CONFORMING TO ANY NORM: CHOOSING DEATH OVER LIFE!

[Guest guest]

CONFORMING TO ANY NORM: CHOOSING DEATH OVER LIFE!

http://www.salvationscience.com

 

They will sacrifice anything and everything, including Life itself, on the altar

of social conformity. Eckankar's Paul Twitchell called it: " Conformity so great,

you are crushed under the shear weight of it. " Eck-Ong-Car Sat Nam. Om Shanti. -

Sw. Tantrasangha

-------------------------

 

Conformity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Conformity is the process by which an individual's attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors are influenced by other people. This influence occurs in both small

groups and society as a whole, and it may be the result of subtle unconscious

influences, or direct and overt social pressure. Conformity also occurs by the

" implied presence " of others, or when other people are not actually present. For

example, people tend to follow the norms of society when eating or watching

television, even when they are at home by themselves.

 

People often conform from a desire to achieve a sense of security within a

group—typically a group that is of a similar age, culture, religion, or

educational status. Any unwillingness to conform carries with it the very real

risk of social rejection. In this respect, conformity can be seen as a safe

means of avoiding bullying or deflecting criticism from peers. Conformity is

often associated with adolescence and youth culture, but it affects humans of

all ages.

 

Although peer pressure may be viewed as a negative trait, conformity can have

either good or bad effects depending on the situation. Peer pressure leading to

drug or alcohol abuse is harmful, but driving safely on the correct side of the

road is a beneficial example of conformity. Conformity influences the formation

and maintenance of social norms and allows society to function smoothly and

predictably.

 

Because conformity is a group phenomenon, such factors as group size, unanimity,

cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinion all help to determine the

level of conformity an individual will display.

------------------------

 

Groupthink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize

conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and

evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking

are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of

reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by

making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid

promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety

of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish,

or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group.

Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where

individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group's balance. The

term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

 

Origin

 

William H. Whyte coined the term in 1952, in Fortune magazine:

 

Groupthink being a coinage—and, admittedly, a loaded one—a working definition is

in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity—it is, after all,

a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized

conformity—an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not

only expedient but right and good as well.

 

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:

 

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a

cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their

motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

 

Causes of groupthink

 

Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink, because

their cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability

to work together with minimal explanations (e.g., techspeak or telegraphic

speech). Vandana Shiva refers to a lack of diversity in worldview as a

" monoculture of the mind " while James Surowiecki warns against loss of the

" cognitive diversity " that comes from having team members whose educational and

occupational backgrounds differ. The closer group members are in outlook, the

less likely they are to raise questions that might break their cohesion.

 

Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to

groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a

necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition' (Janis, Victims of

Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, group cohesion will only lead to

groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

 

Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of

tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological

procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

 

Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent

failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

 

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink

occurs:

 

Directive leadership.

 

Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

 

Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

 

Symptoms of groupthink

 

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of

groupthink (1977).

 

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk

taking.

 

Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

 

Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the

consequences of their actions.

 

Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful,

disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

 

Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched

in terms of " disloyalty " .

 

Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

 

Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

 

Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting

information.

 

Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective

decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the

following practices of groupthinking:

 

Incomplete survey of alternatives

Incomplete survey of objectives

Failure to examine risks of preferred choice

Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives

Poor information search

Selection bias in collecting information

Failure to work out contingency plans.

 

Groupthink and de-individuation

 

Cults are also studied by sociologists in regard to groupthink and its

deindividuation effects. The textbook definition describes deindividuation as

the loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension, which occurs in group

situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away from the individual

(Myers, 305)

 

Preventing groupthink

 

According to Irving Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily destined

to groupthink. He devised seven ways of preventing groupthink:

 

Leaders should assign each member the role of " critical evaluator " . This allows

each member to freely air objections and doubts.

 

Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

 

The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same

problem.

 

All effective alternatives should be examined.

 

Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the

group.

 

The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be

allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

 

At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This

should be a different person for each meeting.

 

By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs

invasion fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban

Missile Crisis.[5] During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their

viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also

encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members

within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various

sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent

from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the

Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.

 

Recent developments and critiques

 

In 2001, Ahlfinger and Esser described the difficulties of testing Janis'

antecedants, specifically those related to government groups, stating in

abstract:

 

" Two hypotheses derived from groupthink theory were tested in a laboratory study

which included measures of the full range of symptoms of groupthink, symptoms of

a poor decision process, and decision quality. The hypothesis that groups whose

leaders promoted their own preferred solutions would be more likely to fall

victim to groupthink than groups with nonpromotional leaders received partial

support. Groups with promotional leaders produced more symptoms of groupthink,

discussed fewer facts, and reached a decision more quickly than groups with

nonpromotional leaders. The hypothesis that groups composed of members who were

predisposed to conform would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than

groups whose members were not predisposed to conform received no support. It is

suggested that groupthink research is hampered by measurement problems. " [6][7]

 

After ending their study, they stated that better methods of testing Janis'

symptoms were needed.

 

In a broad 2005 survey of post-Janis research Robert S. Baron contends that the

connection between certain antecedents Janis believed necessary have not been

demonstrated, and that groupthink is more ubiquitous and its symptoms are " far

more widespread " than Janis envisioned. Baron' premise is " that Janis's probing

and insightful analysis of historical decision-making was correct about the

symptoms of groupthink and their relationship to such outcomes as the

suppression of dissent, polarization of attitude and poor decision quality and

yet wrong about the antecedent conditions he specified...not only are these

conditions not necessary to provoke the symptoms of groupthink, but that they

often will not even amplify such symptoms given the high likelihood that such

symptoms will develop in the complete absence of intense cohesion, crisis, group

insulation, etc. " As an alternative to Janis' model, Baron presents a " strong

ubiquity " model for Groupthink:

 

" ...the ubiquity model represents more a revision of Janis's model than a

repudiation. The social identification variable modifies Janis's emphasis on

intense-high status group cohesion as an antecedent condition for groupthink.

Similarly, low self efficacy amplifies Janis's prior consideration of this

factor. The one major shift is that the ubiquity model assumes that when

combined, social identification, salient norms and low self efficacy are both

necessary and sufficient to evoke " groupthink reactions. " Such reactions include

Janis's array of defective decision processes as well as suppressed dissent,

selective focus on shared viewpoints, polarization of attitude and action and

heightened confidence in such polarized views. Note that such elevated

confidence will often evoke the feelings of in-group moral superiority and

invulnerability alluded to by Janis. "

 

Baron says in conclusion that the pervasiveness of " groupthink phenomena " has

been underestimated by prior theoretical accounts.

----------------------

 

Herd behavior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Herd behavior describes how individuals in a group can act together without

planned direction. The term pertains to the behavior of animals in herds,

flocks, and schools, and to human conduct during activities such as stock market

bubbles and crashes, street demonstrations, sporting events, episodes of mob

violence and even everyday decision making, judgment and opinion forming.

 

Herd behavior in animals

 

A group of animals fleeing a predator shows the nature of herd behavior. In

1971, in the often cited article " Geometry For The Selfish Herd, " evolutionary

biologist W. D. Hamilton asserted that each individual group member reduces the

danger to itself by moving as close as possible to the center of the fleeing

group. Thus the herd appears to act as a unit in moving together, but its

function emerges from the uncoordinated behavior of self-serving individuals.

 

Possible mechanisms

 

Hamilton's Selfish Herd Theory

Byproduct of communication skill of social animal or runaway positive feedback

Neighbor copying

 

Herd behavior in human societies

 

Psychological and economic research has identified herd behavior in humans to

explain the phenomena of large numbers of people acting in the same way at the

same time. The British surgeon Wilfred Trotter popularized the " herd behavior "

phrase in his book, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War (1914). In The Theory

of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen explained economic behavior in terms of

social influences such as " emulation, " where some members of a group mimic other

members of higher status. In " The Metropolis and Mental Life " (1903), early

sociologist George Simmel referred to the " impulse to sociability in man " , and

sought to describe " the forms of association by which a mere sum of separate

individuals are made into a 'society' " . Other social scientists explored

behaviors related to herding, such as Freud (crowd psychology), Carl Jung

(collective unconscious), and Gustave Le Bon (the popular mind). Swarm theory

observed in non-human societies is a related concept and is being explored as it

occurs in human society.

----------------------

 

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a popular history

of popular folly by Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. The book chronicles

its targets in three parts: " National Delusions " , " Peculiar Follies " , and

" Philosophical Delusions " .

 

" Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in

herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. "

 

" Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and

familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us

like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome. "

----------------------

 

Sheeple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Sheeple is a term of disparagement, in which people are likened to sheep.

 

It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived

authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to understand fully the

scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their

own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The

implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are

told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be

trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it

is an accurate representation of the real world around them. The term is

generally used in a political and sometimes in a religious sense.

---------------------

 

Propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community

toward some cause. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda

in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to

influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying

by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in

order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information

presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in

the target audience to further a political agenda.

---------------------------

 

Beating Peer Pressure: How to Combat Peer Pressure

by Jessica Stevensonfor About.com

http://teenadvice.about.com/cs/peerpressure/a/blpeerpressure.htm

 

Peer pressure is one thing that all teens have in common. You can't escape it;

it is everywhere. No matter how popular you are, how well liked you may be or

how together you feel, sooner or later you will have to face peer pressure.

 

Whether it is pressure to conform to a group norm or pressure to act a certain

way peer pressure is something everybody has to deal with at some time in their

life. How successfully you handle peer pressure depends a great deal on how you

feel about yourself and your place in the world.

 

Peer Pressure Risk Factors

 

There are certain risk factors for peer pressure, personality traits that make

you more prone to give in to pressure. The traits that put you at higher risk

for falling in to the peer pressure trap include:

 

low self esteem

lack of confidence

uncertainty about ones place within a given peer group

no personal interests exclusive of one's peer group

feeling isolated from peers and/or family

poor academic abilities or performance

fear of one's peers

lack of strong ties to friends

feeling that friends could turn on you

close bond with a bully

 

Handling Peer Pressure

 

How do you prepare to face peer pressure and win? There are many things you can

do. Prepare a mental script of how you would like to deal with uncomfortable

situations. Script out the reaction you want to have in a given situation and

play that script out in your head over and over again.

 

Know where you stand on key issues like sex, drugs and alcohol and do not allow

anybody to make you deviate from your position. Never be afraid to speak up and

let others know your boundaries. You may get a bit of teasing at first but most

people respect the boundaries of others when they know what they are.

 

Never take part in any bullying. Making other people feel bad or sad is a

terrible way to try to fit in. Flatly refuse to take part in anything designed

to cause harm or distress to another person and speak up if such a situation

arises. You do not have to be angry or confrontational but one person standing

up for what is right is usually enough to inspire others to follow.

 

Think of yourself as a leader and act accordingly. The more you see yourself in

a leadership role the more comfortable you will feel asserting your own opinions

and feelings.

 

Always Be Comfortable With Your Choices

 

When ugly situations arise and peer pressure kicks in to high gear it is very

easy to get caught up in the moment and forget that you will have to live with

the choices you make. If you give in and do something that is contrary to your

character or core value system it will cause you distress later and you will

feel regret.

When peer pressure rears its ugly head try to focus on how you feel about what

is happening rather than getting caught up in the crowd. Always stand up for

what you think is right.

 

Some people may not like it when you go against the group but doing the right

thing is rewarding. Peer pressure only works if you let it, if you refuse to let

it intimidate you it loses its power. The secret is to be assertive without

becoming preachy or self-righteous. Stand your ground but refrain from standing

on a soap box. Remember, peer pressure can only win if you let it.

 

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its

original form, please visit:

http://teenadvice.about.com/cs/peerpressure/a/blpeerpressure.htm

 

©2009 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights

reserved.

 

http://teenadvice.about.com/cs/peerpressure/a/blpeerpressure.htm

http://www.salvationscience.com

**************************************************************