Talk:Crowd psychology/Archive 1

Untitled
Although "crowd psychology" is one (old-fashioned) name for this topic, it is not a satisfactory one. The article itself shows this, since the theories discussed in it have mostly been worked out by sociologists; in fact, the article would fit into many an introductory sociology textbook. The article (minus its present title) could appropriately be incorporated into the existing article on "collective behavior," crowds being one of the several forms of collective behavior which are defined there.== Better example needed == I've slightly reworded the example for convergence theory, but a different example that's less US-specific (and perhaps less emotionally charged) might be beneficial. El T 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

i think one could add more information about the theory of Elias Canetti, especially for its broader, world-centered grasp. Laur

i add to the last comment that the German "Masse und Macht" site has a section of comparison with Le Bon and Freud: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masse_und_Macht#Canetti_in_Abgrenzung_zu_Le_Bon_und_Freud Laur

Mass psychology redirects here
I only know about mass psychology in the context of Wilhelm Reich's book Mass Psychology of Fascism, and that is something quite different from what the present article deals with. __meco (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed
The line 'whose Mein Kampf insisted on Le Bon's work' seems rather awkward. Should it not be '...whose Mein Kampf drew heavily on Le Bon's work'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen A (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Asshole theory"
What's that one "asshole theory" I've seen mentioned here on the site? Something about internet + anonymity = asshole. It ought to be mentioned (or at least linked) in this article. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Caption of "lynching of Tory" picture inconsistent with the "Tory" article
The caption on this page seems to be the erroneous one, since the method of suspension seems more consistent with tarring-and-feathering, rather than hanging. The Tory page, with an alternative (better?) caption is below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory#American_Revolution Dmutters (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of changing this caption to be consistent (though not verbatim) with the one of the same picture in the Tory article. If this is problematic for anyone, it can be changed back.  Dmutters (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision of this article has been updated
A few theories were added, prose was cleaned up, more sources were added. Tristin Louise (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled]
In my attempt to help clean up this article I messed up citation #8 and am unable to retrieve the correct copy. I am reading up on how to properly do these things but it will take me a little time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.226.194 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
I am a student working on creating a wikipedia project. As an assignment, I was asked to find a social psychology topic and offer some suggestions to help improve an article. A few parts of this article are unclear to me as a reader. I suggest maybe simplifying wording choices in order to help readers have a better and clearer understanding of the topic. For example, the wording in the introductory paragraph was a little confusing and did not give me a very clear understanding about what crowd psychology was. Perhaps adding some examples may help. --CBriones001 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism
My sense reading the opening paragraphs is of Original Research, given the authorial selectivity in epochal background, even if the subject is limited in its origins in 19th century criminal psychology and eugenics. While the growth of industrial cities as the origin of the modern crowd is stressed, bizarrely in Italy and France, the former one of the more delayed industrializations of Europe, along with the emergence of technological innovation or mass communications, absent is mention of contemporary visions of history and society, epitomised in the concept of classes, or the emergence of sociology; Marxist views of the distinction of industrialized classes have frequently stressed the concentration of masses in production for the first time, for example, here all mention of rationalised development is restricted to the biological, and despite mention of Darwin, absent too is mention of Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin and originator of the term eugenics. Similarly, theories and implementation of crowd manipulation are absent or restricted to the leaders of eastern bloc state powers; despite Freud, absent is his cousin Edward Bernays, the founder of modern public relations and the architect of the crowd-manipulated consumer society, or mention of the role of leadership and crowd theory in Fascist examples that were critical to psychoanalytic examination during and after WW2. Despite association of the study of crowds with the concept of social change, implying the interrelationship of groups, crowds and societies, absent too are studies of emergent behaviour in groups and families, of homeostatic theories of group behaviour, schismogenesis, schizophrenia as group property or the emergence of behaviours ideal to the averting of change, seen in Bateson, Jackson, studies at the MRI, Laing, Sluzki, et al (arguably, and in my view, all the traits of historic theories of change and crowds - the emergence of conflicting tendancies, differentiation and isolation, apparent agreement or leadership, mechanisms designed to avert change and maintain group condition, the subsuming of personal priorities, etc. - can be observed at the scale of family units). Finally, though crowd study as here elucidated implies the crowd as physical concentration, despite the mention of radio, television, one wonders at the fate of the dispersed crowd, of Bernays' mass consumer dispersed in society, at whether the otherwise isolated massed viewers of the same broadcast or consumers of the same ad or vote campaign can constitute a crowd of study (surely emphatically yes); absent, too, then, are modern theories of inherited mass ideas, including memetics. Even if all of this is beyond the scope of the subject per se, the introduction and body of the text suggests bias and omissions, and the remainder might at least be seen in the See Also. ExWikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.190.204 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)