mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/29/85)
In article <1599@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>Why would we value things like freedom or conformity? Because they would >>>maximize something in our lives. Freedom maximizes our own lives, enabling >>>us to make our own choices, to do what's best for us and our wants and >>>desires. Conformity maximizes benefits to that nebulous thing called >>>society. It makes it easier for society to do its business, whatever that >>>may be. It makes it easier to categorize us, to perform (what's the word >>>I'm looking for?---sociometric?) studies, to exercise marketing strategies, >>>and maybe to deal with other people ourselves without bothering to think of >>>them as individuals. Benefit to individual people? Hardly any worth >>>speaking of. It all boils down to the old question: which is more >>>important, the society or its members? Clearly if society is more >>>important, then let's get rid of us people, we only get in the way of >>>the proper functioning of society by merely being people. If not, I >>>think it's clear what the answer is. Society exist to perform functions >>>for its members, not the other way around. >> Conformity has the enourmous advantage (to many people, anyway) that it >> minimizes tensions amoung the members of a group. It allows trust, even >> reliance upon the actions of others. It conserves the energy both of >> society as whole and of individuals, by reducing the need to re-think and >> readapt every time a situation appears. All of these benefits hew directly >> to individuals. The phrasing of Rich's listing of benefits makes it >> abundantly clear that this his own private evaluation of the relative >> merits of these benefits. I myself would rank conformity much higher, >> though not paramount. Others would value it still the more. This >> evaluation isn't at> all objective; it's all based on which benefits >> Rich is willing to give up, and which he feels he must have. > All the cases you offer above represent >sacrifices: how much of your individuality do you give up in order to >"minimize tensions" and "reduce the need to rethink"? (Funny, I would think >that rethinking and readapting were positive constructive things that cause >growth and learning and improved adaptability. Sometimes it seems that >people that talk about the pleasures of conformity are really seeking to >"reduce the need to think", period.) Ideally, you shouldn't have to give >up any of it. In a perfect ideal world, you could have both minimal >"tensions" and complete individuality. However, there is no ideal world >that we know of, and I doubt that there is one, specifically because >human beings have needs and wants that may conflict (e.g., two people >wanting the same thing). So, in the words of the immortal Karl Malden: >"What WILL you do?" Isn't minimal morality the best compromise? What >real benefits are gained from coercing people to conform to "minimize >thinking" or whatever it was you said, Charles? What you get is a dull, >stagnant, lethargic society, ridiculously predictable and boring, and >(more importantly) unable to adapt to change or to engage in any creative >solutions to problems. Moreover, there will always be those "number six" >types who resist your standards, who don't fit into your perfect mold, >who will wind up causing even more tension in the long run (tension that >a predictable conformist society is ill equipped to deal with). I see. The purpose of man is to develop individuality. Of course, if individuality doesn't interest you, or in the presence of other goals, this argument isn't of much interest. THere are plenty of people out there who feel that the goal of life is to bend their will utterly to another's. Your oft-avowed repugnance for this kind of mentality indicates to me that we are finally getting down into the real reasons behind your morality. Charley Wingate The wind blows where it pleases
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/30/85)
>> All the cases you offer above represent >>sacrifices: how much of your individuality do you give up in order to >>"minimize tensions" and "reduce the need to rethink"? (Funny, I would think >>that rethinking and readapting were positive constructive things that cause >>growth and learning and improved adaptability. Sometimes it seems that >>people that talk about the pleasures of conformity are really seeking to >>"reduce the need to think", period.) Ideally, you shouldn't have to give >>up any of it. In a perfect ideal world, you could have both minimal >>"tensions" and complete individuality. However, there is no ideal world >>that we know of, and I doubt that there is one, specifically because >>human beings have needs and wants that may conflict (e.g., two people >>wanting the same thing). What real benefits are gained from coercing people >>to conform to "minimize thinking" or whatever it was you said, Charles? What >>you get is a dull, stagnant, lethargic society, ridiculously predictable and >>boring, and (more importantly) unable to adapt to change or to engage in any >>creative solutions to problems. > I see. The purpose of man is to develop individuality. Of course, if > individuality doesn't interest you, or in the presence of other goals, this > argument isn't of much interest. THere are plenty of people out there who > feel that the goal of life is to bend their will utterly to another's. Your > oft-avowed repugnance for this kind of mentality indicates to me that we are > finally getting down into the real reasons behind your morality. I take it from your sentence above that you do not find "this kind of mentality" (i.e., a "goal of life to bend your will to another's") repugnant. Let's face it, Charles, you haven't shown a benefit yet for people conforming, especially not in the manner you describe above. Oh, to be sure, you have shown that it may be thought of as a good idea for OTHER PEOPLE to conform. That would be a benefit to YOU, because it would "minimize tensions and the need for rethinking", if OTHER PEOPLE conformed. Obviously you don't see encouraging others to conform in this way through bogus indoctrination as despicable, in much the same way that you did not see vile proselytizing as despicable. It seems clear that, indeed, the REAL REASONS behind your morality is YOUR convenience: you personally have decided to give up on your individuality, and you feel others should do the same in order to "minimize thinking". Is that it? I find the notion that other people should conform to make it easier for you to not have to think about dealing with people as individuals to be repugnant in the extreme. Anyone who's been indoctrinated to give up his/her individuality in favor of a philosophy that extols "bending your will to another's" is a victim of the foulest of lies. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/04/85)
In article <1622@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> I see. The purpose of man is to develop individuality. Of course, if >> individuality doesn't interest you, or in the presence of other goals, this >> argument isn't of much interest. THere are plenty of people out there who >> feel that the goal of life is to bend their will utterly to another's. >> Your oft-avowed repugnance for this kind of mentality indicates to me >> that we are finally getting down into the real reasons behind your >> morality. >I take it from your sentence above that you do not find "this kind of >mentality" (i.e., a "goal of life to bend your will to another's") repugnant. I've sort of come to the conclusion that, in and of itself, conformity has no moral significance. Its moral value seems entirely dependent upon the situation. I should also note here that conformity is, after all, a question of individual choice. To take a sufficiently extreme example, there are many people who choose to join the Marines, and who (evidently) value the discipline and the high degree of conformity it engenders. I happen to place a considerably higher value on my own independence (although I do not value it absolutely, above all other things). I am aware, however, that others rank these things differently, and value different loci of conformity and independence. WHich leads us to the next passage... >Let's face it, Charles, you haven't shown a benefit yet for people >conforming, especially not in the manner you describe above. Oh, to be sure, >you have shown that it may be thought of as a good idea for OTHER PEOPLE >to conform. That would be a benefit to YOU, because it would "minimize >tensions and the need for rethinking", if OTHER PEOPLE conformed. What you mean is that you haven't seen a benefit for YOU, and you alone. The whole reason I brought this up was because it had become apparent to me that this rupugnance towards conformity is really quite important to your moral system. Others have quite different feelings about it. Some people simply never bother to think about whether to conform. I happen to think that this is quite wrong, but nevertheless, I choose to conform in many cases, but it is my choice, which I have thought over. Many people do in fact find it easier to conform. It means that you do not have to resist the pressure to conform, you don't have to worry about what to do. I would like to believe that people are morally obligated to resist these pressures, but it seems to me that resisting the will of "society" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Then we go on to this little blast.... >Obviously you don't see >encouraging others to conform in this way through bogus indoctrination as >despicable, in much the same way that you did not see vile proselytizing as >despicable. It seems clear that, indeed, the REAL REASONS behind your >morality is YOUR convenience: you personally have decided to give up on your >individuality, and you feel others should do the same in order to >"minimize thinking". Is that it? I find the notion that other people should >conform to make it easier for you to not have to think about dealing with >people as individuals to be repugnant in the extreme. Anyone who's been >indoctrinated to give up his/her individuality in favor of a philosophy that >extols "bending your will to another's" is a victim of the foulest of lies. I'm going to pass on the morality of "bending one's will to another" because, as I stated above, I think its immorality is in fact unclear (at least to me, if not to Rich). I will not, however, let Rich's usual stupid accusations about my beliefs passed unnoticed. [This is a flame, in case you care to avert your eyes.] Mr. Rosen is hardly one to talk about "vile proselytizing" when his constant outpourings in this and other groups are taken into account. He also presumes to advise others on the basis of his own objectively-derived prejudices. He also (quite consistently) chooses to ignore conformity as a choice, in the face of his own rather obvious choice not to conform. Since Mr. Rosen has chosen to state as fact what, considering his vast ignorance of my religious, mental, and social development, can only be considered to be the baldest of lies, let me set the record straight. Unlike many people, I have at a number of points given up my previous religious beliefs. I am not a member of the denomination into which I was baptized; this change was the result of a period of evaluation and thought. I have at times given myself over to various disciplines, atheletic and otherwise. In point of fact, the path I have taken with my life has required the utmost in consideration of my individuality. THere seems to be an American obsession with non-conformism. Unfortunately, what often passes for individuality is mere stubbornness. It requires a certain strength of character to constantly resist conforming; it requires true strength, however, to SELECTIVELY given one's own will. One must constantly consider whether or continued conformity is good or bad. On my more confident day, I like to believe that I am at least attempting this. Rich, howeever, speaks of it in deprecating terms, as the pickpocket might of his victims. For my part, I am quite happy to play Jefferson or Madison to Rich's Tom Paine or Samuel Adams. Charley Wingate
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/06/85)
People, I think that you are missing the point. It is not that conformity
is bad, but that forcing people to conform {is/usually is}. (That last
can be debated a lot.) Forcing people to not conform would also be bad,
but I have never never seen a case of it. (I have seen people who felt
forced to conform to some counter-culture standard, but this again is
forcing to conform, not to ``not conform''.
If everybody had the same standards, then a lot of things would be easier.
if everybody conformed to the same standard of ``what is pornography'' then
there would hardly be any of it and no great debate. Part of the reason why
the Canadian and US legal system is such a kludge is that it is based on
the British Common Law system which developed as an attempt to codify
existing community standards. Now that there are more people alive than
have ever died it is no wonder that the mechanism is breaking down.
The fact is that most people do not conform to some local standard, and
many people do not conform to a lot of them and many other people are
conforming but at a great price. Defending your choices against
other people who choose to do otherwise is a big effort, so no-one is
actually free of the strain. I think that it is wrong to view
conformity as a virtue -- everything from ``you all should attend my
church'' to ``you all should wear a suit to work'' and all between seems
to value the property of being a member of a group above the property of
being the individual that is.
This is not to say that conformity should not happen, but that it
should be taken as an indication that many other people have found
something good, not as a virtue in itself. To do something ``just because
everybody (or somebody) else does it'' does not seem to be virtuous; but
to do something for the same reasons that everybody (or somebody) does
often is. To do something ``because everybody does it, and I don't know
why, but I assume they had a good reason'' is a good way to dig a hole
for yourself -- but given that one sometimes has to make a decision
without time for reflection may be a good rule-of-thumb for times when
you don't have the time to think things through properly.
Note that all of these assume that you can choose. I am not going to
get sucked into that argument again. I've been away for 4+ months and
it is *still* going on!
--
Laura Creighton (note new address!)
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arparlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/06/85)
>>>I see. The purpose of man is to develop individuality. Of course, if >>>individuality doesn't interest you, or in the presence of other goals, this >>>argument isn't of much interest. THere are plenty of people out there who >>>feel that the goal of life is to bend their will utterly to another's. >>>Your oft-avowed repugnance for this kind of mentality indicates to me >>>that we are finally getting down into the real reasons behind your >>>morality. >>I take it from your sentence above that you do not find "this kind of >>mentality" (i.e., a "goal of life to bend your will to another's") repugnant. > I've sort of come to the conclusion that, in and of itself, conformity has > no moral significance. Its moral value seems entirely dependent upon the > situation. I should also note here that conformity is, after all, a question > of individual choice. To take a sufficiently extreme example, there are many > people who choose to join the Marines, and who (evidently) value the > discipline and the high degree of conformity it engenders. I happen to > place a considerably higher value on my own independence (although I do not > value it absolutely, above all other things). I am aware, however, that > others rank these things differently, and value different loci of conformity > and independence. Why do some people value "joining the Marines"? Or joining a cult? Or overemphasize the importance of belonging? It is a prime example of (perhaps nonintentional) societal brainwashing and indoctrination. "It is important for you to belong. It is important for you to be like others. Conforming is a good thing that will make you acceptable to others. Self-discipline can only be attained through enforced conformity. You cannot do this yourself." This devaluation of the self is a self-perpetuating societal force that we must all reckon with. Despite Charles' pompous claims, these things ARE not in our individual self-interest. They are in the interests of others who might prefer to "minimize thinking", to judge you as a uniform clone-like member of a group rather than as an individual. And the propagation of such ideals strikes me as disgusting. >>Let's face it, Charles, you haven't shown a benefit yet for people >>conforming, especially not in the manner you describe above. Oh, to be sure, >>you have shown that it may be thought of as a good idea for OTHER PEOPLE >>to conform. That would be a benefit to YOU, because it would "minimize >>tensions and the need for rethinking", if OTHER PEOPLE conformed. > What you mean is that you haven't seen a benefit for YOU, and you alone. > The whole reason I brought this up was because it had become apparent to me > that this rupugnance towards conformity is really quite important to your > moral system. Others have quite different feelings about it. Some people > simply never bother to think about whether to conform. I happen to think > that this is quite wrong, but nevertheless, I choose to conform in many > cases, but it is my choice, which I have thought over. And as I have stated above, the only reasons why individuals might value conformity for themselves are the bogus ones I describe that people are indoctrinated with, which are pure unadulterated garbage. > Many people do in fact find it easier to conform. It means that you do not > have to resist the pressure to conform, you don't have to worry about what > to do. I would like to believe that people are morally obligated to resist > these pressures, but it seems to me that resisting the will of "society" > isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is exactly the sort of thinking that fascists encourage to perpetuate their ideals. "It's easier to conform." It's easier to do what you feel you need and want, Charles, as long as societal pressure isn't present. Is such pressure an absolute? Or does it come about as a result of thinking like yours? >>Obviously you don't see >>encouraging others to conform in this way through bogus indoctrination as >>despicable, in much the same way that you did not see vile proselytizing as >>despicable. It seems clear that, indeed, the REAL REASONS behind your >>morality is YOUR convenience: you personally have decided to give up on your >>individuality, and you feel others should do the same in order to >>"minimize thinking". Is that it? I find the notion that other people should >>conform to make it easier for you to not have to think about dealing with >>people as individuals to be repugnant in the extreme. Anyone who's been >>indoctrinated to give up his/her individuality in favor of a philosophy that >>extols "bending your will to another's" is a victim of the foulest of lies. > I'm going to pass on the morality of "bending one's will to another" > because, as I stated above, I think its immorality is in fact unclear (at > least to me, if not to Rich). I will not, however, let Rich's usual stupid > accusations about my beliefs passed unnoticed. [This is a flame, in case > you care to avert your eyes.] If all you have to say is that my "accusations" are "usual" or "stupid", I think that speaks for itself. I am merely trying to correlate a system of beliefs that you have: Conformity is a positive thing; proselytizing is OK no matter who you choose as victims (I'll go back and document this if you insist); moral notions that you don't like (like there's nothing wrong with homosexuality) are wrong because you say so (remember your problems with the questionnaire?). These are all examples of morality for your convenience alone. Minimal morality offers the most "convenience" to the most people. This is simply a contrast in ideals. Your desire to make it seem like a flame is, frankly, typical of your tactics of argument in the past. > Mr. Rosen is hardly one to talk about "vile proselytizing" when his constant > outpourings in this and other groups are taken into account. He also > presumes to advise others on the basis of his own objectively-derived > prejudices. He also (quite consistently) chooses to ignore conformity as a > choice, in the face of his own rather obvious choice not to conform. Above, I explained why conformity is as much a choice as blind obedience is a "choice". What precisely is an "objectively-derived prejudices"? Isn't that a contradiction. Remember that when I "proselytize", I do so in a public forum designed for exchange of opinion. The proselytizing Wingate saw nothing wrong with was "Christians" seducing and misleading children with books of great Jewish prophets, finishing with Jesus as the "greatest of them all". I think that says it all. > Since Mr. Rosen has chosen to state as fact what, considering his vast > ignorance of my religious, mental, and social development, can only be > considered to be the baldest of lies, let me set the record straight. > Unlike many people, I have at a number of points given up my previous > religious beliefs. I am not a member of the denomination into which I was > baptized; this change was the result of a period of evaluation and thought. > I have at times given myself over to various disciplines, atheletic and > otherwise. In point of fact, the path I have taken with my life has > required the utmost in consideration of my individuality. Oh. I asked a question about what could possibly correlate all those beliefs. This is how you answer it. That says something, too. > THere seems to be an American obsession with non-conformism. On the contrary, there would seem to be an American obsession with conformism. All the talk of the great American individualists is mostly garbage. The ones who label themselves as "great individualists" are so often borne out of a fixed mold. What is valued in American society is how well you fit in. "Individualist" role models spring up, but how do Americans express their subsequent "individuality"? By being just like them! Why? Because of the same sort of indoctrination about the value of conformity that Wingate would claim is a "free choice" that might at times be in one's self-interest. > Unfortunately, what often passes for individuality is mere stubbornness. It > requires a certain strength of character to constantly resist conforming; it > requires true strength, however, to SELECTIVELY given one's own will. One > must constantly consider whether or continued conformity is good or bad. On > my more confident day, I like to believe that I am at least attempting this. > Rich, howeever, speaks of it in deprecating terms, as the pickpocket might > of his victims. Pickpocket? I have given the reasons why deprecating terms are appropriate. You make giving in to the pressure of others for no good reason seem like a virtue. And that is what I find so despicable about your philosophy. > For my part, I am quite happy to play Jefferson or Madison to Rich's Tom > Paine or Samuel Adams. Charles, do you hear that noise from across the Potomac? In Virginia? That's Jefferson spinning in his grave. If you honestly think your ideals in any way, shape, or form represent those of Thomas Jefferson, an individualist and great thinker of the highest caliber, you've got another thing coming. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/10/85)
In article <1647@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> I've sort of come to the conclusion that, in and of itself, conformity has >> no moral significance. Its moral value seems entirely dependent upon the >> situation. I should also note here that conformity is, after all, a >> question of individual choice. To take a sufficiently extreme example, >> there are many >> people who choose to join the Marines, and who (evidently) value the >> discipline and the high degree of conformity it engenders. I happen to >> place a considerably higher value on my own independence (although I do not >> value it absolutely, above all other things). I am aware, however, that >> others rank these things differently, and value different levels of >> conformity and independence. >Why do some people value "joining the Marines"? Or joining a cult? Or >overemphasize the importance of belonging? It is a prime example of (perhaps >nonintentional) societal brainwashing and indoctrination. "It is important >for you to belong. It is important for you to be like others. Conforming is >a good thing that will make you acceptable to others. Self-discipline can >only be attained through enforced conformity. You cannot do this yourself." >This devaluation of the self is a self-perpetuating societal force that we >must all reckon with. Despite Charles' pompous claims, these things ARE >not in our individual self-interest. They are in the interests of others who >might prefer to "minimize thinking", to judge you as a uniform clone-like >member of a group rather than as an individual. And the propagation of >such ideals strikes me as disgusting. MY pompous ideas? *I* am the one, after all, who is suggesting that I don't know what is best for everyone. Might I ask, Rich, what objective PROOF you have fr all these statements? As best I can acertain, the root of your objections is some sort of moral repugnance; I happen to think that this disgust is a valuable emotion, but it is hardly objective. Indeed, it is quite proper to ask what may have inspired the disgust in the first place, since it is often traceable to childhood traumas and the like. Someone with a lesser aversion to conformity could very well disagree, and claim instead the for some people, joining the Marines would be the best thing to do. What objective argument could you bring against that? >> What you mean is that you haven't seen a benefit for YOU, and you alone. >> The whole reason I brought this up was because it had become apparent to me >> that this rupugnance towards conformity is really quite important to your >> moral system. Others have quite different feelings about it. Some people >> simply never bother to think about whether to conform. I happen to think >> that this is quite wrong, but nevertheless, I choose to conform in many >> cases, but it is my choice, which I have thought over. >And as I have stated above, the only reasons why individuals might value >conformity for themselves are the bogus ones I describe that people are >indoctrinated with, which are pure unadulterated garbage. How about OBJECTIVE argument? Saying that the reasons are bogus five hundred times is not a counter-argument. >> Many people do in fact find it easier to conform. It means that you do not >> have to resist the pressure to conform, you don't have to worry about what >> to do. I would like to believe that people are morally obligated to resist >> these pressures, but it seems to me that resisting the will of "society" >> isn't necessarily a bad thing. >This is exactly the sort of thinking that fascists encourage to perpetuate >their ideals. "It's easier to conform." It's easier to do what you feel >you need and want, Charles, as long as societal pressure isn't present. Is >such pressure an absolute? Or does it come about as a result of thinking >like yours? Ah yes: no argument, so we'll just tar it as 'fascist'. And what's this silly talk about absolutes? I never said that people absolutely should or should not conform. What I DID say was that some people see their interests lying in conformity rather than individuality. WHy should they listen to your preaching, rather than to do what they want to do? After all, they aren't hurting anyone else. >> Rosen is hardly one to talk about "vile proselytizing" when his constant >> outpourings in this and other groups are taken into account. He also >> presumes to advise others on the basis of his own objectively-derived >> prejudices. He also (quite consistently) chooses to ignore conformity as a >> choice, in the face of his own rather obvious choice not to conform. >Above, I explained why conformity is as much a choice as blind obedience is >a "choice". What precisely is an "objectively-derived prejudices"? Isn't >that a contradiction. Remember that when I "proselytize", I do so in a >public forum designed for exchange of opinion. The proselytizing Wingate >saw nothing wrong with was "Christians" seducing and misleading children >with books of great Jewish prophets, finishing with Jesus as the >"greatest of them all". I think that says it all. Rich in fact explained nothing about conformity; he merely stated its immorality, without the slightest shred of justification. As for objectively-derived prejudices, well, obviously it is a contradiction-- but of course, Rich's prejudices are just that, and not objectively derived at all. And I can only hope to see Mr. Rosen dilligently refraining from teaching his children about religion. >> Since Mr. Rosen has chosen to state as fact what, considering his vast >> ignorance of my religious, mental, and social development, can only be >> considered to be the baldest of lies, let me set the record straight. >> Unlike many people, I have at a number of points given up my previous >> religious beliefs. I am not a member of the denomination into which I was >> baptized; this change was the result of a period of evaluation and thought. >> I have at times given myself over to various disciplines, atheletic and >> otherwise. In point of fact, the path I have taken with my life has >> required the utmost in consideration of my individuality. >Oh. I asked a question about what could possibly correlate all those >beliefs. This is how you answer it. That says something, too. Well, Rich, since you seem to know so much about how I have come to my current beliefs (not to mention such vast ignorance of what they are), I thought that a little fact my improve the objective basis of your attacks. [that was sarcasm, for those who didn't notice] >> Unfortunately, what often passes for individuality is mere stubbornness. >> It requires a certain strength of character to constantly resist >> conforming; it requires true strength, however, to SELECTIVELY give up >> one's own will. One must constantly consider whether or continued >> conformity is good or bad. On my more confident days, I like to believe >> that I am at least attempting this. Rich, howeever, speaks of it in >> deprecating terms, as the pickpocket might of his victims. >Pickpocket? I have given the reasons why deprecating terms are appropriate. >You make giving in to the pressure of others for no good reason seem like a >virtue. And that is what I find so despicable about your philosophy. How pompous of you to claim that you know what is and is not a good reason for every other person in the world. Charley
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/10/85)
Rich argues that the desire to conform is purely the result of indoctrination. This does not seem to me to be correct; I think there is an intrinsic desire to conform. This is a psychological issue, not a philosophic one. In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence and/or freedom than to conformity. I would assign a zero or negative value to conformity, however. There are certain instances where conformity has strong value. Which side of the road one drives on, for example. In other cases, the value is similar, but much less; one knows what to expect and can deal with it more easily. This potentially helps both the person conforming and the other person, since one may be harmed (ranging from annoyance on up) by inappropriate behavior by those around us. Let me emphasize that I believe this is generally of truly minor import, and of considerably less importance than, for example, personal whim. But there are cases covering the whole spectrum.
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/10/85)
Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values. If you happen to share some, most, or all of the values of a group then you will be comfortable being a member of that group. There will be no great strain to conform for the sake of conformity, but simply to maintain one's values. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/12/85)
>>Why do some people value "joining the Marines"? Or joining a cult? Or >>overemphasize the importance of belonging? It is a prime example of (perhaps >>nonintentional) societal brainwashing and indoctrination. "It is important >>for you to belong. It is important for you to be like others. Conforming is >>a good thing that will make you acceptable to others. Self-discipline can >>only be attained through enforced conformity. You cannot do this yourself." >>This devaluation of the self is a self-perpetuating societal force that we >>must all reckon with. Despite Charles' pompous claims, these things ARE >>not in our individual self-interest. They are in the interests of others who >>might prefer to "minimize thinking", to judge you as a uniform clone-like >>member of a group rather than as an individual. And the propagation of >>such ideals strikes me as disgusting. [ROSEN] > MY pompous ideas? *I* am the one, after all, who is suggesting that I don't > know what is best for everyone. Might I ask, Rich, what objective PROOF you > have fr all these statements? As best I can acertain, the root of your > objections is some sort of moral repugnance; I happen to think that this > disgust is a valuable emotion, but it is hardly objective. [WINGATE] I'll go slow. By being what others would like you to be rather than being what you yourself would like to be (or being/doing what you need to be/do), you are acting against your own self-interest. It's that simple. It is precisely because I (and you) don't know what's best for everyone that individual self-development is what I support instead the repugnant notion that conformity is a worthwhile thing. Conformity is a trade-off you choose to make or not make, but it is certainly not in your interest, and advertising it as such as deceptive. (Which is of course what certain religions do.) > Indeed, it is > quite proper to ask what may have inspired the disgust in the first place, > since it is often traceable to childhood traumas and the like. Someone with > a lesser aversion to conformity could very well disagree, and claim instead > the for some people, joining the Marines would be the best thing to do. > What objective argument could you bring against that? The one I wrote above. In this case, rather than childhood traumas (such as those that might lead one to believe in religions, too), the inspiration for the disgust is my appreciation for human beings as individuals instead of as cogs that function only within the domain of a "society" and its "morality". It is the fact that cultivating individuality (which happens of its own accord in the absence of "cultivating conformity") broadens the scope of the humn race, makes us (as individuals and as a species) more adaptable, more knowledgeable, etc. Indeed, it is quite proper to ask. You have asked. I have answered. Now what? >>And as I have stated above, the only reasons why individuals might value >>conformity for themselves are the bogus ones I describe that people are >>indoctrinated with, which are pure unadulterated garbage. > How about OBJECTIVE argument? Saying that the reasons are bogus five > hundred times is not a counter-argument. That's why I went slow for you above. I find what I went through above to be painfully obvious. Sorry. >>>Many people do in fact find it easier to conform. It means that you do not >>>have to resist the pressure to conform, you don't have to worry about what >>>to do. I would like to believe that people are morally obligated to resist >>>these pressures, but it seems to me that resisting the will of "society" >>>isn't necessarily a bad thing. >>This is exactly the sort of thinking that fascists encourage to perpetuate >>their ideals. "It's easier to conform." It's easier to do what you feel >>you need and want, Charles, as long as societal pressure isn't present. Is >>such pressure an absolute? Or does it come about as a result of thinking >>like yours? > Ah yes: no argument, so we'll just tar it as 'fascist'. And what's this > silly talk about absolutes? I never said that people absolutely should or > should not conform. What I DID say was that some people see their interests > lying in conformity rather than individuality. WHy should they listen to > your preaching, rather than to do what they want to do? After all, they > aren't hurting anyone else. We WERE talking about morality. The morality you've been spouting supports the notion that conformity is an OK (if not a desireable) thing, and advocates spreading that notion as part of the morality. A careful reader might note that I didn't "tar it as fascist". To be sure, this sort of encouraging has been in place since times long before fascism. My point was (and is) that this advocating of conformity and indoctrination towards it is a prime tool used in fascism. Have you ever read 1984? (Not last year's calendar, the book!) Speaking of preaching, whose preaching encouraged them to conform in the first place? Isn't such preaching thus interfering in their lives? >>Above, I explained why conformity is as much a choice as blind obedience is >>a "choice". What precisely is an "objectively-derived prejudices"? Isn't >>that a contradiction. Remember that when I "proselytize", I do so in a >>public forum designed for exchange of opinion. The proselytizing Wingate >>saw nothing wrong with was "Christians" seducing and misleading children >>with books of great Jewish prophets, finishing with Jesus as the >>"greatest of them all". I think that says it all. > Rich in fact explained nothing about conformity; he merely stated its > immorality, without the slightest shred of justification. I'll let you, the readers, decide what was said by whom about what. > As for objectively-derived prejudices, well, obviously it is a contradiction, > but of course, Rich's prejudices are just that, and not objectively derived > at all. And I can only hope to see Mr. Rosen dilligently refraining from > teaching his children about religion. On the contrary, I hope to teach them a lot about religion. And how to judge it for what it is themselves. >>>Since Mr. Rosen has chosen to state as fact what, considering his vast >>>ignorance of my religious, mental, and social development, can only be >>>considered to be the baldest of lies, let me set the record straight. >>>Unlike many people, I have at a number of points given up my previous >>>religious beliefs. In point of fact, the path I have taken with my life >>>has required the utmost in consideration of my individuality. >>Oh. I asked a question about what could possibly correlate all those >>beliefs. This is how you answer it. That says something, too. > Well, Rich, since you seem to know so much about how I have come to my > current beliefs (not to mention such vast ignorance of what they are), I > thought that a little fact my improve the objective basis of your attacks. > [that was sarcasm, for those who didn't notice] What I know about your current beliefs was uncovered by reading what you wrote. My "attacks", for that reason, can never have an "objective" basis, since your beliefs (as shown in your writing) seem to change (do they have free will? :-) at whim (i.e., whenever someone finds fault with them, you claim to have said something else---e.g., souls). Much like your spelling of "[CcKkQq]hristian". And this is, of course, irrelevant to the topic, which for some reason Charles is straying away from. >>>Unfortunately, what often passes for individuality is mere stubbornness. >>>It requires a certain strength of character to constantly resist >>>conforming; it requires true strength, however, to SELECTIVELY give up >>>one's own will. One must constantly consider whether or continued >>>conformity is good or bad. On my more confident days, I like to believe >>>that I am at least attempting this. Rich, howeever, speaks of it in >>>deprecating terms, as the pickpocket might of his victims. >>Pickpocket? I have given the reasons why deprecating terms are appropriate. >>You make giving in to the pressure of others for no good reason seem like a >>virtue. And that is what I find so despicable about your philosophy. > How pompous of you to claim that you know what is and is not a good reason > for every other person in the world. It is precisely because I (and you) don't that I support encouraging individuality as part of a morality. By that, all I mean is NOT encouraging conformity. Is it natural for people to feel the need to conform, or is that introduced specifically by a moral system that encourages it? And isn't that what we're talking about here? -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rsl@ihnss.UUCP (09/12/85)
Conformity is submission to the values of others and does constitute a moral choice to act against ones own values (else it would not be conformity). Non-conformity is a similar submission to the antithesis of others values. Both are forms of moral self abuse; I agree with RichR's repugnance...
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/12/85)
> Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to > societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there > seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values. > If you happen to share some, most, or all of the values of a group then you > will be comfortable being a member of that group. There will be no great > strain to conform for the sake of conformity, but simply to maintain one's > values. [LAURA] If you happen to share some of the values of a group, and you want to associate with that group for purposes of sharing of those values that you have, why should the group pressure you into adopting their OTHER values that you may not hold? Many groups do just that (e.g., "You are an XXX by heritage, therefore you must feel this way about the terrible YYY's, and fight with us against them."). -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/13/85)
> Conformity is submission to the values of others and does constitute a moral > choice to act against ones own values (else it would not be conformity). > Non-conformity is a similar submission to the antithesis of others values. > Both are forms of moral self abuse; I agree with RichR's repugnance... > [LATIMER] I disagree with your definitions only slightly here. I see non-conformity as, not an absolute rejection of anything and everything involving other people's values, but as a recognition that it is your choice, to choose which things you want and don't want. Choosing the opposite of everything society claims is "right" is indeed a form of "moral self abuse", but I don't think that non-conformity implies that absolute a rejection. It merely means that you choose based on your needs and wants. To choose based on it being the opposite of societal doctrine is just as anti-human and anti-self as the voluntary submission TO that doctrine. Similarly, belonging to an anti-conformist group and living up to THEIR required norms is trading in one taskmaster for another. Remember Steve Martin's "The Non-Conformist Oath"? -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/15/85)
= I'll go slow. By being what others would like you to be rather than being what you yourself would like to be (or being/doing what you need to be/do), you are acting against your own self-interest. It's that simple. It is precisely because I (and you) don't know what's best for everyone that individual self-development is what I support instead the repugnant notion that conformity is a worthwhile thing. Conformity is a trade-off you choose to make or not make, but it is certainly not in your interest, and advertising it as such as deceptive. (Which is of course what certain religions do.) [ROSEN] Rich, I think your heart is on the right place, but you have stuffed 2 notions together wich cannot be stuffed. If, in conforming, you are acting against your own self interest, then we will agree that this conforming is bad. [However, I would conclude, not that conforming is repugnant, but that the more general not acting in your own self interest is repugnant.] However, I think that to conform or not to conform is a trade-off which you make and which you should always make in your perceived self-interest. [Actually, you should always make in your self-interest, but all you have to go on is what you perceive, using perceive in its wide sense.] Conforming to somebody else's coding style may stick in your craw for a while, but it is probably in your self interest since it will keep your bosses, co-workers and whoever else maintains your code (customers) happy and this will be good for you (as compared to making your bosses, co-workers and whoever maintains your code miserable). Of course, if writing code in your own style rather than the preferred style is that important to you (or gets to be that important to you) you can always find a new job, or make extensive hacks to cb and use it or fight management for the right to use your own coding style. *But* -- all of these take work and time which you could spend doing something else. So, if you decide to do this then there will be other areas of your life which do not get your attention -- and (as an exercise left to the reader) this is the tough part about determining what is in your self-interest. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/85)
> Rich argues that the desire to conform is purely the result of > indoctrination. This does not seem to me to be correct; I think there > is an intrinsic desire to conform. This is a psychological issue, not > a philosophic one. [ADAMS] Intrinsic? Or rooted in that societal pressure and indoctrination? > In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence > and/or freedom than to conformity. I would assign a zero or negative > value to conformity, however. Hear, hear! > There are certain instances where conformity has strong value. Which side > of the road one drives on, for example. In other cases, the value is > similar, but much less; one knows what to expect and can deal with it > more easily. This potentially helps both the person conforming and the > other person, since one may be harmed (ranging from annoyance on up) by > inappropriate behavior by those around us. Let me emphasize that I believe > this is generally of truly minor import, and of considerably less importance > than, for example, personal whim. But there are cases covering the whole > spectrum. I think we can distinguish between conventions adhered to for things like safety reasons (like driving regulations) and conforming to the exclusion of self-expression solely for the purpose of conforming. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/17/85)
In article <97@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to >societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there >seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values. > And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who we are" by what group we belong to. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/85)
>>By being what others would like you to be rather than being what >>you yourself would like to be (or being/doing what you need to be/do), you are >>acting against your own self-interest. It's that simple. It is precisely >>because I (and you) don't know what's best for everyone that individual >>self-development is what I support instead the repugnant notion that >>conformity is a worthwhile thing. Conformity is a trade-off you choose to >>make or not make, but it is certainly not in your interest, and advertising it >>as such as deceptive. (Which is of course what certain religions do.) [ROSEN] > Rich, I think your heart is on the right place, but you have stuffed 2 notions > together wich cannot be stuffed. If, in conforming, you are acting against > your own self interest, then we will agree that this conforming is bad. > [However, I would conclude, not that conforming is repugnant, but that the > more general not acting in your own self interest is repugnant.] However, I > think that to conform or not to conform is a trade-off which you make and > which you should always make in your perceived self-interest. [LAURA] But WHY is conforming (in this case) in your self-interest, perceived or real? Only because the moral code of the society around you demands it, requires it, or at bare minimum encourages it. And that is the central issue: WHY should it do that? What benefits does it offer to anyone? Sure, it offers ME some positive benefit if YOU conform, but what benefit do YOU get for doing so? The whole point is that a moral code that encourages and practically requires conformity for survival in the first place is fucked. Is there a mutuality here that is to everyone's benefit, the way refraining from interfering in other people's lives does? Or is the only real benefit to that ephemeral entity called society as a whole? I think you have it backwards, Laura. Conformity is clearly detrimental to your own personal interests. If circumstances make it necessary for your personal interest, is it the expression of your individuality (failure to conform) that is bad, or the circumstances (the moral code) that forces that upon you? > *But* all of these take work and time which you could spend doing something > else. So, if you decide to do this then there will be other areas of your > life which do not get your attention -- and (as an exercise left to the > reader) this is the tough part about determining what is in your > self-interest. But the question is WHY is it tough? Why does it take up so much work and time and effort? Because it's "supposed" to be that way? Or because a moral code encourages conformity as a rule? -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/21/85)
In article <1715@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Rich argues that the desire to conform is purely the result of >> indoctrination. This does not seem to me to be correct; I think there >> is an intrinsic desire to conform. This is a psychological issue, not >> a philosophic one. [ADAMS] > >Intrinsic? Or rooted in that societal pressure and indoctrination? Yes, intrinsic. There are societal pressures and indoctinations, but I think there is also an intrinsic desire. Man evolved as a social animal, and conformity has positive survival value (for your genes, which are shared with family and tribe) in that context. This doesn't prove anything, but I think it is indicative. >> In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence >> and/or freedom than to conformity. I would assign a zero or negative >> value to conformity, however. > >Hear, hear! This is an obvious typo. That should read, I would not assign a zero or negative value to conformity. >> There are certain instances where conformity has strong value. Which side >> of the road one drives on, for example. In other cases, the value is >> similar, but much less; one knows what to expect and can deal with it >> more easily. This potentially helps both the person conforming and the >> other person, since one may be harmed (ranging from annoyance on up) by >> inappropriate behavior by those around us. Let me emphasize that I believe >> this is generally of truly minor import, and of considerably less importance >> than, for example, personal whim. But there are cases covering the whole >> spectrum. > >I think we can distinguish between conventions adhered to for things like >safety reasons (like driving regulations) and conforming to the exclusion of >self-expression solely for the purpose of conforming. I don't think the distinction is all that clear cut. I do think, in practice, in most cases where conformity is an issue, even a mild desire for self-expression is of greater importance. I also think self-expression should be encouraged. But as I said, there are cases covering the whole spectrum. For an example of an intermediate case, consider public nudity. This is against the law, but lets leave that aside for the moment. Appearing nude in public is likely to seriously upset a significant number of people. In my mind, that overrides any casual desire I might have to do it (not a frequent occurance, by the way). It would not override, say, a desire to make some sort of political point I thought was important. (Not that I can think of any such points -- this is all hypothetical.) There are two questions here, which are frequently confused. One is, what actions are moral or immoral in a given situation? The other is, what actions should be legal or illegal in a given situation? I would agree that non-conformity should not be illegal except where serious safety issues are involved. (Thus I think public nudity should be legal.) That does not mean that conformity is of no value. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/21/85)
In article <1716@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >But WHY is conforming (in this case) in your self-interest, perceived or real? >Only because the moral code of the society around you demands it, requires it, >or at bare minimum encourages it. And that is the central issue: WHY should >it do that? What benefits does it offer to anyone? Sure, it offers ME some >positive benefit if YOU conform, but what benefit do YOU get for doing so? >The whole point is that a moral code that encourages and practically requires >conformity for survival in the first place is fucked. Is there a mutuality >here that is to everyone's benefit, the way refraining from interfering in >other people's lives does? Or is the only real benefit to that ephemeral >entity called society as a whole? Look at what you said. Is there a mutuality here that is to everyone's benefit? ... and ... it offers ME some positive benefit if YOU conform. The benefit is not to "society as a whole", but to those who benefit from your conformity. Is this a net benefit? It depends on the cases. Even if you insist on a mutual benefit, it still depends on the cases. It is quite possible for my conformity to hurt me and help you, but that your conformity is more help to me than my conformity hurts, and vice versa. This is true, for example, of politeness. (Not that impoliteness is never justified.) Now if you are talking about conformity of opinion, I have to agree. The only place I expect conformity of opinion on a subject is in an organization whose purpose is to press that opinion. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/21/85)
> And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our > immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions > of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus > have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We > have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We > tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who > we are" by what group we belong to. [FRIESEN] This sounds like a good excuse for encouraging conformity, but surely not a very good reason for doing so. Sounds like a rationalization to me. Because we need "reassurance and affirmation", we "should" be like other people in order to get those things. Why do you ignore the fact that people learn the process of accepting, reassuring, and affirming people "like" them, when they could just as easily learn to accept people on an individual basis? All you are saying is that the current status quo is that "being like other people" is a positive social survival trait because people have learned to value likeness in other people rather than individuality. -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/23/85)
From Sarima (psivax!friesen): >In article <97@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >>Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to >>societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there >>seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values. >> > And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our >immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions >of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus >have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We >have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We >tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who >we are" by what group we belong to. Good point. Someone (C.G. Jung?) has even suggested that members of some tribal societies are *literally* not unique individuals in the same sense that members of our present society are. In a small tribe, individuals can be identified with their social function ("job") so closely that even *they* think of themselves as "Pot-maker" more than "Ug the pot maker". Moreover, individuality in the modern Western sense requires some measure of personal privacy in order to form, and not all societies make provision for such privacy. If your every action is subject to the (possibly disapproving) oversight of your friends, neighbors and relatives, for your entire life, you are less likely to develop uniquely personal habits and tastes. Two disclaimers: I only partially accept the above, myself. Also, the statements about small tribes applies at *best* only to some tribes with highly communal lifestyles. Tribal societies are extremely diverse, and "tribe" makes a poor catchall label in sociological discussions. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/23/85)
In article <1747@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our >> immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions >> of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus >> have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We >> have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We >> tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who >> we are" by what group we belong to. [FRIESEN] > >This sounds like a good excuse for encouraging conformity, but surely >not a very good reason for doing so. Sounds like a rationalization to me. >Because we need "reassurance and affirmation", we "should" be like >other people in order to get those things. Why do you ignore the fact that >people learn the process of accepting, reassuring, and affirming people >"like" them, when they could just as easily learn to accept people on an >individual basis? All you are saying is that the current status quo is >that "being like other people" is a positive social survival trait because >people have learned to value likeness in other people rather than >individuality. Now hold it. Why are they going to learn to value conformity, unless they ALREADY have a predisposition to conformity? Suppose kids did learn to value individuality over conformity from their parents. Doesn't this arise from their desire to conform with what their parents want them to be like? And in fact, I would expect such parents to exert a lot of pressure to conform on their children. If one of their kids inclined towards being a conformist, it's hard to believe that they would simply let them go. In any case, (I'm getting tired of having to say this so often) Rich is making, once again, an unproven assertion. In view of the seeming inconsistency in Rich's position, I think the question is how strong a force this need for socialization really is. My guess, based upon my own experience, is that it is highly variable. Charley Wingate "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour." - C. Smart
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/24/85)
In article <1747@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >This sounds like a good excuse for encouraging conformity, but surely >not a very good reason for doing so. Sounds like a rationalization to me. >Because we need "reassurance and affirmation", we "should" be like >other people in order to get those things. Why do you ignore the fact that >people learn the process of accepting, reassuring, and affirming people >"like" them, when they could just as easily learn to accept people on an >individual basis? All you are saying is that the current status quo is >that "being like other people" is a positive social survival trait because >people have learned to value likeness in other people rather than individuality You have misunderstood what I was getting at. I did not intend imply any *moral* justification here, I was trying to specify the *cause* of the tendency to conform in people. We tend to conform not because we *ought* to but because our emotional drives make it very difficult *not* to adjust behavior to other people's expectations. I was saying that eliminating conformity is essentially impossible because the drives towards it are built right into our emotional structure. No moral judgement was intended. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)
>>>Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to >>>societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there >>>seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values.[LAURA] >> And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our >>immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions >>of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus >>have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We >>have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We >>tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who >>we are" by what group we belong to. [FRIESEN] > Good point. Someone (C.G. Jung?) has even suggested that members of > some tribal societies are *literally* not unique individuals in the same sense > that members of our present society are. In a small tribe, individuals can be > identified with their social function ("job") so closely that even *they* > think of themselves as "Pot-maker" more than "Ug the pot maker". [KENN BARRY] These have in fact been one in the same. Actually this is the reason why we see people with names like Baker, Cooper, Smith, etc. Because IN THE PAST people were identified by the role they performed within the social structure. But... >>> I think there is an intrinsic desire to conform. This is a psychological >>> issue, not a philosophic one. [ADAMS] >>Intrinsic? Or rooted in that societal pressure and indoctrination? [ROSEN] > Yes, intrinsic. There are societal pressures and indoctinations, but I > think there is also an intrinsic desire. Man evolved as a social animal, > and conformity has positive survival value (for your genes, which are shared > with family and tribe) in that context. This doesn't prove anything, but > I think it is indicative. You're right in that it doesn't prove anything. It smacks of "because things have always been this way, they should continue to be this way". If someone walked in and said this about apartheid, or race hatred in general, or war, or the original version of readnews, they'd be either laughed out of the room or debunked. You are putting the cart before the horse. You acknowledge that approval and conformity are valuable "survival traits". You forget to ask why societies have placed so much emphasis on conformity in their social structure so as to have MADE conformity a survival traits. >>> In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence >>> and/or freedom than to conformity. I would assign a zero or negative >>> value to conformity, however. >>Hear, hear! > This is an obvious typo. That should read, I would not assign a zero or > negative value to conformity. Too bad. Actually I wouldn't assign it a zero or negative value either. I'd give it an imaginary value. >>I think we can distinguish between conventions adhered to for things like >>safety reasons (like driving regulations) and conforming to the exclusion of >>self-expression solely for the purpose of conforming. > I don't think the distinction is all that clear cut. I do think, in > practice, in most cases where conformity is an issue, even a mild desire > for self-expression is of greater importance. I also think self-expression > should be encouraged. But as I said, there are cases covering the whole > spectrum. For an example of an intermediate case, consider public nudity. > This is against the law, but lets leave that aside for the moment. Let's not (and say we did). It is against the law precisely because of the notion that (and this seeps over into another discussion) societies have the "right" to legislate morality beyond the scope of non-interference. In other words, to impose morality, to proclaim that things are wrong, not just because they harm people, but because other people simply don't like them. This still strikes me as a dangerous and sick notion that we have (unfortunately) come to live with and accept. > Appearing nude in public is likely to seriously upset a significant number > of people. The question is "Why?" and "Why do they thus have the right to legislate that to the rest of us?" > In my mind, that overrides any casual desire I might have to do it (not > a frequent occurance, by the way). It would not override, say, a desire > to make some sort of political point I thought was important. (Not that > I can think of any such points -- this is all hypothetical.) > There are two questions here, which are frequently confused. One is, > what actions are moral or immoral in a given situation? The other is, > what actions should be legal or illegal in a given situation? And the third is "Why is there a conflict between a minimal objective necessary non-interference morality and the legality/illegality of actions, in a country that is not supposed to be based on some religious moral code?" Accepting this as an axiom (the right of "society" to legislate morality beyond non-interference and public safety issues) leads to the conclusion of society as "more important" (which is what some people want) and (indirectly) to conformity as a viable goal in a moral code. > I would agree that non-conformity should not be illegal except where serious > safety issues are involved. (Thus I think public nudity should be > legal.) That does not mean that conformity is of no value. Why *doesn't* it mean that, after what you've just said? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)
>>Is there a mutuality >>here that is to everyone's benefit, the way refraining from interfering in >>other people's lives does? Or is the only real benefit to that ephemeral >>entity called society as a whole? > Look at what you said. Is there a mutuality here that is to everyone's > benefit? ... and ... it offers ME some positive benefit if YOU conform. > The benefit is not to "society as a whole", but to those who benefit > from your conformity. Is this a net benefit? It depends on the cases. So what motivation do I have for helping others and hurting myself at my own expense? Non-interference minimal morality type thinking offers such a motivation when it comes to common sense restraint against harming people (and being impolite to people as well: see below). What good does it do to gain the esteem of the rest of the world and lose one's self? > Even if you insist on a mutual benefit, it still depends on the cases. It > is quite possible for my conformity to hurt me and help you, but that your > conformity is more help to me than my conformity hurts, and vice versa. > This is true, for example, of politeness. (Not that impoliteness is never > justified.) But clearly this isn't true. Without simple courtesy and politeness, you are treating people in a way YOU would not be likely to cotton to if *you* were treated that way. That old (very rationally based) "Golden Rule". This differs significantly from wearing red shirts. There *is* an objective difference between: 1) courtesy/politeness (mutual respect between human beings) AND 2) requiring/expecting/encouraging people to adhere to arbitrary conventions in the NAME of such "politeness" or in the name of "preserving the social order" > Now if you are talking about conformity of opinion, I have to agree. The > only place I expect conformity of opinion on a subject is in an organization > whose purpose is to press that opinion. Agreed. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (09/26/85)
In article <1786@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Look at what you said. Is there a mutuality here that is to everyone's >> benefit? ... and ... it offers ME some positive benefit if YOU conform. >> The benefit is not to "society as a whole", but to those who benefit >> from your conformity. Is this a net benefit? It depends on the cases. > >So what motivation do I have for helping others and hurting myself at my >own expense? Non-interference minimal morality type thinking offers such a >motivation when it comes to common sense restraint against harming people >(and being impolite to people as well: see below). I'm using Laura Creighton's definition of conformity: conformity = doing something because other people do it. By Laura's definition, using a word the way other people use it is an example of conformity (one uses the word that way *because* other people do and therefore they will understand you). Some examples of conformity are such that the conforming person could gain some "selfish advantage" by not conforming, but if everyone conforms all are better off than if nobody does. Suppose it's customary (in a certain culture) to give "the car on the left" the right-of-way in certain traffic situations, even though there's no law that says who has the right of way. Suppose, furthermore, that everyone finds himself in the position of "the car on the left" about as often as he is in the other position. Also, everyone would prefer the outcome <getting the right of way when in the position of the car on the left, and yielding it otherwise> over the outcome <getting the right of way approximately half of the times one is in such a situation, regardless of which position one is in>: because, for example, it saves the car on the left lots of time and hassle when it gets the right of way, but hardly any for the other car when *it* gets the right of way. If everyone conforms to the custom, all get the outcome they prefer; if nobody conforms, all get an outcome they dislike. But the best of all, from the point of view of selfish advantage, is for everyone else to conform while *you* take the right of way whenever possible (all the time when you're "the car on the left", and perhaps half the time when you're not (given that the other person will "compete" for the right of way and "win" about half the time)). Now for the moral question: conform or no? I say yes, and I think my position is implied by the "golden rule". I would like to point out that in terms of mutuality of benefit, this case is exactly like (most) cases of non-interference: if everyone refrains from (e.g.) theft, everyone gains, but the maximum "selfish advantage" would be to do it when one could "get away with it". A lot depends on accepting (mine and) Laura's definition of "conformity". If "conformity" is defined, as one netter defined it, as "acting on others' values instead of your own" (not an exact quote), then, I agree, conformity is never right; never the/a sensible thing to do. --Paul V Torek torek@umich
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/01/85)
In article <1785@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Yes, intrinsic. There are societal pressures and indoctinations, but I >> think there is also an intrinsic desire. Man evolved as a social animal, >> and conformity has positive survival value (for your genes, which are shared >> with family and tribe) in that context. This doesn't prove anything, but >> I think it is indicative. > >You're right in that it doesn't prove anything. You seriously misinterpreted that sentence. That entire paragraph is directed only to the question, "is the desire to conform intrinsic". Thus "it doesn't prove anything" means "it doesn't prove anything about whether the desire to conform is intrinsic". You are trying to make me say, "it doesn't prove anything about whether conformity is good". It doesn't, but it isn't even trying to. >It smacks of "because things >have always been this way, they should continue to be this way". If someone >walked in and said this about apartheid, or race hatred in general, or war, >or the original version of readnews, they'd be either laughed out of the room >or debunked. You are putting the cart before the horse. You acknowledge >that approval and conformity are valuable "survival traits". You forget to >ask why societies have placed so much emphasis on conformity in their social >structure so as to have MADE conformity a survival traits. No, I think you have it backwards. Conformity IS inherently a survival trait for societies, especially primitive societies. To clarify up front: the following arguments are exclusively applicable to such societies. If you want to ask, "how does this relate to modern society?", wait a couple of paragraphs. So how does conformity aid survival in a society? Well, consider conformity of dress. If your tribe is all dressed the same way, and you are fighting another tribe, you know who to attack and who is on your side. This is extremely useful. More generally, conformity means following behavior patterns which have been shown by experience to be conducive to survival. Violating them *may* find a better way, but is *much* more likely to get you killed. As additional evidence, note that non-human societies all feature a high degree of conformity. Now, most of these reasons have little or no application to modern society. Combat has become relatively rare, fortunately, although the combatants do still wear uniforms. The latter reason is based primarily on ignorance; we have much more basic knowledge now. Also, modern societies are significantly less fragile; the death of one individual or a small group will not destroy one. These aspects are not entirely missing in modern society, but they have become trivial considerations. But the point is that conformity was a survival trait when the human race was evolving, and accordingly, there is an *intrinsic* desire to conform. If you think this desire is purely the result of indoctrination, you are deluding yourself. If you plan a society which does not take this desire into account (which can as easily mean suppressing it as encouraging it), that society will not work. Another point which follows from this discussion is that societies don't encourage conformity solely for the benefit of those in power. (Yes, this is a factor.) Another reason is that modern societies are evolved from more primitive societies, where encouraging conformity was strongly pro- survival. Again, this is *not* a reason why they should *continue* to encourage conformity, except for the (relatively trivial) current remnants of those reasons. Those remnants are not entirely trivial. If I open a factory using a new industrial process, there are risks to the people in the area. (No matter how carefully the process is tested, there are still some risks.) If there are not offsetting benefits, it is better to conform and use a tried and true approach. (Of course, there is normally one offsetting benefit, which is the hoped-for superiority of the new process.) The society has a right to insist that I take certain reasonable precautions, or even to forbid the project if it is judged too dangerous. >> Appearing nude in public is likely to seriously upset a significant number >> of people. >The question is "Why?" and "Why do they thus have the right to legislate that >to the rest of us?" No, the question is, how do you distinguish this upset from "harm"? > "Why is there a conflict between a minimal objective >necessary non-interference morality and the legality/illegality of actions, >in a country that is not supposed to be based on some religious moral code?" Because the morality underlying the legal system is a combination of maximizing the survival chances for the society, and acheiving the greatest good for the greatest number. Neither of these is a religious moral code. >Accepting this as an axiom (the right of "society" to legislate morality >beyond non-interference and public safety issues) leads to the conclusion >of society as "more important" (which is what some people want) and >(indirectly) to conformity as a viable goal in a moral code. This does not follow. For example, many people (I am not one of them) think that mind-altering drugs should be illegal *solely because of the harm they do to those who use them*. (Many people have the same opinion for different reasons, but I'm not talking about them.) There is no implication here that society is "more important". If you justify non-interference as, overall, maximizing the total good, you MUST admit that there are possible exceptions, cases where one *does* know that a person will be better off if you interfere. They may be rare, but it is possible. >> I would agree that non-conformity should not be illegal except where serious >> safety issues are involved. (Thus I think public nudity should be >> legal.) That does not mean that conformity is of no value. > >Why *doesn't* it mean that, after what you've just said? Because what should be illegal and what are immoral actions are not the same thing, as I just said. There are cases where one *should* conform, although it should not be illegal to not conform. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/01/85)
In article <1786@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >There *is* an objective difference between: > 1) courtesy/politeness (mutual respect between human beings) > AND > 2) requiring/expecting/encouraging people to adhere to arbitrary > conventions in the NAME of such "politeness" or in the > name of "preserving the social order" Your definition of politeness is incorrect. Politeness is social customs which are used to show respect for other human beings. Courtesy is as you defined it. If you were to visit me wearing a coat, it would be impolite for me not to offer to take your coat and hang it up. If the social custom were to throw your coat on the floor when visiting, there would be nothing (im)polite about not offering to take it. If the social customs say that a (public) action is impolite, it *is* impolite. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108