Social conformity linked to brain

[Korpsy Knievel]

What I do know, about the topic, not you, is that hypnotists and those in some kind of studied sales (including politics) have known and made use of calling upon authority as a means of "bypassing the critical faculties". Basically, as a way of bypassing the thinking, logical part of the mind, to gain unfettered access to the emotional part of the mind...often referred to as the 'subconscious' in these circles.

The Milgram and Stanford experiments spring to mind.

[anndelise]

The Milgram and Stanford experiments spring to mind.

Oh yeah...i had read a little on that one...made me sick just reading what little I had read.
Thank you for bringing that up.

[anndelise]

If you want the experimental procedures, they're in the supplemental data of the current issue of Current Biology Vol 22(4). It might be free to view here. I personally think they're needlessly complex... why not just do some old-school line-length estimate tests?

Thank you octo.

[Gilly]

Like I said, MOST. Most people, in most situations. Like Wikipedia says, "Driving on the correct side of the road could be seen as beneficial conformity."

Yes but that is only MANIFEST conformity; in reality it is an agreement for safety reasons.

I personally don't think most people are intelligent enough to make informed decisions... better to have them sheeple along than try to assert their independence by rebelling against whatever whenever in an attempt to prove they're cured of conformity, like a whole colony of Avril Lavignes.

Or weed out all of the foolish sheeple and leave us with intelligent ones who do their best to make informed decisions. This is certainly the route I personally hope that our cultural evolution will take.

If you want the experimental procedures, they're in the supplemental data of the current issue of Current Biology Vol 22(4). It might be free to view here. I personally think they're needlessly complex... why not just do some old-school line-length estimate tests?

I'll take a look tomorrow...my brain won't do math right now, I'm sick.

[Gilly]

Any snideliness you read into my question did not come from me.
If it hasn't been apparent in my years on this forum, when I ask a question after stating that i,m curious, it's because I am genuinely curious, and it,s related to not having formed an opinion yet. It,s a way of asking for more information, and I,m not even sure what results the answer might lead to.

In that case I apologize for overreacting to your...ummm...naivite. I hardly see how such a statement wouldn't be taken as an accusation; furthermore it's a completely different matter than the one we are discussing, as it is a matter of scientific fact rather than one of opinion. I think *scientific* experts can generally be trusted; artistic experts, on the other hand, are nothing but normal humans bloated with the pomp of their presumed superior taste. The point of art is not to be RIGHT; it is to be GOOD, and whereas scientific is VERY FREQUENTLY (though not always) universal, value judgments vary vastly between individuals. So I just don't see how it isn't either a stupid question or one launched with the intent of mockery.

Had the question led to you reviewing your perception of its obviousness?

No; I try to never take science for granted. It all exists in a self-dependent bubble, and while a lot of it is obviously useful, I can't accept some of it as being entirely certain, especially when studying something as complex as the human brain. Did you not even read my first post, which actually suggests a paradox or conflict in the results with what is already known? Granted, it's not a solid accusation; none of this stuff is solid. Likely rather gelatinous, actually, and from everything we've learned, constantly changing.

I have to admit, though, it doesn't seem bad.

Did you consider the possibility that the scientist/expert level may have influenced your acceptance?

Well in this case the "experts" are the only ones with any formal knowledge at all, meaning you either buy into it, reject it, or leave it open to consideration. Personally I take the latter stance while leaning toward the most former based on prior knowledge; I wouldn't place bets, but it seems consistent with most things I've read.

If you had said no, what would that mean in regards to the test?

I have less grey matter in my frontal cortex? No, more that I think rationally instead of just "buying it or not."

If you had said yes, what would that mean in regards to the test?

The opposite, obviously.

I don,t know. But I couldn't stop my curiosity. (killed the cat, and all that, dontchyaknow)
I only have easy access to my own mind, so I have to probe the minds of others in order to obtain the kinds of info I,m interested in.

Well alright then.

What I do know, about the topic, not you, is that hypnotists and those in some kind of studied sales (including politics) have known and made use of calling upon authority as a means of "bypassing the critical faculties". Basically, as a way of bypassing the thinking, logical part of the mind, to gain unfettered access to the emotional part of the mind...often referred to as the 'subconscious' in these circles.

Well aware, I work in sales as a matter of fact. Some people are very susceptible to the old "Wow...how long have you had that phone?" A simple passive suggestion of shortcomings in their social status; 10 minutes later, $40 on my paycheck.

Creating emotional response is another method. One way of creating emotional response is through music. Which leads me back to this specific study. I can,t help but wonder if the unheard before music list contained songs that induced emotional responses in the participants.

I suppose this is a valid critique.

I suppose that this is going to be one of many cases where I will not have access to sufficient information to even figure out where I might stand on it. My cat just lost one of its lives...

Edited to add: ugh, rereading the second to last response of this post brought up another question for me.. ? Were the differing pschological modes of rerating taken into account? The first rating would have been a completely different mode fr,om the second rating, particularly after listening to and comparing 40 songs!!

Poor kitty!

Certainly the experiment is not perfect, and IMO it should be performed many more times using different music, etc. However it remains that the results are coincident with both other studies of human neuropsychology, as well as our knowledge of the evolution of the brain. I, for one, find the study to be very interesting and potential useful if its results can be verified and explicated upon.

[Satan]

Like I said, MOST. Most people, in most situations. Like Wikipedia says, "Driving on the correct side of the road could be seen as beneficial conformity." I personally don't think most people are intelligent enough to make informed decisions... better to have them sheeple along than try to assert their independence by rebelling against whatever whenever in an attempt to prove they're cured of conformity, like a whole colony of Avril Lavignes.


If you want the experimental procedures, they're in the supplemental data of the current issue of Current Biology Vol 22(4). It might be free to view here. I personally think they're needlessly complex... why not just do some old-school line-length estimate tests?

"Visitors are informed that in the United Kingdom traffic drives on the left-hand side of the road. In the interests of safety, you are advised to practise this in your country of origin for a week or two before driving in the UK."

[Gilly]

Ideally yes, but... Idiocracy

Thank you. Sometimes I need a reminder to reproduce some day.

[silke]

Like I said, MOST. Most people, in most situations. Like Wikipedia says, "Driving on the correct side of the road could be seen as beneficial conformity." I personally don't think most people are intelligent enough to make informed decisions... better to have them sheeple along than try to assert their independence by rebelling against whatever whenever in an attempt to prove they're cured of conformity, like a whole colony of Avril Lavignes.

Even if you're at the top of the IQ pool there is so much information floating out there nowadays that there is no way to avoid going with the flow. So I wouldn't say that it's just the "sheeple" but everyone is susceptible to it, especially that sometimes the information you would need to make an informed choice is purposefully hidden or negligently made obscure. However bright you are, it you're still going to go with some popular choices because there's just not enough time to form an independent valuation of everything. It's just outside of mind's capacity.

Or weed out all of the foolish sheeple and leave us with intelligent ones who do their best to make informed decisions. This is certainly the route I personally hope that our cultural evolution will take.

Culture wouldn't exist in the first place if people weren't such conformists. Existence of culture in its popular definition as "integrated pattern of human knowledge, shared attitudes, values, and practices" is based upon people sharing and adopting each other's ideas and methods. So no amount of "cultural evolution" will ever eliminate conformity. This is not to mention that individuals who dare to think and act differently are often faced with hostility, derision and even tyranny of the group to which they have failed to conform, which of course will prevent any such course of development.