Pack Behavior and Free Agency (not sports)

[joshwriting]

I don't know that I have anything original to add here, but between my post and a number of others, coupled with a few conversations over the last week and some news articles, I have reactions, at least.

As I noted tother day about the Human Development Experiments, the pull to behave as the masses do is very strong. Apparently, this may go beyond simple perception of fitting in. In a separate bit of news, we were told that laughter IS contagious. The brain reacts to heard laughter by triggering muscles that will smile.

Colleges attract more students by raising their prices, because if their prices are as high as the competitive colleges' are, then they must be almost as good, right?

What if that is what happens with almost any externally observed behavior? There is a perception of what is the norm and the individual is programmed to follow that perception? I was talking with one of my Voyagers students about expectations. Yes, if the patients in the hospital have it made clear to them that they are ignorant and should not question the professionals, the patients are easier to work with. Students who learn to respect the authority of the teachers, unquestioningly, are unquestionably easier to teach - or at least, to control in the classroom!

So, when a person follows the pack's behavior - to mock another person's clothes or intellect or habits, are they not responsible for their behavior? Are they following a preprogrammed path laid out for them?

Go along to get along, not as philosophy but as genetic predisposition?

Now, we come up with plenty of rationalizations for why it is okay to mistreat that person, ignore this one, behave this way or that, even though we are really trying to convince ourselves.

Because, as I see it, even if the 'pack mentality" theory is right, there are still people who do not do it by instinct.

Some do not do it at all. They tend to be outsiders, they tend to be the scorned.

There are others who tire of being the outsiders, of being scorned. And so, they act in order to fit in, to belong. They choose the path, engage in the hurtful behaviors, while knowing full well what they are doing.

And they salve their conscience with the reassurance that at least they fit in.

*****
Personally, I prefer to think that with education, nobody would behave like the guards at Abu Ghraib or in the Stanford Prison Experiment. I would like to think that casual cruelty to those who are different from the ostensible norm would no longer be so present, so casual.

But I am not currently convinced that there is enough education in the world. The siren's call to fit in is powerful. Don't see what you are not supposed to see. Don't question what you are not supposed to question.

Ask any homeless person.

Comments

[notadoor.livejournal.com]

My social psych class spent a lot of time on *why* people conform, especially in situations like the Kitty Genovese incident (where she was stabbed thirtysomething times in a residential neighborhood, and even though everyone heard her screaming for help no one intervened.)

I don't remember all the reasons, but informational forces played a pretty big role. That is, "No one else is doing anything; maybe they know something I don't know." We take social cues from other people -- which is a good thing in many cases. If your best friend is really upset, you want to be able to recognize that and take the appropriate action to comfort him -- something that my sister, who has Asperger's, can't do as naturally as most people can.

Also, fear of getting hurt yourself if you dissent -- hurt physically, or being ostracized from the group, or whatever else -- plays a large role in conformity. (If there's one dissenter, other people follow -- unless the dissenter gets punished.)

Abu Ghraib & the Zimbardo study are less about conformity and more about group polarization (where the members of the group incite each other to more and more outrageous behavior because each wants to be the "most" within the group). A mind-blowing yet simple study on conformity is Asch's conformity study:

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html

[redc111.livejournal.com]

This concept seems to be arising more and more as of late. I'm not sure if this kind of thing can ever be eliminated, just decreased and/or motivated by a positive "group" thing to conform to.

[siderea]

So, when a person follows the pack's behavior - to mock another person's clothes or intellect or habits, are they not responsible for their behavior?

The question of responsibility is a completely different class of question that the question of etiology.

How people come to engage in group-following behavior is an (is)/(is not) question. It asks for a description of observable reality.

How to assess responsibility is a (good)/(bad) question. It asks for a prescription for how we should conduct ourselves.

Our culture -- Western culture -- has constructed the idea of "responsibility" such that it is often conflated with (and confused for) (is)/(is not) issues. Our society presumes that "one shouldn't hold a person responsible" if the causes of their behavior are evident. It assumes that all things which shape behavior are things which make that behavior something "he couldn't help himself" from doing.

This is wrong, for one thing, and unnecessary for another.

Another way of thinking of responsibility is to firmly divorce it from fault, and then to be willing to hold people responsible for their actions, regardless of how exogenously determined their actions are: "Yes, you couldn't help that you were addicted to alcohol. But you are still responsible for your actions while drunk." (Note this conforms with AA's proposed value system.)

[ryuutsurugi.livejournal.com]

In reading your post, I keep thinking of the novel Bellweather that I just recently reread. It fits along with the pack premise nicely. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of it. If not, I can explain a bit.

[nagrom-the-pink.livejournal.com]

"Some do not do it at all. They tend to be outsiders, they tend to be the scorned.

There are others who tire of being the outsiders, of being scorned. And so, they act in order to fit in, to belong. They choose the path, engage in the hurtful behaviors, while knowing full well what they are doing."

I'm not a big fan of the mass failure to acknowledge more than a "norm" and an "outside". There are many norms of variable norm-hood.
I'd actually argue that there's no outside, but a system of progressively abnorm norms.

You probably agree, but you're drawing a line (making the issue "black and white" as they say). As a partial non-conformist, that sets off my sirens.

Adding another dimension, I'm sure everybody's perception of norms is radically different as well:
Me an them
a galaxy of norms
a solar system of norms
my norm, the norm (which this person rejects), and outsiders

Of course if you get specific about what behaviors you're categorizing, things get more simple.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

coffee: 50¢ $5