Conformity

[RedAnarchist]

Is conformity, the "sheep personality", part of human nature or is it a social invention to help the rich and powerful stay powerful and rich?

To conform is to lose your identity. To be unconforming is to be true to yourself and not to society.

[Wenty]

That seems like an empty phrase to me. What exactly are you not conforming to? Surely in your non-conformist state you are in fact conforming to something else, i.e. far left politics. Also, whos to say everyone in society conforms? And what are they conforming to exactly? The middle-class, 2.4 children, capitalist mind trap?

Chomsky says that there are many people who think there are things wrong about society and want change but think they're the only ones who think like this. I think if we accept for arguments sake people do conform than its not human nature thats to blame but the Media. I think there is an underlying 'set standard' which the media does subscribe to and spews out.

[monkeydust]

Interestingly, amongst many of the teens in my areas there's almost a tendency to actively not 'conform' to supposed pre-established social 'norms'.

This seems to have become so widespread that being a 'non-conformist' is almost an object of conformity.

[cubist]

not conforming in the way x-phile is using it, I believe means interpretting information for yourself and drawing logical conclusions biased only by your own interpretation. a conformist however conforms to avoid being seen as different. i believe that yes it is natural to go with the flow, it is natural to not want to be singled out and picked on by the popular kids, so you indeed conform..

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

My friend who is like pretty damn into psychology would suggest yes and back it up pretty well, I'll ask him to post if I can get him.

[Retro]

Who's to really know what human nature is?...

However i do believe people have a fear in lonliness.

Thus the creation of groups: Religion, Politics, Societies. We all have an urge to find people that believe the same things as ourself.

Conformity is not a weapon of the capitalists, but more like a necessity for the human population.

No matter what you are doing, you are conforming. There's no way around it. If you chose not to conform to society "norms", then you are still conforming.

Endless cycle.

[Wenty]

Thus the creation of groups: Religion, Politics, Societies. We all have an urge to find people that believe the same things as ourself.

Somehow i don't think thats why they were created.

[Retro]

Then please, inform me of why they were created.

There is no way to go back in time and figure out why these things were created.

There are probably also issues underlying them.

Religions:Power, control.
Politics: Same
Societies: Groups of people that needed to survive.

However you have to look at the case. With a society, you are grouping together to achieve survival. However, im sure people weeded out people with different ideas when societies were being formed. They wanted a group with similiar ideas so the chances of survival would be greater.

This is what i believe...When you get together with a group of people for certain purposes, do you find people that you have opposing idealogies with you, or do you find people that have some close ideas to your own?

[Revolt!]

Seems to me like we conform so as to fit in better.

[Revolt!]

Should have just edited my post i suppose. Has anyone seen that candid camera sketch when they have 4 actors in a lift. The victim then comes in and the four actors all turn around to face the wall of the lift, then the side, the around again. The unsuspecting fool follows them around in each case! Unbelievable when i first saw it, Psychologists love it as a classic case of conformity. Asch's line study is good too.

[Wenty]

Religions weren't created for 'power and control'. I don't want this to turn into yet another debate on Religion so i'll just say if we are to believe they were 'created' then they could quite simply be to seek answers about the world, to give purpose to peoples lives.

Politics emerges through necessity. In an ever growing population where people can't escape connection with one another there has to be some of those people who have to make deicisions about the way things are run etc. I can't see how people would decide to create Politics because they were lonely!


With a society, you are grouping together to achieve survival

Sounds like you're begging the question. What indeed is a society? You think one day people made a collective decision to somehow stay in groups for their own survival? You're thinking of society as some sort of homogenous entity which it isn't. People are diverse, people are individualistic. Your idea seems to me close to social-Darwinism, the only difference being in that theory is people don't have the choice though.

[Retro]

Religions weren't created for 'power and control'. I don't want this to turn into yet another debate on Religion so i'll just say if we are to believe they were 'created' then they could quite simply be to seek answers about the world, to give purpose to peoples lives.

And neither do i wish this to be the case. But who are we to say why religions were created? Were any of us there? I have my own reasons why i think religion was created and they are my views. You view is just as viable as my own and i respect it.


Politics emerges through necessity. In an ever growing population where people can't escape connection with one another there has to be some of those people who have to make deicisions about the way things are run etc. I can't see how people would decide to create Politics because they were lonely!

So your saying political groups just form out the mid-air? That they have no common beliefs? Sorry but thats quite untrue.


Sounds like you're begging the question. What indeed is a society? You think one day people made a collective decision to somehow stay in groups for their own survival? You're thinking of society as some sort of homogenous entity which it isn't. People are diverse, people are individualistic. Your idea seems to me close to social-Darwinism, the only difference being in that theory is people don't have the choice though.

Not once did i say that it was formed in one day. But i do think that people made groups for survival. Why else do you think societies were formed? Please inform me of another reason why people would get together back in ancient times?

[Don't Change Your Name]

I have 3 theories:
- people doesn't want to risk what they have for something that can't be really worth it. Part of the instinct.
- people is brainwashed by the current system so they think they are having a good life already so, why bother about "changing the world"? Many conformists here are those who lived under the last fascist dictatorship. Their kids are usually closer to leftist ideas. Think about that
- lack of courage and personality

Just some ideas, maybe there's a lot more to say about this.

[Trissy]

Is conformity, the "sheep personality", part of human nature or is it a social invention to help the rich and powerful stay powerful and rich?


I'm inclined to agree with Nietzsche that there is some sort of herd instinct in man (creating things such as morality) even if this is merely the remains of a previous stage of human development. However I don't think that conforming is part of 'human nature' as such because I don't believe that there is one human nature that we all share in common. I think conformity is something chosen by individuals before they embark on lives of bad faith. I think it just happens to help the rich and powerful stay in charge, and not that it is a social invention as such. I think conformity stems from the realisation that we are truly free in a world with no meaning, and from the realisation that with every choice we make we are ultimately responsible for the consequences of that choice...


That seems like an empty phrase to me. What exactly are you not conforming to? Surely in your non-conformist state you are in fact conforming to something else, i.e. far left politics. Also, whos to say everyone in society conforms? And what are they conforming to exactly? The middle-class, 2.4 children, capitalist mind trap?

We firstly need to make an important distinction between what I see as two different types of conformity: conformity to the majority and conformity to a minority. Conformity to the majority is what most people mean when they talk about conforming but I think people can also conform to a minority if they oppose the majority only in order to stand out from the crowd (ie people who join in groups but have no idea what the group is about or why they desire to be a part of the group). I don't think everyone necessarily conforms but I think conformity is a problem as it is an example of bad faith. What is needed is for people to realise the extent of their true freedom (in the phenomenoligcal sense) and be true to themselves.


I think if we accept for arguments sake people do conform than its not human nature thats to blame but the Media

This may be more true now but what about times when the Media was far less powerful? In times when religion was linked to the State in many countries could we not say that conformity (and perhaps the fear of being arrested, killed or made an outcast) drove some unsure people to go along with the crowd? How about fashion? Fashion has been around for a very long time and this was around even when the vast majority of people couldn't read or write. Social expectations play as big a role as the Media does...

[Wenty]

Who cares about that? We're talking about conformity nowadays.


So your saying political groups just form out the mid-air? That they have no common beliefs? Sorry but thats quite untrue.

I said politics emerged out of necessity not out of mid-air.


Why else do you think societies were formed?

I'd agree people 'get together' partially to help them survive but I don't think thats the sole reason they exist. To reproduce is a natural instinct, whether or not the reason its natural is to help us survive I don't think is answerable.

[thatCHEr]

pinkos, you ignore how all research on comformity points to it being human nature. So to view it negatively like you all seem to do is stupid, in the same way criticising people for sleeping is. By conformity I mean not just majority influence but also minority.
It just so happens social psychology is the area I plan to specialize in upon completing my bourgeioise degree, so I can give you some examples:
The previously mentioned Asch experiment. Participants shown three lines, and asked if they were all the same length. Upon all those before the participant stating they are(in fact they were obviously different lengths), the participant 37% of the time would conform and agree the lines were the same length.

Zimbardo 1973. Upon placing two groups of people in an old prison, one given the role of guards, and one the role of prisoners, both were found to conform greatly to their roles. In fact so much so that the experiment had to be abandoned, because of the 'guards' harming the 'prisoners'.

Moscovici 1969. In a study of minority influence he found when presented with a coloured slide, if two of the six participants(the two actually being confederates) consistantly stated the slide was a different colour to what it was, then 8% of the time the rest would agree, compared to only 1% error rate.

Migrams study in 1963 too, where 65% of participants followed the orders of a supervisor and gave supposed shocks reaching 450 volts to someone for answering questions on a test wrong, can be seen in part as related to conformity. The same social pressure is there.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 01:00 PM
Interestingly, amongst many of the teens in my areas there's almost a tendency to actively not 'conform' to supposed pre-established social 'norms'.

This seems to have become so widespread that being a 'non-conformist' is almost an object of conformity.
Indeed. 'non conformity' itself involves conforming. The only difference with traditional conformity is that it rejects the values of common society. But still conforming to group values is there. Hence you have this whole non-conformist sub-culture. The fact that it can be called a 'sub-culture' and grouped like that highlights how it involves conformity.

[Wenty]

I am aware of the studies by Milgram and Zimbardo. Perhaps it is human nature or maybe its the media? No study can prove something 100% conclusively.

Also, enjoy this brief moment when you can post in other forums than OI friend.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:33 PM
I am aware of the studies by Milgram and Zimbardo. Perhaps it is human nature or maybe its the media? No study can prove something 100% conclusively.

Also, enjoy this brief moment when you can post in other forums than OI friend.
Yes, inevitably I am destined for the gulag, I suspect.

You're right, they cannot prove 100% it is human nature, but when combined with other on human nature itself, they give at least a good case for it. Though you're right, and highlight the flaw of science. It is unable to do the very thing it sets out to do - to prove things. Nothing, not one scientific idea, theory or concept is 100% certain at this moment in time. But still, we can at least get as close to 100% as possible.

As for the media, that can be addressed through looking at those who are not exposed to it. Well, Asch's study itself was performed on students, who are in fact one of the groups least likely to conform bar undeveloped(mentally) children.
Or cross cultural studies. But Smith's study which basically performed Asch's test, but around the world, found an average of 30%, Fiji getting the highest score with 58% conforming, and Belgium the lowest with 14%.
Baby studies can also be used to address the issue of whether human nature in general does exist or is a product of society. I can't think of any off hand, but I know babies do display things which can be seen as 'human nature'. Social learning, how they form an attachment to one person strongly within a few months of birth, all these cannot be explained as due to media influence. And are supported by the theory of evolution, which would suggest those who have 'human nature' will have more chance to survive.

[Trissy]

Who cares about that? We're talking about conformity nowadays

Tut tut Adam! Sometimes we are required to look beyond things as they stand here and now if we ever hope to gain a better grasp on what they are about. My point was that if conformity was around before the birth of large media empires then how can we say that the Media is 'to blame'


I think if we accept for arguments sake people do conform than its not human nature thats to blame but the Media. I think there is an underlying 'set standard' which the media does subscribe to and spews out

[Rasta Sapian]

even non-conformists are usually conforming to something!

This idea of conformity appears quite vaugue and relative, I mean if the people are wearing red, white, and blue, or all red, isn't everyone conforming to society?

Does society promote and instill better values and life style than your own morality; and the way in which we objectively concieve life?

"bring me back to shallow water, befor I get toooooooooo deeeeeeeeeeeeep....."
Edie Brikell