| Everyone knows that conformity is something that is common, although not absurdly common as it was in the past - gladly thank technology and the abundance of knowledge provided to every person in this day and age. The relative social ties that dictate the necessity of conformity is grandly presented in the Asch experiment. Solomon Asch demonstrated that almost every participant conforms atleast once, either by lying or fabricating the incoming stimuli to align with that group's actions. There are three levels of conformity: compliance, identification, and internalization. Compliance is the least potent of the conformity hierarchy, you simply lie to fit in with the group. Identification is the medial stance, you simply act like you fit in. Internalization is the cognitive shifting of your identity in order to warp itself into more a conformed state. Alternatively, I would label it as "absolute conformity". The latter is usually more radical and in need of a much stronger pretext to actually instill itself strongly into one's disposition. The inquiry is as follows: what causes people to conform, and why does this phenomenon occur in such an exceedingly flexible way? It is self-evident that the clashes of personal beliefs with ones that of a collective result in the censure of the former party. Not inherently due to the false notions of the person, but only to further the succession of the crowd mentality. The proof that this is an endogenous characteristic of society as a whole is present in the consistency of the reportings by those who fail to conform and thus are treated with that exact procedure. You might say that not everything is deemed so unnecessary as to be sacrificed for the achievement of a greater status in the conformed society, but whatever that is not necessary to sacrifice in large groups, generally is in smaller ones — and vice versa. Humans are sly beings, they distort themselves depending on situational desideratum which leads to the most hilarious yet strange occurrences in all of psychology; you know you're right, but you lie to further your own or the collective's agenda. The next step is to simply categorize the levels: Compliance is the work of the sly, Identification is the work of the diligent, and Internalization is the work of the weak. The sly strive to procure the favor of the group for their own benefits, but are not competent with their instrument of deceit. The diligent morph themselves into molds and become the object required by the group, but there are ulterior motives or doubt in their minds. The weak are simply being led by a leash unto which their pitiful existence is commanded by the group. One can easily hover over this whole situation and fail to comprehend it due to their vitality of their internalized conformity. To conform is to be loved, to be admired, to be respected. To not conform, is the whole opposite. This is the staple of the evolved ape that is man. Lay low, and let the herd lurch. TL;DR |
| no, there really isn’t a need to conform to society. in fact, a lot of innovative minds, artists and inventors are non-conformist. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -George Bernard Shaw however, in any society there must be followers and leaders. what would society be like if everyone was trying to be a revolutionary? there isn’t anything wrong with being a conformist. people like security and safety which is something that conforming provides. pay taxes, you get protection from the gov’t. in this case, the gov’t is like the mafia heh. context matters, and i think we all conform to one degree or another in order to survive within a group of people. the self isn’t the only thing that exists, yet it is the only thing we know how to preserve. question to you OP, what does the opposite of a conformist look like? |
p0ckyy said: Alot of innovative minds are non-conformist in their professions at that point of time, not in society. If they weren't conformed, you wouldn't recognize their achievements as virtuous. Very much like how Hitler is remembered by the world.no, there really isn’t a need to conform to society. in fact, a lot of innovative minds, artists and inventors are non-conformist. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -George Bernard Shaw however, in any society there must be followers and leaders. what would society be like if everyone was trying to be a revolutionary? there isn’t anything wrong with being a conformist. people like security and safety which is something that conforming provides. pay taxes, you get protection from the gov’t. in this case, the gov’t is like the mafia heh. context matters, and i think we all conform to one degree or another in order to survive within a group of people. the self isn’t the only thing that exists, yet it is the only thing we know how to preserve. question to you OP, what does the opposite of a conformist look like? Assuming society as a collective doesn't progress over time too. Your western individualism brainwashing is too fallible I tell you. What? How's that even relevant? Followers and leaders all conform to society because they create what society is, if they weren't conformed, they would be outcasts. What's that supposed to mean? An anarchist. And a useless one at that. jadix1 said: Is talking in oxymorons the new trend of showing how you literally can't think of anything by yourself? I'm getting too old for this.I'd argue that not conforming to society is the new conforming to society. |
| well, in social science, it's impossible to form a "society" with one person only, there must be at least two persons to form a small-scale "society", which we often called a "family". and can you imagine what'd happen to the family if everyone fought each other? well, according to naturalism, in nature, we can see that every creature tend to form a group of their own. the reason is simple, by being together it would be easier to counter the attack from predators, this also helps in the re-generation process. and there will always a leader chosen to lead the group. based on these 2 perspectives, i say that society and conformity are inseparable. one can't live in a society without conforming some or all of its values and there is no use to conform anything for someone who lives alone. about the 3 levels of conformity, it's just natural. simply cuz everyone thinks differently. it's a job for government/leader to accommodate all those differences within their group and to prevent severe clashes between them. |
 |
| When it comes to mantaining a society, I'd say yes, some form of conformity is inevitable. The question is, should the government be able to force its citizens to conform, and my answer is mostly no. Whatever sociocultural norms one is expected to conform to should be left to the population in its more implicit, largely unrestricted state, but never forced unless it involves the rights of individuals. That way society can mold itself to the form that best suits the bulk of its population. |
HyperLOct 15, 2019 11:33 AM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
HyperL said: In terms of naturaly forming a society, I'd say yes, some form of conformity is inevitable. The question is, should the government be able to force its citizens to conform, and my answer is mostly no. Whatever sociocultural norms one is expected to conform to should be left to the population in a more implicit, largely unrestricted state. You mean like how bullying is implicitly allowed, or do you mean something else? |
| Seems pretty legit. To escape the clutches of social conformity for a brief repreive, take psychedelics and lose your sense of self completely. |
| Then need to comform comes from the basic human instinct to prefer things (people, customs etc.) which are similar to themselves. Therefore, groups with similar traits will tend to band together against groups with differing traits. This happens by varying degrees of society shaping indivudals through raising them, and individuals themselves seeking to be included and so conforming by altering themselves, willingly or other wise, honestly, or otherwise, though honesty doesn't really matter. So on the one hand, nature tends to push people in to a state of conformity because similarity is evolutionarily favourable. However, variance is necessary for progress. A group that occasionally produces individuals that are capable of challenging the existing status quo will outperform a group that does not produce such individuals. The question "is there a need to conform to society" is too broad. For whom? For society as a whole? You? Me? And for what purpose? For society to be stable and safe, yes, conforming is incredibly important. For society to progress, it is detrimental to an extent. For my own happiness, I as an individual have very little need to conform because it isn't important for my work or my social life. For someone who works with groups of normal folk in a role that needs to understand and empathize with them, then it's very important if they wish to be successful. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| One need to do both, Kant talks about public and private space. Private space is the same as private interest, as in doing one's work and household chores. While public space is taking part in the debate of how society should be. One should do both fully, one should conform and question what one conforms to, but seperately. The problem today is that public space is shrinking, where private space is growing, like shopping malls, facebook and more. We need more public space, as in spaces for public debate. The growing private space is also a possible cause for the growing bystander effect. |
Safeanew said: HyperL said: In terms of naturaly forming a society, I'd say yes, some form of conformity is inevitable. The question is, should the government be able to force its citizens to conform, and my answer is mostly no. Whatever sociocultural norms one is expected to conform to should be left to the population in a more implicit, largely unrestricted state. You mean like how bullying is implicitly allowed, or do you mean something else? No. Bullying, at least the physical kind, would be a violation of individual rights, specifically of one's consent, which is, like, the one thing the government needs to protect to mantain a society. |
HyperLOct 15, 2019 11:58 AM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| better than be a social outcast or socially stigmatize or worse become an extreme antisocial person like the Joker If You're So Free, Why Do You Follow Others? The Sociological Science Behind Social Networks and Social Influence. |
| Let's just be on the safe side and restate that this is all focused on situational conformity, inductively blown up to fit the bill for society as a whole (which is why most people in this thread didn't get it, and started talking about random stuff). @YossaRedMage For your first paragraph, refer to the Asch experiment. Conformity does not require personal belief or preference at all. For society to be stable and safe, yes, conforming is incredibly important. Contradictory. How can society thrive while being unstable at the same time? For society to progress, it is detrimental to an extent. Safeanew said: It's okay if you perform auto-fellatio in your private space. We respect your flexibility.One need to do both, Kant talks about public and private space Flevalt said: An example would be pride and dignity. Politicians do it all the time. You suck a few elite dicks and you won't have to face the rest of the population at all.Can you think of an example of something you'd have to sacrifice in a small group that you wouldn't have to in a large group? Need for what? Life? Success? Co-existence. Although you can extend this to life and success. A liberal would never climb the ladder in a conservative environment simply because everyone else will kick him down and push the ladder off.Internally: Hope, despair and a lack of self-worth... So, are you pro or con conformity?What's flexible about it? The fact that you can have 3 distinct versions that are effective in different circumstances and at different emphasis. |
Yarub said: Let's just be on the safe side and restate that this is all focused on situational conformity, inductively blown up to fit the bill for society as a whole (which is why most people in this thread didn't get it, and started talking about random stuff). Is that not because situational conformity is actually a sign of how society functions as a whole? But to answer your topic, situational conformity is situational, so one should act based on the context. For example I am against the bystander effect mentioned before, that is an example of when to not conform. |
Yarub said: For society to be stable and safe, yes, conforming is incredibly important. Contradictory. How can society thrive while being unstable at the same time? For society to progress, it is detrimental to an extent. Depends on your definition of thriving. I'm talking about stability vs progressiveness. That is, progression in the most general sense - change of social values, advancement of thought and technology. Progression requires turbulence, violence, upheaval etc. While I'm talking in such wishy-washy generalities I'll throw out a classic which I think there is a lot of truth to: The equivalence of creation and destruction. You must tear down what came before to bring forth something new. When everyone is similar, and there is a high degree of conformity, you have a stable, safe, high-trust society. But which is "thriving"? The safe, stable but more static society? Or the turbulent but quicker to evolve society? |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| I'd say not necessarily however the want to conform makes perfect sense evo-psych-wise as we have an innate desire for other people's company so we wanna avoid things that might alienate us like dissenting from the majority. I'd go as far as to say many fully operate under that principle whether they want to admit it or not |
Auron_Oct 15, 2019 4:03 PM
 |
| No. Fuck what society thinks, I'll do (or won't do) what makes me content/happy first. Life is too short to conform to mostly arbitrary sets of rules made by modern society. |
 |
| can't say for society (personal opinion is a pragmatic no), but everybody does want to fit and belong into some form of community, be it society as a whole where conformation is acceptance in, or a local gaming scene, or even as simple as a group of friends from elementary. |
| It's hard to extract a question from what you said since you've basically given a brief view of how some sociologists see conformity and norm-building, so I'll just briefly talk on the question in the title. Conformity is a very difficult and deep subject. Sociologists and psychologists have studied this idea at length. It's a fundamental feature of every social organization and it has many dimensions. We can talk about moral conformity, social conformity, economic conformity, and so on. It's something that touches all of us in various situations to differing degrees. At its most basic, conformity is a necessary tool for collective problem solving. It's an individual's ability to put one's needs and desires behind the group's. Once you get to the nitty gritty, you can dive into sub-disciplines and examine things like status symbols and which social groups consider conformity to be a virtue and which rebel to make a point. There are so many different ways to analyze and look at conformity that I really don't know where to start. But to answer more broadly, yes, we probably need conformity at any level of social development, especially for complex and sophisticated societies. That doesn't mean that conformity needs to take the shape of some dystopian future. Also, I can't really imagine a world where large groups of politically bound people can co-exist in one space without some strong notion of conformity. |
 |
| @Flevalt Oh okay. Thanks for clearing that up then. Much appreciated. @YossaRedMage Let's equate that: You're basically throwing a die to determine every choice you have to do in your life. Sure, some will be the correct number and solution, but the rest will be chaotic. This rule of the jungle remains in the jungle because humans wouldn't have gotten this far being savages in the bushes. DaConduit said: No shit, Sherlock.can't say for society (personal opinion is a pragmatic no), but everybody does want to fit and belong into some form of community, be it society as a whole where conformation is acceptance in, or a local gaming scene, or even as simple as a group of friends from elementary. Saucy said: There are questions given and my ultimate statement is there to contest.It's hard to extract a question from what you said since you've basically given a brief view of how some sociologists see conformity and norm-building, so I'll just briefly talk on the question in the title. That doesn't mean that conformity needs to take the shape of some dystopian future. Also, I can't really imagine a world where large groups of politically bound people can co-exist in one space without some strong notion of conformity. Your last sentence is exactly why we need a dystopian future. |
Yarub said: There are questions given and my ultimate statement is there to contest. That doesn't mean that conformity needs to take the shape of some dystopian future. Also, I can't really imagine a world where large groups of politically bound people can co-exist in one space without some strong notion of conformity. Your last sentence is exactly why we need a dystopian future.I'm going to go back and reiterate my statement. It's hard to extract a question from what you've posed. You technically have a question though you don't answer it with any kind of force and instead engage in verbose pontification. "The inquiry is as follows: what causes people to conform, and why does this phenomenon occur in such an exceedingly flexible way?" This isn't a useful question. As I said before, conformity has such a multitude of dimensions that posing a universal question is akin to asking "why do people hurt each other," which then produces a town-hall of theories and explanations. The clue should be in your own question. Flexibility means complexity and complexity requires decades if not centuries of study. Trying to generalize it all by dividing people into "diligent" conformists and "sly" rebels is rather hilarious. Also, apparent dystopian futures are good? Okay then. |
|
Saucy said: The title question is answered in the epilogue of the original post and the question you quoted is answered literally by the paragraph after it. If you can't see beyond your prejudices, that's your fault. And I take pontification as a compliment.Yarub said: I'm going to go back and reiterate my statement. It's hard to extract a question from what you've posed. You technically have a question though you don't answer it with any kind of force and instead engage in verbose pontification. There are questions given and my ultimate statement is there to contest. Your last sentence is exactly why we need a dystopian future. "The inquiry is as follows: what causes people to conform, and why does this phenomenon occur in such an exceedingly flexible way?" This isn't a useful question. As I said before, conformity has such a multitude of dimensions that posing a universal question is akin to asking "why do people hurt each other," which then produces a town-hall of theories and explanations. The clue should be in your own question. Flexibility means complexity and complexity requires decades if not centuries of study. Trying to generalize it all by dividing people into "diligent" conformists and "sly" rebels is rather hilarious. Also, apparent dystopian futures are good? Okay then. The main premises of the whole thread are the Asch experiments which I referenced at the beginning of the original post. If you couldn't discern that I was speaking of situational conformity, then again, I'm not responsible for your horrible reading retention. They are. If you're born into a dystopia, you'll quickly learn that whatever 'is' is. Since you're prone to misreading everything I write, I'm alluding to conformity again. The good reality is whatever you've ever experienced. |
Yarub said: Saucy said: The title question is answered in the epilogue of the original post and the question you quoted is answered literally by the paragraph after it. If you can't see beyond your prejudices, that's your fault. And I take pontification as a compliment.I'm going to go back and reiterate my statement. It's hard to extract a question from what you've posed. You technically have a question though you don't answer it with any kind of force and instead engage in verbose pontification. "The inquiry is as follows: what causes people to conform, and why does this phenomenon occur in such an exceedingly flexible way?" This isn't a useful question. As I said before, conformity has such a multitude of dimensions that posing a universal question is akin to asking "why do people hurt each other," which then produces a town-hall of theories and explanations. The clue should be in your own question. Flexibility means complexity and complexity requires decades if not centuries of study. Trying to generalize it all by dividing people into "diligent" conformists and "sly" rebels is rather hilarious. Also, apparent dystopian futures are good? Okay then. The main premises of the whole thread are the Asch experiments which I referenced at the beginning of the original post. If you couldn't discern that I was speaking of situational conformity, then again, I'm not responsible for your horrible reading retention. They are. If you're born into a dystopia, you'll quickly learn that whatever 'is' is. Since you're prone to misreading everything I write, I'm alluding to conformity again. The good reality is whatever you've ever experienced. Oh my apologies that I didn't take a first-year sociology student lecture slide seriously... Clearly we are meant to learn about the "relative social ties that dictate the necessity of conformity ... grandly presented in the Asch experiment" even though we're given no indication as to what those ties are. Great. Maybe it's the fact that you didn't answer your own question or maybe it's the fact that you answered it so poorly I wasn't even able to find the theory, but you'll have to forgive me for being confused when someone poses a question in the form of "why does X happen" and then proceeds to muse about "why X is bad." And yes, that's what you do. Your analysis as to why people conform, and yes, that's your question, amounts to "because we're selfish and some of us are better at being selfish than others." Earth-shattering analysis. Really helps us dive deep into the dynamics of a social experiment in a controlled environment. Maybe now you'll grasp why I took issue with your formulation of the question and your response. Also, what about a dystopia makes one more prone to learning "whatever 'is' is?" This makes absolutely no sense. It's as if you think conformity is some sort of oppressive tool designed to obfuscate the true state of reality. You know, because North Korea, an objectively dystopian society, has procured a great culture of skepticism and individuality. Have you considered that maybe writing pretentious sociological analysis of complex issues is, you know, a problem, and isn't just people misreading things? |
|
Saucy said: It seems the path to expertise is to not begin.Oh my apologies that I didn't take a first-year sociology student lecture slide seriously... Clearly we are meant to learn about the "relative social ties that dictate the necessity of conformity ... grandly presented in the Asch experiment" even though we're given no indication as to what those ties are. Great. Maybe it's the fact that you didn't answer your own question or maybe it's the fact that you answered it so poorly I wasn't even able to find the theory, but you'll have to forgive me for being confused when someone poses a question in the form of "why does X happen" and then proceeds to muse about "why X is bad." And yes, that's what you do. Your analysis as to why people conform, and yes, that's your question, amounts to "because we're selfish and some of us are better at being selfish than others." Earth-shattering analysis. Really helps us dive deep into the dynamics of a social experiment in a controlled environment. Maybe now you'll grasp why I took issue with your formulation of the question and your response. Also, what about a dystopia makes one more prone to learning "whatever 'is' is?" This makes absolutely no sense. It's as if you think conformity is some sort of oppressive tool designed to obfuscate the true state of reality. You know, because North Korea, an objectively dystopian society, has procured a great culture of skepticism and individuality. Have you considered that maybe writing pretentious sociological analysis of complex issues is, you know, a problem, and isn't just people misreading things? They are presented in the Asch experiment. Go read about it and you'll know, instead of demanding my spoonfeeding you. If you have the will to argue about what I did wrong, might as well have the will to correct it; an act which you still haven't tried to do, which either makes what you just said completely false or a narcissistic troll. Complex ideas can be reduced to simple phenomena. Arguing that you can't attribute simple propositions to a, as you said yourself, "social experiment in a controlled environment", then something is wrong with one side of the coin. Reality is what it is. If you grew up in the 90s, you wouldn't imagine or crave smart phones. People strictly live in their own times. North Korea is a dystopian society? No wonder you write shit posts like this. NK is an autocracy, a dystopia is something out of a sci-fi novel. |
More topics from this board
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
42 |
by zzz
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
20 |
by blueblur
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - Yesterday |
18 |
by traed
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Worst social mediaIpreferEcchi - Mar 19 |
26 |
by Adnash
»»
45 minutes ago |
|
» Why don't boys wear dresses until they start working?vasipi4946 - Nov 22, 2023 |
24 |
by Bruh69XD
»»
55 minutes ago |