We humans like to think of ourselves as masters of nature. Through development and use of technology we believe we can change the conditions like heat, light or the threat from other organisms to our favor. Nature has proven us wrong in the past five years but nobody seems to notice; nobody seems to care.
Even when most of the world became aware of the problem called global warming some people (who actually held the positions of power) chose to discard this fact completely and decided to pursue their own goals (which would mean nothing if there's no food to buy). The more shocking fact is seeing a member of Greenpeace smoke and flick the butt into the sea. This makes one think that not all members of the so called nature lovers love nature but a community to belong in to (or being able to get a mate easier by showing how caring they are). Considering most female members of our species are attracted to sensitive and caring males, and most male members of our species are in favor of females who are capable of chaining themselves to some place to make a point (which must symbolize the sentimental attachment to their loved ones or something like that); joining the club is a smart move.
Every group has a different thing to say and a different point to raise awareness to. As you can see Greenpeace is not a solitary example of those groups which has members with a different goal. These groups are well aware of that but since the thought they're defending is more or less non-changeable what they need is bodies not minds. They need move vocal cords yelling the same slogans which were set months back. The leaders of these groups know one fact: the more people you have the easier you get them to do what you want them to. A reason for that every member of the group has the fear of being cast out of the group (either politely or by being cast out of existence through lynching). A cult can be motivated in to mass suicide; a group of people can be convinced that a person who tells everyone that living in peace and together is a good idea is dangerous. Individual members of those said groups would never kill themselves or a person with obvious good intentions.
So what makes people easier to control when they are in a group with a large number of members? Do they get dumber? How do we calculate the intelligence quotient of a group?
The standard intelligence quotient test was created by a French psychologist Alfred Binet and was later revised by Levis M. Terman. It is basically mental age divided by biological age multiplied by 100. It is greatly unreliable because the test assumes that, mentally, the older you get the wiser you become (which is a shame coming from a psychologist because interview with elders over 100 years of age reveal that they become more childish). One other factor that makes this test unreliable is the younger you take the test the higher your IQ score gets. For example let's take a child who is 4 years old and by some bored parent was taught how to read and count. If that child takes the test his or her mental age is about 8. When calculated this child's IQ score is 200. The highest IQ score ever recorded was Marlyn vos Savant with 228 (this is the reason for using the word savant instead of genius).
What does that prove? That an educated but unemployed parent's child has a higher IQ?
Definitely not. If that child learned how to read on his own or with minimal help we can say that he/she is gifted.
We didn't give ourselves the title master of nature just because we're vein though. There are these gifted children who can devise their own calendars at the age of 10 or force their teachers to quit drawing and do only sculptures at the age of 14 (this is Leonardo da Vinci by the way). Then there is this other group of individuals who do not have gifts but have an immense devotion and ambition. They learn how to do something and work on it intensely to become almost excellent (yes they are usually annoying people who have nothing else in life but the thing they devoted themselves to -like in the case of Michelangelo).
These two groups of people create technology and art. They send people to the moon or harvest electricity from rivers by building dams. Some others observe and copy nature and some up with the parachute (inspired by the seeds of certain plants) or the most efficient tire patterns (inspired by reptilian feet). We can see people can be greatly cunning if they are left alone or in small groups. The larger the group gets the idiotic they act.
Consider a group of scientists who sent a shuttle to outer space. If a problem occurs none of those so called geniuses can come up with a solution together. They need to separate in to smaller groups which in turn divide into groups of two or three. So why can't they come up with a way to save those people who would either freeze in space or fry while waiting to crash and get pulverized?
My theory for this is that the group’s intelligence quotient and that of individual members of the group have little to do with each other. One can easily see that a group of people as a whole act dumber than the member with the lowest intelligence score.
I came up with a formula which I (sadly) got to test a few times and found out that I was almost close to an answer. It's something like this: you pick the lowest IQ score in the group and divide it by the number of individuals in the group. If the population has 2 or less digits you multiply by 10, if it has 3 digits multiply by 1, if it has 4 or 5 digits divide by 10. If there are 6 or more digits the intelligence quotient is irrelevant because the members would either divide in to smaller groups or if that isn't possible they act like a herd of animals. Observe the fact that many people get trampled on in crowded meetings. Much like what happens in stampedes.
This is why professors and scientists throw chairs at each other in a formal and scientific convention.