
“Corn-Pone Opinions” by Mark Twain (1901) - hvo
http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
======
kcorbitt
I agree with this sentiment in general, especially that our own feeling of
self-worth can be determined to a fair degree by the opinions of people we
surround ourselves with, and that this drives conformity.

However, I'd add an important corollary, and one that is perhaps a bit less
cynical :). Even if it's mostly true that you can only feel fulfilled when
your actions and opinions are approved by your peers, you still get to chose
_who_ your peers are, and whose opinion you value. That's true today more than
ever, with the world's interconnectedness and the huge diversity of on- and
offline communities.

Near the end of the article, Mark Twain says "Men think they think upon great
political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not
independently." If you take the time to choose the parties/communities you
align yourself with carefully, you can live a very principled and self-
determined life even accepting the inevitability of some degree of group
conformity.

~~~
mr_luc
I agree that it's more possible now to switch/choose alignment than it ever
was. And being 'more possible' means that it must be happening more.

But "why people choose the communities they align with" doesn't seem much
different than "why people have their opinions." Are we carefully choosing who
we align ourselves with, any more than we're choosing our opinions?

I don't think there's any test for this, or any cure, other than making time
to ruminate, meditate, and ponder. Alone. Free from distractions and other
voices.

And if that's the case, isn't it at least _possible_ that today it's both
easier to switch communities, and less likely to be for any principled reason?

~~~
plusquamperfekt
Good point - one might choose one's peers based on the desired feedback - the
end result wouldn't be more healthy than adapting oneself to the feedback of a
static peer group.

------
rsp1984
_that it is born of the human being 's natural yearning to stand well with his
fellows and have their inspiring approval and praise -- a yearning which is
commonly so strong and so insistent that it cannot be effectually resisted,
and must have its way._

Actually I think it's the other way round. The force to conform doesn't come
from seeking "approval and praise" but from avoiding the negative consequences
of possibly being isolated and ostracised.

This is because where there's isolation there is disrespect and even violence
from the peer group around the corner, apart from the negative effects it has
on one's value on the "partnership market".

------
irq-1
Twain was wrong on his main point. He claims self-approval as the motivator
for following fashions (of all sorts), but most conformity comes from trying
to navigate life: we do what works for our neighbors. IBMs dress code wasn't
adopted because coworkers liked the fashion, but because if you wanted to work
at IBM you needed to wear the uniform. Time and interest are limited, and
copying is easy.

> Do you believe that a tenth part of the people, on either side, had any
> rational excuse for having an opinion about the matter at all? I studied
> that mighty question to the bottom -- came out empty. ... We all do no end
> of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an
> aggregation which we consider a boon.

This mistakes the value of expressing an opinion or having a vote. First,
there's the personal benefit of investigating and thinking something through
(even if you "came out empty"). Second, there's a public benefit to
encouraging people to investigate and thinking something through on their own.
Third, the 'wisdom of the crowd' might be right, show us new ideas, or offer
insight and wisdom.

\--

This essay seems related to Paul Grahams "How to Do What You Love". He wrote
that when deciding what to do, we should consider what's respected by our
peers.

> What you should not do, I think, is worry about the opinion of anyone beyond
> your friends. You shouldn't worry about prestige. Prestige is the opinion of
> the rest of the world. When you can ask the opinions of people whose
> judgement you respect, what does it add to consider the opinions of people
> you don't even know? [4]

> This is easy advice to give. It's hard to follow, especially when you're
> young. [5] Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs
> about what you enjoy. It causes you to work not on what you like, but what
> you'd like to like.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html)

------
johngalt
Now we all assume that this perfectly explains the people we disagree with.
_They_ are victims of conformity and group think. Thankfully _we_ have
reasoned opinions based in fact.

~~~
rdancer
It is a cloistered mind that cannot make that leap.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Cloistered by the filter bubbles. Though Twain's essay suggests it's not a new
phenomenon. People tend to group together with those who believe similar
things, each confirming preconceptions of the others. From inside of such a
group it always looks like everyone else are sheeple that need to wake up.

~~~
rdancer
Your _are_ sheeple. But that doesn't mean that _I_ am not. People are very
painfully reminded of their imperfection on a daily basis. They don't always
care to keep it in mind, or take it into account, but surely they are aware.

Are you saying that people are not aware that their opinions may not be as
ironclad as they sometimes seem?

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Are you saying that people are not aware that their opinions may not be as
> ironclad as they sometimes seem?_

That's the impression I'm getting when talking with many of them. Or when
browsing the more mainstream parts of the Internet.

~~~
rdancer
Here's to us being the lucky few who can see that we're fallible, while the
sheeple wallow in their ignorance ;-)

~~~
TeMPOraL
:). I'm happy being a meta-sheeple, because thinking too much about it only
makes one's head hurt. ;).

------
elchief
If, like me, you didn't know what corn-pone is, it's a type of corn bread.

------
dpweb
I like how Emerson felt about conformity, not to mention - to be exceptional,
one must be a non-conformist. Many would rather be accepted than exceptional
At some point in your life, you may have to make that choice.

The problem with public opinion in our times is this idea that the crowd is
always right. Something is true because the crowd says it is. The crowd saying
it is, makes it true. Sane is not the same as true. Sane just means many
people believe it. The person who believes something no one else does is
considered insane. When the lone "insane" person is vindicated, great wealth
and success seem to follow.

~~~
JadeNB
> Many would rather be accepted than exceptional. At some point in your life,
> you may have to make that choice.

I think that there are two problems with this. (EDIT: 'Problems' is a bad
word. I don't mean two things that make it wrong, but rather two things that
require a careful reading to appreciate fully. I should have said
'subtleties'.)

First, and most importantly, I think that people think that being exceptional
_is_ a choice. Thus, someone says "ah, I shall be exceptional!", and sits back
and waits to become so. _Being_ exceptional is not a choice; _becoming_
exceptional is, though it is a slow process, subject to setbacks, and not
guaranteed of even eventual success (unless—as is perhaps uniquely appropriate
here—one is willing to move the goalposts when necessary, and find success
where one is).

Second, I take your explicit point to be the decision between being accepted
and being exceptional, but I'll respond as if it were between being conformist
and being exceptional (which I took to be the subtext). After the problem is
surmounted of deciding just to _be_ exceptional, and realising that one must
_become_ so, I think that sometimes people confuse blind non-conformity with
reasoned non-conformity. That is, a decision not to conform just in order
_not_ to be part of the crowd is just as silly as a decision to conform to be
part of the crowd. Rather, make your decisions as you will, regardless of the
pressure of the crowds, with the idea that you will sometimes agree with and
(probably) more often disagree with them, and become exceptional in that way.

~~~
dpweb
In deciding to be exceptional, I'm thinking of the courageous act of
separating yourself from the crowd when it's safer to conform, when faced with
a binary decision between the two. That decision can have lifelong
consequences. A friend who could have been an olympic swimmer - but it was
easier to not put in the effort, get a job at the local health food store, and
get married. Or the brilliant kid with enormous potential, growing up in the
bad neighborhood, who purposely fails at school to not get bullied.

I would separate the non-conformist whose conscience puts them at odds with a
misguided but widespread popular opinion, from the contrarian. Being
contrarian just for the sake of it can be silly sometimes. Although I still
like those who consider that so much of their identity that they take
contrarian positions even when unnecessary. If anything they are a non-
yielding role model and we could use some of that, cause the scales are
definately tipped in favor of conformity. It's drilled into us from a very
young age.

~~~
JadeNB
> In deciding to be exceptional, I'm thinking of the courageous act of
> separating yourself from the crowd when it's safer to conform, when faced
> with a binary decision between the two.

I still think that this decision is one concerning _becoming_ , rather than
_being_ , exceptional. That is, I think of being exceptional as the
accumulated result of good decisions, rather than as a single (even lifelong)
decision in its own right.

> I would separate the non-conformist whose conscience puts them at odds with
> a misguided but widespread popular opinion, from the contrarian.

Oh, I see; I was reading 'non-conformist' as essentially synonymous with
'contrarian'. Your clarifying the distinction addresses my second point.

> Although I still like those who consider that so much of their identity that
> they take contrarian positions even when unnecessary. If anything they are a
> non-yielding role model and we could use some of that, cause the scales are
> definately tipped in favor of conformity.

As a reflexive contrarian (I am so inclined to test positions by argument
that, if it happens that I convince my interlocutor, then I sometimes
unthinkingly argue _against_ his or her new position, which I had been urging,
and _in favour of_ the original position), I am not sure that there is as much
value to such a position as you suggest; but that is a minor point, and
besides I could easily be wrong.

~~~
dpweb
The technologist, specifically the software developer (ie.. the typical HN
reader) seems to often be a non-conformist, even contrarian. Why do you think
that is? Cause we think we're smarter than everyone else, is my theory!

~~~
JadeNB
> The technologist, specifically the software developer (ie.. the typical HN
> reader) seems to often be a non-conformist, even contrarian. Why do you
> think that is?

I'm a mathematician, not a software developer, but I think that both
professions train their practitioners to believe that the way to get good
tools (or theorems) is to try to break them, and to keep only those that
survive—a 'confrontational' approach that it is (perhaps too) easy to carry
over into the rest of life. I won't deny that there is probably some arrogance
in my contrarianism, too.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Often not immediately agreeing with a mainstream opinion, or stopping by to
evaluate pros and cons, is seen as being contrarian or signaling smarts.

------
skybrian
True as far as it goes, but there are a lot of other factors influencing why
some ideas spread widely and others don't. These days we can even track how it
happens.

------
staunch
Mark Twain had no trouble thinking for himself. Paul Graham does the same kind
of thing in his essays. Every great standup comedian in the world does it.

It's a skill that few practice, but thinking for yourself is not actually
difficult. Most people have the basic reasoning skills required, they just
never care enough to "rock the boat". And that's the real cause of conformity:
apathy.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I don't think it's apathy. I feel it's culture and economic considerations.

Society generally doesn't reward you for thinking outside the box, or outside
the "outside the box" box. It rewards you for following the same rules, norms
and patterns as everyone else does. Meanwhile, you have your spouse and kids
to feed, house to keep warm, lots of work to do for little pay and an abusive
boss that keeps you on your toes. Most people don't have time to think for
themselves, even if it was rewarded, and it isn't.

------
edderly
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8IxKizzWc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8IxKizzWc)

------
mankandee
Monkey see, monkey do.

------
wrecktangle
And it readily brings the famous Nazareth's evangelist to mind- Jesus Christ.

Considering the 6 stages of his blasphemy trials between Religious and Roman
courtrooms (especially, the burdened denial of right and wrong between Herod
and Pilate).

And contrasting that unfortunate crisis of conscience greeted by the reported
mob justice with how many billion people today follow a religion borne of
Christ's personality, it just reinforces one thing Mark Twain endeavored to
deliver as important message in that essay:

"Think for yourself."

~~~
rdancer
I like how on an article about crowd conformity and how certain thoughts may
come to be frowned upon, your comment gets downvoted because it's Christian.

------
robotresearcher
"Corn-Pone Opinions" by Mark Twain, written in 1901, first published in 1923.
Twain died in 1910.

~~~
dang
Thanks, we put that year in the title.

------
allenbrunson
Here's what I have to say about that: That's pretty rich, coming from you,
Paul Graham.

You have All The Money, and All The Respect amongst your large and powerful
peer group. Given your considerable wealth, there's nothing anybody can do to
negatively impact your life in any meaningful way. Yet you continue to bang
the same drum you've been banging for a decade now, at least.

Time to tell us something we _don 't_ already know.

~~~
skybrian
Paul Graham didn't write it.

------
sheensleeves
He started his essay w/ the example of a gay person.

If you want to be outside of the herd in thought, it would aid you to be
something alien to the majority.

edit: you're right.

~~~
dharbin
I'm pretty sure, in 1901, gay meant:

keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay
spring song>

