I would guess that such groups are being manipulated by exceptionally smart people for specific ends, some significant fraction of the time.
I think that's a tempting theory to have. Explains a lot and is easy to understand, but I think it gives individuals too much credit.
I would guess exceptionally smart people drift in and out at random and attempt to use the group for specific ends. I think their success rate is slim and random.
By "random" I actually mean the group may go along if it thinks it would be "lulz". Notice I said "may", it also may not - lots of random noise in the hive mind.
What this means is that trying to control or predict the actions of the group is a fool's game. At best you may be able to influence them occasionally in some small way, its pure chaos theory.
I would guess exceptionally smart people drift in and out at random and attempt to use the group for specific ends. I think their success rate is slim and random.
I think that's what they want you to think. It may even be true. It's not a reason to give up on the "smart core group" theory, though.
I think it gives individuals too much credit.
This is a long running debate. There is a camp that thinks individual personalities have significant effects on History. I'd be willing to believe that Anonymous is entirely emergent, but in that case, there would be a "fossil record" of its evolution. (Great. Now that I've posted that, some smartass Anon is going to create one!)
What this means is that trying to control or predict the actions of the group is a fool's game. At best you may be able to influence them occasionally in some small way, its pure chaos theory.
There's no good way to guarantee which way a buffalo herd will stampede. Doesn't mean there's zero utility in doing so, or that no one can be held accountable.
You don't have to be exceptionally smart, only persistent and willing to eschew the trappings of leadership in favor of playing the "Anonymous has no leaders" game. Anonymous craves leadership but resents authority, so it's crucial to appear indistinct from the super- or trans-human whole while prodding the herd in your desired direction lest you pop the illusory bubble that gives it strength. This is not unlike what Jaron Lanier calls the "oracle illusion", by which something like Wikipedia gets much of it's percieved authoritativeness by scrubbing out any trace of individual authorship. Anonymous tells Anonymous what to do and Anonymous generally does it.
For instance, the most interesting thing about a thread like this[1] is the timestamps, because they give you a rough idea of how many Anons are actually participating. Two and three minute gaps between posts is an eternity on /b/, the kind of thing you see when a thread hasn't gotten much attention and is likely to die. What I am saying is that many (perhaps most) of the posts (even apparently dissenting ones) in the above thread are likely to have been the same person, persistently bumping an overlooked thread, waiting for it to gain traction.
Of course there is no way to prove this, and one can more easily perceive this is a vibrant conversation between a much larger group of people (which also can't be proved). Whether this was intentional or not, it is an easy way for a vocal minority to recruit from the largely apathetic majority. The perception of being part of a group has an enormous impact on getting people to participate[1].
Not only does anonymity amplify the power of "leaders" in this way it also reflects the yearning of the "followers" to be relieved of the burden of an individual identity or responsibility. As Eric Hoffer describes in The True Believer:"Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority."
That isn't to say that Anonymous consists uniformly of maladjusted poltroons--it doesn't, by a long shot, nor are they generally fanatics in any but the most temporary sense--but it's not controversial to say that it harbors a large population of disaffected youth and misfits of every stripe. Some eager to "do something", others just bored, but all by definition willing to disappear into a crowd.
[2]:I think this is a pretty uncontroversial point, too, but Bill Wasik's "flash mob" work is particularly relevant http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080963 "Q. Why would I want to join an inexplicable mob? A. Tons of other people are doing it."
I just wanted to thank you, this was the second post I read this morning because it looked interesting and you didn't disappoint. The way you master the English language is astounding and I only wish I was able to wield words as well as you.
