Talk:Siege mentality

Removed from article

Comment improperly put on the main page instead of the talk page:

"I don't think it is correct to say that "helplessness" is a characteristic of the siege mentality. Often, leaders may actively cultivate a siege mentality in order to bolster resolution and a righteous indignation in their people. This is particularly evident in sport, where a coach may blame a loss on the biased refereeing, cheating opposition, media provocation, unfair tactics etc. This atmosphere of victimisation is intended to create a determination and resolve in his players that they have to fight with all of their resources in every game, as they are always liable to be unfairly treated by some external source. Successful proponents of this approach include Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester united), and Jose Mourinho (Chelsea."

News Flash In Current Crimethink.

Aren't all these wars over the last ever so many years the US is starting just to enforce siege mentality? Yet the only people who do this that are mentioned are the north koreans. I have a 50 saying the korean version of this page says the same about us, for the same reason. Modern nations require siege mentality to funtion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.193.33 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

aka Club Mentality

http://jamesbdunn.multiply.com (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Many clubs operate as businesses, with their tactics focused around financial success instead of religion, spirituality, or cults. Amway and many other multi-level marketing organizations have been accused of cult-like methods for years. Spiritual and business elements are often combined to promote greater influence over the club membership. This combination can make for an extremely effective indoctrination, as the leader of the club/cult can appeal to both the need for financial success and the need for spirituality of their targets.

This widely used tactic can be considered a “club” mentality: good-ole-boys club, racial supremists club, the-right-religion club, hate club, the popular club, cliques…

The club leadership uses their perceived influence to solicit opportunities that others will no longer be offered.

Con-artists pose as religious leaders to solicit funds from the well intentioned congregation. A person claims spiritual superiority to cultivate trust, but unethically uses trust for political manipulation (common plea of righteousness used by addicts). In business, this manipulation is to benefit the few at the expense of the collective team (raises and promotions distributed based upon association and not performance; nepotism). In politics, it is to manipulate and mis-direct the many to implement a private unrelated agenda. Mafia’s use this tactic.

In all cases the leaders cultivate an unfounded emotional basis for their club members to be disrespectful and treat others unethically for the disproportional benefit of the to echelon of the leadership.

A clear check to see if the club mentality is present is to ask a question which shows a clear contradiction with ethical consideration. The leadership and supporting members irrationally use short-loops of circular logic to justify the contradiction, no clear response is offered, leadership actions take place regardless legitimate insights offered, or an active attempt to remove/isolate the person raising the question takes place.

A legitimate social/professional group states reasonable relationships and is inclusive of the community at-large to provide for an environment of continuous improvement.

Bunker mentality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge bunker mentality into this article. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I think the above article should be merged into this one, as a 'bunker mentality' and a 'siege mentality' are practically the same thing. I accept there might be some subtle differences, but they could be covered in the same article. (Note that that article already has a proposal to merge it to Denial, but I think this is a better target.) Robofish (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Both Siege and Bunker mentalities have really small articles. A merge would make sense, considering how close the topics are. Oldag07 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree Leocomix (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems fairly obvious. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.