My Favourite Post Ever

Monkey See. from Feb 9, 2009

I actually used this blog post, after I wrote it, as the bulk of the first half of an essay I handed in months later. It encapsulates much of what swirled through my head at that time in my life, and has developed into further mind-meanderings since.

The human being is a curious animal. Compared to the millions of other species on this planet we're capable of much greater and faster progress. What most notably sets us apart from most inhabitants of this world is that we are able to learn socially. It's quite rare in mammals- the ability to learn from direction, from social cues or be able to work in cooperation with one-another to accomplish mutual goals. Dolphins have some ability here, and so does your dog. Throw a ball for Pooch to fetch, and if he's unable to quickly find it, whistle to him and point to its approximate location, and the dog understands that you're giving him direction to the location of the object he's seeking. Amazing. Some species of primates aren't even able to do that, while others accomplish much higher complex tasks such as working together on tasks to accomplish mutually beneficial goals.

We, thankfully, are far more advanced, and as evolution has seen to it, we've developed into a species capable of complex social patterns, and interpersonal cooperations have brought us amazing things like airplanes, open heart surgery, Teletubbies – and, possibly more importantly – the way in which we act as a species towards each other – speaking on both macro and micro levels.

Humans take in raw-data about the world in basically two ways: through first hand experience, and via social means - 'social learning'. The first is obvious: we learn from an early age what objects feel like to touch, what hot and cold feel like, etc. The second, social learning, is more complex: we learn social norms, appropriate behaviors, the way we think human-to-human interactions should work, a value system of right and wrong and a hierarchy of importance through subconscious observation, mimicking, taking direction, etc. We learn most of what we know through this process and it is this that shapes who we are, and our subjective perspectives of our environment and situations.

But social-learning has its quirks. Growing up and going to school in Victoria we, likely several times a school year, held earthquake drills – where a rumbling sound would come over the PA system simulating the sound of an earthquake. We were taught that on such occasions (and, during real earthquakes) that we were to 'duck and cover' – meaning we were to duck under our desks, facing away from the window while covering the back of our necks with one hand, and holding a desk leg with the other.

On the infrequent occurrences of these earthquake drills there was an interesting phenomenon. The 'earthquake' would come over the PA, and, instead of immediately ducking and covering, we would momentarily look around at each other and the teacher. We all new, through repetitious training and reminders, exactly what to do, but it was instinctual to look around first to seek social consensus before acting on personal knowledge. I find this example most significantly interesting because is seems we would waste time by looking around at our peers in the event of a life-threatening disaster. Why would evolution see fit to make this apart of our behavior, if, seemingly, we could achieve the duck-and-cover in less time if we relied directly on our own knowledge of what to do in that situation.

As primarily social-learners, what we see as 'true' or 'right' is often the result of the forces of social conditioning. We look onto the behaviors of others to assess situations, and for the reactions of others to determine our own sense of self, the value of things and even other people. If something has received wide acceptance, we tend to simply believe or accept the thing, person or behavior as normal and acceptable and of a high value, even often in times that, if we had used our own faculties of judgment we would think otherwise. (of course, there is always limits – when our own feelings oppose)

Franchises are an example of a product receiving heightened level of success, not necessarily on their own merit, but of a perceived level of 'social proof' garnering the business with such traits as 'more successful' and 'trustworthy'. A small business entrepreneur is more likely to achieve success opening a Subway restaurant rather than an independent sandwich shop, because people are less inclined to trust or feel good about a brand that they believe has not gained wide social approval. The video store I go to – an independent chain of 2 locations, is directly across an intersection from a Rogers Plus. If all else were equal – my small video store would thwamp Rogers Plus out of existence – having new release rentals at less than half the cost of their competitor. But all is not equal. Someone driving by the Rogers Plus is washed over with a strong and most often inescapable feeling of higher value about the store because of its perceived social proof – a perceived test of social scrutiny passed by his peers.

A more entertaining example: Jackass, the movie. After its wide release and soaring popularity, young people were seen worldwide attempting the same and similar stupid and very life-threatening stunts they saw Johnny Noxville and others do in the movie. You might think, that, in a species that was capable of achieving marvels ranging from space-travel to intricate nano-technology, that we would surely be rational enough to not do things like ride down steep hills towards traffic in shopping carts. But that same mechanism that allows us to have social cooperation also fools us, even in the face of death. Jackass, with its wide popularity quickly gained it high status and social proof. When we see people or behaviors that have these attributes, the natural inclination is to believe those things to be true or correct.

Recently, and regularly, events and movements take place that have people act in ways that defy rationality. Look at riots – and, for that matter, large spectator fights at soccer games. Why do they happen? While I'm sure participants are well aware of the dangers of riots and fights before they find themselves a part of one, people – in masses, often defy their own common sense.

In social situations we are always 'pinging' the interactions and reactions of others to gain a sense of etiquette and social normality among our peers. There's something about being in the presence of a group of people that share a common reality – 'group think' - that makes us compelled to act in the same way. If there is such an event where enough people are able to set the tone of the social reality in a given place, others will, in many cases, subconsciously adjust their behavior and attitudes to fit the situation. Oddly enough, if you were to teleport-out a riot participant who was in the middle of ripping down a street sign, or a spectator at a soccer game in mid-punch into a completely different and calm environment, they would be stunned by their rapid change of state and able to provide no real reason why they were acting in such a manor. Likely they would be in a state of confusion, our would attempt to backwards rationalize their behavior.

A few days ago I turned on the TV to find a program about cults – specifically the Manson Family. A segment in the show cut away to an experiment that had taken place where a 'focus group' of 4 participants was shown sets of two pieces of paper side-by-side by a presenter. On the first piece of paper was one single thick black bar of a certain length, and on the other, three bars of different lengths labeled A,B and C, one of which matched the length of example bar from the first piece of paper. In order, the study participants were asked aloud which of the thee options matched the example bar. The examples were similar, but obvious enough that a small child would be able to match the bars correctly. The study was done such that participants 1, 2, and 3 were secretly a part of the study, while only 4 was an actual participant. The study found that when all three other participants repeatedly incorrectly answered the questions, almost all real participants would begin incorrectly matching the bars. Such a study indicated the power of a 'social reality'.

In Cults, as the program focused on, a person of high status was able to dictate the reality of a large number of people. This phenomenon is not limited to cults – people perceived to be highest status in a social group often lead trends and the style of dialogue of the group. On a macro level, the same is true with celebrities.

Several years ago the rapper Nelly got a cut on his face shortly before a public appearance, and put small band-aid on his cheekbone diagonally over it. It was no time before masses of little rapper wannabes began putting white band-aids on their faces. There was obviously no logic or president of unneeded band-aids being a sign of status, style or conformity, but, as this and any other use of celebrity endorsement shows, social proof is garnered by both initiation from a person of high status and wide-spread social proof of its correctness.

I'm not quite sure how to end this post, other than to suggest that one ought both appreciate the benefits that being social creatures has brought us, but also to be aware of the forces that often influence our decisions and perspectives. The Matrix has you.