Yesterday dear President of the United States made a curious statement. Here are two versions of this speech.
1.
http://www.dni.ru/polit/2014/5/28/271431.html
"The US is going to be a world leader in the next 100 years, said President Barack Obama, speaking at the graduation ceremony of students of the military Academy of West point in new York.
In terms of "energy independence" and "dynamic economy" the United States is going to actively intervene in the processes around the globe..."
2.
http://news.mail.ru/politics/18363076/?frommail=1
"President Barack Obama spoke on Wednesday with the statement that the US,
improving on the world public opinion, could expose Russia's isolation on the international arena.... "
Our ability to shape world opinion helped immediately isolate Russia.
Thanks to American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions, Europe and the G7 joined us in imposing sanctions, NATO has strengthened commitments to Eastern Europe, the IMF is helping to stabilize the economy of Ukraine, OSCE observers have given the world to look at the unstable region of Ukraine" — said Obama, speaking at the military Academy at West point in new York.
"Mobilizing global (public) opinion and international institutions became a counterbalance to Russian propaganda, Russian troops on the border and armed militias," added the American President."
Both parts of the statements are very revealing. The first refers to the United States as a hegemonic world. It would seem - and on health, so the hegemony of hegemony... coupled with personally-gegemonsky gegemonsky responsibility for actions and deeds. However, well Mr. President then sharply tried to get away from this very public gegemonsky of responsibility because it "tightens" just behind the ears to "collective" responsibility of all who can move and who is afraid to say anything kakbe "independent".
I wonder why?
The answer again is you can search the textbook by David Myers, where this tactic is called "deindividualization".
And what's a "deindividualization" the type of highly individualistic communities they, the community, best? Best so that Mr. President, speaking with a distinctly gegemonsky claims, in parallel, modestly assigns US the role of type of only one of the... well, the leader, of course – but no more... so to speak, almost the first among equals... yeah, yeah...
Deindividualization.
"...In 1991, a bystander captured on videotape, how
four the Los Angeles police officers beat unarmed Rodney king. The guy received more than 50 blows with rubber truncheons, his teeth were knocked out, and the skull was broken in 9 places, which caused the brain injury.
For violence passively observed 23 a police officer. Demonstration of films on television shocked the nation (well, more specifically the business community) and plunged it into a lengthy discussion about the atrocities of the police and the cruelty of the crowd. Constantly heard the same questions: where are the "humanism" of the police? What happened to the standards of professional conduct? What could provoke such actions?
Together we do things which we would NOT do alone.
The results of experiments on social facilitation suggests that groups can arouse people. If the excitation is superimposed
the lack of personal responsibility and accepted norms of behaviour are eroded, the consequences can be very unexpected. In such situations, people capable of the most different actions — from acts of misconduct (throwing food in the dining room, bickering with the referee, screaming during a rock concert) to the impulsive manifestations of the basest of the senses (the group of vandalism, orgies, robberies) and destructive social explosions (the atrocities by the police, riots and mob violence). After learning about the brutal massacre of Rodney king by police Los Angeles, people constantly asked myself the same question: why does man deny the inherent "limiting centers" when he gets in a group situation?
These cases of distemper have something in common:
all of them are somehow provoked by the power of the group. Groups can generate a sense of excitement or involvement in something more than what I was capable of the individual itself.
In some group situations, people are more inclined to drop the restrictions in daily life
to lose its own I and become susceptible to group norms or to the norms of the crowd. In other words, what Leon Festinger, albert Pepitone and Theodore Newcomb called deindividualization.
...than a large crowd, the pronounced
loss its members sense of identity and their willingness to commit such atrocities as burning, tearing or dismemberment of the victim. In each of these examples — from the crowd of sports phantom to gangs of vigilantes — fear rating has plummeted. Since "everybody go", the participants of the event may explain their behavior rather by situation than by their own choice.
"The crowd is a bunch of bodies voluntarily deprived themselves of reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Compensation". Essay. First editions, 1841"
Philip Zimbardo believes that by itself, the vastness of the megacities creates anonymity and therefore the provisions allowing for the vandalism (Zimbardo, 1970).
Physical anonymity
...
anonymity favors permissiveness. In one of the original experiments Zimbardo women participated from new York University, which he clothed in the same white robes with hoods similar to those worn by the ku Klux Klan. When Zimbardo asked his subjects to strike a current of a certain woman, they kept the finger on the button two times longer than women, on the breast of which hung large signs with the names...
Under the influence of the results of the experiments I have wondered about the role of wearing uniforms. Ready for battle, the warriors of some tribes (like the fanatical fans of sports teams) anonymize themselves, or by painting the face and body, or put on a mask. Rules of treatment of prisoners after the battle, different cultures have different ways: some kill, torture or maim them, others left alive. Robert Watson, thoroughly studied various anthropological information, came to the conclusion that the ill-treatment of prisoners of war differ in those of culture, which is inherent in deindividualization warriors. Dressed in the uniform of the Los Angeles police who beat Rodney king, was furious, calling his refusal to stop the car. They acted in full harmony, unaware that someone was watching. Forgetting about the rules of conduct, they were at the mercy of the situation.
Can we say that the physical anonymity always brings out our worst instincts? Fortunately, no. In all the situations described above, people react to the frankly anti-social characteristics. Robert Johnson and Leslie Downing noted that the costumes are similar to the garb of the ku Klux of klinovcem, which were the subjects Zimbardo, could provoke hostility. In the experiment conducted at the University of Georgia, women wore the uniform of the nurses before deciding which forces the shock needs to obtain a person. When women in uniform were transformed into anonymous, they become less aggressive in regard of these attacks than when they were known their names and professional identities. From the results of the meta-analysis of 60 studies of deindividualization it follows that
people, becoming anonymous, begins less aware of himself and more group; it is also becoming more sensitive to distinctive features of the situation, regardless of whether they are positive (the nurse uniform) or negative (hoodie ku-Klux-all kinds of things over). Being in the situation associated with altruism, "anonymous" people donate even more money than usual.
Stimulating and distracting activities
Aggressive antics of large groups is often preceded by minor actions that arouse their members and draw their attention. Such collective actions as shouting, chanting, clapping or dancing, and at the same time "excite" people, and reduce their level of self-realization.
Commission
impulsive actions and observation of others engaged in the same, gives
self-reinforcing pleasure. When we see that others are doing the same thing we are, it seems to us that they are experiencing the same feelings which we experience ourselves and our feelings become stronger. Moreover, the impulsive group action attracts our attention. When we diarrhea referee, I do not think about their moral values, and react to the immediate situation. Later, "sober" and thinking about the fact that we have done or said, we sometimes regret. Sometimes.
sometimes, on the contrary — seek to depersonalize in any collective action — in dance, in religious items, with the activities undertaken by the group, ie where we are experiencing strong positive emotions and perceive their commonality with others.
impaired self-awareness.
Collective experience not only weakens self-awareness, but the link between behaviour and attitudes. The results of the experiments conducted by ed Diener, and Stephen Prentice and Ronald Rogers, suggests that it is not self-aware, deindividualisation people are less reserved, less inclined to self-restraint, more inclined to act without thinking about their moral values, and actively respond to the situation.
self-awareness is diametrically opposite of deindividualization. People, the level of self-awareness are promoted due to the fact that they were, for example, in front of the camera or in front of a mirror, demonstrate a strengthened self-control, and their actions more clearly reflect their installation.
People, the level of self-awareness which promoted one way or another, rarely cheat. To the same can be said about people with a highly developed sense of autonomy and independence. People who either have developed a sense of self, or become so due to one reason or another, the words, not with deeds. In addition, they become more thoughtful, and therefore less likely to answer calls that are contrary to their moral values.
Therefore, all factors contributing to the weakening of self-realization, particularly alcohol, increase the deindividualization. And Vice versa: anything that increases self-awareness, relax the deindividualization: mirrors and cameras, small town, bright lights, flashy signs with the names, not broken silence, individual clothing and individual housing. "Have fun and remember who you are" — that's the best advice I can give parents the outgoing party teen. In other words, get pleasure from communication with companions but stay a person and keep their own individuality.
Summary
When a high level of social excitation is superimposed on the "fuzzy" responsibility, people are able to forget about their inherent in normal circumstances be restrained and lose their sense of individuality. Such deindividualization most likely when people are excited, and their attention diverted; in such situations, people feel anonymous, lost in the crowd or hiding behind uniforms...
Together we do things which we would NOT do alone."
PS it seems that "together" civilized flagships of democracy, it is able to ruin the planet on which alone any one of them gunpowder was not enough... the main thing - to believe in their leader... and there though the grass not to grow - in the literal sense of these words... but sorry... good weed...<
...out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks... How much emotion and many words not on the merits, alas, so what is self-realization in the psychological aspect and how it differs from self-control...? Whether those condescending, describe in your own words 
And of course again all the best...
!
