Entry 2440, on 2026-04-25 at 21:12:02 (Rating 4, Comments)
Why do ideas become popular and, for no particularly apparent reason, become dominant across society? In other words, what is the origin of the zeitgeist? If we look back in time we see various ideas rising and falling in popularity as time passes. What was considered unthinkable at one point suddenly becomes the accepted orthodoxy. Why?
I think it is because most people are not good at thinking for themselves. They lack independence of thought and derive their beliefs from others, especially from others with extra influence, such as teachers, celebrities, and both conventional and internet-based media, especially social media.
I fully understand that a case could be made to say that assimilating other people's opinions, when they are well thought out or based on expertise or experience, is just a sensible and maybe even inevitable phenomenon, but is it, and if it is, should it be?
I guess it's a matter of extent. Everyone (I'm sure that includes me, even if I don't always recognise it) takes on ideas from others, but it's important to be a bit skeptical of other people's ideas, and not to just automatically uncritically perpetuate them.
When I talk to people in person, or discuss or debate with them on-line, I often notice then repeating catch-phrases and reflecting opinions which seem somewhat less than completely original. Sometimes their statements are word for word what I have seen elsewhere. Sometimes their deeper beliefs are equally unoriginal.
So here are some examples...
I recently visited a friend to help with her computer. I launched her web browser and it opened to a news page which featured a picture of Donald Trump. She sort of shivered and looked away, clearly indicating a fairly emotional dislike of him. She commented on this, but I said that I sort of like ol' Trumpy! Needless to say, she was horrified and wondered how an apparently nice and reasonable person like me could like an evil tyrant like him.
So I asked exactly what it was about Trump that caused such negativity, and she really couldn't say. It was just something like he was arrogant and egocentric. I said, sure I agree with that, but what about other self-centered politicians like Jacinda Ardern. What did she think of them? Well, of course, she thinks Cindy was the greatest leader ever, but when pushed could offer no reason why, except she was "kind".
To me, the biggest difference between the two is that Trump doesn't hide his thoughts (even when maybe he should!) but Ardern, while being quite tyrannical and egocentric, portrays a fake image of kindness and generosity.
It seemed that the media loved to attach the label "kind" to Ardern so that's what this person decided must be true, but the same media consistently portray Trump negatively and she also accepted that, without much critical thought.
Now while I "quite like" Trump, I fully understand he has some character flaws. And while I dislike Ardern, I realise she had some good political skills which helped many people during the COVID epidemic.
In fact (I'm sorry to repeat this for those who have heard this before) I suggested her as leader of the Labour party prior to the 2017 election, and voted Labour at that election. But I saw through the facade and realised what a terrible person she really is, and I have never voted Labour since. So it seems that I did form uniquely personal opinions based on the circumstances of the time, unlike many others.
I was scrolling through posts on X yesterday and saw one from a young (22 year old) woman who is having her tubes tied so she cannot have any children. That is an individual choice which she is entitled to make, but it was the reason she did it which I thought was kind of sad. She thinks the world is such a bad place that it is unfair to bring any more children into it.
What made the world bad seemed to be the conflict in Iran and Ukraine, the rise of fascist dictators like Trump, and (of course) climate change. Now, there are genuine problems around the world we need to be aware of, but the general state of the world is actually quite good, with low numbers of deaths from war, overall lower rates of poverty, and generally good standards of living for an increasing number of people.
Looking at the headlines in the media this might not be obvious, but the stats show that things really aren't that bad. Unfortunately this person accepted the grossly exaggerated stories in the media, and those which are no doubt prevalent amongst her friends, without thinking about how true they really are.
Many people I encounter seem to believe that, because of climate change, the world is literally going to end in the near future. What "the world ending" actually means is difficult to establish, because they don't seem to know themselves. When pressed, they will say anything from increased conflict due to some regions becoming uninhabitable, to humans becoming extinct, to all life going extinct, to the planet physically being destroyed in some unspecified way.
When asked how any of these might happen, they have no answer, apart from the "increased conflict" scenario which does have some level of credibility. But they keep hearing about the end of the world so, when you don't think critically, it must be true... right?
So I say, listen to mainstream media, to celebrities, to activists like Greta Thunberg, but don't necessarily believe everything they say. Of course, the same applies to alternative media, and every other source out there. In the end, everything is just an opinion. Be skeptical, and think for yourself!
Comment 1 (8563) by Jim Cable on 2026-04-26 at 11:59:17:
My congratulations on a great synopsis, Owen. It was well observed, well reasoned and well determined - obviously the capabilities developed in an earlier time of university education, when students were taught "how" to think instead of "what" to think.
I thought the paragraph that began, "I think it is because most people are not good at thinking for themselves ... " encapsulated one of the 21st century's greatest truths. Fundamentally, the almost universal lacking of the old value "discernment" in individuals today will determine our ultimate failure as a supposed "thinking species." Across all spectra, our "thinking" is being done for us - and to that, we passively kowtow. Few, like your female computer client can "reason" for themselves, in any way, any more.
Comment 2 (8564) by OJB on 2026-04-26 at 12:26:41:
Thanks for your positive feedback. Yes, I think people need to be far more skeptical of what they are told. And I'm sure I was indoctrinated with leftist BS while I was at university, although it was nowhere near as bad as it is today. Like many people, I have become more right orientated as I get older. Maybe I'm just old, decrepit, and cynical, or maybe I've finally grown up and seen the truth!
Comment 3 (8565) by EK on 2026-04-26 at 16:13:12:
To ask this question is not whimsical or absurd. It is important. But...
You apparently asked the wrong person(s) about populism, Trump and Jacinda. That’s an easy win to interview a mid-range or low IQ person or an uneducated person and this person then being nonplussed or overwhelmed by the complexity of a possible answer. (No insult intended to the person or persons you asked.) Of course most likely a majority of a randomly chosen population are more or less mindless followers in many respects (in my career I have tried my best to remedy this).
The Sociology of Knowledge has asked this kind of question for decades: why do some ideas rise to prominence, succeed in convincing lots of people, and other ideas, which on closer inspection seem not implausible, miserably fail and fall flat – in some cases decades later get resurrected and become a resounding success.
Max Weber’s concept of elective affinity provided at least a partial answer, as does your concept of Zeitgeist (but what if a new idea goes against and destroys the current Zeitgeist and creates another?).
The ask about the (bad or otherwise) world situation is almost a trick question, it is by necessity also a matter of feelings, of hard to express sensibilities for which many people lack the vocabulary. I have to stop there or I’m getting into lengthy article territory.
Comment 4 (8566) by OJB on 2026-04-26 at 16:23:25:
I obviously cannot say who the people I talked to are, but some are current academics and others are retired, as well as more "common" types with little academic background, so this lack of individual thought definitely isn't restricted to (presumably) less intelligent or "educated" people.
I'll have a look at this "elective affinity" idea. Thanks for the tip.
The "world situation" question, like many other questions, can be answered using emotion-based thoughts or shallow observations, but there are stats, which might be agreed are meaningful by most people, which can provide a level of objectivity as well. That's what I try to use.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
Latest Site News and Notifications (Desktop): You are currently viewing OJB's web site, version 2.4 which has some major changes, and possibly errors! Please report any problems to ojb@mac.com.
BLOG PAGE