If the psyche is a single instrument, society is the orchestra. Each of us is tuned by experience, carrying our own sense of fear, belonging and story.
When we come together, private patterns become public. We read one another’s faces, respond to tone and tempo, and take cues from the people around us. A mood can travel through a room before anyone says what has changed.
Research into social interaction gives us glimpses of how closely we affect one another. Studies have found forms of synchrony in behaviour, physiology and brain activity during particular kinds of interaction. The findings vary by setting; they do not mean that a crowd literally becomes one brain. But they do remind us that we experience other people with our bodies as well as our thoughts.
Culture is a living nervous system to me. That’s a metaphor, but it points to something we recognize: what passes between people can shape what a group feels able to think, say or do.
And what passes between us isn’t always kind.
Fear travels. One person scans for danger, another notices, and soon the room feels different. In uncertain times, we may look to each other for reassurance while inadvertently confirming that there must be something to fear. A frightening story repeated often enough can start to feel like the atmosphere itself.
Digital platforms give those stories speed and reach. When a message earns attention by provoking a reaction, the most arresting version can travel further than the most considered one. Political campaigns, advertising and media have long paid attention to what catches us. Online, that attention can be tracked and refined at enormous scale.
This does not make every emotional message a scheme, or every audience helpless. It does mean our predictability has value to people who want our attention. When fear keeps us watching, someone may benefit from keeping fear in circulation.
Awareness begins with noticing that exchange. What am I feeling? What have I been shown? Who benefits if I stay in this state? Those questions create a little room before reaction becomes participation.
The Stories That Hold a Group Together
Groups need stories. They give us continuity, a sense of who we are and what matters here. They can help people care for one another and act together.
For this exploration, I’m using collective ego as a metaphor for a group’s shared sense of itself. Like the personal ego, it can organise experience and protect a sense of identity. Institutions, traditions and beliefs can help a community hold together through uncertainty.
But a story that helps us belong can also become difficult to question. Social identity theory examines how group membership shapes our sense of self and our responses to other groups. Terror management research has explored how reminders of mortality can strengthen attachment to cultural worldviews under certain conditions. Neither theory explains every crowd or every conflict. Both offer a way to ask why a challenge to a group’s beliefs can feel so personal.
At its best, belonging gives us somewhere to stand. At its worst, it asks us to stop looking. We may defend the group’s story because questioning it feels like risking our place within it.
That is when a useful story becomes an ideology: something we must protect even when it no longer helps us see clearly.
Progress, or Just Motion?
The modern world has its own reassuring story: progress. Faster, bigger, more connected, more efficient. Innovation can make life better. But speed and growth are not measures of wisdom by themselves.
Gregory Bateson questioned what happens when human systems act as though they stand apart from the wider living systems that sustain them. Erich Fromm contrasted a life centered on having with one centered on being. More recently, Byung-Chul Han has written about the pressure to keep achieving and improving ourselves. They approach the question differently, but each invites us to look at what our idea of progress asks us to sacrifice.
We can see the tension in systems that reward consumption, platforms that reward outrage and workplaces that reward constant output. Each can look productive while leaving people exhausted or disconnected.
I don’t think the answer is to reject invention or romanticize the past. I think we need to ask a better question: Progress toward what?
If we cannot pause long enough to feel the effects of what we build, more motion may simply carry an old fear further.
When Authority Offers Relief
Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments remain unsettling because participants believed they were administering shocks to another person while an authority figure urged them to continue. The experiments have been debated and re-examined, but they still raise a difficult question: what happens to our judgement inside a structure that tells us someone else is responsible?
Behavioural analyst Chase Hughes has offered another way of reading the setting. He points to the unfamiliar environment and its authority cues as possible influences on participants’ decisions. That is an interpretation, not a settled explanation of Milgram’s findings, but it draws attention to something worth asking about in everyday life.
When a situation feels unfamiliar, whose confidence do we borrow? Does a uniform, title or polished process make us less likely to check what is actually happening? Can the promise of belonging or order make it harder to say no?
These questions matter well beyond a laboratory. In a group, we may notice an uneasy feeling and then watch everyone else carry on. We may decide we misunderstood. The group keeps moving, and our silence becomes one more cue for the next person.
That is how a pattern can travel without anyone explicitly choosing it.
What Else Can Spread?
The same social sensitivity that helps fear move between us can help us notice care, curiosity and courage. Groups are not doomed to repeat the loudest signal in the room.
Research on collective intelligence suggests that groups can perform well when participation is shared and members are attentive to social cues. That doesn’t mean empathy solves every problem or that listening always produces agreement. It does suggest that how people relate to one another affects what they can work out together.
A conversation can change when someone asks an honest question. A meeting can change when a quieter person is given room to speak. A community can change when people compare what they have actually seen instead of repeating what they have been told to fear.
None of this requires everyone to feel the same thing. We can stay connected while disagreeing. We can belong without handing over our judgement.
You can see a small version of it on a dance floor. When the music starts, most people wait. They watch, measure themselves and wonder who will go first.
Then one person moves.
It doesn’t matter whether they’re graceful or awkward. They’ve broken the seal. Someone else joins in, then another, and the room becomes a place where moving feels possible.
Fear can be infectious. So can permission.
That first dancer hasn’t controlled the room or made everyone identical. They’ve simply shown another way to be in it. Sometimes awareness begins there: one person feeling the pull of the group and choosing, visibly, what they want to pass on.
Next: The Great Pre-Tender
If awareness helps us notice what we pass between us, imagination lets us consider what else is possible.
References
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Feldman, R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 80–99.
Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or To Be? Harper & Row.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1997). Terror Management Theory of Self-Esteem and Cultural Worldviews: Empirical Assessments and Conceptual Refinements. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 61–139.
Han, B.-C. (2015). The Burnout Society. Stanford University Press.
Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological Reviews, 89(2), 453–479.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
LeDoux, J. E. (2015). Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Treat Fear and Anxiety. Viking Press.
Malone, T. W., Bernstein, M. S., & Dellarocas, C. (2015). Harnessing Crowds: The Future of Collective Intelligence. MIT Press.
Mobbs, D., et al. (2015). The ecology of human fear: Survival optimization and the nervous system. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 55.
Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. Hampton Press.
Palumbo, R. V., et al. (2017). Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 99–141.
Sharot, T. (2017). The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to Change Others. Henry Holt & Co.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology. W. W. Norton & Company.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.
Sue McKenzie 14 October 2025 Updated September 2026