Das Lemming-Prinzip: Wie unser Hang zu Konformität Extremismus fördert, kritisches Denken unterdrückt und unsere Freiheit bedroht

by Cass R. Sunstein

Wir leben in Zeiten der Polarisierung und sozialen Spaltung. Menschen nach Religion, Ethnie und Geschlecht zu trennen scheint wieder legitim. Wie ist das geschehen?

Cass R. Sunstein sieht die Erklärung im Phänomen der Konformität – doch wieso laufen wir oft wie Lemminge unseren Mitmenschen hinterher? Sunstein zeigt, welchen Schaden eine Gesellschaft nimmt, wenn der Einzelne seinen moralischen Instinkt unterdrückt. Nur wenn wir Andersdenkende und individuelle Stimmen akzeptieren, statt sie als egoistische Individualisten zu sehen, können wir uns langfristig auf Demokratie und Freiheit verlassen und uns vor Extremismus schützen.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Sociology, Politics, Science, Society, Audiobook

179 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 28, 2019

About the author

Cass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.

Reviews

[Cav · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a mixed bag for me...

Author Cass Sunstein is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, law and behavioral economics.

Cass R. Sunstein:


Sunstein starts off with a decent intro to the book; talking about the power of social norms in keeping societies cohesive and people in line with the current social orthodoxy.
He then covers the Asch experiments, and the Milgram experiments. All standard fare in a book about social psychology.
He also talks about the power of social cascades, which was interesting.

The book also covers the importance of free speech, which has somehow become a contentious issue again these days.

Unfortunately, I found the middle to later part of the book pretty arduous and dry. For such a short book, he drones on about the dynamics of supreme court judges and voting patterns for more time than it was worth...

He then includes a bizarre and relatively unrelated conversation about diversity inclusions in academia. Writing with a stereotypical PC view, he talks about how it is a great idea to have academia incorporate the "value" of diversity in its admission criterion. Although he pays lip service to diversity of opinion (the only meaningful diversity), he is taking the reader by the hand down the path to talk about racial diversity.

And although he mentions meritocracy, it is clearly not as important to him as checking the PC-approved boxes of "inclusion" and "acceptance" that are oh-so-fashionable of late...
He says that Asians are now being handicapped in admissions criteria, because they have become over-represented in post-secondary demographics and performance. That people are being punished for excellence, while others are given an unfair advantage for subpar performance doesn't seem to raise any alarms for him...

That an author writes a book about social norms, conformity, and culture's ability to program beliefs in people remains ignorant to the fact that he himself has been programmed by the same culture has got to be at the pinnacle of irony. LMAO

I am also puzzled at why his diatribe about diversity in academia was even added to the book in the first place. He wants to have a discussion on diversity in academia, but conveniently doesn't mention the real lack of diversity there; which is diversity of political stances in its professors and faculty, especially in the fields of the humanities and social sciences. These fields are vastly disproportionately left-leaning, to outright Marxist, in many cases.

Institutions of higher learning are becoming indoctrination centers because they are echo chambers. Instead of teaching young, impressionable minds how to think, they are teaching them what to think.
They are propagating and enforcing the very Groupthink he talks about in this book. No mention of this lack of diversity, tho. Quelle surprise...

**********************

Overall, Conformity was an OK book that would be interesting for someone who knows relatively nothing about sociology.
People who have at least a cursory knowledge of sociology won't find anything new here, which is actually my biggest criticism of this book.
It contains nothing new, and the author's inability to really engage his audience would lead me to suggest you might find better books on this topic.
2.5 stars out of five, rounded up to 3 stars.

[Ell · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 21st century is, in many ways, the era of social influence. Social media has transformed the way both factual information and propaganda are delivered, business and political agendas are furthered and social norms are formed. Social influence is quite powerful. Compliance, obedience and conformity are all manifested via it. This book is extremely a propos and very thought provoking. Author Cass R. Sunstein examines the ‘hows’, the ‘whys’ and the effects of conformity and dissent in a logical, thoughtful and engaging manner. It is well worth the read.

[Venky · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1972, the social psychologist Irving L. Janis coined the term “Groupthink.” This term was employed to define a psychological phenomenon under which people endeavor to strike a consensus within a group. In most instances, people even set aside their own personal beliefs and philosophies before adopting the consensus of the rest of the group. People going against the overriding ‘group tide’ tend to maintain a veneer of stoic silence and quietude, often preferring not to rock the boat and let the harmonization of the crowd prevail.

But the pioneering example of the groupthink phenomena – without using the exact word – was bestowed to the world by George Orwell, courtesy his immortal epic, “1984”. Groupthink is but an analogy for and of its predecessor, “doublethink.” Doublethink as per Orwell in his dystopian work refers to the deed of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Whether one desires to christen the phenomena Groupthink, or prefers the word doublethink or prosaically restricts oneself to calling it, conformity, the bottom line is that such acts produce outcomes that are not just undesirable or prejudicial but downright dangerous.

In his new and concise book, “Conformity: The Power of Social Influences”, acclaimed author Cass Sunstein dwells on the nature of conformity, its perils and possible measures to mitigate the ill effects of conformity. Conformity as Mr. Sunstein explains can be found in almost every sphere of our life. “Wherever we live – a small village or New York, Copenhagen, Jerusalem, Paris, Rome, Beijing or Moscow – we develop allegiances. Once we do that we follow informational signals from some people rather than others. We want the approval of those we admire, like and trust.” Mr. Sunstein brings to the attention of his readers the Power of Social Influences in bringing to bear upon people the attribute of conformity. In a social experiment conducted a few years earlier that involved assembling a number of citizens from two different cities to deliberate on three topic issues of our time: climate change, affirmative action and same-sex unions, the results revealed a startling trend. Individual opinions denoted a marked shift towards extremism and “Group Verdicts.” Citizens of the more conservative state veered towards extreme conservatism even if their individual opinion was to be liberal and vice-versa.

As Mr. Sunstein proceeds to illustrate this grain of conformity does not spare the judicial system either. “When sitting with Republican appointees, Democratic appointees often vote like Republican appointees, and sitting with Democratic appointees, Republican appointed judges often vote like Democratic appointees.” So what exactly influences individual beliefs and behaviours making them subservient to majority opinions even if such opinions might not be the most rational or logical alternatives? Mr. Sunstein focuses on two important factors: Informational influences and a pervasive human desire to have and to retain the good opinion of others.

Informational influences dictate that “if a number of people seem to believe that some proposition is true, there is reason to believe that that proposition is in fact true.” The second influence postulates that “if a number of people seem to believe something, there is reason not to disagree with them, at least not in public. The desire to maintain the good opinion of others breeds conformity and squelches dissent, especially but not only in groups that are connected by bonds of loyalty and affection…”

Throughout the course of his work, Mr. Sunstein lays emphasis on three points:

Confident and firm people will exert particular influence over otherwise identical groups, thereby leading them in dramatically different directions;
People are extremely vulnerable to the unanimous views of others and thereby a single dissenter is likely to have a huge impact; and
Bonds of affection, loyalty and belongingness within a group is far more likely to influence decisions on both easy and hard questions.
Mr. Sunstein corroborates his assertions by taking recourse to the experiments made by the Turkish-American social psychologist Muzafer Sherif, the Polish-American gestalt psychologist Solomon Asch and the American Social psychologist, Stanley Milgram.

Conformity is also an outcome of ‘peer pressure’ as has been dramatically illustrated by the Milgram experiments. People tend to take a deferential view towards the opinion of qualified personnel and experts. This deference exhibited by Milgram’s subjects towards the ‘expert’ in the experiment let the psychologist to an opinion that such obedience to authority was in a way reminiscent of the behavior of many Germans under the Nazi rule, However, Mr. Sunstein deigns to differ when he postulates that Miligram was not right in arriving at the German analogy. Milgram’s subjects were not simply obeying a leader but responding to someone whose credentials and good faith they thought they could trust.

Conformity is also the result of what Mr. Sunstein terms are “cascades.” In an informational cascade, people cease relying at a certain point, on their private information or opinions. They decide instead on the basis of the signals conveyed by others.”

Conformity will also depict a dramatic decline when people perceive themselves to be different from the perspective of ideologies, preferences, and allegiances from opinions expressed by ‘others’. Mr. Sustein calls this behavior “reactive devaluation”, to signify the tendency whereby people devalue arguments and positions simply because of their source. Conformity also takes a back seat when financial rewards are offered for making the right decisions or for providing the correct answers. People would be less inclined to follow group members when they stand to profit from a correct answer. Conformity also finds refuge in the phenomenon of Group Polarization. “Members of a deliberating group typically end up in a more extreme position in line with their tendencies before deliberations began. This is the phenomenon known as Group Polarization.”

Mr. Sustein argues for what he calls a “Voice of Sanity” to disrupt and derail the forces of conformity. Such a Voice of Sanity might even be a sole dissenter, a dissenter who typifies John Stuart Mill’s prototype “working against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling.” As Mr. Sunstein claims, “if a group is embarking on an unfortunate course of action, a single dissenter might be able to turn it around by energizing ambivalent group members who would otherwise follow the crowd.” A classic case in point for the value of dissent being the marvelous study by Brooke Harrington of the performance of investment clubs. Dissent also finds enshrinement in the American Constitution, “which attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is a system that combines accountability to the people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving.”

The most controversial ‘remedy’ to shun conformity is however reserved by Mr.Sunstein for the Courts. Arguing for what he terms ‘reasonable diversity’, Mr. Sunstein makes a clarion call for a requirement of bipartisan membership that operates as a check against judgments veering towards the extreme. Having a reasonable diversity, in the words of Mr. Sunstein would “ensure that judges, no less than anyone else, are exposed to such diversity, and not merely through the arguments of advocates.”

The facet of reasonable diversity might also be introduced in the realms of higher education according to Mr. Sunstein. “The idea is that education is likely to be better if a school has people with different views, perspectives, and experiences.” Justice Lewis Powell in the landmark decision involving the Bakke case, argued that a diverse student body is a constitutionally acceptable goal for higher education. The central reason is that universities should be allowed to ensure a “robust exchange of ideas” an interest connected with the first amendment itself.

“Conformity” in size is an extremely small and concise book. But the arguments packed within are more an eye opener leading to a path of potential progress than a manifesto that has been part of innumerable previous deliberations.

[Amit Verma · Rating 3 out of 5]

My rating is 3.5/5 Thanks netgalley and author for ARC.
.
It is surprising that how few people can see things from different perspective and present and teach this to other people. This book discusses thing that we do everyday without appreciating their weight.
.
.This work by C Sunsteiin discusses vital role of phenomenon of conformity in the life of humans.
He intellectually dissects role of conformity in every aspect of human interactions right from prehistoric times to present socioeconomic interactions.
.
Consciously or subconsciously everybody seeks social affirmation and this has deep impact on every decision including law, religion, beauraucracy, fashion, culture. We tend to overestimate logic followed by masses, even if our inner knowledge is contradictory.
.

But it is strange how even a single and confident non conformist may change whole cascade and start new revolution or war or fashion or fad or fake news.
.
There is detailed spotlight on mechanics of conformity and its impacts.
Impact on jury, universities, beauraucrats, doctors, criminals, offenders is enlighting.
.
Only thing I hope could have been better was details of scientific research and data on courts and political thinkers.
.
For amateur reader these details may be speed brakers and message is easily delivered in rest of the text.
.
It will open your eyes to the origin of harmful mass opinions on vital issues like immigration, global warming, religion, freedom, diversity, terrorism etc.
.
Information about various cascades is interesting and internet has multiplied it many times.
.

It is eyeopening and enlightening text which could hav econsisted less of research data.

[catinca.ciornei · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Cass Sunstein, author and scientist of popular fame in recent years, explains (and I do mean ‘explains’ literally, the focus is on offering many arguments, case studies and experiments) issues like group-think, informational cascades, polarization in like-minded groups, the power (and relative rarity) of dissent and how we take these biases and embed them into public institutions. Mr Sustein argues that diversity is great, although hard to implement at many times. The book is quite narrowed on these subjects, may be dry for someone looking for a more pop-culture type of read. But if this is what you wish to read on, do dig in.

[Jelemi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really shallow...

[Charles Haywood · Rating 4 out of 5]

In "Conformity," Cass Sunstein takes common sense about how decisions are informed, and distorted, by social pressure and makes it both better and worse. Better, because he shows why common sense is confirmed by logic and experiment. Worse, because he makes it feel pedantic. But if you reflect on the discussions in this book, and apply them to current events and your own thinking, you can get some interest and excitement back into your brain, and maybe benefit yourself and society as well.

I like Sunstein, who many years ago taught me Administrative Law. Yes, for a modest-seeming man, he too often believes his own press, and Tyler Cowen’s blurb description of Sunstein as an “arch non-conformist” is silly. No stated opinion of Sunstein’s has ever strayed far from the then-current consensus of the Left, and this book is no exception, although it is not an overtly ideological book. But he is certainly thoughtful, and manages to avoid seeming like a knee-jerk leftist, even though his main difference from the social justice warriors isn’t in political ends, but in methods. For example, Sunstein is big (in other writings) on what he calls “nudging,” which means Big Left Brother starting by telling you what to do gently, without you noticing, rather than starting by telling you you’ll lose your job if you don’t comply with his latest insane dictates. Small blessings, I guess.

Sunstein begins by noting that social conformity can be either good or bad. Some amount of conformity is both beneficial and necessary. Very little of the information we act on is gained from first-hand knowledge; most is gained by figuring out what others think. This is true of facts—how do you know Napoleon existed at all except by taking someone else’s word for it? It is also true of opinions and moral beliefs. Sunstein’s goal is not to encourage us all to spend our days fighting the Man on every front, like a bunch of dirty hippies or filthy Antifa who are so non-conforming that they are radically conformist. Rather, it’s to explore where, and under what circumstances, we should try to resist the effects of conformity in order to make better decisions. Most of Sunstein’s focus is on political decisions; he occasionally refers vaguely to business decisions, but he obviously knows nothing at all about business; he has always been an egghead who has never needed to make a payroll.

According to Sunstein, two basic principles explain conformity. First, what people do provides information to others about what is true and what is right. Second, what other people do signals what you need to do to stay in their good graces, aside from what is true and what is right. Combined, these principles mean we all tend to default to acting and thinking as do our neighbors. In the modern world, of course, our neighbors are no longer our physical neighbors, but a broader and necessarily more heterogenous group. And if there is one overriding effect of conformity on which Sunstein focuses, it is that deliberation among any group tends not to converge on the median opinion, but to make the average opinion more extreme. This is true for political conclusions (e.g., the existence and importance of global warming) and for legal decisions (e.g., what level of punishment to impose on a convicted criminal).

Sunstein first discusses how conformity works. He cites numerous experiments to prove three commonsense points: confident people sway others (the “confidence heuristic”); unanimity among others in your group is difficult to contradict even if you disagree; and those not like us influence us less. These things are true, with variations, across cultures. Conformity will lead, in some instances, to people endorsing falsehoods they know to be false, or to taking actions they believe to be morally wrong. In experiments, the tendency to conformity can be alleviated by increasing incentives to maintain objectivity, such as tying financial rewards to accuracy of statements, or by actively discouraging unanimity, or by trying to make groups heterogeneous, with fewer “affective ties.”

The mechanisms of conformity are not as simple as we are sometimes told; Sunstein has a nuanced view of the famous Milgram electric shock experiment, for example. He ascribes behavior there not just to obedience to authority, but to the “informational signal” sent by the expertise of the man running the experiment to the person being asked to give shocks to the test subject. That is, when the moral course of action is not clear, people will usually defer to experts—unless the expert’s opinion is countered by a non-expert perceived as reasonable. This analysis is more complex, and more useful, than “people will do bad things due to social pressure to conform.” In general, all this discussion is very good, although with a few false notes. For example, Sunstein thinks that democracy reduces conformity. This, of course, confuses democracy with freedom of expression and the ability to dissent; there is no necessary connection between the two.

Next Sunstein turns to social cascades, in which the principles are similar, but the result is not social stability, but social change. Cascades result from people ceasing to rely on private information and instead starting to rely on external signals from those with their own private information. Thus, music that is publicly shown as being a popular download is far more likely to be downloaded by others. Doctors are far more likely to prescribe a medicine that is potentially harmful if they see that other doctors are prescribing it for other patients. As with conformity, the more authority those seen to be making choices have, the more likely others will ignore their private information and follow the leader; as more people do this, others are more likely to make the same choice.

Both conformity and cascades can be good or bad, says Sunstein, depending on what results. That is, for Sunstein, conformity due to social pressure or a cascade that is based on false information is fine, if the political goal reached is desirable.

To prevent cascades based on false information (when that’s the goal), Sunstein suggests that free speech is a panacea. As with Sunstein’s claims about democracy, that seems incorrect, since free speech can easily spread false information, and in fact Sunstein immediately contradicts himself, demanding Facebook and other social media censor more in order to avoid cascades based on false information. However, other less ideological approaches to reducing cascades work in experiments, such as tying financial rewards to a correct group decision, making it more likely individuals will rely on their own private information as determinative. As with conformity, internalizing benefits for those making decisions makes it more likely that dissenters will speak out, in this case potentially breaking a cascade (although Sunstein is at pains to distinguish dissenters from contrarians, those who simply want to swim against the tide and who should be ignored—the reader suspects this has a political basis, meant to cast the Left as dissenters and the Right as contrarians, but since he gives no examples, we can’t be sure). Sunstein cites the “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” and recommends that organizations encourage “malcontents and misfits” to disclose not just private facts, but also private opinions—at least if the goal is maximum efficiency and maximum accuracy, as opposed to group bonding or mere group enjoyment. We can be confident, though, that he doesn’t encourage organizations to allow people to, say, wear a MAGA hat. That would be “contrarian” and not a useful signal.

The remainder of the book is repetition and expansion on conformity and cascades, with a particular emphasis on the tendency of groups to move toward extremes (which is, I agree, an important point). Sunstein also offers some interesting application of his frame to the Constitution, as originally created, claiming that the Founders were aware of the dangers of conformity and deliberately set up elements of the Constitution as a result, including rejecting the right to instruct representatives (thereby requiring independent thought), bicameralism, and federalism itself.

Sunstein seems unable to decide if he’s writing a book on social phenomena generally, or for lawyers, since he bounces around between matters of broad interest and matters of technical legal import, such as conformity due to the composition of panels on the federal Courts of Appeal. And he falls into a few odd errors, such as claiming that “Communism was long able to sustain itself in Eastern Europe not only because of force but also because people believed, wrongly, that most people supported the existing regime.” That’s flatly false, as anyone who knows any history can tell you (or who, like me, traveled in Communist countries under Communism). The vast majority of people knew at the time that support for Communist regimes was minimal; you only had to look at the 1956 Hungarian Revolution to know that. I know how Sunstein got the idea in his head, though. Many of the Communists themselves thought the people supported the regime, as strange as that seems. Hence their concern in the first semi-free elections, in Poland in 1989, that the Communists might to do too well, discrediting the result. No need to worry about that, in retrospect. But after Communism, those same Communists became the ruling class in Eastern Europe, and it’s those people that liberals in the West spent all their time with, and lionized, not those who struggled against Communism for decades, who were mostly relegated to the sidelines. The former shared many principles with the liberal democrats of the West, and naturally they intertwined themselves with the Left in the West, lavishly funded by cretins such as George Soros. American liberals one step removed, such as Sunstein, understandably thought (and apparently still think) these people were representative of normal people in formerly Communist countries, and took their lies at face value, including their claiming, as an excuse for their own participation in Communism, that they thought everyone supported Communism, whereas the reality is they were part of the regime, and happy to be part of the nomenklatura, then and now. All this in part explains their rage now at men like Viktor Orbán, who are fond of pointing out the truth about their past. All this is also opaque to Sunstein.

Anyway, Sunstein tends to alternate talk of experiments with talk of philosophy, and on the latter, he spends most of his time channeling John Stuart Mill. Not for his harm principle (the First and Only Commandment of Sunstein’s sometime paramour, Martha Nussbaum), but, more interestingly, for his claim that dissent is an unalloyed good, beneficial for those living and those yet to be born. In particular, he enthusiastically quotes Mill that we must struggle “against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.” To his credit, Sunstein notes that Mill’s argument was self-serving, since Mill was on the receiving end of such social opprobrium when he abandoned his wife for a married woman, who also broke her vows. “In his writing, Mill celebrated freedom from social convention and ‘experiments of living.’ ” I bet he did. Sunstein describes this as “practicing what he preached.” I call it abominable behavior richly deserving of social censure. The failure of this analysis is that it tends to conflate dissent about factual matters with the necessary need for society to impose rules of conduct. When you fail to impose rules of conduct, it is destructive of society, which a glance around will show you. In Sunstein’s mind, though, they are one and the same, and wonderful too, like ice cream, only longer-lasting.

This endorsement of personal freedom, whatever the costs to society or to others to whom duties are owed, is the crux of how conformity, especially in morals, is viewed. If atomized freedom is the highest goal, social conformity is viewed with great suspicion. It can only be allowed if the result is more atomized freedom, not a restriction of it. Thus, for Sunstein, conformity that limits sexual practices is bad and irrational. But conformity that celebrates previously restricted sexual practices is good and rational, and best of all is a cascade that quickly results in global conformity that forbids any objections and punishes any dissenters. We can call this the “Mill Test”—any conformity that suggests Mill’s personal life was deficient in any way is bad, any conformity that finds nothing wrong in it is good. Look around, and you will see this fault line explains much.

Still, in the abstract, what Sunstein has to say is fairly interesting, and is a reasonable demonstration that conformity can result in less-than-well-considered decisions in many areas of life. Therefore, perhaps we should examine the principles Sunstein lays out as applied to some of today’s actual political thought.

Sunstein, no surprise, tries to make his claims politically neutral, although he is not always successful. He would be more convincing if, a single time, he gave an example that suggests the Left is wrong about something. Thus, he talks of “reactive devaluation,” “by which people devalue arguments and positions simply because of their source.” He might have benefited by pointing out the most obvious example of this is the Left’s dismissal of the sole major non-Left media voice, Fox News. But he didn’t, either because it didn’t occur to him, or it might offend his readership. Similarly, the vast majority of his examples of bad conformity are Right, and of good cascades Left. I suppose that doesn’t make his underlying points wrong, but it’s vaguely annoying.

As a general matter, Sunstein’s frame maps onto both Left and Right. Nobody is immune from the flaws in reasoning that he discusses. But a little thought shows that conformity is today far more of a problem in connection with pet issues of the Left. No doubt if you pick a random person and analyze his decision-making, it is heavily influenced by what others close to him think. But in addition to this, since the Left controls nearly all the news media (and all the media that decides what is news), academia, all major corporations, and the entertainment media, a person on the Right is going to have far more pressure to conform to the Left view of things than vice versa, in order to avoid the widely broadcast contempt of others. Similarly, since Left views are presented universally as the choice made by others who are sophisticated and in-the-know, cascades in favor of Left policies (especially social policies) are far more likely. Both these effects tend to move politics in a Left direction. These defects in rational decision making are, of course, a desired end of the Left, not a flaw.

Given this, it is a wonder there are as many conservatives still as there are. Probably it is only because, as Sunstein says, “Freedom of association is especially noteworthy here, because it allows people to band together in groups in which the ordinary incentive to conform might be absent or even reversed.” This, of course, is the reason the Lords of Tech are so eager to deplatform any conservative who is not merely a compliant shill; it interferes with the attempt to impose Left views on society by creating conformity and encouraging cascades. When freedom of association is forbidden for conservatives, then Left victory will be at hand.

For example, let’s take the imposition of additional gun control, a perennial goal of the Left. Since the Left is unable to get more gun control through rational persuasion, their entire plan of attack is to demand conformity and create a cascade. To do this, they begin by pretending that we do not already have extremely aggressive gun control by historical standards (for nearly a hundred years, gun control in America has become more and more strict). The goal is to create conformity to the myth that “everybody knows” we have lax gun control. They deliberately suppress information that allows rational discussion of the benefits and costs of guns. Then, when some person kills several people, the Left rushes to demand a suspension of what rationality remains and create a cascade, by making it seem like everyone else is making the choice for more gun control. The goal is to ensure that any discussion is not rational yet must happen quickly, and come to a more extreme position than the median position, in a handy demonstration of all of Sunstein’s key principles. And, of course, any association of gun owners is demonized in the most extreme terms, in an attempt to destroy free associations that might counteract conformity.

This is true all across the political board; the same analysis could be used for action against global warming or using “they” as the universal definite pronoun (the latest Left campaign, just unveiled), and many other matters. Despite what seems like success, though, I’m not sure these campaigns are actually successful. As under Communism, the rulers don’t see that masses of people resent being forced into conformity, and they see actual agreement where there is none, blinding their strategic vision, and making them ignore the pockets of resistance growing in supposedly conquered territory. I suspect, again like Communism, their wake-up call is coming. Let’s hope—and work aggressively together to make it happen.

[David Wineberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cass Sunstein discovers sheeple

The presence of people colors discussion and decisions. It is a factor that can change the status of anything. In Conformity, Cass Sunstein explores a lot of the risks of being swayed for the wrong reasons.

Conformity comes in flavors like cascades and polarization. The cascade effect occurs when others have made their choice. Subconscious pressure makes the last person agree. And this cascade effect can spread everywhere, through whole populations, last forever, and become entrenched in the culture or even in law. This is how we get bad laws.

On the other hand, a strong, confident voice going the other way can induce everyone else to change their position, because they think s/he knows better. No matter which way you look, people like to conform to something. And in the absence of their own knowledge, a seeming authority is an acceptable substitute. This how we get bad laws.

Then on the third hand, people like to hide. They don’t like to stand out, to risk ridicule or their reputation. No one wants trouble or embarrassment or humiliation. They don’t like it known they were wrong. Since they’re not about to turn the tide, they go with the majority. This is how we get bad laws.

We’ve all probably been there: rather than vote against, we’d prefer to be part of the team, not the lone exception, not the wacko, not someone to avoid in the hallway. We see it in Congress, where our electeds can be afraid to vote their conscience in order to avoid the criticism and provide future opponents with ammunition. After all, their votes have been recorded.

This leads directly to more extreme decisions (group polarization), as there is no one (known in social science circles a whistleblower) willing to bring the debate back to the center.

One of Sunstein’s more interesting examples is binge drinking, which students think is far more widespread than it is. Told the real figures, fewer binge. Nothing else has changed, but the knowledge they are in a disfavored minority is sufficient to change their behavior.

The great problem with cascades of conformity, as Sunstein points out numerous times, is that they are not reliable. They may or may not occur. When you most expect them, nothing might happen. Except with political parties.

Sunstein focuses on appellate court judges for their confirmation of these theories. In an examination of cases involving the EPA, three judge panels voted more than three quarters of the time against the EPA if all three were Republicans. They adjudicated for the EPA if they were all Democrats. On split panels, the decisions drifted down toward the 50% level. Unanimity leads to extremism, he says. Dissent works wonders. Dissent promotes balance.

But I think Sunstein drew the wrong conclusion. It’s not that we have to be careful about conformity situations, it’s that the two party system is anti-democratic and anti-justice. None of those EPA decisions was evaluated for its merits. It wasn’t necessary. It was simply a question of political ideology. That is clearly wrong in a system of blind justice, and the fault is not with conformity but with Democrats and Republicans. They should not bring their party memberships to work, especially if we know how conformity works.

Knowing how conformity twists situations, we should seek to isolate as much as we can from the ill effects - of the two party system.

David Wineberg

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent content but not much point reading this book if you’ve read other Sunstein books - regurgitated info and example studies. Didn’t gain enough new insight to warrant a higher rating. I wouldn’t go out of my way to hunt this book down.

[F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written simple introduction to the (good and bad) power of conformity.

[Mridul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important Notes:
1. We conform with the majority to preserve reputation and a feeling of belonging. Fear of public disapproval and social exclusion is the core fear. People conform even when they know the group is wrong, just to avoid standing out.

Personal Opinion: But if you don't care about your reputation, and you go forward and do make an independent decision and are somehow helpful to the group as an outcome - you do it at your own expense. Moreover when you choose a contrarian belief, then it seems like you don't belong, but in fact what is really happening is, that someone else will join forces with you eventually, and then you'll belong to another group. Again, it's just a feeling of belongingness, no one is truly accepting you fully, ever.

2. Cascades: situations where people's behaviors or beliefs spread rapidly through a group because individuals rely on the actions or opinions of others rather than making independent judgments.

2a. Informational Cascades – People adopt a belief or behavior because they assume that others have better knowledge. (e.g., relying on experts).
2b. Reputational Cascades - People conform to avoid social rejection, even if they disagree privately.

A Few Examples of IC and RC:
- A new restaurant gains popularity quickly because people see long lines and assume the food must be good, even if they haven't tried it themselves. [IC]
- In oppressive regimes, individuals publicly support the government because they fear consequences, even if they secretly oppose it. [RC]
- People follow fashion trends not necessarily because they like them, but because they want to fit in [RC]
- They assume designers and influencers know what’s best [IC]
- While seeking a 2nd or 3rd opinion from a different doctor about your diagnosis, the 3rd and 2nd won't go against 1st cause apparently the 1st one has a reputation. [RC]
- And moreover, your family and relatives won't even disagree with what the doctor said, cause apparently the said doctor has studied for 11 years, and we have collectively assumed they have the more correct knowledge. [IC]

A little more info:
- If a group is rewarded with money for producing the right answer to a problem, then they'll be less likely to conform.
- If an individual is rewarded for being right, they'll be less likely to conform.
- If the answer is ambiguous, it's better to follow the herd.
- If there is no reward for being right, assess your risks before taking a contrarian bet, you might get hostility from the group.

3. Group Polarization - When like-minded people discuss an issue, they tend to adopt more extreme positions. Extremist people are more prone to polarization. Thus confident people are naturally prone to polarization.

Personal Opinion: It's exactly like testosterone, money, fame, and periods; all of which are just various kinds of catalysts that influence, specifically magnify a person's predisposition. If someone is cruel by nature, they'll be cruel at a larger scale with more money and fame. If someone is difficult to deal with, the presence of periods and testosterone will make them more difficult. It's not the hormones or the fame that is causing the undesired behavior, it's the person themself.

Examples -
- If a jury starts with a slight tendency toward leniency, discussion often leads them to a much more lenient decision. Conversely, if they lean toward punishment, they may become harsher. In a jury setting, people listen to arguments that reinforce their initial leanings, making them more confident and radical in their judgments. Group discussion often amplifies that stance.

- Political Echo Chambers: This also applies to political groups, social movements, and online communities, where people reinforce each other's biases rather than critically evaluating alternative perspectives. Algorithms that reinforce existing beliefs further polarize opinions.

4. Pluralistic Ignorance - People misinterpret others’ beliefs because everyone is conforming outwardly. Example: In oppressive regimes, citizens may secretly disagree with the government but assume others support it. Conformity can be deliberate (choosing to follow the group) or subconscious (influenced without realizing it). In this case - subconscious and mostly ignorant.
Explanation:
- people mistakenly believe that most others support a norm, even when they do not.
- Since everyone fears social punishment, they suppress their true opinions, maintaining the illusion of mass agreement.
- However, once a few individuals publicly challenge the status quo, it creates a ripple effect, encouraging others to break their silence.
- This phenomenon is also seen in corporate scandals, where employees stay silent about unethical practices until someone exposes the truth.

Personal Opinion: I'm autistic - there are certain social and communication rules that I follow to better navigate people. By looking at how often you people fail to communicate properly, I guess they would be a tremendous help to you too.
- Ask clarifying questions; ask if you don't understand anything, you are not challenging their authority, you are trying to understand. Understanding each other builds long-lasting compliance, rather than using punishment and power, wherein you have to frequently nudge them again and again.
- Be curious, not judgemental
- Listen to understand, not to speak your turn
- Conflicts and Confrontations are about understanding, not about winning. Life is not a competition, it's a collaboration. The only competition you have is with yourself. There is no authority, treat people as your comrades.

Example 1: The #MeToo Movement
Many victims of harassment remained silent, assuming they were alone.
When the first high-profile survivors spoke out, others realized they weren’t alone, leading to widespread revelations.

Example 2: The Financial Crisis of 2008
Many financial institutions took excessive risks because they saw others doing it.
Investors and analysts conformed to the belief that the housing market would always rise, ignoring warning signs.
Employees at Enron and other firms engaged in fraudulent practices because everyone else was doing it.
Whistleblowers were rare because non-conformity risked career damage.

Personal Opinion: As long as one continues to use one's misfortune to one's advantage in order to be 'special', one will always need that misfortune. Similarly, if you earn all of your money through your reputation, you'll always be a slave to it. A career built solely through reputation will never give you the freedom to make an independent decision. A scene from the movie - Big Short

5. Laws and policies shape behavior by signaling social norms (e.g., smoking bans, and seatbelt laws). "Drinking and Driving" is considered a more serious crime than "Public Smoking" cause of private enforcers lurking around.
- Governments can use "nudges" to encourage beneficial conformity (e.g., tax compliance, vaccinations).
- People conform to whatever is presented as the norm.
- Any kind of punishment, be it social punishment reaps bad outcomes. Therefore reward or at least don't punish non-compliance/dissenters
- Practice Deliberative democracy like deliberative practice - in their fear of homogeneity
- ByStanders Effect - laws are not enforced properly, more problems for the dissenters by police, hospitals and other government bodies for doing the right thing
- Cognitive diversity is a good thing, irrespective of race or gender even considered

Personal Opinion: Lastly, integrity and ethics are not real. Only risk to reward is.

[Bookish Dervish · Rating 4 out of 5]

HOMO SAPIENS, like many other species, tend to conform to the norms created by the others. This is scary, as we often decide on various random choices through our life. Our, previously thoughtful, decisions should be reconsidered when possible.
One post on Facebook for instance may gain more attention because of the website's algorithms and because we prefer to aline with others.
The book explains a number of experiments run on animals as well as on humans.
Very thoughtful and Eye-opening book.

[Will · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reads like a short pop culture book on the sociology of conformity and social pressure, and devolves into prolonged discussions of US politics without any comparative perspective from other countries.

[Kent Winward · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conformity: The Power of Cass Sunstein to Conform to His Prior Work

[Hazel Bright · Rating 2 out of 5]

A reiteration of all of the same studies described in previous books about elevator conformity with a dash of Facebook/Twitter are destroying the world. Nothing new here.

[Forrest · Rating 2 out of 5]

It doesn't feel like Sunstein really challenges or understands his own implicit biases. The book very much feels like an extended lecture, and not in a good way.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read a lot of books on this subject, and this author took a totally different angle that many others done. I definitely can’t wait to check out his other books

[Tonstant Weader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conformity is the most recent book by the prolific Cass R. Sunstein. This time he is looking at how our innate desire to fit in with those in our group, however we define our group, can lead to good decisions or bad decisions, how it can lead to polarization and even extremism, and what can help us to better decision making.

Sunstein digs deeply into the research on conforming from the shocking Milgram and Sherif studies of the past to more nuanced and ethical modern research. It was interesting to see that when people of like-mind deliberate together they actually become more extreme, but even one participant in the discussion of a different opinion can moderate their opinions. Even judges tend to go along with the opinions of their colleagues. Again and again, Sunstein shows that a diversity of viewpoints leads to better decision-making and even presents that as a legitimate reason for universities to pursue diversity in admissions, why we should seek diversity in judicial appointments, and more.

Conformity is interesting and and well worrth reading. I will confess, though, that Sunstein reviewed one study after another after another, so much so that I kept losing my place. It often felt like I was reading the same thing since many of the studies were similar.

Reading this reminded me of my senior-year high school yearbook and being named “Noncomformist of the Year.” Changing my opinion to fit in with the group has never been my thing. However, I have seen it happen, particularly in places that are very homogeneous like where I grew up. Political homogeneity has people who live over 1500 miles from the Mexican border fretting over an invasion. It feels like collective delusion, but perhaps that what conformity looks like.

Conformity is a short book, packed with substance. We live in perilous times made more perilous by the poor decision-making and poor thought processes caused by conformity. The polarization and extremism of like-minded people pushing each other to ever more extreme positions has led to one political party no longer believing in the idea of loyal opposition. We have to figure out how to change this trajectory or we will all suffer. Conformity gives us some ideas on how to change our direction.

The first time I read something by Sunstein was after Bush v. Gore, “Order Without Law” his contribution to a book with Judge Richard Posner. Since then he has written so many books that are worth reading, giving us the tools to make our democracy more healthy. Too bad we don’t follow his advice.

I received an e-galley of Conformity from the publisher through NetGalley.

★★★
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...

[Shira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me reading Cass Sunstein's Conformity is kind of like a one-person extremism cascade in action (see "Group Polarization"). I have confirmation bias galore about Conformity; I am reading all this behavior science and behavioral economics subject matter because the data seems to support everything I believe on an intuitive level - have been despairing for decades witnessing this conformity chaos and am hungry for language to describe it. I am also a Cass Sunstein bona fide fan club member. I am a nonconformist myself, though perhaps others would regard me more as the "mixed blessing" contrarian than the "disclosing dissenter." So, while I was heavily biased to adore it, adore it I did. I believe this book explains the COVID response quite accurately and I would be interested

A nit / peeve... Sunstein in addressing affirmative action gets most of the diversity case right, then proffers (tiptoeing carefully) that a Physics or Math department might not legitimately justify diversity goals because they're not discussing stuff like racial profiling. I could possibly have forgiven that argument at the time of the Bakke decision he was analyzing (1978). But by this book's publication in mid-2019, we were on notice that the need for diverse perspectives based on lived experiences transcends pure operational factors because of workplace interactions and how those shape operations. In any case, those disciplines were invented and maintained by humans too. The diverse ways experiences shape our brains can benefit their innovation and movement into the future. I get that the logical extreme results in absurdity (Sunstein's apt reference to those who collect Taylor Swift memorabilia not being a category universities seek out affirmatively), and I also get that there is some element of this that is intertwined with the "remedying past discrimination" angle that Sunstein is trying to factor out in this particular argument and limit to the "cascade-arresting" quality. Even so, what Sunstein posits in this is too narrow for my taste and if he's going to insist on leaving it as such weak tea from a legal perspective, I'm not convinced it's a point worth making in this book. Perhaps a physics-related cascade experiment with and without diversity is in order?

[Fraser Kinnear · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sunstein starts with describing psychological research (Asch Conformity, Sherif group norms, and Milgram experiment obedience) to understand how conformity arises in group settings. But rather than leave us with some “gee whiz” conclusions about our own behavior, Sunstein has a policy agenda in mind for jurisprudence.

Avoid cascading erroneous legal decisions through improved resourcing in lower courts. Diminish conformity in judge panels through sustaining a diversity of appointments from our two political parties. Accept the uncomfortable deliberative democracy as an improvement over purely representative democracy, even in political climates like today’s.

At the individual level, or on a case-by-case basis, Sunstein is less prescriptive. From a Darwinist perspective, conformity persists because cooperation often requires it, and cooperation is so often more competitive than individualism. Rather than attempt the impossible task of prescribing when one should avoid conformity, hopefully an awareness of conformity’s circumstances is enough to reflexively overcome it.

But for those who do need to organize teams, Sunstein does have one clear lesson. Asch, Milgram, and others have demonstrated that a small grain of contrarianism on a team is enough to disrupt the most pernicious conformist group-think.

[Alan Calvillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Normalmente soy una persona que busca la disención, ya sea dentro de un grupo o con mis propias ideas. Disfruto descubrir la otra cara de la moneda. Esto, en parte porque creo en el valor de la dialéctica como medio de acercamiento a cualquier cosa que se haga llamar «verdad».

Normalmente no es una actitud bienvenida. Unos dicen que juego a ser «el abogado del diablo». Otros dicen que, es muy frívolo de mi parte hacer estos ejercicios porque, dentro de la dinámica del maestro y el esclavo, existe cierta opresión y adoptar un punto de vista es adoptar, también, la opresión.

La conformidad, en este contexto, me resultó un tanto liberador, pero también revelador. La propuesta del libro es descubrir cómo, dentro de dinámicas sociales, los humanos somos propensos a permear errores impulsados por ciertas heurisiticas. Todo esto por el miedo a disentir y las implicaciones sociales que esto tenga.

Por ejemplo, que los grupos que no están unidos por relaciones afectivas, no sé encuentran enclaustrados por la barrera del miedo a dañar a un ser querido. O que, los humanos somos propensos a seguir la lógica del grupo, aún teniendo información diferente a la del grupo. Uno de los descubrimientos más reveladores fue la de la polarización. Cómo nace y cómo genera tracción. Completamente distante a lo que la lógica común pensaría.

Tal vez la lectura sea un tanto cansada para aquellos que, como yo, no formamos parte de miembros colegiados o instituciones políticas deliberativas. En ese sentido, mi calificación está enfocada a su información en sí y no precisamente a la manera de contarlo.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh, underwhelming.

The problem with a lot of pop psychology books is that they explore fairly intuitive concepts, so most of the facts presented are "hm, that makes logical sense, could have told you that" instead of "wow, I never knew that!" This book is no exception to this rule. Granted, I already knew about most of the experiments in the book, but, all the same, I didn't really feel like I learned anything new or had my thinking challenged in any kind of way.

That might just be a function of pop psychology, in which case it's not the book's fault. But I also don't think the book did anything interesting with the studies? Like, I would have enjoyed reading about how conformism played out in Nazi Germany, or in the Soviet Bloc, or cults, or internet communities like Facebook. But the author really never branches out beyond a few seminal well-known experiments and explores anything historical. Yes, he does talk some about the US judicial system, but, even at that, it felt cursory. I also just don't think exploring the US judicial system was nearly as interesting as exploring conformity and cults or extremist political parties would have been...

[Seema Rao · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-researched ~ Compelling ~ Readable

tl;dr: Easy to read non-fiction book that helps make sense of the human desire to conform and the ways this affects society.

This book is wonderfully written, though in a somewhat academic tone. As someone who enjoys a strong argument, thorough academic grounding, and then a conclusion, this book is right on. But, it is not quite as readable as the Gladwell forms of mass-market non-fiction. That said, this book is fabulous for those of us trying to make sense of the world as it is. Why are people like sheep? Why do trends take off? Mostly, am I susceptible to conforming forces. I found myself realizing how much of a conformist everyone is. The author takes you through numerous examples, including international studies about conforming, in an accessible and thoughtful manner. This was a quality social-science or cultural studies book.

Thanks to NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

Seema Rao Write : Instagram| Blog| Twitter|

[Karoliina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received an ARC through Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

I found this to be a really accessible introduction to sociology and how can we study conformity. It talks about a couple of really famous studies that I've heard of before (such as the Milgram experiment), and it was interesting to actually get all the details of how these studies were conducted, as well as what the findings of similar studies are.

The latter half of the book focuses on Sunstein's own area of expertise (the U.S. legal system), and the book essentially turns into a case study that applies the concepts of conformity to this specific context. This half of the book was less interesting to me personally, but it was also written in a clear and accessible way, and it was easy to follow even though I know absolutely nothing about how the U.S. legal system works (unless How To Get Away With Murder is a really accurate representation? Probably not...)

All in all, this was a good introduction to the topic, and it has made me interested in looking more into how conformity works.

[Lorenzo Barberis Canonico · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree so much with Sunstein that the objective of the decentralized nature of the US government and of the separation of powers is to forego the benefits of central planning to constraints the government’s ability to fall prey to a cascade or thought bubble! He goes to great lengths to identify the social psychology behind conformity, and the positive and negative role it can play in collective behavior. None of this is surprising since he is one of the co-authors of “Nudge”, although it’s useful to hesitate to go all in on some of these ideas given how a lot of these studies have gone unreplicated. In essence, bubbles can happen outside of finance because social cascades are inherent to our psychology.

[James Yoon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. In particular, it does a great job of explaining/acknowledging that while "conformity" might be the "best" choice for an individual (who for reputation or getting along reasons) does not want to contradict his or her group, it can be a very bad or dangerous thing for the group or community as a whole. Groups and communities benefit greatly when individuals share their "private" views and information because such information leads to better decision making. Conformity creates cascades or blind spots that can lead to very negative consequences.

There is a helpful discussion in the book about how to create incentives for individuals to share their private views and information.

[Cat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sheeple. I think we are probably all guilty of conformity sometimes. I'm pretty nonconformist for lots of reasons and it's always interesting to me when I see folks around me falling into line over stuff, even if they disagree with the ideas being presented! I have always encouraged my family members to speak out or act, or at least question things. there really is nothing more damaging than everyone going with the flow, or just doing it and not making waves. People really repeat mistakes. This was a good book to understand conformity. It should be required reading.

I received a Kindle arc from Netgalley in exchange for a fair review.

[Brandon Toy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a solid 3.5. Sunstein does a good job going over interesting social experiments such as the Ashe Experiment and the urn experiment to demonstrate that people will sometimes cave to social pressures, if it outweighs all other benefits. He then goes on to explain how cascades can happen. He is clear in saying that social cascades are neither good nor bad. However, the end of this book was a total drag. He tries to extend the experiments to explain why we need diversity in the higher courts, their effects on laws, and affirmative action. He takes a pretty PC approach and I did not feel like I learned anything new from this part.

[Liz Norell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Were I less familiar with classic social psychology and it's scientific studies (e.g. Asch, Milgram, etc.), I definitely would've gotten a lot out of this short-ish primer on the importance of social influences in our decision-making. And don't get me wrong; this slim volume wasn't entirely a rehash of prior learning for me. I was especially intrigued by the studies that Sunstein shares around outcomes of judicial panels given different patterns of ideological crosswinds. Still, I believe there are better introductions to these topics out there and cannot recommend this one above all others.

[Managing my virtual footprint · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is able to take an interesting idea and explore it without falling into the trap in which so many social scientists fall, i.e. writing a 300-page monster with a single thesis. Short and sweet, this book is definitely worth reading to anyone interested in behavioural psychology and its applications.