AspectRain

Being a human means having the potential of individuality, but achieving leadership over oneself is a challenge for such a social creature. I wanted to think about the different ways that we develop as our own persons and how, in the interests of society or marketing, that identity or the behaviors that define it can be changed.

I think that the first thing people ask themselves upon waking is, “Who am I?” (Nar yar, anyone?) followed shortly thereafter by “Where am I?” or “What am I doing?”

But that’s just my theory.

Self identity supposedly begins somewhere around 18 months, when a woddler starts recognizing it’s own image in a mirror. While at 5 months a baby will only smile at the image as it would another baby, the mirror stage is supposed to be part of a developmental point when tiny humans start having a sense of self-concept or self-awareness. The mirror test itself has more to do with that little person first becoming entranced with their own image, as we thereafter are obsessed, then it does with the first moment a kid has a sense of “I.” A 6 month old might look at the mirror, recognize that the other wiggly creature it itself, but not have the motor skills to express their understanding.

One line of thinking suggests that when confronted with a version of themselves that they have no way of resolving with, the Ego is born, in the first glimpse of a life chained to a Self that, by recognizing it, becomes a separate identity (or several), known by its own set of virtues and vices and mannerisms. We know that in social interactions, other people see one of our Selves, and a whole lot of angst comes from not wanting to accept the fact that by having a sense of Ego, we are doomed to be eternally misunderstood.

In other words, the first moment we see ourself in a mirror (when we first separate ‘Me’ from ‘Them’), we become aware of the disconnect between the reality of what/who we are, our own self-image, and the way others see us.

Who am I? A daily mantra for the common Homo sapien.

Humans need a sense of self, as well as an idea of their place in their surroundings. Where am I, what am I doing? The need for recognized placement is insatiable. As with any social animal, humans have a flocking mentality, and will follow whoever seems to be in control, even when they are in the very small minority. We are easily predictable and easily manipulated when in large groups, and when on our own, the need to bond or feel connection with others (or, alternatively, to flee from the unfamiliar and return to people we feel will protect us) has made everything from marketing to police interrogations a blossoming science.

If you have ever read Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, then you should take a look at the Robbers Cave Experiment. In a situation where there is a stronger force manipulating two weaker forces (in the study, it was the experimenters and the two groups of children, and in the book, it was the groups of children and the teachers/adults), there are but three possible results: The weaker groups succumb to the stronger influences, one of the groups will gang up on the other despite the influences (resolving the issue of conflict by removing their established ‘foe’), or the groups will become aware of the manipulation and revolt.

As individuals, we suffer similarly predictable results when we come across any situation that requires us to choose an action. We either accept outside influences (social acceptance, civil laws, fear), make drastic efforts to remove the focus of the problem to make the situation moot, or we become aware of ourselves as mice in the maze and react accordingly.

Regardless of what choice we end up making, we create some logic around our reason that makes up feel safe about the decision. Even when the result is in direct opposition to our self-identity or our perception of reality. It’s called cognitive dissonance, and it’s the fascinating psychological filter we use to reduce our discomfort when our understanding of reality and actual reality come in conflict. A 1959 study illustrates it pretty well.

Our ability to lie to ourselves, and the increasing understanding of the way we do it, is what makes us easy to manipulate.

The influence of an authority figure is extremely powerful because it comes with a built-in, socially acceptable reason: Following orders, or doing what you’re supposed to do. The infamous 1963 Stanley Milgram experiment (also see the wiki page for more details) showed just how susceptible we are to authority. ABC News did its own updated version of the experiment in 2006.

It’s incredible to think of just how many ways we are separated by the logic behind the choices we make or the perceptions we have and the actual reality of what we’re doing. Which is interesting, considering how many of us put such strong faith in our own intuition, as if it were an entity separate from all pervading influences.

It’s not our subconscious we should turn to, which is very happy as a sheep comfortably placed in its flock. We should be practicing the ability to say and do things despite how much in the minority we are. In a Conformity experiment that sought to see just how many people would give the wrong answer to a relatively obvious question just because everyone else was giving that answer, only 25% of people consistently gave the right answer.

Coincidentally, 25% is also the percentage of people who noticed what changed in an experiment studying Change Blindness, or how our minds glaze over sudden changes in the attempt to keep visual focus limited on one thing at a time.

The flocking mentality study I mentioned earlier said that it only took a minority of 5% to control the rest of the group. This is when the choice to conform or not is blatant - like in the conformity experiment, where the participants had to actually make their choice known vocally to everyone else. The experimenters also tried seeing how things changed when the participant could just write down the answer, without having to say it to the other, and the rate of conformity dropped.

I have to admire the people who had broken from the need for social conformity. It’s not an easy task, riddled as it is with a way array of sub-cultures and scapegoat groups that have just as much structure and rules as any other. Groups establish a sense of community consensus almost immediately, even when the people are only together for a very brief time. Our desire of social identity is instinctual and a potent motivation that influences just about every aspect of our lives. It’s so bad that we’ll even freeze up at helping someone when there are others around out of the fear and discomfort of doing something wrong or looking foolish.

Ever watch a lion tamer at a circus? The principles he utilizes are extremely similar to human sociology. Since birth, the lions establish their own hierarchy amongst one another, and the tamer must make it clear that he stands on top. He will do this by taking them to the cage, a territory they never enter without him being there first, so the firs rules of dominion are laid down. There are usually a few lions there during the show, and while they will all go to their places and sit, only one will actually be ‘chosen’ to do the tricks. This is the lion at the bottom of the totem pole, the one with the least social standing and therefore the most anxious to please. The scapegoat will gladly and meekly be the tamer’s ‘pet’, jumping through hoops and showing submission to curry the tamer’s favor and protection. The other lions are left alone, being beta males who wouldn’t tolerate the affront but are also content to wait out the little show.

There are numerous techniques employed to manipulating others. I mean in small, daily things. You can use compliments to control a conversation, ask questions about the other person (which not only can steer the conversation away from topics you want to avoid since people have a hard time not talking about themselves, but has the added benefit of leaving that person with the distinct impression that you are a fascinating person), you can use authority and reassurance tactics to get what you need, utilize scent to establish the impression or emotional connection you want people to make on a situation, you can even recognize the fact that people see their life stories as a series of chapters and present options to them that reflect that sense of mind.

It’s not hard to do this, but it is difficult to resist such manipulations yourself. The Sheep within us bleets loudly and blindly, and only with knowledge do we come to recognize the Wolves.

There is a bit of science to the direction someone’s eyes move depending on what they’re remembering or if they’re lying. Usually, as in the police interrogations article linked previously, you have to spend a bit of time with the person talking to them about casual, safe topics that they would have no reason to lie about (small talk) so that you get a sense of their normal mannerisms and voice. It’s the changes in these things that suggest bullshit is being produced.

Society has built-in manipulations that begin at one’s birth, all in the interest of civilization (as the current and older generations interpret that). Even the way that boys and girls are raised has a great deal of social convention and ‘normal’ choices whose logic seems completely obvious to parents. Aldous Huxley’s example of childhood indoctrination might have been a bit extreme, but not entirely without merit. What children hear in quantity will later as adults seem to them to be all according to their own internal logic - it feels right to them.

An important part of coming to recognize when you have accepted an idea that didn’t actually originate with you would be to making questioning each opinion. This isn’t about casting self-doubt, but about taking a moment to recall the origin of that idea.

Start with something simple, like food preferences. Perhaps you’ve always loathed spinach. It would be worthwhile to think back to when that feeling developed - you got sick off it once, its attached to bad memories, your mom never served it or she didn’t like it (so you assumed you didn’t). It is also important to realize that your ability to discern flavors changes as you become an adult (developing that broader palate that not only tolerates but may even enjoy beer and wine and other acquired tastes). Cilantro is a good example, as its flavor can taste rotten, soapy or metallic to one person and delicious to another, and over time how you interpret its taste can totally flip.

Another technique: Get in the habit of backing up your opinions. It’s not just useful in discerning truth, but it will make the things you say or write much stronger. Once you know what a properly researched and evidenced fact looks like, you’ll be keener on noticing ‘truths’ that are lacking.

A more difficult challenge is to look at common knowledge with a canny eye. The idea that something can be “common knowledge” and must therefore be true is misleading - it suggests that it only takes popularity for a concept to be true.

As the flocking study showed, popularity has nothing to do with each of those many individuals consciously and intelligently making a choice. It only takes a few loud, confident spokespersons to get heads nodding.

The point of these techniques is to stay aware of where your ideas are coming from and learn to sense manipulations. It’s not meant to be depressing to see all the different ways we can fool ourselves and each other - but only with knowledge of those realities can we grow stronger as individuals and honest leaders.