this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
61 points (88.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

29662 readers
2083 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
61
Every semi-natural group of considerable size has rotten apples. (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 7 months ago by Kolli@sopuli.xyz to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One way groups can be classified is the naturality of forming the group.

Naturally forming groups of people acting in pure interest in other members just might be able to force out unfavorable members. Such as friend groups.

On another end there is very artificial groups. I would consider astronauts these. Enough options and time to pick out the well- fitting ones.

But on the valley there is the majority of the groups, which are grouped around agenda, be it idea, hobby or profession. Coppers, locksporters, religious groups, Swedes and men named Tom. When the focus is not in the internal nor external selection of members, but gathering around a mutual thing or task, there will be unfit members.

Thus it's not matter of 'if', but rather 'when' and 'how do we react?'

TL;DR: Groups with common interest are susceptible to unfit people.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 15 points 7 months ago (3 children)

My own private theory is that of any larger group of people, approx. 30% are complete and utter twats.

[–] MyNamesNotRobert@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

In my experience it depends. Sometimes the twat to non-twat ratio is closer to 50/50. Sometimes 80% of them are utter twats. At every workplace it's like there are entire political parties of different types of twats all being twats to everyone, sometimes even other twats.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago

See, your theory fits within the framework of OP's. OP is suggesting that, in friend and highly-competitive groups, the twat-ratio is much lower, say in the lower tenth percentile. In OP's "valley" of interest and professional groups, the ratio may be closer to your 50:50.

So, we could form a Unified Twat Theory, where the ratio of twats-to-competence is inversely proportional to the severity of the selection criteria.

I leave the proof as an exercise for a grad student.

[–] cryptosporidium140@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I buy it. The one way you might get around that is by forming a group of non-twats. But even then you'd need the ability to see into their souls to be sure

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, bad actors are still an issue.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My son goes to a Lego group once a week, and until this month it’s been a great group of helpful, quiet tinkerers.

Then a mom with kids in a local private school showed up, and now the organizer has had to break up a fight, and basically let them know they won’t be welcome if they keep touching other kids (2 of the 4 kids are too young as well).

[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 1 points 7 months ago

Groups that keep certain people out will definitely ferment twats.

[–] OneLemmyMan@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would go the other way around but maybe im the twat and that's why. Man, this made me reevaluate.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

This guy again?

(Kidding...

wait... maybe I'm the twat. ...crap)

[–] match@pawb.social 14 points 7 months ago

That's a good point: it isn't that bad apples spoil the bunch, being that "swedes" and "men named Tom" isn't spoiled by the bad apples therein. Cops in the USA are bastards because the inherent organizing force is bastardy.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Apples should be like astronauts...they are grouped in the bushel based on performance (quality, not being rotten).

If detection slips, or one is massively damaged during handling or a pest sneaks in, the group is fouled. It should not be a normal distribution but a heavily filtered one.

"One bad apple spoils the bunch" because if one rots, it emits a waste gas that accelerates spoiling of nearby apples

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago

And a problem with a lot of people in this day and age is that they like to associate anyone who has a differing opinion than them with those bad apples

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

Nuh uh not the ones I like, only the ones that do things I don't like are bad!

[–] vivavideri@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

This can be repeatedly observed on Discord. You get a great server going and all it takes is a couple of twats to spoil the entire ecosystem.

[–] zephr_c@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

The point was never that any group of people should always be perfect. The point is that you have to search out and get rid of the bad apples to prevent spoiling.