Conformity or Non-confirmity - you decide

[TheFifthElement]

An interesting point was raised in the discussion on cheating, concerning the merits, or otherwise, of going against the social norms and it got me thinking. Here it is:


I think that having the personality where you choose to go against things you know are the norm is biology, but it is a weakness. Biologically, flaunting the norm is a weakness and in many species it means you are dead. Wolves that are unable or unwilling to live in packs often die. The gazelle that runs towards the predator instead of away is dinner. Just because it is genetically passed does not mean it isn't weak. It just means that it isn't a weakness you choose to have.

and I’m curious, do you agree that failure to conform with the social ‘norm’ is weak?

My view is very much the opposite, or rather than I think there are times where social conformity can be the ‘right’ thing, but not universally and that most of the time it is not a good idea and in some respects is potentially dangerous. But I’m willing to entertain the idea that I’m prejudiced on that point. Perhaps I just don’t like being told what to do or think and maybe that’s all it is, but whenever I think about it I’m always reminded of this, from Bertrand Russell (The Cult of Common Usage):

...I will venture to say that in former centuries common sense made what we think mistakes. It used to be thought that there could not be people at the antipodes, because they would fall off, or, if they avoided that, they would grow dizzy from standing on their heads. It used to be thought absurd to say that the earth rotates, because everybody can see that it doesn’t. When it was first suggested that the sun may be as large as the Peloponnesus, common sense was outraged. But all this was long ago. I do not know at what date common sense became all wise.

So I tend to think about it that way: just because lots of other people think this or that, doesn’t mean that I should think it, or that it’s right. Often the ‘common view’ can be patently wrong, or offensive, or ill-considered. Just because x million people watch Pop Idol, doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that I have to, or that I have to like or appreciate it, and to a certain extent this should be true of everything. And context is, and should always be, a consideration. Whilst one might argue ‘it is morally right to watch Pop Idol, everyone should watch it’ I suspect most people would agree that this doesn’t mean that it is meritorious to watch it during exams or school or work or whilst driving a vehicle! Context, it seems to me, is a very critical consideration.

And history seems littered with examples of people who have ‘bucked’ the social norm and from whose actions I have benefited. For example, if someone hadn’t been prepared to buck the trend women would still be the property of their husbands. Slavery would still exist. The USA would still be under the yoke of British rule. I wouldn’t be entitled to vote. And we’d be robbed of those rebels turned heroes, like Gandhi, or Martin Luthur King, or Elizabeth I, or Nelson Mandela, or Sir Thomas More, or Columbus, or all those other people who have used civil disobedience in the name of freedom – the singing revolution, the fall of the Berlin wall. And think about the scientific discoveries which may have been denied to us. For example, if the likes of Copernicus and Galileo hadn’t pursued their scientific curiosity, in spite of it being ‘heretical’, we may still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe and we may never have figured out how to get into space and if we hadn’t gone into space we wouldn’t have Velcro. And what would the world be without Velcro? Going against the social norm seems to have distinct advantages.

And history also seems to be littered with examples of how governments have used social conformity to get away with committing terrible atrocities unchallenged. For example, Stalin was able use people’s desire for social conformity to get anyone who posed a potential threat to his power base identified and sent to the Gulags. The neighbours that reported them were just being good citizens after all. And that’s not the only example. Sometimes social conformity can be inherently dangerous.

Neither am I convinced that defining flaunting the norm as ‘weak’ is necessarily true. Sometimes it may be, but in general I would define an action which is ‘strong’ as being something which is difficult or arduous or which carries a certain personal risk, and an action which is ‘weak’ as something which comes easily. Anyone who has ever argued against a crowd will likely appreciate how difficult it can be to try and veer from or change the social norm. I, personally, think it takes extraordinary strength to do that. Like Emmeline Pankhurst. She flaunted the social norm, but was she weak? Her activities carried considerable personal risks, after all she was arrested many times for her activities and she went on hunger strike in order to carry her point. Personally I’d say that was strength, not weakness.

What do you think?

[keilj]

As you cited in your post, it takes a lot of courage and strength to go against the grain. From Jesus, to MLK, up to people like Reem Al Numery - who I just learned about today in a Time magazine article - and many, many more examples who are not so dramatic or historic

I think that people who go with the flow might do it out of lack of courage, but also out of just plain laziness. (that laziness might take the form of physical laziness, or even "mental laziness" in not wanting to think deeply about issues, the world around them, and where they are willing to draw the line and make a stand)

Furthermore, going against the crowd always comes at a price - so for someone to do it, it shows they are willing to pay a cost for an ideal

[The Comedian]

It really depends on the social norm, the motivation, and the principles you uphold (or violate) in your decision.

There are a lot of social norms that are good. It's the norm to promote education, literacy, financial stability, integrity.

For example, it's not the norm to bomb crowded buildings to protest the actions of one's government. As a result, I would certainly not praise the great strength of character of someone who did not "conform" that behavioral standard.

Granted this example is extreme and presents a simple solution (as do several others presented above). But in matters of personal choice and social interaction, I try to live by a set a principles that I set for myself. And I am very leery of any "non-conformity" that only benefits myself, especially if these benefits are superficial and transitory.

The examples of the world's great "non-conformists" cited above worked to benefit large groups of people at great personal sacrifice to their health and well-being. That they themselves benefited (as being members of their group) seems to me to be only a minor part of their efforts and pales when compared to the personal sacrifices that they made on the behalf of others.

I remember posing a question like this to my students once. The majority of them said that when they violated the drinking age by going to a party and getting drunk that they were acting a part of the great tradition of non-conformists that are listed here.

"So you getting drunk at a party, and then keeping that information from parents and police, because you have fun getting drunk functions on the same principle as what Martin Luther King did? Or Gandhi?"

"Yes"; they all nod their heads in righteous affirmation.

"I see", I replied.

EDIT: In my day-to-day experiences, I do not see many truly good "non-conformists". But I see much of the sort that my students claim to.

I remember once when I was in college -- the river that ran though town flooded. A lot of homes were in trouble. It was so bad the college even let out students from classes to help with the sandbagging efforts. The first day I, like nearly everyone else, went to houses along the river and helped. The next day, I didn't because "everyone" was doing it. I went to a coffee shop and read a book instead.

I regret that "non-conformity" to this day.

[BienvenuJDC]

"the great tradition of non-conformists"

I believe this to be a humorous oxymoron. Although this could probably be applied to different groups (and I'm not trying to insult this group in any way), but I remember those dressing "Gothic" because they didn't want to conform. They then ran around in groups (in turn...conforming to a different group since they all looks fairly similar to each other).

[applepie]

I'm going to need to form my thoughts and come back. I think we may be looking at this from two different perspectives or definitions of what 'weak' or 'weakness' is, and I didn't realize it until I read this thread :)

[L.M. The Third]

That's quite a story about your students, Comedian. Which serves to illustrate what is perhaps the deciding factor about non-conformity. Are we doing it out of principle or merely selfish want? You could also say that your students were actually being conformists, although they were breaking the law, because there may have been an element of peer-pressure - making that "non-conformity" the norm in the society that mattered most in their minds.


So, generally, I agree with the OP in saying that non-conformity is a sign of strength. But that's still very dependent on the situation.

Of course, the question will arise: When is non-conformity selfish and when is it for the better good, the only right choice for the thinking man? And that may be hard to answer, because sometimes the non-conformists who have changed our world have stirred up so much turmoil that the situation seemed much worse.

I'm still not sure how I'll vote. I'm mostly with "It's a strength", but I think I'm going to have to go with "It is neither", because it's really about the idea, or the cause - not the non-conformity.

[Virgil]

Non-conformists are just as conforming to something as so called conformist. I consider myself highly non conformist, and yet I bet everyone thinks I'm highly conformist. Really I don't think the labels mean much.

Edit: Actually in thinking about it, I should change my vote to a strength.

[applepie]

Ok, I think I have my thoughts gathered, and I'll give explaining them a shot.

I will maintain my earlier stance that choosing to go against the norms of society is a weakness, but I'll add that depending on the norm being bucked it takes an individual with a strong will to do it. There are different degrees of society norms, and ignoring some while maintaining others is necessary. Just because someone is a non-conformist it does not mean that they do not adhere to a norm of another society. By definition neo-nazis and KKK members are non-conformist, but they still adhere to the social norm of the group that they have chosen.

So degrees of social norms... some things can not be ignored. Murder, rape, drug addiction, prostitution, and a host of other things that have set standards in society. Going against these things makes you an outcast of society and you are weakened by them. As such it is certainly a weakness to go against these norms or be a non-conformist.

Other things like dress, ways of speech, tattoos, dyed hair, being remarkably intelligent or unique in your way of thinking, these are still considered non-conformist in their own right. Someone who thinks differently about things may not be welcome to all society, but there are niches within society in which they fit. Social groups that I might add have their own "norm" which is followed. The others that I mentioned are traditional, socially acceptable, ways to show that you do not follow the convention of society. Oddly, they are merely following a smaller group of society, but there are still norms adhered to. The goth kids wearing all black with their hair dyed feel like they are non conformist, but they're really choosing to conform to another group than the ideal society which simply doesn't exist.

I guess the way that I see it, there is this ideal society that people hold in their minds. They talk of the "masses" as if there is a single norm, but with the exception of a handful of rules, there are very few which can't be broken. Many of them are broken by smaller societies within the whole, but people almost always conform to something whether they view themselves as not doing so or not. It is simply the nature of things.

Now back to my initial statement that non-conformity is a weakness.

I think that having the personality where you choose to go against things you know are the norm is biology, but it is a weakness. Biologically, flaunting the norm is a weakness and in many species it means you are dead. Wolves that are unable or unwilling to live in packs often die. The gazelle that runs towards the predator instead of away is dinner. Just because it is genetically passed does not mean it isn't weak. It just means that it isn't a weakness you choose to have.I wholeheartedly maintain my stance on that. People who do not conform to any niche in society are weakened by this and as such it is a weakness. Animals are the same. There is a reason that we are social creatures. Choosing to ignore any group to conform with is weak in the sense that you are weakened by this.

[Revolte]

Conforming to anything is always easier then standing against it. We all will be forced to conform to something in our lives if we want to survive, but the hardest path has the greater, longer lasting rewards then a paycheck spent on a house you'll never really own.

[Virgil]

A good thought out opinion Meg.


Other things like dress, ways of speech, tattoos, dyed hair, being remarkably intelligent or unique in your way of thinking, these are still considered non-conformist in their own right. Someone who thinks differently about things may not be welcome to all society, but there are niches within society in which they fit.
Those are superficial measures of conformity. I don't consider it non-conformity at all. Ever see a punk rocker who did not look like another punk rocker? They are conforming to something.


Social groups that I might add have their own "norm" which is followed. The others that I mentioned are traditional, socially acceptable, ways to show that you do not follow the convention of society. Oddly, they are merely following a smaller group of society, but there are still norms adhered to. The goth kids wearing all black with their hair dyed feel like they are non conformist, but they're really choosing to conform to another group than the ideal society which simply doesn't exist.
Agreed. :)


Now back to my initial statement that non-conformity is a weakness.
I wholeheartedly maintain my stance on that. People who do not conform to any niche in society are weakened by this and as such it is a weakness. Animals are the same. There is a reason that we are social creatures. Choosing to ignore any group to conform with is weak in the sense that you are weakened by this.
Interesting. A genius has the ability to span both conformity and non-conformity.

[Revolte]

Ever see a punk rocker who did not look like another punk rocker?




you havent seen me and my friends lol. Or me at least, I dress pretty goofy but it has nothing to do with the culture its just what I feel good in. Though i will admit leather and mohawks are pretty common, but hawks are just fun to have, they feel good, and they only take a minute to cut. And stuff like that has nothing to do with conforming, there are just sooooo many people in the world some one is going to look like some one else. No matter who you are, or what culture you are a part of.

[applepie]

Interesting. A genius has the ability to span both conformity and non-conformity.

How so??? I think I know your reasoning, but I'll ask anyway :)

[Michael T]

It really depends on the social norm, the motivation, and the principles you uphold (or violate) in your decision.

There are a lot...

Excellent post as usual Comedian. :thumbsup:

Anyway ...don't a lot of non-conformists come under the banner of sociopath?:smilewinkgrin:

[Virgil]

How so??? I think I know your reasoning, but I'll ask anyway :)

I'm at my most creative when I think "out of the box" as we refer to it in engineering. I consider that non-conforming thinking. I'm not saying i'm a genius, I'm not, but I think a genius is not constrained in his thinking.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm at my most creative when I think "out of the box" as we refer to it in engineering. I consider that non-conforming thinking. I'm not saying i'm a genius, I'm not, but I think a genius is not constrained in his thinking.

:iagree:
I would definitely agree with that, Virgil! I'm always looking for the different perspective. There's always a better way.

[Virgil]

:iagree:
I would definitely agree with that, Virgil! I'm always looking for the different perspective. There's always a better way.

Thanks Bien. :)

[MarkBastable]

It's not the conformity or otherwise that matters. It's the thought processes that get you to a conclusion. If your starting position is neutral, it might still be that you'll end up in a position that's conventional, and therefore conforms to broad consensus. There's nothing weak or strong about that.

So I think that to unthinkingly conform is probably lazy - but it's lazy to habitually refuse to conform.

To continually think - that's strong.

[TheFifthElement]

It's not the conformity or otherwise that matters. It's the thought processes that get you to a conclusion. If your starting position is neutral, it might still be that you'll end up in a position that's conventional, and therefore conforms to broad consensus. There's nothing weak or strong about that.

So I think that to unthinkingly conform is probably lazy - but it's lazy to habitually refuse to conform.

To continually think - that's strong.

Mark, you're a very wise man :)

[ClaesGefvenberg]

This is a great discussion :thumbsup:
What do you think?After some pondering I picked the alternative "Strength". Some of you have already noted how much it takes to move against the current. I would have liked an alternative like "both strength and weakness", rather than "neither" though: I think keilj is right on the button when he points out that many will go with the flow out of laziness. It can also be a matter of not really agreeing with the general opinion, and yet not feel strongly enough about it to feel that it is worth fuzzing about.

The point that going against the crowd always comes at a price is also well taken. At some point we all try to move against the current, and there is always a price to pay.


Ever see a punk rocker who did not look like another punk rocker? They are conforming to something.As we all do. Above all, it is a question of to which degree we conform: I do not think that a single one of us quite fully conforms to anything, and the opposite is just as true. There is always a tiny fraction of a percent missing.


To continually think - that's strong.Yes. Well said! Besides, you need to be strong to do that. Forming your own opinion will never the simplest option, but it may make it easier to be at peace with yourself.

/Claes

[Heathcliff]

Does it count as conforming if you are not at all trying to be something or someone? I mean, brushing your teeth in the morning is something you can do because you were raised like that. It is conforming to what everyone else does, but it generally it just becomes regime.

If you don't want to conform to normal everyday, like refusing to do things like bathe and wear clothes, it isn't going to help the world. If you're only going to do things like wear comfy clothes rather than the fashionable clothes, what of it?

[blazeofglory]

I am always against conformity since my childhood. As a boy, I recall I was rebellious against everything old or traditional. I looked at things from a different perspective though I was not well educated then.

I always feel that we must never cease to question everything that will bring us closer to scientific thoughts in point of fact.

I always questioned the need of our study or academic degrees or the very requirement of the system of education

It is easy to agree with accepted values or systems.
Few loners dared question and the Buddha questioned and he was enlightened.

[Taliesin]

I am voting for the option "It is neither a strength or weakness", because, apparently, the majority is doing it.

[Virgil]

As we all do. Above all, it is a question of to which degree we conform: I do not think that a single one of us quite fully conforms to anything, and the opposite is just as true. There is always a tiny fraction of a percent missing.


I agree Claes. :)



I am voting for the option "It is neither a strength or weakness", because, apparently, the majority is doing it.

:lol: :lol: Oh Tal, you are such a character. That is the genius of simultaneous conformity and non-conformity I was talking about.

[Scheherazade]

I am voting for the option "It is neither a strength or weakness", because, apparently, the majority is doing it.Wait... Wait a minute.

Are you saying that majority of the Forum members are non-conformists???

If that is the case, then, those who claim to be non-conformists are simply following the Forum norm, hence, are being conformists?

[BienvenuJDC]

Wait... Wait a minute.

Are you saying that majority of the Forum members are non-conformists???

If that is the case, then, those who claim to be non-conformists are simply following the Forum norm, hence, are being conformists?

Do I smell a Catch-22 scenario here?

[Scheherazade]

Do I smell a Catch-22 scenario here?Don't know.

What does a "Catch-22 scenario" smell like?

(It would also depend on how good your sense of smell is, I guess.)

[JuniperWoolf]

Whenever someone defines themself as a "non-conformist" I have observed in myself a desire to kick them in the shin. I wonder what that means...

[Scheherazade]

Whenever someone defines themself as a "non-conformist" I have observed in myself a desire to kick them in the shin. I wonder what that means... I say that is a very non-conformist reaction!

[The Comedian]

Just for sake of discussion, let's say a hypothetical Comedian, surely not I, were to pose this (note the quotation marks): "How about if I post this ****-ing question? If we conform to forum guidelines of not swearing like a bunch of ****-faced sailors, then are we nothing more than chicken-**** conformists? Or do we show our bulging non-conformist muscles when we repeatedly (and strongly) violate these bull-**** rules?"

Just wonderin'. . . . ;)

[MarkBastable]

Ever see a punk rocker who did not look like another punk rocker? They are conforming to something.


Of course, if you did see a punk rocker who didn't look like other punk rockers, you wouldn't know he was a punk rocker, would you? So you might have seen hundreds of them.

[Paulclem]

There seems to be two kinds of non-conformity in the thread - individual non-conformity which serves the individual's aims, and the social non-conformity which serves a greater cause such as the feminists that have been mentioned.

As has been pointed out above, the individual non-conformity often just designates a social group, such as the punks I used to hang about with. It's self seving but okay. I just see it as a kind of self definition process, and behind it seemed to be the very conformist social grouping and then pairing off of partners.

Social non-conformity can be very virtuous or damaging as the comedian pointed out. Also, as has been pointed out, those people have achieved a great deal.

There is a third kind of non-conformist that you occaisinally see - the eccentric. I don't know what you think, but I would define these people as unconscious non-conformists. They dress the way they do without the social aims of the first group, or they act in what is considered a weird way with no sense that they are making any kind of point. Have you seen them? They are not usually younger, but are the older people - the old Lady/ Man who takes their small dog about in a pushchair, or who wears odd combinations of colours or who sings on the bus or who talks to everyone. Not the mad ones, but the characters. Do you think these are non-conformists too?

[applepie]

Paulclem - I do think that these "originals", as I always like to call them, are non-conformist in their own way. I've thought more and more about this over the few days. I'm not much into conformity myself, so I suppose it is interesting that I have the view about it that I do :)

The conclusion that I've come to is that everyone conforms to something, but there are areas where we can choose to not conform. In some environments, these little acts of rebellion are actually encouraged. People want you to have original and innovative ideas. I'm constantly told to think outside the box for solutions in my job. I suppose my box seems to be much broader to my coworkers, but I imagine that to someone of equal intelligence (I don't mean that in any sort of a superior way) it is a pretty typical limit. Non conformity makes us unique, but society dictates what non-conformity is accepted. In the end, I think the majority of people are still conformists in the sense that we work to stay within the bounds that are expected of us.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm not much into conformity myself,

:p

:smilielol5:

Oh, I know what you're meaning, but I just had to point out that...you've conformed to the Geek Weekend....but back to your point....

(:incazzato:...and Meg says, "Bien, you @$#%&@ know what I mean!!")

[applepie]

:p

:smilielol5:

Oh, I know what you're meaning, but I just had to point out that...you've conformed to the Geek Weekend....but back to your point....

(:incazzato:...and Meg says, "Bien, you @$#%&@ know what I mean!!")

:lol: Some things are worth conforming to :D

[BienvenuJDC]

:lol: Some things are worth conforming to :D

It took you long enough...

[applepie]

It took you long enough...

Well I was considering this funny thing called sleep, but then I read this :D

[BienvenuJDC]

Everybody sleeps...are you going to conform to that too?

[applepie]

I suppose I should since I'm not very nice when I don't. Then again...

[Paulclem]

Paulclem - I do think that these "originals", as I always like to call them, are non-conformist in their own way. I've thought more and more about this over the few days. I'm not much into conformity myself, so I suppose it is interesting that I have the view about it that I do :)

The conclusion that I've come to is that everyone conforms to something, but there are areas where we can choose to not conform. In some environments, these little acts of rebellion are actually encouraged. People want you to have original and innovative ideas. I'm constantly told to think outside the box for solutions in my job. I suppose my box seems to be much broader to my coworkers, but I imagine that to someone of equal intelligence (I don't mean that in any sort of a superior way) it is a pretty typical limit. Non conformity makes us unique, but society dictates what non-conformity is accepted. In the end, I think the majority of people are still conformists in the sense that we work to stay within the bounds that are expected of us.

Yes - I can see the originals as being non-conformist. it's just that everyone who follows conforms to the model.

Non-conformist thinking in work, sport, writing etc may be another category of it. It may make the difference enough to innovate, win the game, sell the book. Tremendously useful.

The usual perceptions of non-conformism are often just how you dress - making a statement and all that rubbish. These are probably based on egotism. Having said that I like it that people dress differently so long as they don't claim it's anything more than preference.

[applepie]

The usual perceptions of non-conformism are often just how you dress - making a statement and all that rubbish. These are probably based on egotism. Having said that I like it that people dress differently so long as they don't claim it's anything more than preference.

That's the stereotype of non-conformity, and I've found you can hide much behind the proper clothing. There is a lot of stigma placed upon appearance. Someone with tattoos is often viewed in a negative manner in the corporate world. Dressing like a "typical" girl or in a trendy manner softens things that would otherwise be seen as less attractive or mascluline ideas.

[Paulclem]

That's the stereotype of non-conformity, and I've found you can hide much behind the proper clothing. There is a lot of stigma placed upon appearance. Someone with tattoos is often viewed in a negative manner in the corporate world. Dressing like a "typical" girl or in a trendy manner softens things that would otherwise be seen as less attractive or mascluline ideas.

You're right about that. I get treated differently when I'm in my casual work clothes to when I'm wearing my cycling stuff. I've also got quite a nice long coat for winter, and I get treated differently in that too. I seem to get more respect, which is a bit ridiculous really.

It does make you think how rich people/ celebrities must start to think differently of themselves when they constantly get this.

[qimissung]

Very Interesting thread, Fifth, and everyone else who has participated.

Something that I find interesting, societal norms aside, is the workforce, which ironically, loves for you to think outside the proverbial box, but which, in my personal experience, comes down on you like a sledgehammer, if you don't do what is expected, in other words, if you don't conform.

I personally find educators to be among the worst in expecting one to conform. I get so tired, even, of what we ask of and expect of our high school students. They are trying to find themselves, and as such they need to rebel a little, and they need to be given responsibility for their lives, actions, education, none of which happens or is allowed. At my school, in my district, and I don't think it's all that unusual, they are treated like children, as are the teachers, too, actually. I find it a travesty.

So I often feel rebellious and desire to be more non-conformist because I think the things my administrators want are usually completely unimportant. But I go along, because I want to keep my job.

[applepie]

Qimi - You are entirely correct about the workforce. They want unique thinking, but then if you get too far out of the box you get yourself in trouble. I think part of being an intelligent and successful person is knowing where you can push the boundaries and how far you can push them. It is also knowing where you have very little choice in conforming. I would love to get full sleeve tattoos, but if I were to do that I would have just ruined my career (which is stupid, but that's a whole different discussion)

Conformity in school is a bit different for me. I think kids need to conform to a certain standard of behavior, but I hate how they're expected to have cookie cutter thoughts. I got in more trouble in school for starting debates over the themes in books and such. It's strange, but being intelligent in school and having original thought isn't really considered a good thing.

[BienvenuJDC]

Conformity in school is a bit different for me. I think kids need to conform to a certain standard of behavior, but I hate how they're expected to have cookie cutter thoughts. I got in more trouble in school for starting debates over the themes in books and such. It's strange, but being intelligent in school and having original thought isn't really considered a good thing.

I understand where you are coming from here. I think that the problem is that our teachers are not prepared enough (or do not have the resources...time and opportunity for two) to be able to use those instances for productive learning. There are too many students with varying learning styles, learning abilities, and learning desires, along with far too many subjects to cover. There has to be some level of conformity to a unified objective, otherwise nothing would get accomplished.

This same concept is true in the workforce. As a manager, I was always looking for new ideas how to do the job better and cheaper. I am one who definitely thinks outside the box. But any group cannot have everyone thinking in their own ways or else the group will not work together, and will not be efficient.

[TheFifthElement]

Haven't you all heard? There is no box ;)

[BienvenuJDC]

Haven't you all heard? There is no box ;)

Yeah, yeah....and there is no spoon either...

[The Comedian]

I understand where you are coming from here. I think that the problem is that our teachers are not prepared enough (or do not have the resources...time and opportunity for two) to be able to use those instances for productive learning. There are too many students with varying learning styles, learning abilities, and learning desires, along with far too many subjects to cover. There has to be some level of conformity to a unified objective, otherwise nothing would get accomplished.

This same concept is true in the workforce. As a manager, I was always looking for new ideas how to do the job better and cheaper. I am one who definitely thinks outside the box. But any group cannot have everyone thinking in their own ways or else the group will not work together, and will not be efficient.

Bien, this is an excellent post. And, speaking as a teacher, what you note about your own job also holds true for a teacher in the classroom. I know that I encourage original and creative thinking, but a lot of times I have to start with first things first: (1) show me that you know the established thoughts (2) show me that you know the merits, faults, and context of some established ways of thinking, (3) NOW move to creative/critical thinking.

Often students are in such a hurry to think "for themselves" that they lose the understanding and wisdom of past in their mad rush to originality. I liken this to learning to water-ski before learning to swim. Sure, you can do it, but is that really the best way? I mean, if that life vest falls off, you're in real trouble.

[applepie]

Bien, this is an excellent post. And, speaking as a teacher, what you note about your own job also holds true for a teacher in the classroom. I know that I encourage original and creative thinking, but a lot of times I have to start with first things first: (1) show me that you know the established thoughts (2) show me that you know the merits, faults, and context of some established ways of thinking, (3) NOW move to creative/critical thinking.

This is why I'm not a teacher :D I wouldn't be good at it. I can't, not wont, but can't think in the fashion of everyone else. Linear thinking isn't something I do, and all my years in school were not able to teach me how to do it. I wouldn't be able to guide others in following an established way of thinking when I can't do it myself. My thoughts come out horribly jumbled most of the time, and it takes a concerted effort on my part to make them understandable.

[The Comedian]

Teaching is tough, Meg. What's often the hardest is the simple composition of students in the classroom. There will be a few like yourself who have trouble with linear thinking, a few others who have trouble thinking creatively, a few others who think they can outsmart the teacher (and are wrong), a few others who think they can outsmart the teacher (and are right), a few others with low self-esteem. . . . .and so on.

Of course, life demands a variety of things from us if we want to get on successfully: sometimes we really do need to follow the crowd (sometimes because we have to; and some other times because the crowd is right); sometimes we have to find our own way only to rejoin a different crowd later.

[Satan]

Everyone wants to be different, just like everyone else. Far from being strength or weakness, it's a human desire: the will to stand apart and identify oneself. Comedian makes an excellent point about understanding the established norms first.

[Gladys]

Of course, life demands a variety of things from us if we want to get on successfully: sometimes we really do need to follow the crowd (sometimes because we have to; and some other times because the crowd is right); sometimes we have to find our own way only to rejoin a different crowd later.

Over the years, I've had a couple of personality tests on management training courses at work. One gave me an 'author' personality - 1% of the population. Another gave me 'anarchist' - and I alone, in a room of 50 people, could be given no further predictive information on management style.

It seems to me, that there is a spectrum of non conformity. In school, for instance, conformity is the rule because half the teachers unquestioningly accept the status quo while deviating only in, what seems to me, trivial ways. Within the other half, there is a spectrum of non conformity with the likes of me sitting at one extreme, usually in isolated silence for safety's sake.


The examples of the world's great "non-conformists" cited above worked to benefit large groups of people at great personal sacrifice to their health and well-being. That they themselves benefited (as being members of their group) seems to me to be only a minor part of their efforts and pales when compared to the personal sacrifices that they made on the behalf of others.

Extreme non conformity, however noble, is liable to have terrible consequences. Dostoevsky's idiotic Prince Myshkin and Ibsen's priest Brand and scientist Dr Stockmann are excellent fictional examples.

As my aged aunt says: 'Everything in moderation'.

[applepie]

Of course, life demands a variety of things from us if we want to get on successfully: sometimes we really do need to follow the crowd (sometimes because we have to; and some other times because the crowd is right); sometimes we have to find our own way only to rejoin a different crowd later.

This is what gives us our originality, but overall I think people conform to a range of standards. There is no black and white answer for how you should think or what you should wear, but there is a range of acceptability. You can bend the rules within reason, but get too far out of the norm and you face consequences. Very few things in life are black and white answers and much as I hate to admit it, there is even a certain level of acceptability for murders and the like amongst others of a like mind set. They're essentially the cast offs of the majority of society, but they form their own society to conform to within their ranks.

It is fascinating to me. The human need to belong somewhere. It makes sense on so many levels, but it is still just interesting when you really start to think about it. In the end, we're not solitary and even the more reclusive of us still reach out for some contact. To get the human contact we need to belong, and to belong we need to conform to some things.

[Indyben]

How can not conforming to what society perceives as 'normal' be a weakness? It takes courage for a person to be 100% themselves, and it takes strength to be themselves in public. I'm not saying don't care, I'm just saying that if I could be completely non-conformist, I would be.

[blazeofglory]

Is it possible to live without conformity? We will have to conformably live here since childhood. We may be mavericks in our childhood questioning of course everything but in due course we have to listen to what others say and we have to agree with them even if we within us disagree. A Child for instance has to depend on his parents for livelihood. A wife has to depend on her husband for security. An employee is compelled to what his boss wants and even if he personally differs but for job security has to go along with what his boss expects of him and that is why living without conformity is in theory and in practice we find nowhere in point of fact. Life is therefore a series of compromises from cradle to cremation. If we behave as a maverick we will be singled out in a family or society. For our sake or to make a community of people possible we have to conform in life

[Heathcliff]

If we were that smart we'd all just do what we were told, it would save a lot of trouble. We'd probably hate it though. However if we were that smart I honestly think we'd all just give up.

There are some things that people just do - I suppose it could be conforming.
Everyone who walks into a dark room and turns on a light switch - however that is more nature now.

Then again, is conforming the 'normal' thing to do? So is deciding to conform mean you are being a non-conformist?

Teehee.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
An interesting point was raised in the discussion on cheating, concerning the merits, or otherwise, of going against the social norms and it got me thinking. Here it is:



and I’m curious, do you agree that failure to conform with the social ‘norm’ is weak?

My view is very much the opposite, or rather than I think there are times where social conformity can be the ‘right’ thing, but not universally and that most of the time it is not a good idea and in some respects is potentially dangerous. But I’m willing to entertain the idea that I’m prejudiced on that point. Perhaps I just don’t like being told what to do or think and maybe that’s all it is, but whenever I think about it I’m always reminded of this, from Bertrand Russell (The Cult of Common Usage):


So I tend to think about it that way: just because lots of other people think this or that, doesn’t mean that I should think it, or that it’s right. Often the ‘common view’ can be patently wrong, or offensive, or ill-considered. Just because x million people watch Pop Idol, doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that I have to, or that I have to like or appreciate it, and to a certain extent this should be true of everything. And context is, and should always be, a consideration. Whilst one might argue ‘it is morally right to watch Pop Idol, everyone should watch it’ I suspect most people would agree that this doesn’t mean that it is meritorious to watch it during exams or school or work or whilst driving a vehicle! Context, it seems to me, is a very critical consideration.

And history seems littered with examples of people who have ‘bucked’ the social norm and from whose actions I have benefited. For example, if someone hadn’t been prepared to buck the trend women would still be the property of their husbands. Slavery would still exist. The USA would still be under the yoke of British rule. I wouldn’t be entitled to vote. And we’d be robbed of those rebels turned heroes, like Gandhi, or Martin Luthur King, or Elizabeth I, or Nelson Mandela, or Sir Thomas More, or Columbus, or all those other people who have used civil disobedience in the name of freedom – the singing revolution, the fall of the Berlin wall. And think about the scientific discoveries which may have been denied to us. For example, if the likes of Copernicus and Galileo hadn’t pursued their scientific curiosity, in spite of it being ‘heretical’, we may still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe and we may never have figured out how to get into space and if we hadn’t gone into space we wouldn’t have Velcro. And what would the world be without Velcro? Going against the social norm seems to have distinct advantages.

And history also seems to be littered with examples of how governments have used social conformity to get away with committing terrible atrocities unchallenged. For example, Stalin was able use people’s desire for social conformity to get anyone who posed a potential threat to his power base identified and sent to the Gulags. The neighbours that reported them were just being good citizens after all. And that’s not the only example. Sometimes social conformity can be inherently dangerous.

Neither am I convinced that defining flaunting the norm as ‘weak’ is necessarily true. Sometimes it may be, but in general I would define an action which is ‘strong’ as being something which is difficult or arduous or which carries a certain personal risk, and an action which is ‘weak’ as something which comes easily. Anyone who has ever argued against a crowd will likely appreciate how difficult it can be to try and veer from or change the social norm. I, personally, think it takes extraordinary strength to do that. Like Emmeline Pankhurst. She flaunted the social norm, but was she weak? Her activities carried considerable personal risks, after all she was arrested many times for her activities and she went on hunger strike in order to carry her point. Personally I’d say that was strength, not weakness.
What do you think?

[osho]

An interesting point was raised in the discussion on cheating, concerning the merits, or otherwise, of going against the social norms and it got me thinking. Here it is:



and I’m curious, do you agree that failure to conform with the social ‘norm’ is weak?

My view is very much the opposite, or rather than I think there are times where social conformity can be the ‘right’ thing, but not universally and that most of the time it is not a good idea and in some respects is potentially dangerous. But I’m willing to entertain the idea that I’m prejudiced on that point. Perhaps I just don’t like being told what to do or think and maybe that’s all it is, but whenever I think about it I’m always reminded of this, from Bertrand Russell (The Cult of Common Usage):


So I tend to think about it that way: just because lots of other people think this or that, doesn’t mean that I should think it, or that it’s right. Often the ‘common view’ can be patently wrong, or offensive, or ill-considered. Just because x million people watch Pop Idol, doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that I have to, or that I have to like or appreciate it, and to a certain extent this should be true of everything. And context is, and should always be, a consideration. Whilst one might argue ‘it is morally right to watch Pop Idol, everyone should watch it’ I suspect most people would agree that this doesn’t mean that it is meritorious to watch it during exams or school or work or whilst driving a vehicle! Context, it seems to me, is a very critical consideration.

And history seems littered with examples of people who have ‘bucked’ the social norm and from whose actions I have benefited. For example, if someone hadn’t been prepared to buck the trend women would still be the property of their husbands. Slavery would still exist. The USA would still be under the yoke of British rule. I wouldn’t be entitled to vote. And we’d be robbed of those rebels turned heroes, like Gandhi, or Martin Luthur King, or Elizabeth I, or Nelson Mandela, or Sir Thomas More, or Columbus, or all those other people who have used civil disobedience in the name of freedom – the singing revolution, the fall of the Berlin wall. And think about the scientific discoveries which may have been denied to us. For example, if the likes of Copernicus and Galileo hadn’t pursued their scientific curiosity, in spite of it being ‘heretical’, we may still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe and we may never have figured out how to get into space and if we hadn’t gone into space we wouldn’t have Velcro. And what would the world be without Velcro? Going against the social norm seems to have distinct advantages.

And history also seems to be littered with examples of how governments have used social conformity to get away with committing terrible atrocities unchallenged. For example, Stalin was able use people’s desire for social conformity to get anyone who posed a potential threat to his power base identified and sent to the Gulags. The neighbours that reported them were just being good citizens after all. And that’s not the only example. Sometimes social conformity can be inherently dangerous.

Neither am I convinced that defining flaunting the norm as ‘weak’ is necessarily true. Sometimes it may be, but in general I would define an action which is ‘strong’ as being something which is difficult or arduous or which carries a certain personal risk, and an action which is ‘weak’ as something which comes easily. Anyone who has ever argued against a crowd will likely appreciate how difficult it can be to try and veer from or change the social norm. I, personally, think it takes extraordinary strength to do that. Like Emmeline Pankhurst. She flaunted the social norm, but was she weak? Her activities carried considerable personal risks, after all she was arrested many times for her activities and she went on hunger strike in order to carry her point. Personally I’d say that was strength, not weakness.

What do you think?

In fact I never like to confirm or subscribe to social, religious, political even ethical norms. Every individual is different and yet our society, culture or traditionalists make lots of efforts but at times in vain to mold us into their frames or scaffolds. I have already voiced for nudity even on this forum and and daringly questioned our age old values and the norms we have inherited.

In fact when we have lots of norms, rules, sets of values and principles we will deaden our real natures and that is why I often like to against them at times rebelliously at many costs and I did it successfully on several fronts speaking personally though I will not disclose it here on this public forum.

[tonywalt]

Just as a warning, there is often a price to pay for non conformity, within the orgainization, structure, social group, or society - and it is often high. To an extreme, but not uncommon, it is often Ostracism or some sort of disassociation. It's invisible, but the impact cannot be underestimated.

So in light of that, a person has to pretty much think about whether they are willing to pay the price. And given our social nature, it cannot be easily dismissed with a wave of the hand and a middle finger for most people.

Hell, I make certain compromises (small and painless) on this board, just to conform, because I want to be part of this group.

[ftil]

I am always against conformity since my childhood. As a boy, I recall I was rebellious against everything old or traditional. I looked at things from a different perspective though I was not well educated then. I always feel that we must never cease to question everything that will bring us closer to scientific thoughts in point of fact

I was against conformity since I said my first no. lol I was judged by my parents for my questioning the traditional values and beliefs, particularly the role of women. I have not read any feminist books at that time. I belive that some people are born that way whereas others feel comfortable to follow without questioning.
I believe that questioning is very important because how we can find who we really are if we don’t step outside and look carefully at beliefs that were imposed upon us by family or culture. We run on an automatic pilot then.



Is it possible to live without conformity?

I don’t think so that it is not possible to be totally free from conformity. As you said, we are living in society. I think that it is a matter of being aware of our values that we cherish deeply and we don’t want to compromise them no matter what. In that sense I view nonconformity as strengths because it requires the courage to swim against the river, sometimes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I chose it is neither a weakness nor a strength, because I think it can be both. If one finds strength in not conforming, speaking out, etc., then it is a strength. If one is just being true to one's self; in other words, not trying to be nonconformist, it's just who that person really is, it's a strength. Though, if someone is being a nonconformist just to fit-in with the nonconformist clique that exists everywhere without necessarily believing in the nonconformist attitude, it is a weakness. Not a horribly debilitating weakness--I think we all try to conform to a certain group, whether that group be conformist (preps, jocks, etc.) or nonconformist (freaks, goths, stoners, etc.); it's just a part of growing up and finding an identity.