In class we’ve been discussing the invisible strings that affect people in crowds. How do we motivate large numbers of people to act in ways that are in the best interests of every one of them as individuals? In particular, how do we get people to do this when by NOT ACTING they will still reap the benefits of some collective action that others undertake? Or to discuss another issue, how do we plan for all contingencies that we might face when we bring large numbers of people together and suddenly are called upon to have to make them all act in a way that will benefit each one of them?
With that second question in mind, check out THIS ARTICLE from the New York Times.
Wow. The article had really hit some key points. It provided a great argument to the mistakes human beings no matter what tend to fail when creating evacuation plans. My suggestion is for the government to stop educating people on the dangers that could happen in the event of an emergency. Because people know the dangers of what could happen if they didn’t evacuate they all tend to panic. This causes many more people to die from panicking then from the natural cause. If one person panics, the majority of the others would also panic. The invisible strings would tie together and cause chaos and further destruction. The article mentioned that planning for an evacuation can be too complicated to plan for or too resource-intensive to be made possible. I definitely agree to this statement. Herding thousands to millions of people together can be very dangerous. It can especially be dangerous in an event of an evacuation. The way I would suggest we motivate large numbers of people to act in ways that are in the best interests of every one as individuals is to communicate with others about their plan. This would prevent a common mistake.
If everyone knew each other’s evacuation plan then they can properly plan where to evacuate the people to and to make sure that they don’t evacuate the millions of people in the same place. Carefully planning things out and communicating is the best and only way a safe evacuation can occur. It will bring the large numbers of people to act together in a safe way that will benefit each one of them. Sociologically it will tie the strings together and avoid any danger to can occur. Another way is by learning from past mistakes we already have made in an event or trying to organize an evacuation. Many mistakes have happened when the evacuation out of New Orleans was taking place. A lot of people had died because the evacuation wasn’t properly planned out. The government had waited till the day before the Hurricane had hit. Too many people were crowded together and panicked. Hopefully in the event of another major evacuation the government would think properly and get the people out early and in different directions so that when they panic it doesn’t get dangerous.
After reading the article and our discussions in class I have realized a lot of the problems associated with motivating large groups of people. With evacuation plans I don’t know how you can get people to do them effectively. In the case of Three Mile Island if the meltdown actually occurred I don’t think that any of the people there would have followed the plans set up beforehand. I know that if I was there I would take the route that would benefit me the best and increase my chances of survival and safety. Sure there would be some people that would follow the plans but I believe that the majority would not and it would just cause a ton of congestion and cause more problems. Sure if everyone would follow the plans everyone could be evacuated safely and efficiently but that is just not how we are wired. Maybe if people were forced to practice these large scale evacuations they would go through with the plan more efficiently but that would never happen. Once again you would have people that would not bother to show up and practice the escape route and then nothing would be accomplished. The main thing that I believe holds back the group working together is the free-loaders. They are the ones that just figure everyone else will do it for them and sometimes they are right. But there are also the times that the free-loaders ruin it for everyone. I feel like this could be the case with the cut to Penn State funding. As we discussed in class, at this time there are only a limited amount of students that are getting involved. The majority of students at Penn State are just sitting back and watching as everything unfolds. What a lot of people don’t realize is there might be consequences in the form of a tuition increase if nobody gets off their butt and does something. Its going to be very hard to get people motivated because a lot of students don’t really know what is going on. I know that I had no idea how serious the whole situation was until recently and I still don’t really feel that motivated to help. I guess that is where the problem lies.
This “no resident behind act” may seem like a great idea, but in truth it may not be. When people who live near nuclear power plants are told to evacuate, they all evacuate at once and cause an even bigger mess than what it should be like. I think the idea of only evacuating the counties or cities that are closer and at a higher risk of getting injured should be evacuated first. But then think of the cities that aren’t as close as the high risk ones, but are still close enough. They have to be evacuated after these cities and that’s not fair to them. These nuclear power plants are so dangerous, although scientists and officials may believe they know the dangers of what this radiation can lead to, they may not know all of the dangers to their fullest extent. Think of Japan for a minute, they just suffered a huge earthquake, and a huge tsunami back to back. Now they have to deal with a power plant that is supposed to overheat and send out radiation waves to those in its area. If I lived in Japan, I would definitely get out no matter what they told me to do. This radiation isn’t a joke, and it can severely injure people. We should work on creating safer evacuation plans, or even work harder to detect any of these possible explosions more in advance so we can evacuate a larger number of people in safer ways. Since this most likely isn’t possible, we should keep people away from living so close to these power plants! Why would anyone want to live so close to something that can possibly kill you from its radiation waves? And why do we allow these people to live there? To keep people safe, we should form a larger distance that they should keep away from these power plants. People are being exposed to radiation that they shouldn’t be exposed to and its because they are way too close to it. With the improvement of moving people further from these plants, and creating safer evacuation policies, it will form a safer environment for the people close to the plants.
I think that it is very difficult to get large groups of people organized for a specific cause. I think this has to do with the fact that people have different interests. Let’s consider the proposed budget cut. Sure there are many people that would be negatively affected by it. But there are also many students that will continue to go here whether the tuition rises substantially or not. Some student’s parents are paying for their education and have no problem affording it. And others are on scholarship, so regardless the cost of tuition they are taken care of.
But even with the large number of people that would suffer from this, I think that some people rely on others to make a difference. I believe there are many students that would be devastated by the tuition hike that are waiting for all the other students to go out there and do something about it. But what happens when everyone has this mentality? Nothing gets done. I think this becomes a problem with many issues involving large groups of people.
(sent in two comments)
When it comes to trying to organize large groups of people to do one thing, I feel like everyone is inclined to look out for themselves and their own best interests. And can you really blame people? When it comes to evacuating hundreds of thousands of people out of a town because of a natural disaster, aren’t we most concerned that we can get out safely? I don’t think that people should be blamed for this however. It’s just natural to look out for your own safety.
This becomes a problem however when it comes to these large scale evacuations running smoothly. Because everyone looks out for only themselves, they may not think about the best way to go about it. As mentioned in the article, the evacuations for Hurricane Rita resulted in huge traffic jams of people trying to get to safety. I think this is caused because people rush to get out to save themselves and it might run more smoothly if some people considered the needs of others.
(sent in two comments)
Managing large numbers of people has been a major problem in the U.S. for the past few years. Whether it deals with evacuation plans or managing a large crowd to not start a riot, which has been a problem here at Penn State. I think the major issue when dealing with large crowds is finding a good evacuation plan to keep the people safe, and keep them from panicking. As far as nuclear plant meltdowns go, keeping the people calm is critical. Such as the Harrisburg situation. There should be a set evacuation plan for everyone within a 30 mile radius if a nuclear power plant were to meltdown. Every person needs to know the importance of the situation and not be kept in the dark. But this does not mean that these people will consider leaving because of sheer ignorance. Some people are to stubborn to consider all of the circumstances that they could be put through, and sometimes are to lazy to care. While as other people, go completely crazy and panic. This causes a huge problem because the mass of people that panics and panic at once, and this can cause an unorganized evacuation and maybe cost lives. Keeping the masses of people pleased is also very important. If you don’t have a well laid out plan, people will know and be angry at the people in charge. When leadership becomes irrelevant to the people other problems tend to rise. People will look for others to take charge and look for their own way out. When people decide to take different courses of action things become unorganized and things become worse. I think that Obama was right in saying that any nuclear power plant should make sure that they have good evacuation plan. The people should be aware of the evacuation plan and know that it is a safe, well-organized plan to get the people out to a safe place. When people are confident that they are taken care of, the panic element can be reduced and everything can run much smoother. Cooperation is key to any dangerous situation.
When it boils down, managing crowds and other large groups of people comes to two crucial factors: authority and infrastructure.
Due to its relative simplicity, I'm going to start by talking about infrastructure. The way I define infrastructure is in terms of physical means of transportation, and in terms of being able to deliver information to a large number of people quickly. Without the proper roads and other means of transportation, it is impossible to mobilize large crowds quickly or get them to physically do anything (whether rally for a cause or to evacuate a hazardous area). More importantly, if you can't quickly and effectively get your message out to all of the people in question, then it wont matter how much physical infrastructure you have available to support them. And it is the manner in which people perceive this information or instruction that brings up the next crucial issue: authority.
When you are trying to manipulate a crowd (no negative connotation meant here), I believe it is imperative for the crowd to truly accept the legitimacy of the source. So lets say that a government wants to evacuate a nuclear fallout contaminated zone, given that they have the available infrastructure to accomplish the act, they need for the people to have complete trust in their judgment and authority. The people need to believe that what the government is telling them to do is in their best interest, and that the way the government is telling them to do it is the best possible course of action. I don't know exactly how a government would go about doing this, but there are some examples in history to draw on.
Many of the worlds greatest dictators and authoritarian governments were masters at crowd control – to a point of fault of course, but masters nonetheless. They were able to deliver their messages to large groups of people effectively, and have the people act out on their message.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not condoning an authoritarian regime by any means. All I'm saying is that given how little I personally know about crowd manipulation and control, I naturally default to some of the most famous examples in history (which happen to be some of the most successful…and depressing examples).
If I had more space, I would also bring up Gandhi, who mobilized an entire nation but through entirely different means from say Stalin or Mussolini.
I found this article to be very interesting, especially since it focused on the disaster in Japan. It was a more recent event to focus on the subject of managing crowds. In the readings that we had to do, there was a particular article that had to do with fear. It gave the example of the September 11th attack on the World’s Trade Center. People acted calm despite what was happening. They even went as far as to help each other out. Most people would have expected much more mass panic and chaos, but there was none. When the towers collapsed, there really was nothing that could be done to manage the crowd. It was unexpected, and so there really was no evacuation plan or precautions that the crowd could take. With the disaster in Japan, there was some warning. Because of the earthquake, there was instant warnings of a tsunami approaching. Tsunamis are sort of like the afterthought of an earthquake. Many crowds of people did try to evacuate to higher grounds, however for many it was too late. Then the nuclear reactors went off and mass evacuations on the area had to begin. The crowd however, is not in charge of these evacuations. They must go along with what the government wants. It is kind of unnerving to know that you are under their control. It can even be confusing and dangerous. Like the article states, mass people were being evacuated across a small bridge in two different directions. Although most of the people were obviously shaken from these turn of events, they did not panic. It is best for the crowd to evacuate however, the government needs to come up with an efficient way to move people out of the area fast and efficiently. For the situation in Japan, I really do not think that free riding off people was a particular problem. Everyone in the nuclear reactor area had to evacuate. There was really no exceptions. They all had to participate in the evacuation plans. Managing people will always be a hard task, however with proper preparations it can go off without a hitch.
It is difficult to read this article and to think that I would personally ever have a need for evacuation plans or be faced with some sort of disaster that I would face in order to be in this type of situation. But with the very real events that happened in Japan, it's hard to continue to be ignorant. Especially because I live within 20 miles of the nuclear power plant mentioned within the article, Indian Point. Though I am not within the most at risk area, I am not very far off. What will happen if there was an accident to occur there? Not only would I probably be required to evacuate, I would have to deal with the people flowing into my town who live 10 miles away, trying to get away. The article addresses this issue. I know how our highways are with rushhour traffic, I could only imagine what it would be like if our actual lives were in danger. However, in these kinds of situations I think about the essay we had to read in our SOC book for the first exam about panic. There are very few, if any, recordings of panic in our history. Most people are aware that the best way to handle that kind of situation is to stay calm and make sure everyone is able to get out. Even people who were required to leave for Hurrican Rita were not dying because of panic reasons but because of previous health reasons combined with the unusual circumstances. But the nuclear power plant near me has the most concentrated population within 50 miles of it then any other power plant, according to another New York Times article I read last week, all within the New York suburbs. That is a LOT of people to have to evacuate and theres only so many places they have to go. Nor do we get any evacuation plans in case that was to happen, or what to do with people who live even closer to the plant and are trying to get away by passing through our town. I think these are issues that people making these plans have to take into account, but its really hard to make plans for things you don't is coming. Indian Point is far enough away that it isn't a constant worry in our minds, but its always there. It is good to have guidelines for evacuation plans so that people have a general idea of what to do if disaster were to strike, but if that were happen, there are so many other variables that would have to be taken into account that no one could possibly forsee. One just has to pray that we are never in that situation and that human nature to not panic and using the guidelines given to us to evacuate will aid us.
This prompt particularly reminds me of a video I watched in one of my Psychology classes. Basically, the video was of a man who needed help and everyone who walked passed him just stared at him. Another example is of the woman who was stabbed in an alley, and it was reported that a bunch of people heard her screaming for help, but no one did anything to help her. The reason for this is because when there is a large group of people, everyone always assumes that someone else will take care of the situation. If everyone has that mindset, then no one will step up, and nothing will get done.
We’re facing a similar situation now here at Penn State with the rising tuition. A bus went to Harrisburg to fight the tuition rise, and only 13 students went. Now, that could have been for multiple reasons, such as people didn’t know about it, they were too busy, or everyone just assumed that other people were going to go so there was no need for them to go. I’ve felt this way in times of my life, and I actually feel that way about this tuition rise. I’ve been invited to the Facebook groups for the meetings to fight against the rising tuition, but I assume that there will be other people there, so there’s no need for me to go.
When I initially read the question, “How do we motivate large numbers of people to act in ways that are in the best interests of every one of them as individuals?”, I immediately thought that the best way to motivate people in large numbers would be to show that they will reap the benefits some collective action that other undertake. Then the next question sort of threw my idea out the window. Honestly, I don’t know if there is a way to convince people to act in large groups without acting like they will reap the benefits.
I think people have to just have their own motivation to do something. If someone has beliefs such as, I don’t have to do this because so many other people are fighting for it, then they won’t do anything and I don’t know if there is a way to convince them to do something.
To manage a crowd, everyone needs to be informed prior to the incident of what actions they need to take if something does actually happen. As much as giving a detailed plan of action seems like a good idea, when it is actually time to put the plan into action, people panic. More than likely if a nuclear disaster was about to happen I would forget about the details of the plan and do whatever I possibly could to save myself and my family. I believe a majority of other people think this way as well. This obviously leads to major problems in times of crisis such as in the evacuation before hurricane Rita. In this case, people who were in low-risk areas of danger still evacuated which led to an unforeseen amount of traffic and chaos. It is easy enough to say to the people in the low risk areas that they have to allow the high-risk people to evacuate first. However if it was my family, I wouldn’t take any chances regardless of whether our area was considered low-risk or not. When there is no crisis, people can easily understand that not panicking will not only benefit them but will also benefit the group as a whole. However under the conditions of life or death how many people are willing to make calm, rational decisions that will benefit the group as a whole? Of course there have been several instances where people have tried to act in this way but may have failed because no one listened to them even if it would have been for their benefit. I think that when people are faced with danger, it becomes very difficult to trust and rely on someone else you do not know to help you. The idea of this alone is very scary because how are you able to know that the person who appears to be trying to help the whole group isn’t just acting in their own interest. Unfortunately in times of crisis and danger all we can do is hope that the plan of action put in place and the people around us are going to work towards leading your family and yourself to safety.
When someone thinks of large groups of people focused on the same cause there are two main images that pops into their head. One of the image is of a peaceful protest that helps to get the word of an issue to the public. The other image is a little bit more chaotic and that is of police spraying mace in someone’s face in a protest. Much too often peaceful protests turn into not so peaceful protests which end up leaving people hurt and sometimes killed. The idea of Groupthink is ever present in the dynamics of protests and cause people to do things that if they were not in the group they probably would not do. For example if there is a big group of people trying to flip a bus I may be inclined to go and help flip that bus but you do not see me going by myself to flip a bus. I remember something that my parents used to tell me a lot of the time and that is “ if all the other kids jumped off of a bridge would you do the same thing too” I always gave them the sigh with a no. But after taking this class my eyes have been opened to the reality that some invisible strings of society are always there and if I could go back and tell my mom something I would say that yes I would jump off of that bridge and it is due to the constant need to be accepted throughout my peers. Everyone always says that they like being different or they do not conform to social norms but in all actuality if someone does not conform to social norms then they will be cast out and ostracized within the community and no one wants that. But I think it is hugely important for local officials to try to plan for disaster situations so that chaos does not occur in times when someone needs to get out of some place. If action does not take place then someone can be hurt or even worse killed.
I remember hearing an actor state in a movie, though I cannot recall the title at the moment, that, “[Individual] human beings are intelligent, but people are dumb, [panic-prone] animals.” I think this relates incredibly well to the invisible string theory which Dr. Richards brings up so frequently in his Sociology class. People might be able to make well-thought out plans as well as put these plans into action in an effective way, but if you add unsettling news of a catastrophic event, people’s animal instincts of “fight or flight” can tend to get the best of them. In order to overcome people’s nature to panic in times of dire stress & potentially deadly occurrences, I believe a fail-safe plan needs to be put
into place early. If such a plan exists, in order for people to get the most out of it, citizens should be aware of primary, secondary, and (when applicable) tertiary routes to take during an extremely dangerous world event. A nuclear reactor leak or a tsunami hitting a heavily populated area are both good examples of where fail-safes need to be effectively established to help alleviate, if not outright prevent, panic. In the case of New Orleans, the levy broke and political leaders waited too long for any escape plan to be put into place successfully. Lack of planning caused an unnecessarily high loss of lives
in their community. Sometimes, like Dr. Richards pointed out, people are better off not taking any action at all during times of crisis, if they are not directly affected by the outcome of the event at hand. Drivers caused gridlock that actually cost lives due to unnecessary panic in areas not immediately affected by the flood is a prime example. Had those not at risk for getting hit by the storm kept the roadways clear for those people desperately in need of evacuation, as well as emergency personnel, the death toll might have been significantly lower. It is sad to see tragic events bring out the worst in people, but like the movie quote goes to show, sometimes our instincts for survival get the best of our power of logic.
Having just attended a concert where performers like Travis Barker Lil Wayne, Nicki Minaj, and Rick Ross took the audience captive for more or less four hours, crowd control is a topic that resonates clearly in my head. The Bryce Jordan Center was packed to the brim with tens of thousands of students and fans who paid to see each performer take their turn entertaining the crowd with their music. No matter who the performer was, they had complete control of the audience which was evident if you witnessed any part of Wednesday’s concert. Throughout the concert each and every one of the artists who took the stage had something for the audience to proclaim
This article was very interesting. It was discussing the troubles that come with trying to assemble people and accomplish a goal with all of the chaos of a disaster going on. This was honestly nothing I’ve ever taken the time to think about. It seems so obvious, but I never would have thought about the problems around orchestrating an evacuation. I thought it was really interesting how the author connected each situation with the next as far as what was learned from the previous. From the unfortunate results of Hurricane Katrina came new information to help aid during Hurricane Rita. The problem was that we had to lose so many lives in the process of perfecting evacuation plans. It’s unfortunate that it took so long for officials to realize just how vital evacuation plans are! In school we were always having drills for every emergency that could possibly occur! Today in class we watched the video about the people in France whose job it is to remove explosives from the ground from the war that still may be active and could go off at any time. The people who are doing this job are in serious danger, but so are the people who live anywhere within the vicinity of the area. This is just like the Marcellus Shale situation. There is all this danger that we are not being told about and people have to unfortunately suffer the consequences. It really shocked me that the article said even after Obama’s request to the nuclear commission to safely review all of the nation’s nuclear power plants, there still was no certainty that the review will include an evacuation plan! This whole article has made it pretty clear that evacuation plans are important stuff and I can’t imagine why that hasn’t taught us to have them mandatory. Towards the end, they make mention to the ways in which “lying” to people is the best way to put their minds at ease and that it will, in the end, benefit society. The article, however, I felt did not relate to what I thought the blog post was saying. Here, I pictured a mosh pit situation and the craziness that a body of people acting as one is bound to encapsulate.
How to get people, or rather a group of people, to take part in an activity . . .People, being self serving, will always try to get around doing work and conserve their energy. One way to get people to partake, if they are close to one another, is to use mob psychology to your advantage. Get people riled up. Get them angry and pissed off. Each person in the group compounds the effect, and they will lose themselves. That's how protests turn in to mobs. That's how mobs turn into riots. That's how people get hurt or killed.
We don't want that, though.
What do we want? Peaceful cooperation? Then you need an authority figure. You need someone of a higher "ranking," of greater knowledge or power. At least, you need someone of perceived power or knowledge. It's been shown time and time again that people will blindly follow an authority figure, like what the Nazis did, or what the participants of Milgram's experiment did.
But that alone isn't enough, because in larger groups, people will feel exempt from his or her orders. No, he or she must also need to earn the respect or the fear of the people. No person should be exempt from the punishments of disobedience.
This is the problem of zero tolerance that we discussed earlier in the year, and the problem of libertarian governments. People must be controlled like cattle, or they begin to step out on their own. The illusion of freedom must be cultivated and given to them for them to stay as part of the group.
People must be passive and sedate. People must not think. Then we are free to move them around as we wish, like pigs to the slaughter.
Is there a "good" way to get groups of people to follow a plan? If ever person has a set place and a set thing to do, and if people can be made dedicated to the plan, then yes. Dedication to the plan comes from knowing what your place is in the grand scheme and knowing what your contribution is. A mailroom clerk doesn’t care about his job because he can't see how it's necessary to the grand scheme, but it is. The feeling you get when you see the fruits of your labor come to light. That's what you need to tap into.
Motivating crowds to behave in a particular manner is no easy task. Large groups of people need to be convinced that a collective behavior will be beneficial to everyone including each person as an individual. A crowd is very difficult to get moving but once you jump start it, it tends to have a snowball effect. There are a few different ways to motivate a group of people and get them to behave in a certain way. One way is to convince them that they are in danger and that they need to act immediately. This technique is useful for relocating groups of people in order to prevent a high death toll in a natural disaster. This can be slightly difficult because it must be planned out in great detail prior to the actual event. You can’t just expect thousands of people to all simultaneously leave a city on the same highway. Crowd scare tactics are also useful for raising support for a war or rebellion. If you can convince a large group of people that another political party or country poses a threat to them, they are more prone to submitting to authority if a solution is offered. For example, Americans were told that Iraq processed weapons of mass destruction.
Initially the American people supported the war in Iraq because they were afraid. The American people had just been attacked on 9/11 and the threat of weapons of mass destruction caused Americans to support a “pro-war” policy. It wasn’t until after the American people found out there were no weapons of mass destruction that the war in Iraq began to lose its support. Another way to control a crowd is to convince them that following the group will be advantageous. Something as simple as an advertisement on TV would fit into this category. A store may try to attract crowds of people by offering large discounts. This store is trying to control potential customers by using advertisements that would entice crowds into their shops. The news also plays a huge part in crowd control. Scare tactics are commonly used on crowds through the media because the government has a large influence on what is being reported.
I cannot imagine the immense frustration an individual may feel when trying to have a massive amount of people follow a specific order. Only having had an authoritative position over groups of maybe 60 people at most at some time or another, ive experienced that kind of frustration but nothing nearly comparable to moving an entire city. The same issue arises just on a different scale. Of course there are going ot be the stubborn ones, and the know it alls, and the then the obedient ones. But never a unified group all forming under the same category by free will. The ultimate tool one can use to get all those people on the same page is use of words usually ending up in the use of scare tactics or fear. Nothing is worse than being afraid and that sudden impulse is strong enough to change anything, literally anything about an individual. Whether it be to move from one place to another or change a personally mentally. Trial and error seems like an awful idea when it comes to crown management, clear cut ways need to be put in place along with the appropriate propaganda guaranteeing the idea presented is correct even though it may not be. People as a whole are only privy to what they see, they do not attain the resources to double check everything. So i feel my idea would work. Why something related wasnt in place before baffles me, but the mishap that happened with the three mile island ordeal is ridiculous and even more absurd is the ordeal with hurricane rita. We are supposed to have the smartest of the smart taking control of the superpower of a nation we call America. Mistakes such as the ones presented are not okay. It just shows that any and everything is flawed in this world and that some priorities come before the more important ones. Serious revision is in need to our governing system. We need more competent well intentioned people looking over us. Or at least thats what i would have in my Utopian world.
I found it fascinating when Sam discussed managing large crowds in class. Before that class, I had never really thought about the factors that go into managing a large crowd, or even a small crowd of people for that matter. It is pretty interesting that when no matter how large a group is, if everyone is on the same page and everyone has the same intention and or reason for being there, it seems that it makes it that much easier to keep everyone in line and keep everything under control among the group. A great example would be a large lecture hall class, like our Sociology 001 class. There are what, three hundred students in my Sociology 100 class? And only one teacher (Sam)? If you think about it, in most cases if it was most other settings, three hundred other people against one person would result in the three hundred people getting their way. But because the three hundred, (on average), of us that are there three times a week are there for the same reason generally, we listen to Sam, or at least pretend to :p. And like Sam has mentioned a number of times before in class, the people who seem to get the most out of class on a day to day basis are the people who sit the closest to the front ( or where Sam is lecturing). And that goes along with what Sam said in class, that the people who are closer to the front or the center of the main action at any religious congregation or really any one at a rally or something of that sort seem to be the ones who are the most engaged in what is going on, and they are the people that definitely feel more of an emotional connection to what they are involved with.