Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Group norms are the "informal rules that groups adopt to regulate group members’ behavior".

Further broken down, norms reflect "two components: conceptions of what people
should do and what people actually do"
. They can be separated into;


1. Injunctive norms; Injunctive norms reflect perceptions of what
most others approve or disapprove of, and motivate action because of the social rewards
and punishments associated with engaging or not engaging in the desired behaviour

2. Descriptive norms; Descriptive norms reflect the perception of whether other people actually perform the behaviour. They motivate action by informing people about what is considered to be
effective or adaptive in a particular context and provide a decisional short cut when an
individual is choosing how to behave in a particular situation (i.e. ‘If everybody else is
doing it, then it must be a good/sensible thing to do’).

I.e.

  • Injunctive norm: People should litter or they should not litter.
  • Descriptive norm: The parking garage is littered or it is not littered


So I have two questions NT's;

1. What 'groups' (society, a club etc) do you perceive yourself to be a 'part' of and why? (if none, why not?)

2.
How do you think the different types of norms effect you? what do you think about some of the norms you 'come across' in groups you experience, or observe in other groups? what do you think their influence on your behaviour is, and why?(rather ambiguous questions, but they are supposed to be open ended).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
So I have two questions NT's;

1. What 'groups' (society, a club etc) do you perceive yourself to be a 'part' of and why? (if none, why not?)

2.
How do you think the different types of norms effect you? what do you think about some of the norms you 'come across' in groups you experience, or observe in other groups? what do you think their influence on your behaviour is, and why?(rather ambiguous questions, but they are supposed to be open ended).
1. I don't exactly have a group. Sure, I hang out with a bunch of friends at school, but those people are completely mercurial and the order changes everytime, meaning there really isn't any group norm to regulate behaviour. The best fit for me is the 'minority', I'm outnumbered by a plethora of groups integral to the populace; I'm quite sure minority is a nice fit for me.

2. I've noticed that different groups have noticeably different interests and use different social norms to regulate behaviour. Sometimes stereotypical figures become accustomed once their social status and interests have developed, so different groups possess antithetical characteristics to others, depending on their status in the populace.

Groups also have some kind of influence on my behaviour too; some are more aloof and reserved (most persons in the IT section) and subconsciously entreat more mild mannerisms to help sustain overall harmony. If I happen to walk out in the open field, there will be more physical, aggressive persons encountered; so a more resolute, masculine persona is called for.

P.S try to bear with my ambiguity, some thoughts are hard to decipher for this topic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
This seems like a really worthwhile thread...but i am to lazy right now to actually do that much evaluation.

No worries. It does require a bit of thinking.

I was just interested in seeing how norms influence nt's and how they interact with your dominant/auxiliary Ti and Te (as opposed to say the dominant/auxiliary Fe and Fi of "f's"). There's a bit of research out there that shows what people are most influenced by, and I'd be interested in seeing how nt's compare with things that others have found.

...maybe I should've just given a hypothetical situation and gleaned some responses. Meh. Maybe i'll do that later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
No worries. It does require a bit of thinking.

I was just interested in seeing how norms influence nt's and how they interact with your dominant/auxiliary Ti and Te (as opposed to say the dominant/auxiliary Fe and Fi of "f's"). There's a bit of research out there that shows what people are most influenced by, and I'd be interested in seeing how nt's compare with things that others have found.

...maybe I should've just given a hypothetical situation and gleaned some responses. Meh. Maybe i'll do that later.
Woops, I better chip in now.

Since I am dominant Ne, I have the innate ability to drift around and blend into other groups. I hope that helps.

EDIT; *Bare (above comment)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Woops, I better chip in now.

Since I am dominant Ne, I have the innate ability to drift around and blend into other groups. I hope that helps.

EDIT; *Bare (above comment)
You're fine. What you said before was great. I'm looking more at attitudes, and I can just infer later on how that may interact with 'types' by looking at the indicated type of the person. I have a theory about how introverts and extroverts may answer the alignment with a 'group' question, and this has implications based on previous research. But I wont disclose anymore conjecture until I/ if I get more responses.

But thanks for replying amigo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
You're fine. What you said before was great. I'm looking more at attitudes, and I can just infer later on how that may interact with 'types' by looking at the indicated type of the person. I have a theory about how introverts and extroverts may answer the alignment with a 'group' question, and this has implications based on previous research. But I wont disclose anymore conjecture until I/ if I get more responses.

But thanks for replying amigo.
No problem :wink:

Five more posts!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
You know, this is funny, I just finished an research assignment for my psychology class on friday about descriptive and injunctive norms.

The thing is, while I do realize that they influence me, I try my hardest to critically think about a given situation and follow my own intuition. I guess I have a problem with society and the set standards that it expects us to conform to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
1. I don't really consider myself part of a group. As we are all unique we shouldn't try to be like one another IMO. The people that I hang out with are just people I like to be around, and are not a part of what I want to be like.

2. So far I've had the luck to not be in a "group" that forces their norms on you. Although I try to act the same whatever the situation, I tend to change my behaviour according to the norm of the people I am with at that moment so I don't insult anybody. Not too much anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Very interesting question.

Like RomanticRealist, I try to consider whether I should allow external influences to actually influence me and determine based on my own interested whether I should embrace, adapt, or ignore the influence. I'm kind of a drifter, socially, and may relate to one or more groups, or simply associate with them, but I am not one to blindly adopt a style or norm simply because it's the socially prudent thing to do.

With respect to "fitting in" I wouldn't say that I particularly fit in anywhere, but am merely "accepted" as a part of a group either temporarily or for statistical purposes even if I don't participate with the group regularly. I think that part of this is because I have a wide range of interests that intersect a variety of groups, but I also don't like people to force their social perceptions on me.

However, that's not to say that I'm completely uninfluenced by social perception, but I try to find a middle ground between "socially acceptable" and my own perceptions. Otherwise I would probably be dressed like a 1920s private investigator all the time, fedora and all. :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,026 Posts
I read the title and my first thought was "what influence?"

I didn't believe in peer pressure for years. I thought people just didn't want to take responsibility for themselves and made it up. I mean, I still think that to a degree, but yeah...

It always feels more like a cost-benefit analysis than an influence for me. I may do something that's more normal because if I don't, people will point it out too often, and that means like, speech, social interaction, and the pro-con list means it's such a little thing to do, and talking to all these morons is tiring, so I'll be normal thiss time. But most things I can go my own way because I only really hang out with weirdos and they don't bother me with that crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,135 Posts
Injunctive norms are what binds society together. Without any concept of the "Injunctive norm" then common law jurisdictions like Britain and America would simply not have had so many of the laws we have today, for in antiquity before assemblies created statutes for the purpose of law, law was based off and interpreted from injunctive norms. Most injuctive norms are harmless and beneficial to us all (treat people how you would like to be treated, and so on).

I don't see the point in listing descriptive norms here. People act according to norms, sure.

I tend to follow most norms only because alot of them make sense. I try not to litter because I have been brought up that way; i.e. not spreading my crap all over the place. However if there are no bins around I will sometimes litter, I drop cig buts on the floor all the time, I guess I'm a hypocrit.

On the other hand there are some social norms I don't follow. I have no aversion to narcotics use, or the sale of narcotics to other people (although I've never done that as I don't want to fall into the lifestyle of a drug dealer). I wear "odd" clothes for somebody my age and listen to music of a much older generation. My political views are way out of the ordinary. My interests are not "normal" but then again they are still social norms of a sort.

If there are to be laws in society, the best form of law is common law; the interpretation of social norms, as opposed to statutory law, the creation of social norms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: susurration

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
1. What 'groups' (society, a club etc) do you perceive yourself to be a 'part' of and why? (if none, why not?)

I have never considered myself a part of any club/society/group, other than being the leader of the nerd clique in high school. I built it because I saw lots of lonely, bright kids who had no support. I recruited them and build up the group, then I would often go be on my own, letting them interact amongst themselves. That says something. No matter how like-minded I find a group, for the most part, I don't have the desire to be a pack animal. Every fiber of my being pulls me away. I end up checking in sometimes, or observing - helping when I need to. The type of energy that it takes to reinforce values and norms in a group is just something that I do not have. After high school, in college, I realized this more than ever. I didn't even try to participate. No interest. I showed up to a handful of sociology club and philosophy club meetings, made suggestions to reform them, and walked away.

To apply myself enough to maintain the type of energy that it takes to have norm/value reinforcement feedback, would cause assimilation to occur. And either people would get tired of my will imposing on theirs, or I would find myself frustrated by having to 'come down.'

I have shed groups of friends, and moved on. I'll likely continue to do so, hanging onto maybe one or two. When I do bond with others, I bond with individuals. They are also lone wolves. We respect each others space. We can disappear for a long time, with no contact, then begin again where we left off.

I think that this would be the epitome of loneliness for most people. This is my natural state, however. I'd feel impure any other way. Tainted mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
Most of these silly questions have obvious answers. Everyone is a part of one group or another-- we all speak a finite amount of languages, all were educated at some point, all of us have a sex, a racial background, a cultural background, an economic class, and so forth. It is undemocratic to discriminate between differences in a happy, egalitarian, progressive era such as ours, but it doesn't change our cultural reality.

Excessive self-analysis isn't going to carry us very far in terms of trying to fit all cultural artifacts into some mechanistic narrative, mainly because culture is like a game in which we are participants. Just because we cannot rebuild our ship while it is out at sea does not imply we cannot change its direction.

This entire thread seems like a relic of Romanticism, echoed through the 20th century though Heidegger, Sartre, et cetera. Breaking through norms supposedly is the sign of autonomy. This prompts a few questions.

One, science. For example, there are differences in the hardware between men and women. If everyone was autonomous and equal, then there would be no such thing as successful PUAs. So human behavior is predictable to some degree-- manipulation is not by definition of innocent people, since human beings generally want to be manipulated, whether they admit it or not. Try working in sales for a while if you don't believe me.

Second, what happens when the countercultural becomes cultural? Get 25,000 people together to Rage Against the Machine-- they're all unique, eh? So a cultural act today, such as listening to Brahms, is now countercultural, and definitely against the norm. To have standards is to go against the current standard of no standards. To have norms-- to be judgmental, to discriminate, to evaluate-- is to go against current norms.

Lastly, there are cases of breaking norms that diminish autonomy, such as drug addiction. So a lot of tradition, at risk of sounding pretty SJ here, is just shorthand induction, the latent experience of everyone that came before us. A norm can be a shortcut or a time saver that can avoid a lot of misery and aggravation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: susurration

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,423 Posts
  • Injunctive norm: People should litter or they should not litter.
  • Descriptive norm: The parking garage is littered or it is not littered
So I have two questions NT's;

1. What 'groups' (society, a club etc) do you perceive yourself to be a 'part' of and why? (if none, why not?)

2.
How do you think the different types of norms effect you? what do you think about some of the norms you 'come across' in groups you experience, or observe in other groups? what do you think their influence on your behaviour is, and why?(rather ambiguous questions, but they are supposed to be open ended).

Both types of norms pretty much are the same thing, aren't they?

No group specifically. Even if I would be a member of club, I don't consider myself part of it in the sense that you´re getting at. In no way will I allow rules of a group to limit me. I won't break the law because that's got bad results for me.

Groups tend to idealize themselves and give some kind of feeling of belonging. What amazes me is how many and how much people can change because of belonging to a group. Just shows that many people want to be led. But humans are herd creatures, so it does make sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,135 Posts
Most of these silly questions have obvious answers. Everyone is a part of one group or another-- we all speak a finite amount of languages, all were educated at some point, all of us have a sex, a racial background, a cultural background, an economic class, and so forth. It is undemocratic to discriminate between differences in a happy, egalitarian, progressive era such as ours, but it doesn't change our cultural reality.

Excessive self-analysis isn't going to carry us very far in terms of trying to fit all cultural artifacts into some mechanistic narrative, mainly because culture is like a game in which we are participants. Just because we cannot rebuild our ship while it is out at sea does not imply we cannot change its direction.

This entire thread seems like a relic of Romanticism, echoed through the 20th century though Heidegger, Sartre, et cetera. Breaking through norms supposedly is the sign of autonomy. This prompts a few questions.

One, science. For example, there are differences in the hardware between men and women. If everyone was autonomous and equal, then there would be no such thing as successful PUAs. So human behavior is predictable to some degree-- manipulation is not by definition of innocent people, since human beings generally want to be manipulated, whether they admit it or not. Try working in sales for a while if you don't believe me.

Second, what happens when the countercultural becomes cultural? Get 25,000 people together to Rage Against the Machine-- they're all unique, eh? So a cultural act today, such as listening to Brahms, is now countercultural, and definitely against the norm. To have standards is to go against the current standard of no standards. To have norms-- to be judgmental, to discriminate, to evaluate-- is to go against current norms.

Lastly, there are cases of breaking norms that diminish autonomy, such as drug addiction. So a lot of tradition, at risk of sounding pretty SJ here, is just shorthand induction, the latent experience of everyone that came before us. A norm can be a shortcut or a time saver that can avoid a lot of misery and aggravation.
Good show sir.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
As I was reading the entire thing, I was thinking that actually. Hehehe.
The opinions might be settling along the lines of introversion and extroversion, with the introverts more likely to fantasize that they've "decided" everything about themselves, and the extroverts more likely to acknowledge the relevance of external factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
The opinions might be settling along the lines of introversion and extroversion, with the introverts more likely to fantasize that they've "decided" everything about themselves, and the extroverts more likely to acknowledge the relevance of external factors.
In general I agree with you, but I think you're looking at this in reverse (or at least your phrasing leads me to believe such). It's not being an introvert that would make people more prone to believing they "decided" something about themselves, but rather the characteristics that make them an introvert which will dictate whether or not they believe such things. This is about perception and how a person's perception is characterized internally and in introverted/extroverted ways. Similarly, it is probably a function of their ability to rationalize that allows them to believe they know themselves better or worse in the first place that allows such delusions.

These are things that all people are prone to, but as you suggested it seems reasonable to me that the introverts are most likely to exhibit such traits due to their nature of relying on and being by themselves- not simply because they are introverts. More extroverted individuals may simply have more opportunity to gain a broader knowledge to assess themselves, but in the end it always comes back to perception.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top