I like to think of myself as an independent thinker. That’s not to say I’m indifferent to other people’s points of view and opinions. But, I wonder if any of us are truly autonomous agents.
In the early 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments to explore whether the pressure to conform influences judgement. He asked participants to estimate the comparative length of lines in an arrary. In the control group, 95% correctly estimated the lengths. In the experimental groups – comprising genuine experiment subjects with confederates of the researchers – that was not the case. The confederates were instructed to announce coordinated, incorrect answers to determine if the others would be swayed by their “estimates”. The researchers found 75% of the experiment subjects incorrectly estimated the lengths, in contrast to the 5% in the control group.
I’m not sure that – based on personal experience – the experiment results should come as a surprise. What is surprising is our resistance to accepting that they might apply to us. How many of us are genuinely prepared to “speak truth to power”?
Conformity has its uses. It smooths social relations and coordinates joint action. At the same time, it leaves us open to the possibility of following the wrong path when our desire to fit in overcomes our own ideas, or more dangerously, our conscience.
That was my case when I was a student. I thought that being a member of the intelligentsia was important and that the way to do that was to write and speak like those already in the club. I generated a lot of polysyllabic nonsense in the attempt. For too long, I thought that proclaiming certain opinions and adopting fashionable tastes were the equivalent of discernment and achievement.
There is a perfectly respectable form of reasoning called “argument from authority”. While it can be abused, we all use it from time to time to make decisions. Many people, me included, decided to take the Covid vaccine. If I were asked why, my answer would be that I deferred to medical authorities whose reputation I believe I can rely on. I can’t prove that I can rely on it. In a situation where an important decision must be made quickly, a thoughtful assessment of who might provide guidance is all that we have.
The danger arises when we bolster our opinions by referencing our like-minded colleagues, simply because they are colleagues. That can be accompanied by a belief that we are part of a select, right-thinking group. We are lucky if that only leads to embarrassment.
All those in favour? Those opposed ... ?
I like to think of myself as an independent thinker. That’s not to say I’m indifferent to other people’s points of view and opinions. But, I wonder if any of us are truly autonomous agents.
In the early 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments to explore whether the pressure to conform influences judgement. He asked participants to estimate the comparative length of lines in an arrary. In the control group, 95% correctly estimated the lengths. In the experimental groups – comprising genuine experiment subjects with confederates of the researchers – that was not the case. The confederates were instructed to announce coordinated, incorrect answers to determine if the others would be swayed by their “estimates”. The researchers found 75% of the experiment subjects incorrectly estimated the lengths, in contrast to the 5% in the control group.
I’m not sure that – based on personal experience – the experiment results should come as a surprise. What is surprising is our resistance to accepting that they might apply to us. How many of us are genuinely prepared to “speak truth to power”?
Conformity has its uses. It smooths social relations and coordinates joint action. At the same time, it leaves us open to the possibility of following the wrong path when our desire to fit in overcomes our own ideas, or more dangerously, our conscience.
That was my case when I was a student. I thought that being a member of the intelligentsia was important and that the way to do that was to write and speak like those already in the club. I generated a lot of polysyllabic nonsense in the attempt. For too long, I thought that proclaiming certain opinions and adopting fashionable tastes were the equivalent of discernment and achievement.
There is a perfectly respectable form of reasoning called “argument from authority”. While it can be abused, we all use it from time to time to make decisions. Many people, me included, decided to take the Covid vaccine. If I were asked why, my answer would be that I deferred to medical authorities whose reputation I believe I can rely on. I can’t prove that I can rely on it. In a situation where an important decision must be made quickly, a thoughtful assessment of who might provide guidance is all that we have.
The danger arises when we bolster our opinions by referencing our like-minded colleagues, simply because they are colleagues. That can be accompanied by a belief that we are part of a select, right-thinking group. We are lucky if that only leads to embarrassment.
In 1998, a writer who regularly submitted unsolicited articles to the New Yorker magazine, which were invariably rejected, tried a different approach. He submitted a piece and led the editors to think it was sent by a regular contributor to the magazine. That article was immediately accepted.
Sixteen years later, author David Cameron printed a short story that had been published in the New Yorker. He submitted it to a number of magazines, disguising its origins by submitting it under his own name. Despite the fact that the story had been published already, all of the magazines to which he sent it rejected it – including the New Yorker.
Pranking the New Yorker perhaps illustrates a not-uncommon version of groupthink. It suggests that the magazine’s editors perhaps believe their judgement is innately sound, an idea likely reinforced by the deference of their staff. Consequently, no one on the editorial staff seems to have taken the trouble to investigate the article submission to see if it was genuinely from the regular contributor. While the prankster led the magazine to believe he was someone else, he did leave clues that he was not who he was hinting he might be. Similarly, no one in the magazine’s fiction department noticed that the story submission was identical to a previous publication.
My suspicion is that we are all subject to shoring up our convictions by surveying how many people appear to have the same view. Some people are aware of these dangers and take the trouble to challenge their beliefs. Others do not.
Happily, I’ve grown out of my student ambition to be esteemed for my fashionable opinions expressed in obtuse prose. I am now convinced that nothing I believe should be taken for granted and that simplicity, humility, and candour are the most desirable qualities to rely on in formulating an opinion.
I know this to be true because all the smart people I know think so as well.