Notices


GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


Rebulding a world by paranoiacs

   
I think that's overstating the mental health problem. Although the term used here is 'paranioacs', based upon clarifications made, I've gotten the feeling what we're really talking about is a handful of crazies among mostly lesser intelligence people - people of just below average to average IQ. Further, they are the type easily lead to the wrong conclusions, the type that can ignore cognitive dissonance for a pretty long time. They've been brainwashed at least a little to believe in things that make no logical sense. Sheeple.

Besides that, part of the point is that TW wants to have a society at the end of this, which means we necessarily must mitigate the impact of actual mental health problems. For that reason, I would assume anyone truly dangerous to the community for one reason or another would be dead within a few months, either from doing something stupid or execution/banishment by the group. This is, after all, not a group that will be particularly squeamish. No bleeding heart liberals will be found in such a community. Anyone who does have those traits is likely to be submissive and have a dominant spouse/parent/sibling.

Now, it is fair to say that I've been assuming the El Presidente and his Cabinet won't have anything more than mild mental health issues, and that I've pegged them with things more along the lines of narcissism and megalomania, maybe some delusional behaviors. If El Presidente is serious crazy, though, he won't last long in the post. No matter how successfully cowed and gullible a population is, people won't put up with serious crazy for very long after having been under a mostly sane government for most of their lives.

Solaris:
I mean "people who are able to ignore rational thought process, follow a guru and only thanks to that be saved". There are not insane by definition, though there would be a serious overrepresentation of people with paranoia or other mental problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dauphinous View Post
I think that's overstating the mental health problem. Although the term used here is 'paranioacs', based upon clarifications made, I've gotten the feeling what we're really talking about is a handful of crazies among mostly lesser intelligence people - people of just below average to average IQ. Further, they are the type easily lead to the wrong conclusions, the type that can ignore cognitive dissonance for a pretty long time. They've been brainwashed at least a little to believe in things that make no logical sense. Sheeple.
The problem is that they also are people who are the most sceptical towards the government. For example people living under liberal democracy and convinced that live under blood thirsty tyrannical dictatorship. People who when there is a problem as automatic conclusion reach a solution - it must be an outcome of a twisted plot.
(In RL I had a discussion with a few such people. One (after repeating long list of common conspiracy theories from my country) also easily created new ones - explained lack of nuclear fusion plants (normal, hot fusion) as an outcome of sabotage from fossil fuels companies. Similarly, he was able to accept that one of slightly odd suicide by one post-communist politician, that it was a murder, even though it would frame politicians that he voted for.)

Then I see a following problem - there would be hardship out of purely objective reasons. And this hardship would need a proper scape goat. So you think that there would be a plenty of scape goats? Because I start to wonder... they are people who see through net of deception... even when there is no such net... So I'd see a risk that even through erroneous thought process they might reach a conclusion that they are being cheated.

Quote:
Besides that, part of the point is that TW wants to have a society at the end of this, which means we necessarily must mitigate the impact of actual mental health problems. For that reason, I would assume anyone truly dangerous to the community for one reason or another would be dead within a few months, either from doing something stupid or execution/banishment by the group. This is, after all, not a group that will be particularly squeamish.
If someone would be running in rage with foam coming out of mouth then such person would not be taken, because at start would be kept in proper institutions and would be unable to join. However, not being much better is acceptable.

Quote:
No bleeding heart liberals will be found in such a community. Anyone who does have those traits is likely to be submissive and have a dominant spouse/parent/sibling.
Actually I'd expect quite a few bleeding heart liberals... as long as this definition also includes people (who are legion in my country) who are convinced that the gov, unless is depraved and corrupted, is able to provide [insert long list of services creating a really nice safety net] while keeping quite low taxes, at least low for them. (yes, they want both goals simultaneously, don't ask me how)

Hm.

Given the additional clarifications, I think you're actually looking at a group that will implode and fail to survive for very long. The most likely way there might be long-term survivors is if they fall into a militia-style organization or follow the model of a stereotypical polygamist/fanatical zealot cult.

If water, food, and shelter are relatively easy to obtain, and there aren't any critters that can kill a reasonably prepared human, then small groups (<50) can manage on their own, separate from a larger whole. On the other hand, if any of that is a challenge, small groups will die off quickly for their inability to work together for a common good. Larger groups are more likely to have enough or the necessary personality types to actually get stuff done.

In either scenario, propagation of the species becomes a problem. Small groups will have family sex taboos to contend with in the short term, and if they overcome that, genetic problems in the future. The militia/cult model relies upon women being submissive and not self-destructive or infanticidal. Mentally imbalanced women are especially prone to PPD, which often ends with dead offspring.

I'd say that, with this new information, there's very little chance of a long-term settlement of any kind.

I'd assume very friendly environment conditions. Actually the few tones animals (like mammoths or megatheriums) were the ones that got extinct after a quick contact with Neolithic hunter-gatherers. (Remember about your right to bear spearthrowers )
Homo sapiens sapiens lived in tiny clans for most of its history, the women were exchanged with other clans, so inbreeding is not so serious risk as long as you return to such a noble tradition.

Quote:
Given additional clarifications
Do you think that people that should be expected to be attracted would be those that are merely not the brightest, and not those whose brains tend to rationalize every event as matter of a new conspiracy theory? (Not a rhetorical question, just who would you expect)

My opinion is that those attracted to follow your Event Predictors will be mostly dim, gullible types. I don't really think hard-core loony bin conspiracy theorists would follow them. Authority is authority, whether it's recognized as a government or not. Further, your Event Predictors might not be inclined to want or accept them, just because they'd tend to move the flock off topic a lot. "If you think this Thing is true, how about this other Thing?!!"

Do you think that there would be possibility to effectively weed them out? I mean, in hurry one might give a test in which they would have to agree/disagree with top 25 conspiracy theories, (and don't take anyone who believes in more than 20) though I don't see whether that would be effective, as that would also remove harmless idiots.

I think about a situation in which Predictors effectively can take anyone who comes in, so willing both out of pragmatism and slightly moral reasons would only not take those who are clearly a liability.

Concerning a theocracy - would you advise:
a) direct approach - they rule
b) indirect approach - they organise passing a vague constitution and they serve as constitutional court and spiritual advisors, formally are not responsible for any failure, while are effectively back seat drivers and all blame pass on some elected loosers, which are kicked out every election
c) a & b - they place one person in scenario a, while the other distance themselves and simultaneously are able as emergency plan to use b

Of course, there will also be those paranoid enough to wonder if the earth was really destroyed or if they have been brought here to breed children into slavery while being led to believe there is no more earth...

Well, you said they would be Western. Given that, I think they'd accept a direct theocracy at first. As immediate survival becomes less of a concern and the settlement becomes more established, the leaders would have to at least let people think they have some control over their lives, because the adults all grew up in some form of democratic society. Even if they railed against it, the rights and freedoms they had before were ingrained from birth, and not having them will start to chafe as soon as they have some free time.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status