The Conformist Test
How much do you really think for yourself?
According to computer scientist and author Paul Graham, not as much as you might think.
In fact, particularly on moral issues, perhaps hardly at all.
You might feel as though you are structuring your own morals and values, at the end of the day, they do feel as though they are ‘right’, right?
But to what extent are the origins of these beliefs rooted in self-exploration and understanding, as opposed to simple socialization?
In what might be one of the best essays I have ever read on the topic of societal discourse, Paul Graham addresses this quandary by asking, what makes some ideas acceptable and others not? His essay, “What You Can’t Say” then tries to provide at least some clarity on the matter.
As well as being a very enjoyable read, Graham manages to squeeze more nuance on social discourse into this relatively short piece than many of my political science textbooks could in 200 pages.
Fanboying aside, why does this matter?
Because, I believe, as a society, we are becoming more and more fixated on the topic of what is considered acceptable speech. In my own experience living in Canada, the last few years alone have seen heated legislative debates on the enforcement of certain types of language surrounding gender, as well as the adoption of the Chicago Principles across multiple provinces.
Yet these are but two examples that caught mainstream media attention. In the day-to-day especially, it seems there is an increasing laundry list of topics and ideas that are expected to be kept out of the public discourse, or even private conversation.
Graham sought to address this trend through his ‘fashion’ analogy; he argues societal values behave and shift more as fashion trends than universal truths: he notes we have seen “the age of consent [fluctuate] like hemlines.” People do not find certain items of clothing fashionable because they are objectively are so, but because their social environment has shifted to embrace them. Similarly, people do not adopt social values because they are objectively ‘better’ than others, but because their milieu has slowly come to support them.
So, how does this make us conformists?
It doesn’t necessarily mean you are, but it might. Importantly, we might be becoming conformists on issues that we hold very dear to us.
This is the idea that Paul Graham introduces within his essay. The thought experiment used to introduce this dynamic then comes under the subtitle, “The Conformist Test”.
Question: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers..?
Think about this for a second. Really, have a good think.
Graham then asks you to consider some possible outcomes:
Firstly, your answer could be no. In this case, everything you believe in is what you are ‘supposed’ to believe according to your social group. Given this is extremely unlikely to be mere coincidence, it is far more likely that you simply think what you are told.
Alternatively, you — and everyone around you— could have come to these values through your own rationale and logic. This seems equally as unlikely, as for that to be the case, you would all have had to make the same mistakes; the same errors in judgment; the same logical fallacies.
No one set of values is seen as entirely correct from the standpoint of any other. Look back in history and try to think of one group who you reckon got everything spot on: does a single example come to mind?
Now think back to your own group. What are the odds you are the first people in all of history to finally have the ‘right’ morals? Low. Very low.
As you can see, uniformity in opinion is becoming harder to justify.
Secondly, your answer could be yes, there are ideas you have that you would not want to share in front of your peers. Graham does not mention this option in his essay, but I believe we can also briefly explore this outcome.
If you do have ideas you would be scared to share in front of your peers, why?
What is really so reprehensible about them that even their utterance could break your friendships or relationships? What does this say about the community you have, if simply mentioning certain ideas could threaten its bonds?
Either way, this thought experiment can draw a few outcomes, none of which paint a particularly positive or accepting picture of more open discourse.
If that’s the test, then what’s the conclusion?
Graham does not use this test as a way to show how sensitive we are as a people, or as an argument for free speech absolutism. Neither of these are mentioned in the essay, nor need they be.
Instead it reads more like a call for self-reflection; a call for humility, in a way; a call for us to understand ourselves within a broader, historical context. In order to explore various ideas, or find solutions to developing problems, we need to be able to at least risk going against the social grain.
However, doing so can seem very dramatic when there are customs in society which forbid the mention of certain topics.
The reason it can seem dramatic, Graham shows, is because the faux pas and taboos that are drilled into us from a young age are in many cases deemed unquestionable. Or, the faux pas and taboos that come as a consequence of social movements you actually live through, are placed there as bulwarks to social regression.
In both these cases, there seems to be a natural and seemingly unquestionable reason for why certain ideas should not be discussed.
Instead, Graham questions if we are not able to “discount the effects of moral fashions,” and if by doing so we could allow ourselves to think more clearly and explore new ideas. Ideas which in the future might become standard and even taken for granted.
Think of how people would react today if you told them that the Earth orbits the Sun, now think how they would have reacted if you told them in 1600. That, Graham argues, is a perspective we need to consider when either self-censoring or censoring others.
This is not a call to embracing nihilism and reject all social values, norms, and taboos. It is simply a thought experiment you can reflect upon and hopefully use when navigating sensitive topics or challenging ideas.
One step deeper, it can be used to reflect on our own thought processes and social connectivity. Is it possible that the very societal bonds that are meant to grow our collective capacities can, in some cases, inhibit that which it sought to promote?
To what extent does a group’s restriction of language lead it towards group-think, whether intentional or not?
This, in turn, can then give you the freedom to ask, how much do I really think for myself?
