Conformity

[Mole]

You are so right.

I do not get jobs.
I do not make money.
I do not drive cars.
I do not eat at restaurants.
I definitely do not buy clothes.

And yet I fail in my endeavour not to conform.

The man clad in the blue cap and the blue overall is outside the window I have closed. With the hell machine.

Xander kindly revealed me the name of the modern lifestyle.
It is called the leaf blower.

I hear the modern lifestyle all right. And yet I refuse to shoot the janitor.
You may rightly say my refusal to shoot the janitor is plain conformity.

There is no escape.

I complained and they told me the hell machine was replenishing the ozone layer.

Is this true?

 

[wildcat]

I complained and they told me the hell machine was replenishing the ozone layer.

Is this true?

It is all a lie.

 

[Mole]

It is all a lie.

Bastards!

 

[Timeless]

+1 to OneWithSoul

Also, the way I see it:

Trying to be a nonconformist is another way of conforming.

-1 for the person who invented the words conformity, and nonconformity. Way to go on making an imaginary pointless boundary.

 

[Billy]

My whole life "conformity" has been the big, bad villain.

But in the past couple years, I've started thinking that conformity is not only necessary but almost refreshing - like it's a sign of humility in an era of narcissism.

Anyone else get that? What's the big deal about non-conformists?

Agreed, I was a total goth when I was a freshman in highschool. I was ashamed of liking popular things, it was idiotic...

There is comfort in conformity. Not at the cost of who you truly are, but there is nothing wrong with liking things that other people like. In business its essential.

 

[Xander]

This is getting worrying

con·form·ist (kn-fôrmst)
n.
A person who uncritically or habitually conforms to the customs, rules, or styles of a group.

There's nothing good about accepting something without thought.
Oh and the sub groups are usually worse than the "mainstream" for conformists.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I'll let you all debate the definition and the foundation of nonconformity.

But, there does seem to be a common theme of de-valuing the norms of society - whether intentionally going against the grain, or simply going ones own way, which happens to be a different direction than the "mainstream."

So, here's my question: if a personal value is in conflict with a societal value, why is it assumed that the more advanced and respectable choice is to remain in line with the personal value?

Personal values seem a little empty and unchallenging to me. I think it would be pretty easy to live my life in accordance with my own beliefs.

Personal values are seen as the more advanced and respectable choice to many self-proclaimed individualists because they are usually the more thought out rational approach to life. Following the rules of society usually gives off the impression, that people haven't really thought about the reason they do things. It's easy to see why one is valued more than the other.

It's exactly what wolfy said. Aligning yourself with society is a sign of maturity. There's no being different for the sake of being difficult. However defining yourself by society values is another matter.

 

[Ruthie]

Agreed, I was a total goth when I was a freshman in highschool. I was ashamed of liking popular things, it was idiotic...

There is comfort in conformity. Not at the cost of who you truly are, but there is nothing wrong with liking things that other people like. In business its essential.

Exactly. To like what the "mainstream" likes is neither conformity or nonconformity; it's neutral. Sometimes I share the interests of the populous, and sometimes I don't, and it's probably a good thing not to have a predisposition to either (don't like or dislike something just because it's popular.)

 

[Ruthie]

Personal values are seen as the more advanced and respectable choice to many self-proclaimed individualists because they are usually the more thought out rational approach to life. Following the rules of society usually gives off the impression, that people haven't really thought about the reason they do things. It's easy to see why one is valued more than the other.

It's exactly what wolfy said. Aligning yourself with society is a sign of maturity. There's no being different for the sake of being difficult. However defining yourself by society values is another matter.

How are personal values more thought out and rational than societal values?

 

[4375]

Life shouldn't be about non-conformity and conformity. It should be more about being yourself and happy who you are. If conforming in a certain situation is not being true to who you are, then in my opinion, it is wrong. If your value system is opposite to what society believes and you feel you need to make a stand, then non-conformity is good. To be completely one or the other makes no sense. Because nobody completely disagrees with society on everything and know one complete agrees with society on everything. To be a non-conformist just to be a non-conformist makes no sense. I see that as being attention seeking or narcassitic.

 

[JustHer]

Life shouldn't be about non-conformity and conformity. It should be more about being yourself and happy who you are.

Yeah I don't understand why this is even an issue.

Can't people just get by by doing what they think is best/more right?

 

[Ruthie]

Life shouldn't be about non-conformity and conformity. It should be more about being yourself and happy who you are. If conforming in a certain situation is not being true to who you are, then in my opinion, it is wrong. If your value system is opposite to what society believes and you feel you need to make a stand, then non-conformity is good. To be completely one or the other makes no sense. Because nobody completely disagrees with society on everything and know one complete agrees with society on everything. To be a non-conformist just to be a non-conformist makes no sense. I see that as being attention seeking or narcassitic.

I don't think anyone should be entirely conformist or nonconformist, but I also don't think anyone should feel just plain happy about being themselves. A lot of times, nonconformity is used as a reason to say "I'm fine the way I am. I live by my own values and measure myself only in accordance with those values - not arbitrary guidelines dictated by society."

But if there are no external values to measure the self against, than a person can end up rationalizing away their own weaknesses and can end up with an objectively twisted set of values.

 

[ergophobe]

My whole life "conformity" has been the big, bad villain.

But in the past couple years, I've started thinking that conformity is not only necessary but almost refreshing - like it's a sign of humility in an era of narcissism.

Anyone else get that? What's the big deal about non-conformists?

What changed? What is comforting now about understanding/aligning with prevailing views?

For example, I loved the bit in New Moon where the friend she's shopping with goes on a tangent about people that say they hate shopping and how zombie movies are metaphors for consumerism and yada yada.

That part in the film was hilarious!

I don't think anyone should be entirely conformist or nonconformist, but I also don't think anyone should feel just plain happy about being themselves. A lot of times, nonconformity is used as a reason to say "I'm fine the way I am. I live by my own values and measure myself only in accordance with those values - not arbitrary guidelines dictated by society."

But if there are no external values to measure the self against, than a person can end up rationalizing away their own weaknesses and can end up with an objectively twisted set of values.

So, if I understood you correctly:
Adhering to a strictly personal code = not evaluating our own standards
Aligning with the prevailing view = not evaluating the prevailing view

So, what standards should be used?

 

[4375]

I don't think anyone should be entirely conformist or nonconformist, but I also don't think anyone should feel just plain happy about being themselves. A lot of times, nonconformity is used as a reason to say "I'm fine the way I am. I live by my own values and measure myself only in accordance with those values - not arbitrary guidelines dictated by society."

I guess I can agree with that if you are talking about people who are selfish. I would agree with you if you are talking about people who are only happy when others suffer. But for a healthy individual I would disagree with you. You should be happy with who you are, but at the same time seek to grow as a person. Becoming stagnant is not being healthy.

For myself I am very happy with who I am. Part of who I am is to seek out new challenges. Therefore I can grow as a person.

I think I may have gone way off topic............I am non conforming.

 

[Ruthie]

What changed? What is comforting now about understanding/aligning with prevailing views?

I don't think it was something that changed in terms of how I felt, but more the ways I saw nonconformity operating in practice.

-nonconformists need a foil, so they set up a conformist opponent. Invariably, the conformists they imagine are two-dimensional characters who do things without thinking and only because "that's the way they've always been done." In order for a nonconformist to feel a sense of identity, they need to see the majority as part of this thoughtless herd, and themselves as standing out from the crowd.

-nonconformists often overestimate their intellect or their moral/ethical correctness. Imagine a job in which you have to make a decision. You believe one thing, while everyone else in the organization believes another. Absent all other evidence, wouldn't a person who kept their own abilities in perspective assume the error in judgment was their own and not everyone else's? But right now, the pendulum is so far in the other direction, that we make heroes out of the individual who holds strong to their original choice. We only hear about those stories when the individual is correct, and not in the more likely scenario in which the majority was correct, and the individual wrong.

On a personal note, I was always told to follow my own path. But the truth is that the things about me that were considered "different" weren't just different - they were shortcomings. For instance, I was always disorganized as a child. Rather than people telling me I was lazy, I was told that my mind just works differently. I'm now 30 years old, and I'm still disorganized. I no longer believe that it's my mind working differently than others - I believe that I should have been expected to conform to the basic level of order that others use. I should have been told that an objective standard does in fact exist, and that I wasn't special enough to fall outside of that standard.

So, what standards should be used?

Societies have broadly shared standards of conduct. What's wrong with deferring to those when possible, and following a different way when necessary?

 

[TickTock]

There are two polar views in this thread that we know aren't true. Of course there is some overlap.

Conforming is what humans do and for the most part it's a good thing. But to say that all nonconformists are only doing so just to be different isn't true. It isn't a conscious choice to be a nonconformist. I will add that very word sets the meaning up to be a nondesirable attitude. But many of the people who changed the world did so because they weren't conforming. Womens rights activists were nonconformists, the black woman on the bus, all new music, art and dance, the list goes on and on. I think really we all agree - it's polar views that aren't real.

I don't think it was something that changed in terms of how I felt, but more the ways I saw nonconformity operating in practice.

-nonconformists need a foil, so they set up a conformist opponent. Invariably, the conformists they imagine are two-dimensional characters who do things without thinking and only because "that's the way they've always been done." In order for a nonconformist to feel a sense of identity, they need to see the majority as part of this thoughtless herd, and themselves as standing out from the crowd.

-nonconformists often overestimate their intellect or their moral/ethical correctness. Imagine a job in which you have to make a decision. You believe one thing, while everyone else in the organization believes another. Absent all other evidence, wouldn't a person who kept their own abilities in perspective assume the error in judgment was their own and not everyone else's? But right now, the pendulum is so far in the other direction, that we make heroes out of the individual who holds strong to their original choice. We only hear about those stories when the individual is correct, and not in the more likely scenario in which the majority was correct, and the individual wrong.

On a personal note, I was always told to follow my own path. But the truth is that the things about me that were considered "different" weren't just different - they were shortcomings. For instance, I was always disorganized as a child. Rather than people telling me I was lazy, I was told that my mind just works differently. I'm now 30 years old, and I'm still disorganized. I no longer believe that it's my mind working differently than others - I believe that I should have been expected to conform to the basic level of order that others use. I should have been told that an objective standard does in fact exist, and that I wasn't special enough to fall outside of that standard.



Societies have broadly shared standards of conduct. What's wrong with deferring to those when possible, and following a different way when necessary?

 

[Snow Turtle]

How are personal values more thought out and rational than societal values?

You invest more time coming to your own conclusion than just accepting someones interpretation of reality. Then again, some people just briefly skim over their beliefs and ideas, in which case it doesn't really matter which way people choose. I'd like to think in those cases, it's obvious the person doing the thinking doesn't really care that much about the subject matter, in which case conformity/non-conformity becomes a non-issue.

However when it comes to important matters, personal values are more likely to be thought out than ones accepted without understanding. It's basically along the lines of the study:

If people disagree with society views, they will most likely need stronger foundations for their beliefs, and their views will be seen as more thoroughly thought out. It goes under attribution theory in psychology.

However that doesn't mean that people can't agree with society views, but in those circumstances, there is still the fact that they accept these views based on their own analysis rather than just blindly accepting details from someone else.

 

[Ruthie]

There are two polar views in this thread that we know aren't true. Of course there is some overlap.

Conforming is what humans do and for the most part it's a good thing. But to say that all nonconformists are only doing so just to be different isn't true. It isn't a conscious choice to be a nonconformist. I will add that very word sets the meaning up to be a nondesirable attitude. But many of the people who changed the world did so because they weren't conforming. Womens rights activists were nonconformists, the black woman on the bus, all new music, art and dance, the list goes on and on. I think really we all agree - it's polar views that aren't real.

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that it's two polar views; just a matter of where to find the right balance. Your point about social movements being built by nonconformists isn't entirely accurate, but it is widely accepted. There are VERY few instances of social change that have been initiated by an individual, and none that have been successful without followers. The people behind those movements certainly compromised their inclinations to reach consensus within their community. Civil rights activists of the early '60s had written rules of conduct (the tenets of nonviolence) and dress. If you failed to conform to those standards, you were shunned from the movement. Union organizing is another obvious example of trusting the group (in this case, for collective bargaining and the like) over the individual. Go against the standards of the group (eg. break a picket line) and you're out of the union.

 

[TickTock]

I am reading a polar view. You clearly have a bias towards conformity and are denying the merrits of nonconformity. You are ignoring nearl all points that are of sound bases. Your definition is skewed somewhat also. Still, you don't have to get it. Whatever works for you.

 

[Ruthie]

You invest more time coming to your own conclusion than just accepting someones interpretation of reality. Then again, some people just briefly skim over their beliefs and ideas, in which case it doesn't really matter which way people choose. I'd like to think in those cases, it's obvious the person doing the thinking doesn't really care that much about the subject matter, in which case conformity/non-conformity becomes a non-issue.

However when it comes to important matters, personal values are more likely to be thought out than ones accepted without understanding. It's basically along the lines of the study:

If people disagree with society views, they will most likely need stronger foundations for their beliefs, and their views will be seen as more thoroughly thought out. It goes under attribution theory in psychology.

However that doesn't mean that people can't agree with society views, but in those circumstances, there is still the fact that they accept these views based on their own analysis rather than just blindly accepting details from someone else.

I would agree with you, but with one change: You seem to be arguing that every question is open for the individual to consider without regard to societal standards. Maybe they reach the same conclusion, and maybe they don't.

I would argue that, just as in a court case, the burden of proof lies with the challenging view. The original standard (the prevailing view) gets the benefit of the doubt. People aren't just followers: "society's views," as you put it, are set and evolve based on collective wisdom, whether or not people go through a conscious process to accept/reject the norm. That collective wisdom may not always be correct, but it deserves the assumption of correctness.