The Psychology of Loyal Conformist and Groupthink

First you need to take steps to define "society".

Hint: There is an extensive body of literature on this.

 

You're smart.

I'm not being sarcastic either, just wanted to throw that out there.

 

That describes a set of ideas within the social imaginary. It doesn't define the structure, function, scale, underlying theoretical assumptions of your approach to the concept of 'society'.

What is the scale of analysis? Unit of analysis? what is the methodology that purports insider knowledge in which to describe this system? how can your participant sample be defined and generalized broadly? How do you account for outliers?

If the above do not apply, you are not within the realm of social research, and certainly even farther from the realm of psychological research.

Without addressing the existing body of knowledge, you're just musing and pontificating. You're not inquiring, you're reinforcing your own thought process. By accessing the existing body of knowledge you can answer all of the above questions and much more.

I can recommend some readings if you'd like.

 

A few folks asked me for those readings -- just to clairfy; I'm offering readings on the subject of basic social research, not specifically research into the cohesion of social organizations - that'd take a ton of work on my part

Still interested?

 

I disagree with your assessment that most people conform to society, and that their conformity is an indication of lacking of some sort of personal goals.

When I say people don't actually intentionally conform I mean that all individuals more or less have the same needs in life and the society is already formed in such ways so as to provide fulfillment of these various needs like jobs, food, entertainment, recreation, personal expression, some kind of education. People want these things because we all share same humanity and needs.

Also if one is to say they are a non-conformist, or that they get their own unique ideas cannot be entirely right either.
For one just by categorizing yourself as non conformist you conform to non-conformist views.
Second, few people actually get ideas that are uniquely their own. Such ideas are often thought by other individuals, or are influenced by the society and circumstances that are outside your power. So even the seemingly unique and independent ideas you have are formed as result of external influence.

Maybe you are confusing conformity and non-conformity with individualism and collectivism. Like some cultures like traditional Chinese or traditional Hispanics might have slightly more family oriented or collectivist norms while white Americans might have more individualistic standards.

 

Conjecture is a bad place to start with grounded theory.

It's called a literature review. It's why you don't always have to start from the ground up with every new inquiry.

Perhaps then it would have been a more appropriate post for the politics section or pandora's box?

I'd hardly call the history of social research methodology my "personal reading list" anymore than I'd call the Principia Mathematica a DIY guide.

 

Making it all the more interesting that reading suggestions almost always seem to go completely unheeded.

That's where I think you're wrong. Everybody, with any kind of involvement in society makes decisions based on a series of underlying operationalized assumptions concerning human nature. It's done as a nessecity of being a social actor. Everyone subscribes to an ideology. The trick is transforming it from a determinate into a determinant.

We're all the product of the very phenomena we try to understand. Even the early social positivists of the 15th century recognized this.

For sure. One doesn't need to be real read or formally educated to understand some of these theoretical precepts. I agree entirely with Kirsch's contributions on the subject.

Many of these ideas have been independently formulated by a great deal of contributors.

The issue arises when one does not have the reflexivity to apply this scrutiny to oneself. Theory and methodology go hand in hand; one without the other is virtually useless as a tool of inquiry.

It's called critique. In a meritocracy, all ideas are fair game and we have no sacred cows.

I think establishing context is the most effective and productive avenue before we start even considering loading the playing field with the expansive spectrum of analytical devices. Tools become weapons in the hands of those who don't know how to use them.

Our ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Throwing out opinions and ideas without taking a moment to consider the cultural-historical placement of our underlying assumptions really relegates this to a discussion of reactionary politics - not reflexive science. It becomes self-reinforced rhetorical punditry, not systematic social inquiry.

I could surely give you my personal and professional assessment on the subject - but I learned a long time ago how useless that is if everybody isn't on the same page - don't even bother if some folks aren't even in the library.

 

The asch expierment ,zimbardo experiment and milgram experiment gives some good insight on the social phenomena.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA]Asch Conformity Experiment - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdb20gcc_Ns]The Milgram Experiment (Full Video) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0]The Stanford Prison Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

We like to think of ourselves as non-conforminists , but we are conformists to some degree otherwise we could never function as a member of society. These I believe are heuristics that are conditioned in us and the bystander effect is one way how we can miseuse them.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac]THE BYSTANDER EFFECT - YouTube[/ame]

 

My psych professor showed us those same videos and its really eye opening to see how people will act if they don't think the blame is on them or if its a "science experiment".

 

You give Sam Spade a good response. We come to online forums to discuss all sorts of complex issues of life, many of these topics are researched by sociologists, researchers of particular fields etc. That fact in no way obligates us to research some readings Sam_Spade recommends. That is we do not intend to or have to perform an academic research paper as is done in colleges when we ask for opinions of others in an online forum.
He probably meant well, but Spade's response is a kind of "buzz kill" response. Perhaps he thought you are looking for a exact and definitive a safer to some question. But I think such questions are asked simply to see whether the others feel the same, or similar way that the OP does. Friendly discussion does not have to be academically rigorous.

 

The title of the thread is "psychology of....."

Its an academically rigorous question not a friendly discussion

 

Well, let me see if I can answer a few of your questions.

I don't think I said you did. I argued that "Everybody, with any kind of involvement in society makes decisions based on a series of underlying operationalized assumptions concerning human nature. It's done as a necessity of being a social actor. Everyone subscribes to an ideology."

To elaborate; These operationalized assumptions can be as fundamental as the Rousseau v. Hobbes assumptions on the state of nature. By choosing to participate in one facet of a society versus another, there are tacit (if ephemeral) conclusions being made.

A really good example of this is how we make fundamental assumptions can be found in our basic social interactions with individuals in our day to day lives. These operationalized assumption comes in the form of recognizing and/or rejecting characteristics of social identity. A specific example would be concerning the biophysical nature of gender in our romantic lives. What defines masculinity or femininity? Can we point to biophysical features? behavioral expectations? social constructs? I can answer these for you - but I don't need to! Others already have (or tried to)!

Now this is already verging on me needing to tutor you - instead, you can pick up some basic readings on social philosophy and educate yourself. It ain't my job - and if it was, you're going to have to cut me a cheque.

If you're content with your state of ignorance - that's okay too! Just don't expect for it to fly without contest in the science section .

You don't. But if you make no effort to identify and exhaust potential resources, then you can expect criticism for it.

What is a "stoner" to you? Do tell!

YES!

You're involved in an diverse subculture with nebulous goals and desires. As a subculture we interact with the wider mass culture in terms of legislative politics, economic systems, and the broadly-defined social imaginary. I prefer cannabis users not always be viewed as uneducated lackadaisical non-contributors. There is a great social stigma against us which stifles our collective goals of legislative reform and often marginalizes those who lay outside the definition - I, for one, speak up when I can to betray those expectations at every turn.

There are a great many of us who are impassioned professionals who feel we shouldn't need to relent our social and economic contributions in order to be counted among the ranks of cannabis users. Over the decades I've shocked many by revealing these aspects of my lifestyle.

I know it's easy to accept the identity being served up piping hot - but you don't have to . Look to folks Ann Druyan, and Lester Grinspoon, and Norman Kent - I do!

For what, exactly? Data is useless without theory. You need to cover that first. It'd be like trying to synthesize a chemical without understanding atomic theory.

Sure! Maybe you posted in the wrong section? Uninformed speculation isn't science.

Nope. I just assumed since this is in the science section, we're talking under the context of an exhaustive and empirical approach.

I know - right? Fuckin' science.