posted
On the thread deletion thread, Javert Hugo wrote:
quote:Simply, I don't think pledges in general (especially ones extracted by peer pressure) work.
And I responded that it's due to the fact that those people have already demonstrated themselves to be susceptible to peer pressure.
I actually read a theory that was basically a yin and yang of traits on the think/choose/do spectrum of behavior, and he (Leonard Scoresby) presented autonomy and coversability as two sides of the same coin.
To be autonomous is to have the ability to resist peer pressure. However, one must still be relatable to other human beings in order to participate in human society.
I guess I should get the book out and see what he had to say about it this balance being anything people can develop or adjust about themselves.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think being on that deletion list is working against my popularity. The people on the list don't really trust me, and the people off the list can't believe I joined it.
Though it's possible this is an inherently boring topic.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree with the response in general with a caveat. With these kinds of pledges, there are generally a few kinds of people that will take the pledge.
First, people that already would conform to the pledge regardless of whether the pledge existed or not. Second, people that wish to modify their behaviour and hope that a public declaration of their intent will be enough to enforce their new behaviour. Third, people that are pressured into taking the pledge but have not really considered whether they will follow through or not.
In the first case, the pledge is just preaching to the choir, no change.
In the second case, it may work as long as the people remain covered by the surveillance camera. However, then you not only get a forbidden fruit effect, but no surveillance camera can ever be omnipresent. (Well... aside from Santa Claus and the Christian God) I'm also rather suspicious of people that do something not because they think it is right, but because they might face consequences if they do not. It borders on hypocrisy in my mind.
The last case is what you're responding to and I'd have to agree there.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting breakdown of motivations you give Mucus. I was just thinking about motivations of fear of loss, desire for gain, and "love" or "being" or however one wishes to define this nebula of character motive.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think that susceptibility to peer pressure is learned. Because if it's learned, why learn it? You have more freedom if you ignore it. The only immediate reward is peer approval, which is what it's about anyway, or at least that's the only reliable immediate reward.
It makes sense that we are programmed to seek it though because there is non-immediate reward, as in, if your cohorts approve of you they will help you more when you need it.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is inborn, at least to some extent, although nothing is all or nothing when discussing nature vs. nurture. There are some strong environmental ties to it, of course, but this type of behavior is most often seen in children, and shows up early in their social conditioning.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's one of those things that can certainly change, but can't really be changed predictably.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we cave to peer pressure because we want to avoid certain fears (embarrassment, exclusion, et cetera), which aren't learned. If that's the case, it's simply a desire to avoid something we dislike.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
