To discuss hive minds with any real measure of certainty, we must first assume that the category bears some relevance. Most specifically, we have to assume that hive minds are not ubiquitous across the psychic medium, a notion which ultimately implies that each hive mind is distinct from all others. Assumptions to the contrary lead to indistinct notions with no obvious method of finding a formal bearing to discuss the subject with any competence.

If the notion has any validity beyond happenstance, then it poses an obvious mechanism for the occurrence of psychic phenomena, and by principle of contradiction, an equally valid barrier to the same. This near cleanly bisects our hypothesis space since the two basic models of hive mind must be either top-down (hive-as-force) or emergent (members are psychic). Nature appears to be all inclusive thus far, so I will open with the preliminary assumption that both models are able to produce viable (detectable) hive minds.

By default, membership within a hive mind should not be construed to grant psychic abilities. That is, distribution of psychic abilities across members of a hive mind need not be ubiquitous. Indeed, if we mean to take the hypothesis seriously, then we *must* assume that each hive mind possesses its own psychology, and ultimately beliefs. The hive mind of scientific academia, for example, despite being a paranormal phenomenon, would be far more likely to suppress psychic abilities than posit a valid method for sharing them.

Note, however, that this complicates testing of any given hypothesis concerning psychic phenomena. For one, a clean 1:1 model of telepathy between two individuals is no longer viable. Since we do not properly control against hive mind explanations, the inconclusive results we see are exactly what we should expect if the concept is phenomenological rather than purely philosophical. Studying the properties emerging from this type of mind requires us to recognize their plausible traits.

...