There have been many social experiments where the tendency of people to conform to the patterns of thought and action of a group was put to the test. One of the most commonly referenced of these experiments, conducted in the 1950s by psychologist Solomon Asch, was based around one very simple task: given a target line, choose the line that matched it from a set of 3. This test was given first in an individual setting, with it being repeated afterwards in a group setting with a series of controlled non-participants purposely giving incorrect answers prior to the test participant in their respective repeated trials. While the pattern of conformity varied on an individual basis, the primary takeaway from this study is that only 24% of the 123 participants chose the correct answer each time in the group setting, and thereby not conforming to controlled incorrect answers preceding their repeated test run.

A more controversial social experiment that indirectly tested the nature of human conformity was the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, with the primary objective of examining the influence of situational circumstances versus predispositions unique to individuals in determining their actions. This experiment simulated a prison environment with 24 study participants (21 in practice) being assigned the status of “prisoner” or “guard” and was intended to last 2 weeks. Within the first day of starting the trial, guards had already begun to demean and antagonize the prisoners without provocation. Meanwhile, the prisoners quickly began to adopt prisoner-like behavior and taking the arbitrary rules created for the trial very seriously. These trends continued to escalate over the coming days, and after a pattern of ever-increasing aggression – including both physical and psychological abuse – from the guards and the rapid breakdown of the prisoners, the experiment was stopped after just 6 days. While hardly being the only clinical finding, one of the primary takeaways for Zimbardo and his research team was the profound willingness of people to conform to their expected social roles, especially those with pronounced stereotypes.

After considering these two studies, you may be asking yourself: why is this important and how do these findings affect me? I would argue that understanding the seemingly inherent susceptibility to conformist thinking in your thought patterns is very important. Are your thoughts really your thoughts or are they what you have been conditioned to believe? In daily life, there is nothing more “human” than the ability to make observations about the world - especially about other people, and then make decisions based upon those observations. We all do this whether consciously or subconsciously, and getting this process to work for us rather than against us is essential for us to survive (and hopefully thrive) in the litany of conditions that we may find ourselves in. Recognizing this, we will briefly address the potential causes for the development of this trait (from a sociological and biological perspective), how this trait negatively impacts the human experience in the modern world, and how awareness and rejection of conformist thought can help us live more fulfilled lives.

From a sociological perspective, people in primitive societies were conformists every bit as much as in the modern day despite the absence of courts, legal statues, and coercive force. This was evident in the plain sense of determining which animals to hunt and which to avoid, which other groups of people to engage and trade with, and so on. In a very generalized sense, conformity was also evident in rituals and traditions involving agricultural production, weather prediction and petitioning of various sorts, and any other such thing that was characteristic to a particular society, as someone with an anthropological background could well point out. People just did what seemed to work and in acquiescence to their respective authorities. This is not unlike the way a child learns basic functions by replicating the actions of his/her parents and peers (i.e. learning via mimicry). This timeless consideration of the biological development pattern being innate to children establishes that observation, followed by replication, is the first learning mode that humans have. If this is the case, the ability to think critically and logically to act in a manner conducive to one’s own will is something that must be learned later.

Now that we have quickly identified potential considerations for the development of conformist tendencies of people from a historical and biological perspective, let us look at how these tendencies function in the modern world. Unfortunately, the results have been less than stellar, and this is evident early on. We will first consider the specific case of discomfort with free self-expression, regardless of the social structure that this is found within (family, peers, interactions in educational system, etc.). This discomfort can present itself in many ways that a significant portion of the general population can identify as having experienced at least one of. These include anxiety around public speaking, eating the ”right” kinds of foods, wearing the “right” kinds of clothes, concerns around participating in certain types of discussions for fear that they will have an impact on your standing within an organization (workplace politics, religious affiliations, family gatherings etc.), among others. These scenarios all present a case where significant mental resources can be spent trying to solve a problem that may not even exist, and if it does, one that doesn’t matter in all practicality. They can also cause us to act irrationally, and if exploited, against our own interests. Despite this, these false dilemmas are evident in many of our lives on a micro scale of the immediate world around us.

It is not only on the scale of the immediate people around us that this desire to fit in circumvents our actions, however, as we are influenced by the expectations and societal norms imposed on us by the existing institutions of the day. The most obvious of those institutions is the state and the most recent example of the pattern of conformist thinking being weaponized against the individual was the 2020 pandemic public policy. In conjunction with the bombardment of emotionally charged information, conformity was emphasized with phrases such as “we’re all in this together” as people were led to mindlessly follow (now admittedly) arbitrary rules regarding things such as masking and social distancing. Some people even developed the same peer-policing tendencies to report their peer’s unwillingness to yield to the new “social contract” as those tendencies shown by the prisoners in the Stanford Prison Experiment and were willing to go to great lengths to see its enforcement, which made for some rather interesting interactions to say the least.

The second “institution” that we will discuss predicates its existence on the purposeful targeting of conformist thought and isn’t really an “institution” so much as it is an industry – the advertising industry. Through the deployment of psychological research spanning decades, massive corporate interests can sell the “right” products, the “desirable” lifestyle, the “best” solution to your problem (as long as you let them decide instead of doing it yourself). The effectiveness of the industry is inarguable, considering the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on an annual basis to produce a world where you are inundated by advertisements wherever you go. It doesn’t matter if you’re driving down the road (billboards), consuming print or digital media (banner ads), or just completing a simple task like searching for a new tool from Amazon or some other online vendor; you will have to deal with advertisements. This represents a direct attack on the mental sovereignty of the individual that influences everyone to some degree and has resulted in the proliferation of consumerism, despite a generally accepted awareness of its presence. This attack is one that must be mindfully considered and dealt with to ensure that the individual remains in control of his own habits.

Now that we have established some of the ways that conformist thought patterns can negatively impact our lives on both a peer-to-peer and an institution-to-peer level, let us consider how we can actively counter these and hopefully live in a more satisfying way. The de facto method for doing has already been alluded to in paragraph 3 and revolves around the individual being confident that his thoughts, opinions, and goals are really his own and not something that has been fabricated for him by outside forces. It is probably more possible now than at any other point in history for an individual to live their whole life without any profound sense of self beyond all the noise, and this will certainly be the case if one doesn’t take radical ownership of their thoughts through their own volition. When you first have an idea for something you want to do or something that you want to obtain, make the extra effort to consider why and where this potentially came from. Does this action align with your goals and values or does this align with the agenda of some group that desires for you to act in this way? If you believe that this thought may have originated inorganically, consider the potential reasons for your proposed psychological conditioning (often economic). This repeated thought experiment may not be the most appealing activity after your daily responsibilities, but it certainly sounds a lot better than coming to the realization near the end of your life that you lived for other people and their ideas rather than your own. You will find that, like anything else, you will grow more skilled at using this framework over time and develop great pattern recognition in observing the world around you. This is invaluable due to the consideration that thought must precede action, and therefore free action requires free thought.

One very important distinction that must be made is that it is the responsibility of the individual to maintain a life position that allows for this freedom. Any choice you make has consequences (obviously) and external factors that result from it, and this is a fundamental element of economic thought in the Austrian tradition (an economic system of thought derived based on individual actions - rather than collectivism – and fundamental laws derived from logic that is very useful for the types of considerations made in this essay). It is therefore up to you to buck off the agendas of the institutions that seek to control you in favor of your own. Aside from embracing free thought, finances are likely the next biggest impediment to this manner of living, as the debt-fueled lifestyle popularized in the West can quickly create a financial trap that is not easily (or quickly) escaped. I suggest minimalism and a rethinking of the “way of life” that you have been sold that considers only what you actually need and want. There is a great deal of waste on both a societal and individual level, and I likewise suggest doing what you can about the one of these that you can control. This will yield anyone the best possible chance to keep their life as simple as possible while maintaining the financial flexibility to avoid financial constraints becoming a hindrance to achieving a purposeful life in at least this regard. In doing so, the hope is that as many people as possible can be successful in living free in an unfree world.

Links to 2 Psychology Studies Referenced in Article: