Roles in groups - is it true?

Post Reply New Topic

Funny that nobody came up with examples of groups where there isn't a scapegoat. Was there a scapegoat in each one of your families, for example?

And does the so-called "research" quoted give any proof of why a scapegoat must always exist for a group to call itself a group?

Some see the word "research" and stop thinking with their own brains.

I don't understand what this is all about.

This is a model. It doesn't say anything about how things should be. It is an observation of how things are.

People can decide to live like that.

The theory suggests that they often form their groups like that.

People have a mind, they can decide and they do things that are artificial all the time. This is one of them.

This is just like morals. Not killing others or having to tell the truth are just artificial constructs that we could do without but decide to live by for some reason. Morals aren't natural either. We learn them, usually, but we can just stop having them right now.

This model of group roles is also just a construct that people might decide to live by for some reason.

I asked whether they do and whether autistic people or very hf autistic people have such group dynamics too?

So do they or do they not?

Apparently not.


(Or maybe it's a little difficult to tell when everyone's trying to figure out what the other person means.)

It's deceptively easy to tread around this stuff - just keep your head above water.
I hate the whole idea of roles in groups, and I will not let people drag me into it.