Could you give us an example of these non-conformists? From your description above, it would be a very small group of people who would fall into this category. How do we decide who the conforming side is -- is it a majority view, is 30% or 40% of the population in support enough, when does it become the prevailing view? Could there be more than one prevailing view -- for example, those conjured up by the left and right in the United States have good support on either side. Which one would be conformist or are they both conformist views?
I'm saying that it's the nonconformists who create the conformists and not the other way around. For instance, if you're a proud nonconformist Right-winger, then you probably see yourself as a holdout in a nation governed by a "liberal Establishment;" if you're a proud nonconformist Left-winger, then you are likely to see a nation of ignorant rednecks. Whatever viewpoint the nonconformist has, they always see themselves as distinct from, and not as part of, society.
A "conformist" to me is someone who has a decent amount of respect for the wisdom of others. They see society as it is - mostly, but not always well-intentioned and decent. They see themselves as part of that society. They express their own ideas and opinions to persuade people within their sphere, and if another idea or opinion wins out, they assume it was stronger than their own. They raise their hands in class to argue a point with the teacher, but also give weight to the opinion of the teacher as someone who might know more than them. They vote for the candidate of their choice in elections, but if another candidate wins, they accept the result and the wisdom of the majority. They find common ground with their neighbors, and attempt to fit in by making polite chit-chat in the driveway without feeling the need to vent to someone later about how inane small talk can be.
Well, most people who've made large scientific discoveries or were seminal to philosophical traditions have made them against the prevailing view or paradigm, right? Copernicus, Gallileo, Socrates, more recently -- Alfred Wegener (continental drift)....with a shift in paradigm. These were based on some combination of insight, intuition, intelligence and evidence...either way, they were ridiculed during their time. How do we then distinguish between those stepping away without cause and those with cause? Who are we to decide unless we have some objective way of evaluating their view? This is why I asked about standards. Without having some criteria for evaluation, how do you decide which non-conformist is worthy and which one isn't. Simply non-conforming can't be grounds for evaluation in itself.
But for every Gallileo, Socrates, or Wegener (thanks for the note; I had no idea who Wegener was) there are a million cranks who are certain they've discovered a new way or a new idea. Many of them become the conspiracy theorists of our time [I had a conversation with a guy the other day who is fairly convinced that bombing the moon will lead to poison leaking out onto the Earth destroying the planet in about a decade. He's also pretty sure the government knows about it and is keeping it from us. Gallileo, he ain't.] Many others are just plain wrong, and a small percentage of nonconformists are psychopathic - feeling no connection to society and no understanding of other's perspectives. You're pulling out the noteworthy exceptions to the rule, and using them as evidence of the rule itself.
As for criteria for evaluation, hell, I don't know, I'm just spitballing ideas here. I'm not a sociologist. I'm just taking a look at what's around me and observing that as a general rule, we could use a little less questioning and a little more humility.
Also, why should we object to the non-conformists? I'm having the most trouble here.
So far:
1. They assume a deserved/undeserved ethical/intellectual high ground
2. By definition they disagree with the prevailing view
3. They may be wrong in the long run about their position (political, scientific, whatever)...
What harm exactly does adopting a less prevalent position do? Who does it harm?
If everyone does it, it harms society. We wouldn't be able to reach even basic consensus. Eventually, we'd have to reconsider our entire social contract.
What is the conformist or non-conformist view here? Very confused. This has more to do with varying parenting skills or styles and taking responsibility as an adult than with conforming or not.
The point is that there are certain external standards that we should strive to meet. Since nobody will be naturally gifted at meeting them all, people might have to try harder than others at some things. I'm naturally disorganized, and I should've been expected to be like others in that regard. That is the nature of conformity. The alternative is to deny external standards exist, and be happy with ourselves the way we are. I've heard it said that everyone born in the last 45 years is part of the "self-esteem generation." It was more important for us to feel good about ourselves than it was to push us to conform to existing standards.