It is the blind leading the blind

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.  Matthew 15:14

The one thing that always has bothered me about the situation of the Bahai Faith, upon the death of Shoghi Effendi, was that there was no discussion whatsoever of the question of the continuation of the Guardianship.  In the opinion of the Orthodox Baha'is, the entire Bahai world made a serious mistake by following without question the Custodians into rejection of the Guardianship, one of the essential twin pillars of the Faith.

But, how can it be explained that the entire Bahai world, composed of numerous rational and well-meaning, and intelligent and good people, could take this erroneous path without giving it a single thought?  It boggles the mind to think that so many people can be so mistaken.

But science has an explanation for it, in the study of crowd psychologies and the rational herding instinct.

It seems that when a large number of human beings, acting individually and using the diverse information available to them, will collectively exhibit an amazing intelligence.  For example, the crowd at a horse race making individual bets on the probability that a horse will finish the race first, is composed of a numerous of individuals making their own decisions based upon the information available to each individual.  Because the information is so diverse amongst such a large number of people, the collective wisdom of the crowd is extremely intelligent.  The odds displayed by the horse race crowd is very intelligent and is an accurate predictor of the probability that a specific horse will win the race. When the individuals in a crowd each make their own decisions, there is an incredible collective intelligence in the crowd.

However, when the individuals in a crowd interact with one another about the information, where there is limited public information, the crowd will act like a herd.  That is, the herd instinct will cause the crowd in some situations to be incredibly stupid.  This is known as informational cascades or the rational herding instinct. This is a situation in which every subsequent actor, based on the observations of others, makes the same choice independent of his or her private signal. I will present an example from this web page: http://www.info-cascades.info/:

"Let us presume that you and a lot of other people have to find your way to a new destination, and you come to a crossway where you can only either go left or right. Everyone has a private imperfect signal (call it "judgment" or "opinion"). For simplicity, let everyone have a private signal "left" ("right") with probability 2/3 if the true best choice is to go left (right). So, the signal helps but it is not perfect. Everyone's signal is equally good.

"Now, assume that you are the third person to choose, and you first saw a man and then a woman go left. I claim that it is optimal for you to go "left" even if your private signal/intuition says "right". Why? You know that the man must have had an "l" signal, because he went left. The woman saw the man go "left." She would have figured out that the first individual's signal was "left". If her private signal was "left", she would have surely walked left, too. If her signal was "right", she would have been aware of one right and one left signal. She might have walked either way.

"Now it is your turn. Having seen both the man and the woman walk "left," you know that the man had a "left" signal and the woman had a better than even chance of having had a "left" signal. Loosely speaking, the actions of your predecessors give you more than 1 "left" signal. Even if your private information is 1 "right" signal, net-in-net you should choose "left" if you are acting rationally---and so will everyone choosing after you. Now, everyone after you will know that what you did had nothing to do with your private information---but they will be in the same boat. The optimal decision will be to do the same thing and go left. One major consequence of informational cascades is that you may get a million rational individuals walking "left" just because the first two individuals walked "left", even if the true best choice was "right." (This will happen with more than 1/3*1/3=1/9 probability [first two individuals got incorrect "left" signals].)

"So, what does this mean for society? Cascades predict that you can get massive social imitation, occasionally leading everyone (the "herd") to the incorrect choice."

I believe this explains why so many in the Bahai world made an incorrect choice in abandoning the Guardianship without even giving it a thought.  The Custodians abandoned the Guardianship, and the entire group, lost in the herd instinct, simply followed.

But herein lies the solution to the problem.  Because the second half of the informational cascade theory is the concept of fragility.  This part of the theory points out that only a little bit of information can overturn even a long-standing informational cascade.  In other words, the informational cascade is based upon little or no information and therefore it is fragile.  The way to overturn this fragile state is to introduce just a little bit of correct information.  The herd then turns in the opposite direction.  Instead of going left, the herd now sees that moving to the right was the correct answer.

This is the function of the Orthodox Baha'is in this day.  It is our job to introduce the little information necessary to overcome the long-standing erroneous choice of the Bahai world to simply abandon the Guardianship.

I encourage you to get that information:
http://www.bahai-guardian.com/

Comments

[Robert Clifton]

another two cents:
The herd instinct is certainly appropriatly applied.
Garnering new information will often turn the tide -or herd- but that appears to always be an excruciatingly slow process. (notice I did not say correct information.)

This line "To make that decision (abolish the guardianship) is to set yourself up in opposition to God's will and to arrogantly assume that you know better." is itself in opposition to God's will if we believe Baha'u'llah.
Not to mention the arogance of such a statement.
Obviously good and rational people can disagree on a conclusion drawn from the facts.
Baha'u'llah tells us that to turn with the herd based on someone elses conclusion leads us astray. The divines (individuals and institutions) do that to us in every dispensation. We must independently, aside from the crowd, and based on our own immersion in the writings of Baha'u'llah and other messengers turn our own direction.
Unfortunately this statement might be true, "...there is no hope at all that humanity can be unified." but not for the stated reason.
We as a herd have not yet consulted on the meaning of unity. Until we all (6 billion people - all) individually determine what Baha'u'llah meant by
unity we will run willy nilly with one or another faction of the herd.
You can accept what I think unity means, or what one of the three guardians think it means, or what the UHJ thinks it means but until we ALL reach consensus, we won't unify.
Robert Clifton

[Jeffrey]

Dear Daniel,

Your comments make sense from the perspective of someone who has not fully studied the teachings of Baha'u'llah. What is missing from your analysis is that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this Day and that the Institutions of the Faith are divine in origin. If you properly understand that the Guardianship is an office that is divine in origin, then you will see that nobody can make the decision to abolish it. To make that decision is to set yourself up in opposition to God's will and to arrogantly assume that you know better. Baha'u'llah, while recognizing the value of democratic systems also upheld the idea of royalty and His System combines the best of both. To substitute a man-made system for a Divine System of God's government on earth as it is in heaven, is to make a huge mistake. The fact of the matter is that the Guardian serves the essential function of the authorized interpreter of the Holy Writ, and without obedience to a living Guardian, there is no hope at all that humanity can be unified.

Jeffrey

[daniel]

Hi there,

I m not bahai. Still reading up on it. From what I see so far, I think there's a pretty good transition going on starting from the Bab then on to Baha'ullah to Abdul Baha to the Guardian and finally to the current administration.

The first annouces the other, then Baha'ullah receives the message, Abdul Baha makes those words more understandable to all. Handing the cause to the Guardian is good cause it removes the idea of a dynastic rule. Having the power then be transferred to the Universal House of Justice is the most reasonable step in the continual transfer of power to the people.
Its almost like the breaking up of the monarchy into a democratic system.

Christianity very swiftly became a political and bureaucratic body once its was officially adopted by Constantine. Islam had a very deep schism at death of Mohamed.

I think what the Bahais is developing is a good start towards a peaceful global government.

Even if there was a 'cascading' effect in the decision to abolish guardianship, wouldnt the voting system from local to national assemblies help promote collective intelligence and wisdom?

Thanks for reading.

Daniel