conforming as a nonconformist?

[mrtourette]

I'm not being defensive. I thought you were accusing me off being awkward.

The motivation was that she wanted to wear what she wanted to wear. She thought the rules were trivial, and she got away with it. That wasn't the motivation though (to get away with it).

You are being awkward!

If she genuinely wanted to wear what she wanted to wear because she wanted to wear it then fair enough, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that there's a reason she chose the specific things she did and it was based on what the cool kids wear, or something do with her favourite band/actress/tv show, or something she'd seen in a film, and that's what she's ultimately conforming to. Alternatively if her parents had ecouraged an individual streak or the importance of expressing herself then she could be conforming to that (your beliefs and values).

Edited September 13, 2013 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

The motivation was that she wanted to wear what she wanted to wear.

No, that's the action from the motivation, not the motivation itself.

Something motivated her - acted as a trigger - to want to wear something different. Whatever that trigger was is where you'll find what she was conforming to.

[feral chile]

No, the school wanted her to wear something different to what she wanted to wear.

but what made her feel so stronlgly about it that she was prepared to take the consequences?

I'd suggest peer pressure from classmates mixed with parental upbringing - we were always moaning about having to wear school uniform, but my family would never have condoned me refusing to wear it - I had to settle for taking off my stupid school beret and tie, and then having to stand in front of assembly for a week to be publicly named and shamed - except it was a badge of honour from my perspective, of course.

So it might not be anywhere near as nonconformist as it first appears.

Edited September 13, 2013 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

No, the school wanted her to wear something different to what she wanted to wear.

ahhh, OK ... so you think that people are all the time coming up with ideas c ompletely free ofd external influences.

Can I have some of what you've been taking please? It's clearly a better drug than the ones I've been using.

[eFestivals]

She didn't fell 'that' strongly against it. It wasn't a revolutionary act of non-conformism. It's just an example.

You accused me of hypothosising .... care to tell me how you know for sure you're not doing the same?

I'm sure you'll claim to know your daughter, but you knowing her doesn't get to mean that you've seen every experience she's had or understand how those have impacted on her and for what reasons.

The syle of different dress she chose, where did that come from? Just from her head, with no external influences? Really? Reeaaallly?

I think you're kidding yourself, for whatever reasons.

[mrtourette]

You should probably stop then.

[feral chile]

I'm getting dizzy from going round in circles here.

It's just one of those things tony - if you have a perspective where you believe in determinism, you're going to relate everything to that, and if your perspective is towards free will, you'll relate everything to that.

basically, it's whether you think there are reasons for behaviour and wouldn't also call them causes.

We all of us feel autonomous in our choices - but if we've had reason to doubt our own interpretation, either from observing other people, and feeling they're mistaken, because you can see their influences, and then abstracting to your own circumstances, or through study or work, then you can rationally doubt genuinely independent action.

But it still feels autonomous. I still feel like I have my own mind, and I have to confess to feeling superior sometimes when I don't succumb to someone's influence when others do. But they might think I'm succumbing to the influence of others, when it feels to me like I've made up my own mind. Just as it feels to them.

Edited September 13, 2013 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

Which one, conforming or non-conforming?

[russycarps]

she was wearing a power rangers costume wasnt she?

[mrtourette]

SEE, CONFORMING TO POWER RANGERS UNIFORM REGULATIONS

[feral chile]

As I've often said, I'm pretty uncertain about most things. But this discussion seems to conclude at a dead end, where everything conforms (to something). So what does the word mean in the end?

depends how far you want to push it. Most conformity experiments are set up to prove that people will follow the group despite the group not being right. So Milgram's experiment seemed to torture a person for failing to learn something correctly, and Asch's experiment showed that people would give an obviously wrong answer to a question because the rest of the group did.

My particular issue was with a group of people who were prepared to take on board a single person's negative spin on their target of the week, and engage in some rather unpleasant behaviour, seemingly without realising they were being used to do the bully's dirty work.

They just couldn't see they were being manipulated, and it was clear as day to me what this guy was up to.

But then there's socialisation and internalisation, social conditioning etc. that we're all subject to, and there's no way of knowing how much we've been influenced by societal norms, because we only notice the ones we resist, and not the ones we internalise.

[mrtourette]

It seems the former-PMs concerns are around the use of the word, and that if you cannot ever be truly non-conformant then the word is redundant. Which is odd, because the application of the word can still be made regarding specific rules/situations.

[feral chile]

Just had a thought...

IF, as seems to be the case, by not conforming, you are also conforming, then is the reverse also true? That by conforming, you are almost inevitably not conforming?

Everything is nothing is everything.....

definitely, if it's conscious. Conscious decisions are about choosing your values, so on the surface, it's more a question of choosing when to conform and when not to - or which group/belief system you identify with.

What worries me is the thought that I'm unconsciously conforming...

When I first went to uni, one of my lecturers from Women's Studies asked me why I'd decided to get married.

And I realised, I just did, because it was what you did, I'd never even questioned an alternative lifestyle. It was only after uni raised my consciousness that marriage was a social construct, traditionally about possession, that I even thought about it. And it was thanks to my health visitor, when I said I'd regretted giving up my education to start a family, that I was in uni in the first place. because if you had kids, you stayed home to look after them, that was your life. And it was like the air, you breathe it without noticing it's there. You don't think there might be alternatives, because you take your reality for granted, and if you don't ever see alternative examples, you don't consider alternatives to your reality.

And my health visitor asked me what was stopping me going to uni, so she raised my awareness that I actually had the option, it wasn't either-or.

I'm sure I'm living my life according to lots of society-conforming that I don't even notice.

Like I said, you only notice what you don't conform to, because it then becomes conscious, so if something grates on you, you actually make a decision about it. It's not ingrained into your everyday behaviour.

Edited September 14, 2013 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

Just had a thought...

IF, as seems to be the case, by not conforming, you are also conforming, then is the reverse also true? That by conforming, you are almost inevitably not conforming?

Everything is nothing is everything.....

It sounds like the kind of logic that might be technically true, but I can't think of an example. By fully conforming what is it that you aren't conforming to? I suppose your not conforming to the stereotype of a non-conformist. A victory for the dictionary-wielders.

[feral chile]

It sounds like the kind of logic that might be technically true, but I can't think of an example. By fully conforming what is it that you aren't conforming to? I suppose your not conforming to the stereotype of a non-conformist. A victory for the dictionary-wielders.

Well, considering I'm quite liberal, and a little bit rebel without a cause, my kids are pretty mainstream.

So that could be a kind of rebelling, maybe?

Rejecting parental values, so nonconforming by conforming?

Is that what you mean Tony?

[mrtourette]

A soldier, who conforms to every rule he has to. He isn't conforming to a pacifists (who believes soldiers and /or armys are detrimental to human existence) idea of how we, us humans, should live our life.

Yeah that would work as an example, and would be the direct opposite of the 'by not conforming you are inherently conforming argument'. So to answer your original queation if you wanted to make the case on a general technical level yeah you could say that by not conforming you are also conforming (to something else) and by conforming you are also not confrming (to something else).

Like I said, a victory for those who rely on technicalities and dictionary definitions.

[mrtourette]

It's difficult to pin down what type of conforming we're talking about. When I use the 'accepted' version, I get told that it doesn't apply to the literal meaning. Then when it gets literal, there's an inference that I'm being too literal....

The scenario of a kid going to school and not conforming, and the possibility that the motivation isn't to not conform, they're just doing what they feel like doing. What would they be conforming to?

I don't understand how this possibility seems to be inconceivable.

This has been answered over and over again. The argument is that idea of 'just doing what they feel like doing' doesn't really exist because there will be something motivating that person to do those actions (be it peer pressure, copying their favourite pop star, etc.). That is what the kid is conforming to. So while they are initially not conforming with the school rules (thus being non-conformist) they will still be conforming to another set of rules/beliefs/norms of whatever other sub-culture/group they are choosing to copy/emulate/be part of.

For example, the kid wants to get her nose pierced and die her hair pink because she loves My Chemical Romance and has seen a lot of their fans at gigs and in videos doing this. This is against school rules but she still does it because she wants to. However the 'because she wants to' isn't the be all and and end all, she is doing it because of her musical taste and how others with the same musical taste dress/behave, and therefore she is cnforming to the stereotype/norms of that group, thus being both non-conformist and conformist in one fell swoop.

What you are suggesting is that the 'doing it just because they want to' is the be all and end all, and that what form of behaviour this manifests itself in is completely random and not influenced by anything at all, while others are disagreeing with this and saying that such an ability doesn't exist and that everyone will always be influenced by something, even sub-conciously. That is why the possibility you suggest (the suggestion that people, especially kids, can make decisions based on abslutrly no outside influences) seems inconceivable to others.

I can't see how you don't understand that. Don't agree with it maybe, but don't understand? I think you're playing dumb.

Edited September 20, 2013 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

ok, I don't agree.

I think we call all agree on that.

[feral chile]

It's difficult to pin down what type of conforming we're talking about. When I use the 'accepted' version, I get told that it doesn't apply to the literal meaning. Then when it gets literal, there's an inference that I'm being too literal....

The scenario of a kid going to school and not conforming, and the possibility that the motivation isn't to not conform, they're just doing what they feel like doing. What would they be conforming to?

I don't understand how this possibility seems to be inconceivable.

Would you accept that they have ideals or values? They're confident enough to flout the rules, independent thought might be something they value?

I myself get annoyed with small mindedness, thoughtless following of rules, so the idea of unconscious conformity is a hateful one to me, but one that I reluctantly concede.

It's quite difficult, though not to get kneejerk about conconformity though - it's easy to want to resist it just because there's pressure to go with the flow. Even if the flow is in the right direction.

[grumpyhack]

When I was at school (an awfully long time ago) in the sixth form there were two groups - The Prefects and Us.

The Prefects, with their privileges, got there by conforming, and it probably paid off in terms of making their Uni applications sound that much better. But I have no regrets about not conforming at the time

Funnily enough now looking back and reflecting with time I think the school was quite pleased to also turn out non-conforming rebels who were prepared to challenge the system.

All my life I've been proud to be a member of the Awkward Squad who didn't just accept the norms but asked the greatest question in the world - "Why?"

Edited September 20, 2013 by grumpyhack

[feral chile]

When I was at school (an awfully long time ago) in the sixth form there were two groups - The Prefects and Us.

The Prefects, with their privileges, got there by conforming, and it probably paid off in terms of making their Uni applications sound that much better. But I have no regrets about not conforming at the time

Funnily enough now looking back and reflecting with time I think the school was quite pleased to also turn out non-conforming rebels who were prepared to challenge the system.

All my life I've been proud to be a member of the Awkward Squad who didn't just accept the norms but asked the greatest question in the world - "Why?"

I heartily agree with this.

[feral chile]

Yes. Sometimes it's an act or thought that's aware of the rules, but sometimes not. Ideals and values certainly exist (I hope).

It's possible to have independent thought, that doesn't flout rules. The thought might be ignorant of the rules. It's a non-conforming act, but unknowingly.

How you become aware of how much of it is in your subconscience, ,,, mmm ... there's the hard part.

If you're doing something to go against the flow, you've probably lost track of whether it's in the right direction or not, no?

When we had kids, I was very proud (smug?) of our motto, which was 'Rule no. 1 - No rules!' I wanted the environment to encourage as open minded thinking as possible. I was also very aware of many 'rules' that didn't make any sense, like 'respecting your elders'. Why, because they're older? There are more than enough dumb old people to get rid of that one. Respect came naturally. I never said to my kids they couldn't or shouldn't do something unless there was a reason (better than 'because I said so', or 'because you're too young'). They didn't didn't end up anarchic selfish shits who didn't care about anyone or anything, if anything the opposite happened.

Yes, I agree with this. We'd go through the consequences of what they did, though, and explore what the effects would be - a bit of cognitive behavioural therapy before it got labelled that, I suppose?

But I can't think of any specific forbidden things, apart from the implicit be safe and be kind rules - so it would be, 'do you think there might be a risk of someone getting hurt if you do that?'

And so I suppose there was one big implicit rule/value/whatever you want to call it, behind what they were asked to evaluate.

They certainly felt they grew up without rules, but they always told me where they were, so I wouldn't worry, and they knew they could talk about anything at all with me (though that gives a parent more control, not less, than if you had forbidden activities that they chose to avoid you knowing about)

It depends how far you want to push any philosophical concept - it can be applied to anything by reducing it down enough.

Edited September 21, 2013 by feral chile

[feral chile]

As they got older, some 'rules' came into play. And the 'letting us know where they are' was an easy one to explain. "How would you feel if we stayed out without letting you know where we are?" It's the respect thing in it's most basic form.

And yes, what appears to many as too much freedom, and also seems like too much hard work(!), actually fosters a much more understanding and respectful and loving relationship.

I think it does. I also think laying down rules is a lazy way of feeling like you've met your responsibilities as a parent, whereas by allowing your children to experience life, and evaluate their own choices, not only do you have the worry of knowing sometimes they've made a choice you wouldn't necessarily consider wise, but you're constantly parenting them, rather than giving out your commandments and then setting them loose, like an absentee Creator!

[kaosmark2]

This idea is just bizarre. Treating people with respect and reasoning instead of arrogance and orders often causes them to treat you nicely and help forge/maintain a good relationship.

Edited September 21, 2013 by kaosmark2

[grumpyhack]

I think it does. I also think laying down rules is a lazy way of feeling like you've met your responsibilities as a parent, whereas by allowing your children to experience life, and evaluate their own choices, not only do you have the worry of knowing sometimes they've made a choice you wouldn't necessarily consider wise, but you're constantly parenting them, rather than giving out your commandments and then setting them loose, like an absentee Creator!

People, whether children or adults, do have to learn that actions have consequences. Isn't part of our job as parents to help our kids be aware of that and perhaps help them think through the consequences that they might not have considered?