Freedom of speech

In my book Tidlös utbildning: en introduktion (2016), I defended freedom of speech as one of the best signs of a healthy society and that "the more restrictions that are introduced the more the society deviates from wisdom" (page 140). Since then, however, I have come across two arguments against total freedom of speech that made me want to reflect on whether I may have formulated a flawed argument for the freedom of speech.

The first counter-argument or flaw in the freedom of speech is that not everyone has the same prerequisites for reaching out with their message, need, or opinion. Social groups that are in the majority and people with the largest technological platforms will persuade and mesmerize others; not through the best arguments but mainly by "screaming the loudest" and being the most visible. Thus the belief that the "marketplace of ideas" will let the best arguments win through their own merit has forgotten to take this into account.

The other counter-argument is that freedom of expression also leads to a lack of restriction or filter being placed on advertising, gossip, spam, frivolity, scams, rumors, and poorly informed opinions that in many cases run the risk of drowning out more useful, healthy and essential information.

Since I agree with these flaws in freedom of speech, I felt compelled to go back and read what I wrote in my own assessment of freedom of speech in the book. I was wondering if I might have reached an erroneous conclusion or not used the timeless parameters correctly.

Fortunately, what I wrote is something I still largely stand behind. My main point in the evaluation was that freedom of speech does not work without Timeless Education with its practice of non-identification and development. I could definitely have gone into more detail on the subject, but the text is not at all as flawed as I feared it would be. On the contrary, I do not defend freedom of speech as much as I point out that it needs a complement in the form of the right education and a wisdom-compass, otherwise people cannot handle such an ideal. Translated quote from the book:

"Freedom of speech also involves a responsibility to be able to take counter-reactions, otherwise there is always the choice to keep quiet. No one can expect [there to be] accepting people who can take responsibility for either freedom of speech or anything else until they have done the work required to develop themselves."

One question that is still relevant, however, is how the right teaching and information, whether we talk about Timeless Education or something similar, can reach people if it is not conveyed by the largest platforms or if it drowns in a sea of trivial, banal and misleading information? In a way, the whole book is about this problem, especially the first two chapters, so there was no need to repeat this. That too much information and opinions are a problem for wisdom is definitely not something I forgot to pay attention to or ponder. That people with the most influence have more power in terms of information is also related to this, and pretty obvious, even though I did not mention this directly.

It was for this very reason that I chose to express a warning in the text, where I stated that crimes against the understanding of timeless truth through prohibition, neglect or distortion of Timeless Education will not be forgiven (by reality). Nothing works without it. Not politics, not religion, not school, not rule of law, not revolution, and not freedom of speech. And to make sure that Timeless Education gets the space it needs for a healthier world with healthier people, I would actually prioritize it over total freedom of speech. This does not pose that much of a risk for what is most essential in freedom of speech, since freedom of speech is largely included in Timeless Education. But the necessary respect needed for the principles of Ultimate Reality in a healthy society may require a limiting or questioning of freedom of speech in its current form. But if we are to apply any kind of restriction and punishment, it must be constructive and reasonable. Banning calls for violence is already a reasonable limitation.

How to reach people with wisdom has always been a challenge. If you come on too strongly, wisdom easily becomes fanatical religion with oppression of opinions, and if you create a mystique around wisdom to make it attractive by hiding it in monasteries or secret societies, it easily becomes elitist or crushed by other ideals that become totalitarian in its place.

True freedom of speech belongs to a higher state. The majority of people do not really want freedom of speech. Ordinary people are biased, passionate and prone to group pressure. And at the same time freedom of speech is something attractive that can support the demands and desires of individuals or groups until these are reached and then inevitably limits the same freedom of speech with precisely these demands and desires. Such is the result of freedom of speech without timeless wisdom.

But if we already consider freedom of speech to be an ideal in our Western culture, then the answer to how we should get people to notice Timeless Education lies precisely in pointing out that our current ideal of freedom of speech needs this kind of wisdom as a complement in order to function and be realistic. Saying that true freedom of speech needs Timeless Education, or wisdom, otherwise it is impossible, could provide us with an effective rhetoric that is easy to remember and at the same time can generate interest in Timeless Education.

The psychology behind conformity

There is a lot of talk today about culturally narrow opinions and political correctness, that people are forced by social group pressure to fall in line with the right values. It has also been said that Sweden is, and has always been, a very strong consensus culture.

But consensus culture is not unique to Sweden. All populations and cultures have always had their own consensus culture, but it is easy to become home-blind so that the phenomenon is believed to be unique. Swedish culture also has a lot of individualistic traits where people value independence and autonomy.

The reason why people and cultures fall into consensus values with tendencies to adapt is due to the fact that the majority of people are "extraverts." Here I refer to the original meaning of the word where Carl Jung meant that "extraversion" was a tendency to adapt to the ideas and values of the external environment more than one's own. Introversion was the opposite: those people who prefer their own ideas and values and have difficulty or lack of interest in adapting to the environment or the prevailing norms.

It is always or usually introverted individuals who bring about change or "updates" the culture with new ideas and thoughts that are then implemented and becomes a new norm by the extraverted majority. So consensus culture is due to the majority of people being "extraverts" and prefer established systems over innovative creativity and questioning. Today, the terms "extraversion" and "introversion" are not used in this way, even though it is a much more useful and correct application of them. So in the absence of better terms, I think we should restore these terms to their original meaning.

However, cultures and consensus may sometimes change direction by other, external factors, if the culture becomes so impractical and divorced from reality that the pressure of circumstances forces it to change its system. Or if it is conquered by another culture.

To analyze people's psychological tendencies, I recommend that people use Timeless Education's "Bias Psychology." But before I get into more detail about that, let's first take a look at the well-known Five factor model's analysis.

First of all, Extraversion in the Big Five personality traits is associated with Enthusiasm and Assertiveness. It does not mention that Extraversion has to do with adaptation to external norms and ideas. Instead, the Five factor model associates this trait with Conscientiousness, while preference for idiosyncratic ideas and questioning is primarily associated with Openness, the most creative factor.

So the Big Five's explanation of conformity is roughly that Conscientious people prefer established systems and plans they can be effective in imitating, mastering and following. And this leads to conservative tendencies. Both Political Conservatives and Liberals have proved to be Conscientious (Industrious), which shows that this routine-based and adaptive tendency prevails regardless of the political scale. This hard-working but adaptive tendency leads to judgments towards themselves and others based on how well they fit in. Then they have found that certain other personality traits increase the likelihood of becoming Conservative or Liberal, Authoritarian or Equalitarian, etc, in particular.

But to be focused on routinely working hard, without going into their own psyche to contemplate, question, and invent new things, is a form of Extraversion. Action-oriented or "Rigid" Extraversion as I call it. An introvert is, as we know, usually more interested in unusual ideas and not as hard working physically. What is said of Openness – which is associated with intellect, unusual ideas, curiosity and innovative creativity – should therefore also be associated with Introversion.

In addition, the correlation between creativity and school grades is zero, or even negative, which explains why girls often get better school grades than boys – since more boys are introverted or rebellious than girls. Women often do well in school since the school rewards imitation and adaptation, i.e. Extraversion. This is also why women more often get anorexia and similar psychological disorders, where focus is on presentation and external social achievements. If you think you are introverted, but have or have had anorexia, then you are not introverted. It doen't matter how shy, silent or socially insecure you are. If you were introverted you would not have that disorder. So life is just as tough for extraverts as for introverts. But the problems are different.

The second thing associated with political correctness is Friendliness or Warmth (Agreeableness), a trait that is also said to be more common among women; an adaptation to avoid conflict and cooperate. Men often say that women do not get along, that they are fake with each other, gossip, compete for popular men or the latest fashion, etc. But this is merely a certain type of women, most common in big cities and cultures where women are brainwashed by hierarchy. Otherwise, women want to cooperate with each other, and they also want to cooperate with men, which is why they want to participate where men work, while men are usually not interested in the work women are doing. I think that is what makes women more focused on equality. The majority of women do not have as strong an individual identity as men, because of their Extraversion and people orientation, which drives them to want to merge with others to form a team or group identity.

[Addition: Some research, such as that done by Susan Murphy and Pat Heim, suggests that the main conflict among women happens when someone in the group begins to stand apart from the majority or is placed in a superior position, due to a female tendency to want everyone to be the same (equal). This would help explain both the female focus on warmth, equality, and cooperation as well as the gossip and indirect aggression also common among women in, for example, the workplace (whenever someone, especially other females, stands apart from the majority group).]

The trait Neuroticism is supposedly a kind of sadness over not having a social life, and Neuroticism is also more common among women. Thus, it can be said that Neuroticism is largely just another side of Extraversion, where adaptation and social success fail.

Introverted people, whom often are men, do not understand this extraverted tendency, and will therefore make up all sorts of hypotheses to explain it. For example, I read one speculating that conformity is due to low IQ, laziness or fear; that such people try to take an easier road to power and status by adapting to the system, instead of questioning, challenging and inventing something new. Even in such a hypothesis an introvert believes that all people think independently, but that they have hidden intentions or motives for why they do not challenge the norm.

In reality it is a matter of how people are wired by nature. We need people who adapt and maintains the systems when it actually works. Introverted people often have a high opinion of themselves in their capacity for independent thought and ideas, but they don't understand that, without people adapting, communities would be very impractical and unstable. Introverts are more socially and physically avoidant than those who adapt. Communities need outward-oriented types that can provide a stable routine in things like physical labor, agricultural work, stress-resistant medical profession, and social politicians who can speak and meet the people. And for such people to work, nature has sacrificed inwardness and strong personal values so that they can take action.

That's why it has been difficult to find a wise philosopher king, since philosophers have usually been introverts, not suited to actively and stressfully leading the people in their daily lives. What we need is better coordination between personality types, not placing all responsibility onto a small group of leaders. People must cease to regard social orders as necessary hierarchy, and instead begin to form social orders where its various parts and individuals are regarded as complementary. There is no Übermensch. Everyone is specialized, and have always been specialized, for a reason.

Let us now take a look at Bias Psychology and the mechanisms behind conformity.

We find the introverted traits, energies or types, in the upper sphere. Abstractum is the most introverted and thus least inclined to fall for conformity, psychologically speaking. But they are also least likely to enact politically or ideologically, so they also do not represent a strong or visible force to counteract conformity.

Magnitudinem is the second most introverted type, and is much more politically and ideologically inclined. Magnitudinem can be authoritarian and conservative, subject themselves to a strong leader who can execute social order, but they question more often and their political position is not always stable. They are a type of justice warrior that can contribute to the persecution of certain people through accusations, but they are also independent in thought and are more in line with similar-minded people and higher ideals than with the majority. I would say that authoritarian ideas and the pinpointing of scapegoats some of them can inspire is more the problem with Magnitudinem than conformity to prevailing norms. One could say that they want the masses to submit to an elite, rather than they themselves adapting. Only if the elite is ideal as dictated by their own opinions would they want to adapt.

Fiduciam is the most balanced type in terms of introversion and extraversion, but since they also think independently and questions, I count them more as introverted. They are also the most individualistic, so conformity is not their tendency. They are very anti-fascist and wants to resist anything that threatens freedom of thought. But precisely this pressure they place on people, to be good, helpful, open and permitting, may have inspired the currently prevailing consensus elite in Sweden. Especially since it is a common type in Sweden. Independent thinking Fiduciam individuals, such as Olof Palme, "updated" the Swedish culture, then the extraverts have taken over and executes it today in their own inflexible and rigid ways.

Misericordia is another blend of extraversion and introversion. But unlike Fiduciam I count them more as extraverts since their Neuroticism is social by nature. The Gratum-sphere is extravert – oriented towards people, social status (keeping up with norms) and cultural trends – and can be said to be "Malleable" Extraversion that enthusiastically adapts to new fashions and role models. They gaze at others, want to merge with others, and imagine themselves in other people's shoes. It is the feminine sphere that is high in Empathy, Politeness, Enthusiasm, Kindness, Warmth and Neuroticism. The female traits of the Five factor model. But their social nature also makes them prone to conformity and consensus culture. And because they are often enthusiastic and assertive around social trends, they constitute the largest mob mentality. The #metoo movement is a contemporary example of this, and also the feminists in the 90's.

But that today's mob mentality happens to be feminist is merely a historical coincidence. Historically, women have contributed to the mob when it comes to everything from witch burning and religious assertiveness, to other types of moral panic and mass psychosis such as the 80's SRA hysteria.

Libidinem, in particular, is very easily hypnotized and passionate about what captures their attention. And they become assertive and determined despite lacking a strong logical basis. Usually it is probably a triggering event, or a conspiratory Magnitudinem or similar type that inspires the idea, then it is the extraverts, often women, who acts on it.

Urbanum is more careful, polite and professional in how they adapt, less neurotic, but they find it most difficult to rebel and are extremely people-oriented. Lack of rebelliousness is good if society is healthy, but bad if society is sick. They become very efficient at supporting prevailing norms and social ideals, even coaching others on how to fit in well, and making these norms appear more attractive than they really are. Negativity is avoided completely, and thus also healthy criticism. A strong investment and identification with the trendiest in culture, which then makes them want to wash away all criticisms against it since it is perceived as a criticism of themselves and their achievements in life or social value.

Finally we come to the lower sphere, which is not as enthusiastic and can appear to be socially introverted. But they are more traditional than questioning and inventive, so their introversion is an illusion. They are also susceptible to mob mentality and are less empathetic than the Gratum-types. This is hard working, Rigid Extraversion, that I mentioned earlier.

Meritum is socially aware and adapts like Urbanum, but is more hardworking and judgmental than social and friendly. Instead of abandoning themselves in favor of the group, they use cultural norms as tools of power. An elite mentality similar to Magnitudinem, but will base ideals more on established norms than independent thinking. Meritum is often individuals who reach high positions in society and then begins to establish a ban on what the mob is upset over to have order in society. So Meritum represents how mob mentality becomes a long-standing institution with new, suffocating laws and rules.

Corpus resembles Meritum in many ways, very hardworking, but is not interested in power or status. They regard themselves more as ordinary and simple, with the most kindness of the Morem-types. How they participate in mobs is hard to say since they are not particularly passionate or aggressive. But they are as prejudiced as Meritum and can jest with what is unusual or snort at it in silence. Besides that, one could say that Corpus constitutes an adaptation to people like Urbanum, but in a more rigid way. Adapting to the family or the local group tradition is often more important than adapting to the dominant culture.

Finally, we have Exitium whom does not adapt as easily, and it makes them similar to the unsocial introverts. Together with Abstractum and Magnitudinem they also have the least warmth or friendliness (Agreeableness) and is also a type that is more common among men. But Exitium is not an intellectual energy and rarely has any interest in metaphysics. It is a type that is insensitive and often violent, who rebels to the extent society is against their interests. But Exitium merely replaces the larger society with smaller clans and the like to have more influence themselves. In their own group, they are very insistent that others adapt and may become tyrannical towards family or the population. Fathers who kill their daughters in honor cultures are probably mainly Exitium-types, and afterwards they also want other fathers to do the same to their daughters so that everyone is on the same side. So they are very assertive like Libidinem.

Terrorist organizations and clan mentality are forms of anti-social mob violence, that neither conforms to the majority nor is original and innovative. A mixture of social rebellion with adaptation to "family or clan tradition." But I'm quite sure that Exitium-men often constitute small mob groups who attack certain designated individuals like a Mafia. The four men who killed an Afghan woman who was falsely accused of Quran burning were probably Exitium-types. So even though men form smaller mob groups than women, and more rarely, they are more dangerous when it happens.

This is my analysis at the moment. I will continue to observe people to figure out what the mechanisms are. However, the types should be regarded with a spirit of curiosity and research, not with too prejudicial conclusions. So do not take what I say too dogmatically, it is a simplification, and people form prejudices because they simplify. But at the same time we need simplification in order for ideas and truths to take root among the public.

I also think it is important to point out that consensus culture, political correctness, and mob mentality are not always the same thing. Circumstances where people are upset because they believe that a crime or injustice has been committed and forms a mob, differ from other circumstances where individuals passively adapt to the social order, or those in power censures and silences people who hold uncomfortable opinions, etc.

A mob usually occurs among the most emotional and aggressive types, while the cultural development is shaped by the middle class through education, and Conscientious people executes, governs and maintains the established social order. Hence the hope for renewal and improvement often lies within the intellectual middle class.

Lack of knowledge and exposure to propaganda will also increase the one-sidedness of people, similar to conformity, regardless of type. But the introverts still have an advantage in that they are more researching and seek out what is hidden. Unfortunately, education today is mainly used to promote conformity, not to increase independent thinking. That is why we need a new kind of education, as I have suggested.


[This text is a transcription and adaptation of the English subtitles from the Youtube video Psykologin bakom konformitet (The psychology behind conformity) from March 2018 that can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/ZiVnQBZw9II]