I keep noticing how Aleksander antis try to act as if they are being harassed by his fans, when in reality they are the ones provoking us with full intention. They post bait, wait for reactions and then play the victim, creating a cycle that feeds on attention and hostility. After watching their behavior across different spaces it is clear that this group does not care about conversation. They lean into mockery and cheap outrage because it gives them quick validation inside their small circle. Their way of speaking about Aleksander shows how deeply they struggle with complexity. They run from anything that requires thought and choose a childish view where everything must be simple. Anyone who sees more in a fictional character becomes suspicious to them, which already reveals insecurity and immaturity.
What makes this genuinely concerning is how openly they show contempt for people who like a fictional figure. If someone cannot respect another person over something this harmless, it shows a mindset capable of far worse once the subject becomes real. That is why their behavior is not just annoying, it is dangerous. A group that attacks fans for harmless preferences is a group that normalizes aggression as entertainment. They praise each other for cruelty, they throw heavy accusations around with no sense of responsibility and they enjoy the feeling of control that comes from shaming someone publicly. This is not passion but a distorted performance that has nothing to do with a healthy community. It is a toxic pattern where emotional instability and childish thinking create real harm for fans who simply want peace, and pointing out this behavior is necessary because ignoring it only allows that hostility to spread and push more people away from a space that should have been welcoming.
And no, we are not attacking you, we are not bullying you, we do not even need to do anything. All we have to do is let you speak and you reveal your own behaviour.
Can someone tell me if they've also seen this behaviour?
So two of the dominant mares have lost their positions in their respective herds of late, and both for very similar reasons.
Both of them are mothers who had their foals on the farm, both have kept their offspring at heel and both have had trauma associated with their offspring.
Now the mother/daughter couple are two of the acolytes of Epona. Now though her daughter was around 7 or 8 years old, mum was still letting her udder feed. Mum had weened her daughter off once before, but severe stress brought the behaviour on again. We just let it happen as it seemed to serve as a means of coping with stress (of which, a fair bit had been happening at the time). Mum was content, daughter was content, we weren't going to interfere because of rule 1 (never get between an active parent and their offspring).
Of late however, the two of them have stopped with udder feeding and they're interacting with others in different sub-herds. However, while Mum had been feeding her youngest she was high up in the herd's pecking order, holding a spot at maybe third or forth position (depends on how you count the rogue element in the herd, the pony mare I have come to call Rambo). But now that she isn't nursing her youngest, she (and her daughter, but you get the feeling that alot of her bravado may have come from "stop it or my mum will beat you up") has gone down a lot in rank and isn't fighting quite as much with the others, choosing instead to opt out of fighting rather than hold her ground.
The second mare in our case study is the mother of our current patient, who is recovering from colic surgery.
Now the patient was a bit of a surprise foal. Mum was skin and bones when she was rescued from the abattoir yard and for most of the winter she was rugged and watched over by a third party who wasn't paying a lot of attention to the horses in their care. So it was a surprise to find out that mum was pregnant with the little troublemaker to be. Later on down the line, mother and son were sold off together, but were rather forcefully separated and this wasn't good for them. They were returned to the care of the farm and since that day, mother and son had been inseparable; if you saw one without the other, something was wrong.
So several years later, he's recovered from an infected pedal bone, she's recovered from an torn ligament and cutting part of her eyelid open (and I learnt that sewing buttons can be used as flesh washers) and they're still hanging out together in a very small herd with his adoptive aunt (whose backstory involves losing her foal at the abattoir). The three of them pretty much go everywhere together. Mum and Aunt basically fight over who is in charge, with the poor boy caught in the middle.
Then comes the severe impaction colic. We have to take him to a hospital a couple of hours away for major surgery and our first concern is, of course, Mum. However, during the 5 days he was away, she wasn't overly stressed. (Aunt seemed to take it worse and was the happiest to see him upon his return.) Mum has lost her desire to be top mare, even letting the two newcomers to their small herd push her around. Aunt is now firmly in charge. He is currently on a restricted diet in a stall that she and the others have access to for visits, but during an incident when he got out, it was him who kicked everyone but mum off so they could graze on the round together.
She does seem happy to see her son, but doesn't seem as protective as she once did.
I know mares get protective of their young and we have a few other mother/child pairings in the mega-herd, but none are this driven to be at the top.
Has anyone else noticed such domineering behaviour in mares who are looking after foals at hoof, only for them to return to their docile selves when their child grows up?
Grunge is NOT dead is back next week – new venue but same grungey music, old and new. Three bands for you to check out: C.lou.d Dogs, Herd Behaviour and Radio Seattle. We gave a debut to this rather fine little song at Ultramega back in July and it might just get an outing next week too, if you ask nicely enough. [facebook url="https://www.facebook.com/shanky.mcbuzcock/videos/1449486601784682/"…
Lost On Radio began as a Podcast back in 2011. Our aim was to showcase incredible new artists that were being overlooked by radio, or pushed to the late night fringes. During it’s existence the Lost On Radio Podcast attracted listeners from over 80 different countries. It was also broadcast on 7 radio stations in five different…
Episode 206 Lost On Radio Playlist was originally published on Right Chord Music
Të gjitha shtetet e Europës Jugore mund të nxjerrin leksione shumë të vyera prej krizës greke duke identifikuar shumë shkaktarë të kësaj krize të cilët duhen luftuar, eliminuar apo shmangur në të ardhmen. Një ndër leksionet kryesore lidhet me sjelljen në kope (herd behaviour) të konsumatorëve dhe të sipërmarrësve shqiptarë në Shqipëri e Kosovë përkundrejt sektorit të patundshmërisë të cilin e kanë fryrë në mënyrë të rrezikshme, duke bllokuar kapitale marramendëse dhe duke shkaktuar kosto oportune të jashtëzakonshme për ekonominë e vendit.
Adri Nurellari, Mësime nga pësimet greke dhe mania shqiptare për patundshmëri
" I am alone in the midst of these happy, reasonable voices. All these creatures spend their time explaining, realizing happily that they agree with each other. In Heaven’s name, why is it so important to think the same things all together. "
Hello readers, this will be my first post here on designed economics, with this blog I hope to share ideas that I’ve come across in economics, as well as discussing current affairs. That’s enough for introductions, below is my explanation of a rather interesting economic phenomenon: the bubble.
Bubbles may sound like relatively light hearted and joyous affair. Unfortunately the reality is anything but. To understand bubbles, it would be extremely helpful to first of all understand what herd behaviour is.
Herd Behaviour and its Role in creating Bubbles
This is when people in a group can act together, even though there is no direct plan to. Why? One reason is the ‘following’ of a leader. Often one will follow the example of someone more successful, if that successful person where to for example purchase shares of a certain kind, the ‘follower’ might be inclined to do the same. After all, how can the successful person be wrong?
Now expand that thought, that is one ‘follower’, not doubt there are others that follow the same person, and some of these ‘original followers’ may in turn gain ‘followers’ themselves, this effect magnifies and I’m sure you can see the large scale this can lead to (called a network effect). Furthermore, it becomes even easier to join into this large crowd once it’s formed, the rational thought that comes to mind would be ‘How could such a large group be wrong?’ It is here that lies one of the very fundamental problems of herd behaviour, the behaviour of this large group is often not reflective of the collective intelligence of the group. Since many are following, they are basing their decisions on the decisions of others, instead of assessing the situation by themselves and coming to their own conclusion. Effectively this means that only a small proportion of the group has a clear idea of what is going on, with the rest depending on those with the knowledge to make the right decision, not very smart at all.
Another reason that herd behaviour occurs is rather easy to explain, that is social conformity. Humans in nature are very social creatures, we want to belong in a group, and rarely do we want to be the odd one out. This may lead people into adopting or engaging in activities that they themselves do not want or are reluctant to. This can then, logically lead to herd behaviour, since many don’t want to be left out, so they’ll join the group.
Okay, that’s all fair and well, but I CAME HERE FOR BUBBLES WHERE ARE THEY?! Or what are they even, I’m confused. Well, I’m sorry for causing this confusion may allow me to clear that up, right about now. Bubbles are simply the manifestation of herd behaviour in relation to economics. What do I mean?
Let’s apply herd behaviour to the stock market for example. In our example a group of famous investment professionals invest a large sum into a certain stock. Many soon follow, thinking that it’s a good idea, and so more and more of that stock is bought, naturally the price of the stock starts to rise rapidly, this is a bubble. However, the magnitude of price change also depends on the amount of credit available. Usually, bubbles only inflate when there is a large amount of credit available.
Interestingly, the price rise also has the effect of affirming the notions of followers, the price of the stock they purchased is rising, that can only mean the stock is valuable right? And thus they are now even more certain of their decision. Now certain people are smart, and seeing this sell their stocks for a profit at this point, however these people are a minority and don’t make a large impact on the overall price of the stocks. At this point, eager to get into the ‘trend’, people are still buying in. At one point, money will run out, naturally the stock’s price will stop rising. Thinking that this is the peak of the bubble, people start selling. If everybody follows suit, the bubble pops, prices plummet. Some get lucky and sell before prices hit rock bottom, the rest are now left with a stock that is worth much less then when they bought it. Those that borrowed money have now lost money, and do not have a way to repay their debts.
Why?
That was the first question that came into my mind when I came across bubbles. Why does nobody see this coming? Why does it keep on happening again and again? From the housing bubble that partially caused the great depression to the dotcom bust of the 2000s. History indeed seems to repeat itself.
Well, why doesn’t anybody see a bubble? Let me answer this question by posing another one: How do we know when something is overvalued? That is the fundamental problem with bubbles: the overvaluation of an asset, thinking something is worth more than it is, and investing in it. Indeed there is no definitive answer to this question, value is itself a subjective measure, therefore an objective answer is hard to offer. That being said there are indeed objective measures of value, one is to compare the earnings of an asset to the safest investment there is. This may be in the form of a government bond, for example if the earnings of a bond was 2%, and the earnings of an asset was 1%, then it is overvalued. Since you could invest in a safer asset AND earn more, it’s just not logical. Another way of measuring value is to look at a stock’s price to earnings ratio (PE ratio). This is calculated by dividing the price of a share by the earnings per share, usually for the past year. This PE ratio is then compared to the market average, if it is lower, than it is considered undervalued, and vice versa. A problem with PE ratio is that expectations also plays a part in the price of shares. For example if a company has warned that earnings might be lower than previously expected, it may not be necessarily be reflected in a lowering P/E ratio until earnings are released. In the end, no way is perfect, and determining the value of a stock is up the judgement of the individual, be it a good one or a bad one.
As to why bubbles keep on appearing again and again, it is more of a psychological cause, as is discussed in A Short History of Financial Euphoria by John Kenneth Galbraith. We as humans are rather unlikely to put blame on the whole of a group, the whole of the ‘herd’. Usually blame is pinned onto the few ‘leaders’ instead of the whole group, when the harsh reality is that everyone had a part to play in the bubble and subsequent burst. Moreover, when someone warns of the possibility of a bubble it is often met with hostility, since so many are invested into this trend, the accusers become ‘non-believers’ and ‘outsiders’. Therefore it is extremely hard to change or alter the momentum of a bubble once it starts going, and it is rather easy to start following a new trend.
Solutions?
In my opinion, bubbles will always happen. There’s no stopping it, it WILL happen. What is possible though, is to stem their growth. One way of doing so is education and making financial information more transparent. By doing so, more people will be able to make informed and more appropriate judgements on the intrinsic value of assets, instead of aimlessly following in the example of others, this would no doubt reduce the velocity with which herding behaviour happens. Another possible idea is to limit the amount of credit available in the economy, this could indeed help to slow the growth of bubbles.
That concludes my first post here on designed economics I would appreciate any feedback and would be happy to discuss ideas that you may have.
“We all have a porpoise, but not all of us have a dolphin to give us the courage to push the boat out”
According to the Mayan calender it’s the end of the world in a few months time. How exciting. It’s not everyday that get you to witness such an occasion. If someone in the know was to say “Adam, you can live till your 80, have kids, a nice life etc or you can die when you are 30, but you get to witness the apocalypse” I’d definitely choose the latter. Well it’s a once in a lifetime experience isn’t it.
Have you ever come across anyone that only eats beige food? I’ve known a couple of people. I’m not judging them on their personality or owt. They are both nice people. But I was thinking about something yesterday. I was watching ‘The Green Mile’ which is a film about death row, and it made me think about what I’d have as my last meal. For me it’s a toss up between prawn sandwiches, a nice salad and chips or a mezze with olives and nice cold meats etc. But what would I have if I only ate beige food? Some bread? Some nuts? Waffles?
What I’m trying to articulate is that I’m trying to work out if we should live our lives to our fullest and try to participate in and enjoy and share new, exciting things or do we just bumble along and never come across any extremes of emotion or experience?
Do we live in the moment and relax? Or do we try to realise our ambitions and become stressed when they don’t come into fruition. Is ignorance bliss? Is it best to follow and not question?
Is it best to be safe in numbers? And is being unique dangerous?
Look at the way prey animals group together to try and keep safe from predators.
They move together as one.
It’s the same if you’re to relate it to groups of humans.
If you were to have an idea that differed from the rest of the flock, and you decided to voice it, the rest of the flock wouldn’t be able to help but be aware of your opinion. You’d divide the flock and suddenly you would be seen from all around. You’d stand out like a sore thumb. You’d suddenly be in potential danger.
I suppose there’s a time and place for rocking the boat. Maybe it depends on what lies ahead, and whether your captain is blind and your crew are blind and if the sea looks a bit too rough to be able to swim to safety in.
