I could be considered a "non conformist" in many aspects. I often try not to follow what is popular and "in" simply because it is popular (unless I see that it could actually be good). Because of this, I often cringe as I look on at all the people around. They all seem as if they are paper cutouts. About a year ago, I tried to explain it using math:
"If the equality rule of huamnity is in effect, person x equals person y. Therefore... x = y. Therefore x = x. Therefore, if equality is in state, people seek to become other people."
I can only wonder if there's any truth to this. Am I truly wrong in the respect that people seem to want to be just like each other? Is the idea that equality is responsible actually true?
Hmmm. Some real points made by peepz there for shure. But I still see sheep. I dont really care how you dress cos the people who are really individual wont be able to help it coming out.
Many times I have seen people who are obviously not at ease with themselves and dress a certain way to fit in. As has been said and quite rightly, we all want to fit in, whether it be with our peers or with our superiors. But these people just cannot suppress the fact that they are different.
Mind you I have seen the opposite. Some people wanna appear "different" and yet can seem to stop looking like a sheep following the herd. Not saying its a bad thing.
I agree that we place too much emphasis on being "individual" and its certainly pushed quite horribly in the media. e.g. some celebrity will get ripped on because they wear the same dress but dont pull it off as well as the celebrity of the times etc...
Much of this, I think, comes from our evolution as social creatures. We instinctively want to fit in with our social group because fitting in means acceptance and that equates to security. However much of what we run into, especially given that technology has reduced the gaps between societies, is that there is a bit of 'global conformity' going on as humans become a single, world-wide society. Often times people lack the willpower, or the strength of personality, to feel comfortable stepping away from the societal norms.
Often times people lack the willpower, or the strength of personality, to feel comfortable stepping away from the societal norms.
And some people feel uncomfortable and/or are fully aware of stepping into the social norms, which is a sheeplike action all of its own tbh. I have given up on either side. Sometimes Im fluffy and baaaa! and sometimes I am fluffy and bite... meaow!
I'm right there with you analog. I know all too well about having to follow the herd, however even within that group there can still be individuality. Too often I think people tend to focus on what is the same instead of applauding, or at least noticing, what is unique. I compare it a bit to tigers. They all have stripes, but no two have identical stripes
I think this is an intersting point i hate it when i see people all trying to be the same it really annoys me. But i dont try to go out of my way to be different im just myself which has never been "in". But that doesnt mean i dont have any friends which is what people like that seem to assume.
I don't think it's so much conformism than it is humans just being extremely social creatures. Essentially we are trying to be accepted by our peers. I mean face it, the way one looks can and often times will determine how your are treated in your social circles.
I have to disagree with the 'cardboard cutouts' statement. In most cases, people just frequent the stores that others their age do, i.e. their appearances don't vary all that much. In the case of personalities, we as humans are naturally drawn to those similar to ourselves in my opinion. So even if you do meet an entirely new group of people, odds are they will be similar to each other in some way or another.
Yep... I can see it in those monkey eyes and sharp teef that your avatar is sporting.
people just frequent the stores that others their age do
I dont know where you live dude, but in the cloths stores that I see in Edinburgh UK, its easy to find shops that sell a wide variety of clothing. Cardboard cutouts are still astoundingly abundant and the clothes only make part of it. I look at pop culture and see lots of mini-me cutouts walking the streets so I cant really agree that its the clothes and the stores they shop from that are responsible.
However you are very correct about personalities being similar within groups. Like I said, people cannot stop being what they are, sheep, wolf, bunny rabbit, munky :P
That doesnt accout for the carbon copys that fill (literally) our TV (x-factor anyone) our radio (can anyone really tell the difference in bands or presenters, I cant because I stopped listening to popular radio) on our adverts (they really DO look the same).
Disagree if you want, any of you, but walk around and take a look and there is no avoiding it. Sure people can LOOK similar but its getting to the point where it takes the piss.
Since individuality is valued in society, trying to be a non-conformist makes you a conformist. You should just do whatever feels natural, and not care if other people are doing the same thing or what they think.
Under Lockean Principles, I agree that man is a naturally social creature. Therefore it is logical to assume that man would want to remain in society.
As those who are not with the associated 'in' crowd are ostracized. This happens for several reasons, such as clothes, personalities, and other 'abnormalities' that are based on minute differences in persona.
As man is a social creature, it wishes to remain in a social setting. As those who are 'out' are ostrazied, and are NOT part of a society, I conclude that Man parrots or mimicis his surroundings in order to remain a member of society.
Therefore, thoads math is almost correct. As all men are not entirely correct, I would wish to correct this by saying that:
X(z) = Y(z): in such a situation that 1 constant is not ostrasized (let z be clothes here). This can be further expanded upon, of course.
*where letter-parenthazized is a constant subscript, used to diffrengiate between individuals
I often consider myself to be a "non conformist" in many aspects. I often try not to follow what is popular and "in" simply because it is popular (unless I see that it could actually be good).
If this is so, I know no true "conformists." You are stereotyping ordinary people.
"If the equality rule of huamnity is in effect, person x equals person y. Therefore... x = y. Therefore x = x. Therefore, if equality is in state, people seek to become other people."
This is riddled with errors in logic. First - this is not only assuming the "equality rule" you refer to. It is also assuming that everyone recognizes this rule and applies it to their lives (that their life is no more important than another's). Second - you are oversimplifying people's actions. People choose what they see as most conducive to their happiness (a person's initial reaction to this is along the lines of "what about giving?" or "what about martyrdom?" My response to this is that happiness is what causes a person to perform the action - they do not choose this without reason - if they give, they are doing so because it makes them happy). Therefore, their actions are for their own happiness. Third - x=y does not imply x=x, x=x is assumed. Fourth - You consider people to be static by reducing them to a single mathematical variable. By setting these equal to each other, you might as well set them to 1. In saying this, by you calling yourself a non-conformist, you consider yourself to be more or less important than another person.
You are assuming that we are this way because of some mystical force that causes us to obey what you refer to as the equality rule. You are forgetting the evolutionary benefits to being social - a group of people is more likely to survive in a group as opposed to a single individual because of the division of labor, specialized skills and talents, etc. You are mistaking the underlying reason of why we are "social."
First - this is not only assuming the "equality rule" you refer to. It is also assuming that everyone recognizes this rule and applies it to their lives (that their life is no more important than another's).
You will always have outliers, I.E., the people who simply don't care enough to be social, or take pride in being alone. I could go on.
Second - you are oversimplifying people's actions. People choose what they see as most conducive to their happiness
Again, Lockean principles: Man is a social creature. Man will be happiest in a social setting, therefore, the will conform to be accepted, and therefore, happy.
[quote]Therefore, their actions are for their own happiness
if they give, they are doing so because it makes them happy[/quote]
It would appear that you have contradicted yourself on this point.
Fourth - You consider people to be static by reducing them to a single mathematical variable. By setting these equal to each other, you might as well set them to 1.
Mathmaticaly, 1 is a set value. It is 1, and 1=1. It does not change. Thoad is almost correct, because x=x, but at the same, does not Totally equal x. It is better represented by x(z)=y(z) to account for the variability of humans that makes them different in their own account. Humans are not entirely the same, but seek to become as similar as possible. This, to use your own words, makes them happty.
Again, Lockean principles: Man is a social creature. Man will be happiest in a social setting, therefore, the will conform to be accepted, and therefore, happy.
Locke got that from Aristotle, just sayin' though.
It is a matter for debate on the whole "naturally social" thing.
