Comments on: Conformity Myths

By: Hazza

Hazza — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:25:46 +0000

Take the statement “On there side”. This statement takes me back to an argument I accidentally started, which until now is my biggest lesson in energy conservation, and picking only worthy battles. I was trying to convince 20 people that it was incorrect and should have been “their”. There was no convincing people and it was due to either lack of knowledge or ganging up on the odd one out.

From this, I learnt that you should save energy for worthwhile causes as can be seen in these stupid Asch experiments of which I have seen many variations. Each video I see, you can almost tell that the person is experiencing internal conflict with what’s going on outside and just vocalising the group opinion.

Seeing this experiment over and over again is much like separating salt from water using a bunsen burner, over… and over again. IT might be better to ask candidates are you mickey mouse? are you a douchebag? your mother’s a whore true or false?

By: bob

bob — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:30:37 +0000

A better argument for this is

If it rains the ground gets wet
Its not raining
Therefore the ground is not wet.

By: Q the Enchanter

Q the Enchanter — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:51:37 +0000

"“I see intelligence as just one of a variety of adaptations among tetrapods for survival. Running fast in a herd while being as dumb as shit, I think, is a very good adaptation for survival.” --Evolutionary paleontologist Jack Sepkoski (as quoted by Michael Ruse).

By: Adirian

Adirian — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:59:26 +0000

Taking a short version of my answer in the other post on this topic – it makes no sense to take the word of eight untested individuals. The uncertainties are magnified considerably greater by the hundreds if not thousands of compounding variables which may be at work in another set of sentient beings – it’s not just a question of my perception versus their perceptions, it’s a question of my perceptions versus my perceptions of both the nature of their perceptions and whether or not they accurately conveyed their perceptions.

In a choice between perceptions which I have thoroughly tested, and eight individuals I have not, there is absolutely no reason to conform.

By: Overcoming Laziness

Overcoming Laziness — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:07:53 +0000

How is conformity “typically practiced”? Is it rexamining one’s beliefs in response to the group’s and subsequently recognizing where one made a mistake; or is it sucumbing to peer pressure when one doesn’t agree or doesn’t understand?

By: mtraven

mtraven — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:27:04 +0000

I think arguing about conformity misses the larger point, which is that human cognition is radically social in nature. Almost all of our conceptual apparatus has come to us via other people, in one way or another, and most mental processing consists in receiving, using, and sharing the conventional wisdom. So conformity is not really the phenomenon that needs to be explained, but the opposite. What gives people, under unusual circumstances, the ability and courage to break from the pack? I noted recently that most radical individualists, like almost all other nonconformists, express their nonconformism by finding groups of like-minded people and banding together into a society, subculture, or actual cult. People who are truly independent thinkers tend to be seen as mentally ill, like this San Francisco icon.

By: Allan Crossman

Allan Crossman — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:20:30 +0000

It was unsound but not invalid. Anyway the point I was making was not that others made a mistake, but that I came to agree with them…

By: Constant

Constant — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:44:14 +0000

Allan - maybe you didn't explain your case convincingly. It seems to me that the error in the argument is not in the inference itself but in the first premise, i.e., the premise that "if it rains I will get wet". This is not true, because if it rains and you have an umbrella you will not get wet. Did you make this case, or something similar? Generally I find that people are immovable until you give them an alternative. There was an error lurking in the argument, only it wasn't the particular error that they thought. If you tried simply to argue that there was no error anywhere, it's not surprising they were not convinced.

By: Allan Crossman

Allan Crossman — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:48:02 +0000

If I may share a personal anecdote… when I was doing Logic in university my tutor was a bit inexperienced, and he gave us the following example of an “invalid” argument:

* If it rains I will get wet.
* If I have my umbrella I won’t get wet.
* Therefore, if I have my umbrella it won’t rain.

Because he said this was invalid, the whole group agreed that it was invalid, except me. After about 5 minutes of arguing about it, I finally “realized” that I was wrong and everyone else was right.

Except they weren’t, of course. It was quite troubling thinking about it afterwards. I genuinely had believed what everyone said.

By: Levi

Levi — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:58:28 +0000

I think people who claim that conformity is wrong would say that it is wrong because it takes away free choice from the individual. This view could be motivated by two types of reasoning: (1) taking away free choice is inherently wrong and (2) by following the herd are missing out on the good things in life.

The umph of motivation (1) seems to only apply to issues that really matter (like your political views, your beliefs on various issues, etc) and not on things that don’t really matter (what band you like, what your favorite wine is, etc).

The only way I can make sense of the distinction between “things that really matter” and “things that don’t really matter” is that if an issue really matters then your beliefs (measured by the outcome or implimentation of those beliefs) will have some effect on other people.