Going Against the Grain

I was thinking about how Mitt Romney was able to stand up and go against the grain in the Republican party and do what he felt was the right thing to do. I keep reading that there were a few Republicans who thought privately Trump was unfit for the office but they never say it out loud because they were scared of the base. But Mitt Romney: damn the consequences.

I’m glad his constituents are standing by him, even though they still favor Trump. I’m happy they recognize that he is trying to do what is right for the country: his constituents are to be commended for keeping an open mind and for considering his effort to live up to his religious’ and his country’s ideals.

But what makes one strike out and do what one feels need to be done? I don’t know but we need more of it. And each of us, individually, need to develop it for the new future. Is it possible? I don’t know.

I imagine that it is not only those who do the right thing but also those who pushes a new innovative idea against all odds. That’s another kind of risk taking. I think in this new AI future we are going to need the strength to stand against the lemming herd, defy our socialization and push forward into the unknown.

Pushing into the unknown is scary. Or being the nail that sticks out.

Here’s my own theory of socialization and why we don’t buck society: as babies and toddlers, we learn our social skills from our parents. Our hidden belief systems, the way we should act in society, and who we should trust probably has its beginnings through our bonding with our parents. We learn to trust our parents, to follow them, to obey them. (Or maybe not trust them, depending on the quality of their character.) This beginning is the seeds for socialization into the norms of society. As we get older and get enrolled into schools, we then look to teachers as authority on how to behave and what to believe, hence further socialization occurs in the schools. In this environment, we get a sense of who to trust and who is our “kind”. And we learn to obey and follow the authority.

There is also the church, another source of socialization.

So, when do we start thinking for ourselves? I don’t know. Maybe colleges are supposed to be the institutions that mold you into independent thinking. But only 30% of the population goes to college. I did read that recently the percent has gone up to 70%, amongst the young and probably since the Great Recession. Still, let’s just say roughly 30% of the population are taught to think independently and the rest are followers.

What does this mean?

It means people subconsciously look to see what others around them are thinking and if their peers, friends, bosses, authorities are okay with “it” (whatever “it” may be), then “it” must be okay. Your peers can’t possibly be wrong, can they?

If you are in the environment very similar to what you grew up in, then you will pick up your surroundings’ beliefs and mores, because the people around you remind you of those in your childhood. They are your kind so they can’t be wrong, can they?

And you don’t really know that you are socialized to think and behave as others in your immediate society. It just feels natural; it feels right.

We’ve evolved into this kind of socialization that begins from the very moment we are born. It’s in our bones, in our genes. It was our way of survival.

Except for those who are inclined to walk to a different beat. How do they manage to break away?

I don’t know.

Anyway, that’s my current theory

A few days ago, I read an article that kind of explores a variation on socialization but the kind where we flexibly change our positions to fit the environment we’re in or to fit what we are told. Kind of.

A study was done where the researchers were able to move the subjects’ positions on Clinton versus Trump to a moderate position. There are two stunning pieces to this study: one is the fact that after the subjects marked down their answers, the researchers returned their answers but with the answers changed to a more moderate position. I’m unclear as to exactly how this research was conducted, whether it was conducted over a period of days or exact sequence of events, but I find it very hard to believe that the subjects would not remember what they had put down as their position on Clinton versus Trump. The second stunning piece was after the subjects were shown their answers (and why they were shown their answers and the explanation to the subject for doing so, I don’t know – the whole experiment seems nutty), the subjects accepted their false answers and moderated their opinions to match the “fake” answers.

That just blows my mind – they don’t remember their prior positions. It’s completely gone because the researchers flipped the answers and the subjects believed the researchers.

There is something weird about our blind acceptance of what people around us tells us. Unthinkingly, we just accept it.

Read the article because it is really mindboggling.

And it possibly shows (although I am having trouble buying the results) how willing we are to flexibly change our opinions. I hadn’t realized it would be that easy.