conforming as a nonconformist?

[feral chile]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/making-humans/201301/the-curse-the-herd

This is in part a tribute to posters such as Barry Fish and the Gay Tent, who are independent enough to express views out of sync with the majority opinion of posters on here.

My son pointed out something while he was still in school. He thought it ironic that people who thought of themselves as nonconformist or alternative still chose to identify themselves as a group by wearing a uniform that identified them as part of that group.

He was thinking particularly of Goths, but the same thing applies even to those who think they are independently avoiding a uniform, by dressing down in jeans and T shirt. I used to observe with amusement the hostile reaction anyone received in our local Indie club, if they dared to dress up contrary to the 'non-uniform' uniform.

So, do we really choose not to conform? Or do we just choose which herd to fit in with?

The article stresses the importance of teaching children to think for themselves - but after reading it, is that even possible, if the herd can actually change your mind, in a very Orwellian sense?

Another attack on free will, it seems.

[feral chile]

The brilliant George Orwell

Edited September 7, 2013 by feral chile

[Katster]

I keep trying to reply to this but not explaining myself very well. It's an interesting subject.

[grumpyhack]

Maybe conforming, even within minority groups is something about safety in numbers.

[feral chile]

Maybe conforming, even within minority groups is something about safety in numbers.

Well we're social animals. I'm particularly interested in freedom and conformity, because my values lean towards freedom, but my analysis of the evidence leans towards conformity.

I'm particularly interested in unconscious conformity. For instance, I tried to bring my children up to be independent thinkers, and in lots of ways they are. They wouldn't automatically go with the flow if something wasn't fair, they're conscious of peer pressure, for instance. And they feel they had few rules and a lot of freedom while growing up.

Both I and my husband are atheists, and so are all the children. Is this because they've freely chosen this as the most rational choice? Maybe - or maybe we';ve subconsciously influenced them.

Like, for instance, the fact that 3 out of 4 of them chose to study psychology, as I did, despite me never consciously suggesting it. Coincidence, genetics, or conformity?

We're far more likely to conform without realising if we're given attention for the desired response, than we are if we're punished for an undesired one. It might explain why people consciously reject one group's values while unconsciously embracing another.

So - are we choosing values, or seeking social acceptance?

Edited September 8, 2013 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

So, do we really choose not to conform? Or do we just choose which herd to fit in with?

We pick a herd.

This is something which has been identified in human nature for at least 70 years.

[russycarps]

life is easier and more enjoyable if you share it with like minded people. So long as you are true to your own beliefs, there's no problem.

Most people dont really have their own beliefs though these days, and are completely apathetic. That's why they are easily swayed by the media. These people are known as "thickos". Or "the general public".

[russycarps]

But great minds like you and Neil aren't like that. And you never get pulled around by the media... You are better than everyone else...

what on earth are you on about now?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

There would be a school of thought that says that the truly mad don't conform. Mind you, I come across people who are certified mad in my line of work and have yet to see one not wear clothes. There's a conformity of sorts going on there. I also come across people who are severely mentally and physically disabled to the point that their choice is taken away from them. I suppose they too could be said to be non conforming as they'll live their lives within their own minds.

Of course the most notable non conformists, in my mind anyway, are those who chose to commit suicide.

[eFestivals]

Mind you, I come across people who are certified mad in my line of work and have yet to see one not wear clothes.

have you encountered one that puts pencils up his nose?

[windy_miller]

Non-conformism doesn't exist. Everyone conforms to something.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

have you encountered one that puts pencils up his nose?

Not yet, but I live in hope.

[russycarps]

I always, always hated any genre, and any attempts to define them. That includes any kind of movement. I often considered it might be percieved as the ultimate example of being a snob, but it's not that (I don't think), I just enjoy individuals and originality more than any sense of belonging to any given 'movement'.

I know loads of people who think like that

[mrtourette]

Non-conformism doesn't exist. Everyone conforms to something.

I wouldn't say doesn't exsist but it's very very rare. Nearly every act of alleged non-conformance is just something that is out of the norm or unusual for the majority, it still conforms to an alternative group, idea, hero, etc. depending on the environment.

Is non-conformance restricted to what is going on in the mainstream? Can you still be a non-conformist inside sub-cultures, or is a group of people who all choose not to comply in the same way suddenly become conformists to the values and rules of the sub-culture when they come together? Is 100,000 music fans all congregating in the same place, dressed the same, espousing the same views and singing 'there's only one way of life, and that's your own' still non-conformist?

Edited September 9, 2013 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

Absolutely right, in very basic terms animal society functions best when all members are conforming towards the same goals and targets. It's only really human society that tolerates if not encourages personal and individual expression for no obvious gain, what is it inside us that wants to dismiss the basic need of our society in favour of either individual expression or personal gain?

I think given the morally corrupt and intellectually bankupt nature of society any kind of individuality or defience towards mainstream culture (as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's happiness or rights) is to be applauded, but it certainly is an interesting discussion point.

Edited September 9, 2013 by mrtourette

[kaosmark2]

It's only really human society that tolerates if not encourages personal and individual expression for no obvious gain, what is it inside us that wants to dismiss the basic need of our society in favour of either individual expression or personal gain?

Thatcherism.

Edited September 9, 2013 by kaosmark2

[mrtourette]

Thatcherism.

Someone had to.

[kaosmark2]

Someone had to.

Exactly.

[feral chile]

We pick a herd.

This is something which has been identified in human nature for at least 70 years.

Yes, I am aware of peer pressure, socialisation, internalisation, The Look of The Other, the Milgram and Asch experiments, writers and intellectuals like Orwell, etc. - but the point I was making is, can we avoid it, by consciously declining to move with the herd, or is it truly internalised, in which case, there's no such thing as free will or freedom of thought?

I, for one, always sneakily think I'm above most peer pressure - while I acknowledge socialisation and internalisation to a degree - even atheists follow a predominantly Christian ethic, democracy is good, etc. - but I'm convinced I wouldn't go along with the likes of Milgram.

yet, statistically, the evidence states that I would

Edited September 9, 2013 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Absolutely right, in very basic terms animal society functions best when all members are conforming towards the same goals and targets. It's only really human society that tolerates if not encourages personal and individual expression for no obvious gain, what is it inside us that wants to dismiss the basic need of our society in favour of either individual expression or personal gain?

I think given the morally corrupt and intellectually bankupt nature of society any kind of individuality or defience towards mainstream culture (as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's happiness or rights) is to be applauded, but it certainly is an interesting discussion point.

Ironically, the emergence of the concept of the individual is now widely accepted, and therefore we conform to it.

[feral chile]

do we conform to it, or do we accept it?

Ah, now there's the rub. Do we conform to democracy, or accept it? And if we value individuality, how can we achieve it?

being different is a lonely business. And as has already been pointed out, extreme nonconformity is classed as deviance/mental illness. So we both value and socially police nonconformity.

[grumpyhack]

In the world of musical non-conformism it's funny how the 'non-conformists' can be really into a band until it breaks through and has commercial or mainstream success, at which point they will dismiss the band as 'selling out.'

The band might not have significantly changed, just that more people have discovered their music.

[kaosmark2]

In the world of musical non-conformism it's funny how the 'non-conformists' can be really into a band until it breaks through and has commercial or mainstream success, at which point they will dismiss the band as 'selling out.'

The band might not have significantly changed, just that more people have discovered their music.

How many of these bands don't change though?

I'm thinking Muse, Kings of Leon and Biffy Clyro are the best examples in recent years of people liking them before the stuff that made them famous (and I'm incredibly guilty of this), but they've definitely changed style wise.

[eFestivals]

Ironically, the emergence of the concept of the individual is now widely accepted, and therefore we conform to it.

That's not really anything about individualism, that's merely a marketing trick.

After all, have you noticed anyone much who drives an individual and unique car, lives in an individual and unique house, and who wears individual and unique clothes?

Yes, there might be a few people like that, but not enough for any trend. That massive majority lap up their mass produced car and live on that housing estate and buy their similar-looking clothes with different labels out of the one same factory.

We don't have individualism, the nearest we get is with the acceptance of individual greed.

Edited September 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But what we consume isn't what we are. Our identity, and how that conforms or doesn't, is more interesting than what we buy.

just as everyone is buying the same mass-market products which are marketed at them on the basis that owning that product will be an expression of individuality - which is of course laughable bollocks - the exact same thing goes on with everything else too.

The idea of identity is merely an extra bit of bollocks that's been tagged onto that marketing bollocks, to make it a complete idea. But of course just because it is a complete idea doesn't get to mean that there's anything of substance within it.

The moment that anyone references "my identity", they cease to have an individual identity. They've been sucked into being exactly the same as everyone else.

Edited September 10, 2013 by eFestivals