This is manipulative behavior and you accept the risks that come with it (i.e. potentially being ostracized--or worse).
And some tips:
- Acknowledge your standpoint as an observer.
- Acknowledge their standpoint as not having seen anything wrong.
- Give the target individual or group time to analyze the new information and their new conflict.
- Be yourself! There is no need to succumb to the standard if the group is insistent on retaining their ways.
And some concessions:
- The bandwagon can sometimes be right. In some cases it is safer and smarter to stick to a status quo.
- Sometimes inciting change is not worth the energy. There is a lot of diversity in the world and therefore a lot of complexity. Sweating the small stuff can lead to petty arguments over seemingly trivial subjects.
If you find the bandwagon blues are getting you down, don't fret. The only way fools come to be wise is if they see themselves in their foolishness. It goes the same for groups as it does for individuals: change must come from within, but change must first be seen. Until next time...
-C. Thomas (Author, Proprietor)
-Edited by S. Walsh
(Title photo by Sanja Gjenero)
