Are we becoming a conformist society?

[brodski]

What you are describing is moving social norms ie. what is considered normal behaviour. These things inevitably change with time (we don't burn witches at the stake any more either). What I'm saying is that there is less tolerance of those who are far away from those norms.

If you think of a bell curve - the norm is the central hump while the non-conformists occupy the tails at the edge. In terms of such a curve, I'm saying the norm is becoming fatter and the tails thinner. The norm may have changed with time but it's frowned on to stray too far away from it these days. Such people are highly likely to be 'diagnosed' as having a psychological 'disorder' when once they were merely harmless eccentrics. Now such people must be 'cured' when once they were considered useful for creating new ideas.

Ok, you’re all over the place here. You accept that a wider range of “types” are accepted in society, and use this as an argument for how we are becoming more conformist?
As for the “harmless eccentrics” who are now forced to be “cured” in a previous age they where locked away from society totally or at best shunned, rather than tolerated. The tolerance for people with “different ideas” or ideas outside the mainstream is in many ways greater than is has been in the past. Indeed I would say that the downside of this tolerance is why Skeptics have such an uphill battle- society at large is only too happy to tolerate different views no matter how at odds with reality they are.

Do you have any evidence for you square wave bell curve theory?

[MRT]

I mentioned examples earlier. People who might once have been employed by mainstream companies are not any more. There may not be prejudice against race, sex, etc. but applicants must still 'fit into the team'. This is management-speak for 'follow the system', however dumb the system might be, and don't challenge it or try to improve it.

Dragons Den - a TV show! What makes you think that any more realistic than Most Haunted?

Regarding supposed psychiatric disorders, consider this. If you ask a doctor what measles is they can tell you exactly what the disease is and what it does in your body down to tissue and even molecular level. Then ask a psychiatrist what bipolar is? They will give you a description of symptoms but cannot tell you what causes it or how it affects the body. What is more, the definition (ie. the symptoms) is widening to take in people who were once consider just a bit boistrous.

As for better diagnosis and treatment - diagnosis consists of ticking symptom boxes from the DSM IV. If you don't really understand what an illness is, how can you possibly know that your treatment is curing it? You may well just be suppressing symptoms, which obviously is just fine for those living with the patient.

I guess people here disagree with me on this one. Obviously we are not becoming a more conformist society at all. Maybe I just need a few red pills and then I'll feel nice and normal.

[MRT]

OK, in the interests of getting something done today, I'm going to conform and freely admit that we are not becoming a conformist society at all. Or possibly we're becoming a bit less conformist.

Please do NOT remember this thread in future when any of the following happens to you:

a) you are denied NHS treatment because you: smoke, drink, weigh over an arbitrary figure, drive a fast car, have the wrong genes, don't recycle
b) you do not get a rise because your boss doesn't agree with you that his new management structure is 'just a pointless unproven fad dreamt up by an overworked academic in an obscure university who was told to publish or get sacked and which will be replaced by another set of innefficient, bankrupt ideas in six months anyway'
c) you are diagnosed with 'video fixation disorder' for watching more than one DVD a night
d) your invention of a working teleportation machine is ignored because you didn't redecorate your house according to the 'Local Buildings Uniformity Act 2018'

[Legaleagle]

a) you are denied NHS treatment because you: smoke, drink, weigh over an arbitrary figure, drive a fast car, have the wrong genes, don't recycle

Uh oh, Have you been reading the Daily Mail?

b) you do not get a rise because your boss doesn't agree with you that his new management structure is 'just a pointless unproven fad dreamt up by an overworked academic in an obscure university who was told to publish or get sacked and which will be replaced by another set of innefficient, bankrupt ideas in six months anyway'

If he/she's your boss then presumably you have entered into a contract to do as he/she tells you to do for a certain number of hours per day in return for a monetary payment. If you don't like it go and do something else. Plenty of "non-conformists" do exactly this.

c) you are diagnosed with 'video fixation disorder' for watching more than one DVD a night

????

d) your invention of a working teleportation machine is ignored because you didn't redecorate your house according to the 'Local Buildings Uniformity Act 2018'

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

[MRT]

I can't answer any more questions on this subject, I'm a recovering non-conformist. Questions confuse me.

[MRT]

I feel like David Brent! For the benefit of anyone who doesn't realise, my last two posts on this thread (before this one) were intended to be amusing. I hoped the wording might make that obvious without needing to put a there as well. I guess the moment has gone now ...

[MischiefMonkey]

I feel like David Brent! For the benefit of anyone who doesn't realise, my last two posts on this thread (before this one) were intended to be amusing. I hoped the wording might make that obvious without needing to put a there as well. I guess the moment has gone now ...

Phew......


*Mischief Monkey stops backing away from the keyboard slowly*


I'm happy to continue discussing this, by the time I'd got back to the computer you had 'conceded' No fun debating with someone who agrees with you

[Fiona]

I am a little confused by what is being argued here. Is it possible that there is a conflation of social and economic spheres and that this is why there appears to be a problem?

It seems to me to be undeniable that we are more socially diverse than in the 1960's; and despite the rantings in some quarters we manage to accept individual difference more readily. It is perhaps arguable that the conceptual roots of this were in the 60's and that we hear less of the debate because it is less "live" than it used to be. I happen to think that is dangerous because gains taken for granted are apt to be lost when we are not looking: but that is another part of the forest

However part of what MRT seems to be identifying is a loss of autonomy in the work place. I fully accept that this was very hard to find on the manufacturing production line. It was not scarce in industries like ship building or other highly skilled industrial arenas however: the tradesman was recognised as an expert in his field and to a large extent the demand of the employer was to "make a...whatever". How that was achieved was down to the workforce to at least some extent ( so my father, who was a tradesman, told me and I do not think this is entirely fuzzy pink glasses). And this led to a more satisfying experience for the workers in that sector.

White collar workers also enjoyed some of the same freedoms in how to get the job done and they also were recognised as having some value and some input into how the aims of the enterprise were achieved. Of course this was not universal but I do think it was a bit more widespread in the past. Certainly in my own field this is true and there has been a steady decline in autonomy and consequently in job satisfaction

To some extent this has arisen because of the worship of the methods of the private sector at its very worst (ie on the production line):and an odd notion that no matter what the task, if it is defined and prescribed closely enough there will be efficiency and uniformity of outcome: and nothing bad will ever happen. This seems to me to be patently absurd. In the course of this in many sectors we have lost sight of what the purpose of the company or agency actually is: and a lot of people spend more time writing down what they have done than actually doing it. This is called "accountability" though that is an abuse of language imo.

If I stray into the golden age implicit in MRT's post I would say this: since the major reforms of the civil service in the 19th century the UK had a very good public sector (though of course it had faults). At the same time it had a poor private sector, which was masked by the fruits of empire but became very obvious when the empire declined. The inadequacy of the private sector was a real problem with real economic consequences. It is curious that over the past 30 years or so the solution, which seems to be widely accepted, is to model the public sector on the private and not the other way round. This is a great mystery to me but it seems to be so.