SOCIAL HYPOCRISY

First off, for anyone who only really looks at my new phlog posts, 
I've been more active lately in other parts of my Gopher hole, 
adding a few new ideas in the "Ideas" section and scanning in a 
bunch of 35mm pics from the 100th Lake Goldsmith Steam rally, 
neatly organised in the "Photos" section. Go check 'em out, 
especially the pics because scanning them in took a lot longer than 
I expected (though I still didn't get the scan settings right for 
most of them).


Now, more thoughts that I noted down to write a post about when I 
got time, but now can't remember properly. This phlog clearly won't 
reach its peak for a good few decades, when I can retire and 
actually have time to post when I've something to say. In 
particular I think this post might turn out a little less focused 
than other recent ones.

I was thinking about why I don't like to socialise. Obviously a lot 
of people just purely get more enjoyment from talking in a group 
than I do, but also I think it's down to my reluctance to 
participate in the convention that I'll call "social hypocrisy".

People in groups are always seeking some form of view on their own 
opinions from others. They seek not just affirmation, but 
acceptance within the group. But it is this dual purpose for 
expressing views that presents an obstacle to truely reasoned 
thought, because acceptance by a group can offer more immediate 
benefit than affirmation of ideas. Rejection of a person from a 
group is rejection of their ideas, and this is power over that 
person to shape their own thoughs.

Expressing a view within a group usually has much less impact on 
the group than on the person expressing it. Before a concensus has 
been formed by the group to accept it or reject it, much of this 
power has already born influence over that person. In speaking a 
view, one forges that view deeper within one's own mind. It is a 
decision taken to dispell uncertainties, and trust in immediate 
judgement. But this judgement has been skewed by a need to conform 
to the group. At the cost of reason, the balance of decision could 
be tipped by group bias, and a person may have adopted views that 
conflict with their own independent understanding of the world.

In short, to maintain standing within a group one must often be a 
hypocrite - to speak words that you don't believe yourself. 
Harmless as it might seem in isolation, every lie moulds you, as 
you wish to fit it within your true thoughts to match the common 
voice of the group in which you chime.

The same is true in opposition to a group. If someone you don't 
like expresses a view that you would normally agree with, you're 
immediately disinclined towards it, because you don't want to be 
part of their group. You are obliged to reject them, and so reject 
your own opinion.

This isn't to ignore that one group can be right while the other is 
wrong. The issue is that, mixed up amongst the constant influence 
of other people as members of their varied and interbred groups, 
can an active social participant ever know? Moreso can they ever 
long persist in an uncertainty when social pressure can so easily 
fill a vaccume of reasoned judgement?

I always try to maintain my own uncertainties. I've said before 
that I aim to love and hate everything simultaneously, always able 
to see both sides of every coin. This doesn't usually work well in 
groups though. To a question posed such as "why do [some group] do 
[some allegedly stupid thing]?", I'm likely to respond with "well 
they probably [state other group's objective]" while avoiding any 
statement of my own position on the topic. To save my neck I might 
follow with "but [argument against other group's objective]", while 
again avoiding any direct statement as to whether I believe it's a 
valid rebuttal or not. At best it gets me nowhere within the group, 
usually it just pisses people off a little bit.

Honestly this has become so much my nature that it has become to 
some extent physically hard for me to directly express an opinion 
on a non-trivial topic that's even vaguely contentious. It's like 
unwraping layers of mental roadblocks saying "not worth it - go 
back". I don't mind doing it up on a pedestal like here, even if 
people go away and tell others that I'm wrong and a complete idiot. 
But in a discussion my thoughts are open to intersection by others, 
and to moulding through immediate social pressures. I can't stand 
to leave that door open.

Of course I know I'm not immune, and I don't know to what extent my 
views have nevertheless been shaped in this way. I never really got 
on with my stepfather, and he was my only parent who voiced a 
strong political opinion. He's on the polical centre-left, and I 
ended up on the centre-right (in Australian politics at least, I 
reserve opinion for places where I don't have a vote, and of course 
I hate the lot of 'em pollies anyway). I've never debated politics 
with him, not even going as far as attempting neutral replies like 
above, usually just a dismissive "hmm..." or "yeah, yeah". But I 
wonder if I did simply form my political view in opposition to his?

Anyway we're all just beasts really, playing old animalistic games 
via our superior mental horsepower. We can achieve great things 
together, but we're really too mixed up with our own 
interrelationships to ever submit to reason and reach our potential 
through logic and imagination. Yet short of that we make a fine 
spectacle, so stop talking, just grab a comfy chair and watch, I 
say.

 - The Free Thinker.