Groups, why so large?

-Al-

Are the investigation groups in ireland, made up of large people when they go to places?

This has always annoyed me, when watchin something like most haunted, I mean that show has gone downhill (or a mountain more like) but there always seems to be about 20-30 people in the place.

I know they have alot of equipment and such, but if they hear something, or feel something or something moves, there is no way to prove that it wasnt one of the many crew.

So when you guys do a real investigation, do you go with about 5 people, or a big 20+ group?


Al

tomMK1

2-4 people would be a minimum i'd say

Sapien

As many people as possible, I opine. But never more than one at a time. Human beings become an altogether separate entity in plurality, a far stupider entity in reality. Only the least sophisticated aspects of human persons aggregate when they congregate.

Tendency towards hysteria and compound pareidolia, increases exponentially with the size of a group.

6th

Well for the one i'm trying to start i'd prefere 5, with 3 reserve or part time members.
I agree there are too many sometimes, but i agree with sapien , no less than 4-5.

tomMK1

why no less that 4-5 (depending obviously on how much equipment has to be carried?) Lots of researchers work in groups of three

Sapien

dublin6th wrote:

I agree there are too many sometimes, but i agree with sapien , no less than 4-5.

Erm. I said no more than one.

Kernel

Sapien wrote:

As many people as possible, I opine. But never more than one at a time. Human beings become an altogether separate entity in plurality, a far stupider entity in reality. Only the least sophisticated aspects of human persons aggregate when they congregate.

Tendency towards hysteria and compound pareidolia, increases exponentially with the size of a group.

You talk funny dude.

Nevyn

Kernel wrote:

You talk funny dude.

To you maybe but to me he makes a lot of sense.

Sapien

Kernel wrote:

You talk funny dude.

I think, to correctly evoke the meme, that should be: "Dude, you talk funny".

Kernel

Sapien wrote:

I think, to correctly evoke the meme, that should be: "Dude, you talk funny".

No, dude, seriously, you talk weird.

Zillah

Rofl.

I think you'll find that when one is attempting to communicate with others in such a wide forum, where the audience and participants could be of any background, it is best if one attempts to simplify both one's grammar and vocabulary. The point of communication is to accurately conveys one's message, is it not? Dare I even say that your verbose tone and frequent use of words both obscure and, to be fair, pretentious, may in fact be little more than an attempt to increase your perceived intelligence?

But nay, I digress, listen not to my needless musings, for the conversation has taken a tangental and, regrettably, usless angle.

In response to the original poster, I would be most pleased with a group of 4-6 I should think.

Kernel

Zillah wrote:

Dare I even say that your verbose tone and frequent use of words both obscure and, to be fair, pretentious, may in fact be little more than an attempt to increase your perceived intelligence?

You've read my mind Zillah... now there's an example of ESP for the paranormal forum!

Nevyn

Ah maybe Spaien mised up the paranormal forum with the paganism forum.
oh well

Sapien

*I will not begrudge any moderatorial interventions at this point*

Kernel wrote:

No, dude, seriously, you talk weird.

Better.

Zillah wrote:

Rofl.

Let me get this straight. You post specifically to denigrate my euphuism, explaining it as an attempt at onanistic self-aggrandisement, but you do so with laboured and ill-wrought faux magniloquence and deploy non-existent words such as "tangental" and "usless" at a critical point in the parody?

Rofl indeed.

Words cannot be pretentious, merely appropriate or inappropriate. If, at any point, it is found that I have abused a word, I exhort that I be promptly admonished. Otherwise, stick to the subject - I have no interest in the lamentations of inferiority complexes.

Oryx

...thread drifts evermore off topic...
Sapien people poke fun here all the time, its usually harmless. You do have a far greater grasp of the written language than most of us here, I for one find your posts difficult to grasp,(should have studied more in school) but always interesting.

On topic, I dont think one person alone is any use, tho I take your point about mass hysteria in groups. I concur 4-5 would seem reasonable, means noone has to go to the loo alone

Kernel

As a public service to all paranormal regulars, I will translate Sapiens last post:

Sapien wrote:

*I will not begrudge any moderatorial interventions at this point*

'Moderators, please ban Kernel and/or Zillah for daring to poke fun [badinage] at my overcomplicated use of the common English language, which is a method I employ in an attempt to sound clever.'

Sapien wrote:

Better.

'I will patronise you, and assume that I am intellectually superior to you, even though I know nothing about you. I do this because *I* actually have an inferiority complex, which is one of the reasons why I use a thesaurus to substitute vernacular (common) terms for something that sounds more clever.'

Sapien wrote:

Let me get this straight. You post specifically to denigrate my euphuism, explaining it as an attempt at onanistic self-aggrandisement, but you do so with laboured and ill-wrought faux magniloquence and deploy non-existent words such as "tangental" and "usless" at a critical point in the parody?

'I am speaking crap to prove to everybody that the theory of Kernel and Zillah is correct.'

Sapien wrote:

Words cannot be pretentious, merely appropriate or inappropriate. If, at any point, it is found that I have abused a word, I exhort that I be promptly admonished.

'Although I show a lack of logic, by stating that words cannot be pretentious, when in fact use of language is the main method used to convey pretentiousness (remember pretentious = ' Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.'). I also display this lack of logical thought process by stating that words can merely be 'appropriate or inappropriate', yet fail to acknowledge that since most people on this forum need a dictionary to decipher what I am attempting to communicate, my use of the language is entirely inappropriate where simpler terms could be used - yet I continue to use over complex terms anyway.'

Sapien wrote:

Otherwise, stick to the subject - I have no interest in the lamentations of inferiority complexes.

'I shall assume that the reason intelligent boards users have a problem with my abuse of vocabulary is that they are jealous of me and have an inferiority complex, because I am much more clever than they are.'

This is not a flame Sapien, merely, as stated, some badinage to regale the good people of the paranormal forum.

Nevyn

Sapien wrote:

*I will not begrudge any moderatorial interventions at this point*

Sorry cant help you there dear not my forum to mod.
still doesnt mean I cant report posts.

/back on topic.

Safety in numbers is often what these groups prefer.
Personally think no more them 3 peopl are needed up that is from my
own personal experice and my spiritual path.

stevenmu

I'd also agree that a group would be better, I would even say that people should always remain in groups of at least 2. Hysteria and stupidity do generally increase exponentially with the size of the group, but equally some people are likely to panic and imagine things when left alone. Given that the aim is investigation, it would help to be able to compare seperate reports of any incidents. One person reporting feeling something or seeing something out of the corner of there eye would be less usefull than a few people all witnessing the same thing.

6th

-Al- wrote:

Are the investigation groups in ireland, made up of large people when they go to places?

This has always annoyed me, when watchin something like most haunted, I mean that show has gone downhill (or a mountain more like) but there always seems to be about 20-30 people in the place.

I know they have alot of equipment and such, but if they hear something, or feel something or something moves, there is no way to prove that it wasnt one of the many crew.

So when you guys do a real investigation, do you go with about 5 people, or a big 20+ group?


Al

You asked a question, got some answers (i miss quoted Sapien, my bad), then it went off on one (as usual), then you got some more opinions.

Heres my answer to your question:

The general concensus is no, paranormal investigations do not normally consist of the numbers seen in the likes of "Most Haunted". I'm currently setting up a group and i would like to keep it under 6 active members. I would like to point out that what i have done so far is not "Investigated" i dont need to convince myself about weather ghosts exist coz they do, so i go to places to experience the places and their energies.

Thats why i called the thread i started "Paranormal Group" not Paranormal Investigation Group.

hope your question has been answers so we can move away from here before a fight breaks out.

6th

-Al-

Ya thats cool, i probably should have called it something besides 'investigation' group, but wasnt sure what else to call it

there does seem to a mixed opinion on size of groups, but I agree that 1 person could start to think every little noise, even explainable ones, is something more than it is.

Thanks for all your answers