Indeed an interesting experiment! I’d be curious to discover how I would fare in such a test. I’ve always been one of those round pegs that resists fitting into the square holes, so I don’t think they’d break me unless I was subject to some form of extreme duress. That does have its draw back at times however since most people often confuse being an independent thinker with not being a team player. Then again I think nature has set it up so there are leaders and followers, which I don’t imagine is going to change any time soon.
Yes, it is undoubtedly quite interesting. I wonder how far such a conformity behavior is able to proceed into the exact sciences, which are in principle only a function of the scientific method. However, like any activity conducted by humans, science is not immune to such social behaviors. There must be some social conformity pressures involved.
Notice that, in the above experiment, the right answers are obvious, and one of the “subjects” (which is reluctant in following the others) initially finds himself is a strange position (“what is happening here? Are these people stupid or is it some tricky visual effect only affecting me???”). It is interesting to observe his reaction. At the end, he succumbs — “if I remain the only one here with the different answers as compared to the majority, whatever the reason they insist on the wrong answers, they will think *I* am the stupid one here!”. He gives up to be the different element and joins, reluctant, the group.
So the problem here is to be a team player when the whole team is on the wrong track, and *you* know it. But you don’t want to be different or relegated, and then feel *safer* to follow the group, even though you know the group is wrong. So you submissively end up follow them. It is as if this option were a safer situation than the risky one, that is, to be alone on your track, even though you are almost (peharps here is the point — how far one knows he/she is 100% right?) sure you are right.
“It is as if this option were a safer situation than the risky one, that is, to be alone on your track, even though you are almost (peharps here is the point — how far one knows he/she is 100% right?) sure you are right.”
I would of course acknowledge all of what you say and yet still argue that many of the great scientists of note shared this believing in themselves as a key innate element of their nature. We could note here Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Einstein to name but a few. In that sense we could say that this all began in the Western tradition with Socrates, as he was tried, convicted and condemned for being cited as his true crime being a corrupter of the youth. Not with their morality mind you, which what such a charge these days would infer, yet rather their thinking about how the world happens to be and how the acts of people at the time were not consistent , that is logically consistent. Combine this with doubt being one of the required and central components of the scientific method and I would say it requires scientists to be greatly resistant to peer pressure. I’m not saying that many don’t in one way or form succumb its just that they more then anyone else should know better as to resist.
“Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing’s fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. “
-Albert Einstein-The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics- [Science- May 24, 1940]
“I would say it requires scientists to be greatly resistant to peer pressure. ”
Remember this is a psychological game. Conformity expresses its greater strenght when individuals are exposed to the group. Submitting your idea/opinion remotely reduces peer pressure. It’s also a point for anonymous reviewers.
Perhaps this should be taken in consideration when designing conferences and symposiums: aim for smaller crowds, to encourage dissent by reducing peer pressure effects. Maybe that’s why closed round-table debates are so enjoyable.
“Perhaps this should be taken in consideration when designing conferences and symposiums: aim for smaller crowds, to encourage dissent by reducing peer pressure effects.”
What you are implying is that we should encourage or facilitate descent. I would not be so quick to consider this necessarily as an advantage, for the Darwinian aspects of the process has some utility for if there is no possible consequence to holding an opinion then the value of them in general may suffer. I think there is something to be said for the importance of conviction when required by the individual themselves in the face of the pressures of conformity. I think just as in other ways we can Bell curve our species abilities and along with this aspect find it acts for the better in the scheme of things and as such has reason and purpose.
I find it ironic that while many today are often quick to complain that the activities of people have upset our ecological balance, at the same time ignore the fact that we have done the same to ourselves and continue to do so with little regard. No, I must say that for me until perfection in our species can be somehow guaranteed and manufactured we should be careful how we alter our existing systems of direction and decision.
This is all the more currently relevant for me since just yesterday I went through a round table meeting such as you describe. My initial frustration was that most didn’t volunteer their opinion, then only to discover after some time that the reason they were reluctant is they didn’t hold any of their own to begin with.. I’ve often found that conformity is not simply related to the pressure of the group yet also the lack of imagination and or originality of the parts that constitute one.
Dear Christine:
An interesting – and perhaps a small flaw – aspect of the experiment is the presence of power, represented by Dr. Pratkanis. I’m speculating on the behavior of the “subjects” when really among peers. This sort of asymmetry can play an extraordinary role in such situations, and the way people choose to follow the herd or hold the fort of his/her own certainties/uncertainties. I’m not a scientist, but my everyday experience leading a technical research development center demonstrates how difficult is, sometimes, to get the very fundamental and honest thoughts from every person around a table.
Anyway: the experiment is very elucidative. I only think that the presence of power is an adjustable parameter to be taken in account on the outcome.
January 19, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Hi Christine,
Indeed an interesting experiment! I’d be curious to discover how I would fare in such a test. I’ve always been one of those round pegs that resists fitting into the square holes, so I don’t think they’d break me unless I was subject to some form of extreme duress. That does have its draw back at times however since most people often confuse being an independent thinker with not being a team player. Then again I think nature has set it up so there are leaders and followers, which I don’t imagine is going to change any time soon.
Best,
Phil
January 20, 2009 at 9:02 am
Hi Phil,
Yes, it is undoubtedly quite interesting. I wonder how far such a conformity behavior is able to proceed into the exact sciences, which are in principle only a function of the scientific method. However, like any activity conducted by humans, science is not immune to such social behaviors. There must be some social conformity pressures involved.
Notice that, in the above experiment, the right answers are obvious, and one of the “subjects” (which is reluctant in following the others) initially finds himself is a strange position (“what is happening here? Are these people stupid or is it some tricky visual effect only affecting me???”). It is interesting to observe his reaction. At the end, he succumbs — “if I remain the only one here with the different answers as compared to the majority, whatever the reason they insist on the wrong answers, they will think *I* am the stupid one here!”. He gives up to be the different element and joins, reluctant, the group.
So the problem here is to be a team player when the whole team is on the wrong track, and *you* know it. But you don’t want to be different or relegated, and then feel *safer* to follow the group, even though you know the group is wrong. So you submissively end up follow them. It is as if this option were a safer situation than the risky one, that is, to be alone on your track, even though you are almost (peharps here is the point — how far one knows he/she is 100% right?) sure you are right.
Best,
Christine
January 21, 2009 at 1:31 am
Hi Christine,
“It is as if this option were a safer situation than the risky one, that is, to be alone on your track, even though you are almost (peharps here is the point — how far one knows he/she is 100% right?) sure you are right.”
I would of course acknowledge all of what you say and yet still argue that many of the great scientists of note shared this believing in themselves as a key innate element of their nature. We could note here Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Einstein to name but a few. In that sense we could say that this all began in the Western tradition with Socrates, as he was tried, convicted and condemned for being cited as his true crime being a corrupter of the youth. Not with their morality mind you, which what such a charge these days would infer, yet rather their thinking about how the world happens to be and how the acts of people at the time were not consistent , that is logically consistent. Combine this with doubt being one of the required and central components of the scientific method and I would say it requires scientists to be greatly resistant to peer pressure. I’m not saying that many don’t in one way or form succumb its just that they more then anyone else should know better as to resist.
“Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing’s fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. “
-Albert Einstein-The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics- [Science- May 24, 1940]
Best,
Phil
January 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“I would say it requires scientists to be greatly resistant to peer pressure. ”
Remember this is a psychological game. Conformity expresses its greater strenght when individuals are exposed to the group. Submitting your idea/opinion remotely reduces peer pressure. It’s also a point for anonymous reviewers.
Perhaps this should be taken in consideration when designing conferences and symposiums: aim for smaller crowds, to encourage dissent by reducing peer pressure effects. Maybe that’s why closed round-table debates are so enjoyable.
January 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
Hi Sophistama,
“Perhaps this should be taken in consideration when designing conferences and symposiums: aim for smaller crowds, to encourage dissent by reducing peer pressure effects.”
What you are implying is that we should encourage or facilitate descent. I would not be so quick to consider this necessarily as an advantage, for the Darwinian aspects of the process has some utility for if there is no possible consequence to holding an opinion then the value of them in general may suffer. I think there is something to be said for the importance of conviction when required by the individual themselves in the face of the pressures of conformity. I think just as in other ways we can Bell curve our species abilities and along with this aspect find it acts for the better in the scheme of things and as such has reason and purpose.
I find it ironic that while many today are often quick to complain that the activities of people have upset our ecological balance, at the same time ignore the fact that we have done the same to ourselves and continue to do so with little regard. No, I must say that for me until perfection in our species can be somehow guaranteed and manufactured we should be careful how we alter our existing systems of direction and decision.
This is all the more currently relevant for me since just yesterday I went through a round table meeting such as you describe. My initial frustration was that most didn’t volunteer their opinion, then only to discover after some time that the reason they were reluctant is they didn’t hold any of their own to begin with.. I’ve often found that conformity is not simply related to the pressure of the group yet also the lack of imagination and or originality of the parts that constitute one.
Best,
Phil
January 30, 2009 at 3:29 am
Dear Christine:
An interesting – and perhaps a small flaw – aspect of the experiment is the presence of power, represented by Dr. Pratkanis. I’m speculating on the behavior of the “subjects” when really among peers. This sort of asymmetry can play an extraordinary role in such situations, and the way people choose to follow the herd or hold the fort of his/her own certainties/uncertainties. I’m not a scientist, but my everyday experience leading a technical research development center demonstrates how difficult is, sometimes, to get the very fundamental and honest thoughts from every person around a table.
Anyway: the experiment is very elucidative. I only think that the presence of power is an adjustable parameter to be taken in account on the outcome.