Self [noun]

Social perception influences people to live inauthentic lives.

I feel as if this is a pretty well-known fact wherever society exists. Our day-to-day actions are impacted by the actions people in our immediate surrounding do. Our habits are partially shaped by etiquettes that people expect us to abide by. Our tastes in art, film, music, fashion, and much more are dictated by the taste that seems to be appropriate to a consensus of humanity. This is all derivative examples of the commonly-studied concept of social conformity, where people are consciously or unconsciously influenced to do as others do. It is just a staple characteristic of society that people copy each other in many respects, so as to not generate societal discord.

Social conformity seems to many to be merely a funny sociological concept that is leashed within the academia ivory-tower--it does not really matter in the grand scheme of things. To be fair, considering the examples that I provided, it does seem to be that way. Our day-to-day decisions and social habits are inconsequential in comparison to decisions that have great impacts on our lives: the degrees we pursue, the jobs we take, our political orientation, the allotment of our investments, etc.

But of course, you already knew that there was going to be a catch. And it is quite intuitive how social conformity could impact these high-impact decisions: if people are more than willing to dictate their small decisions based on what other people do, why wouldn't they do the same for big decisions? For those that have fallen under the spell of social conformity, it seems as if there isn't any different characteristic in high-impact decisions that would necessarily make these decisions incompatible with conformity. But even for those that have yet to fall under the spell of social conformity, they may be inclined to think that it isn't bad to base our high-impact decision-making off of what others do.

Here is why. Let's imagine that you are in need of a large loan--perhaps to buy a house. You don't really have much experience as a borrower, so you don't know which bank to borrow from. Since money as a consumer product is relatively homogenous, it would make sense to say that personal preference does not play that big of a deal. This is because, unlike consumer goods like shoes, it wouldn't make sense for consumers to say that they prefer the money loaned from Bank of America than that from Wells Fargo. Thus, the differentiating point comes from other policies: loyalty programs, paperwork (or lack thereof), interest rates, history of predation, customer service, etc. Generally, borrowers' preferences in regards to these aspects would be the same: most would want banks that offer extensive loyalty programs, low paperwork, low interest rates, no predatory history, and good customer service.

If you see many first-time borrowers flocking to Wells Fargo, it must mean that there is something good that Wells Fargo provides better than other retail banks. Whatever it is that Wells Fargo provides better, it should surely be good for you, since it is good for everyone else--and as discussed in the previous paragraph, what is good for one borrower is likely to be good for all borrowers. Thus, prior to having done your research, you already favor Wells Fargo as your lender of choice.

It is this extrinsic inclination* that motivates those that have already fallen under the spell of social conformity. Of course, it is very much possible that these people are rational, and are driven by cost-benefit analysis when it comes to high-impact decisions. That being said, the consideration of conformity as a rational benefit in such an analysis would simply be irrational. The fact that Wells Fargo is popular should not be a rational benefit when considering retail lenders. Instead, it should be a motivation to understand why Wells Fargo is popular in the first place. As humans, though, there will always be an innate attraction to flock like sheep, which itself is driven by our disposition to prefer comfort over strain. Flocking like sheep allows us to research less (since the popularity aspect provides a key benefit for Wells Fargo)--and since being forced to research is much like a chore, our conformity acts as the comfort in opposition to the strain that is research. It does take effort to get rid of this absolutely irrational predisposition when it comes to conformity--and those that do not take that effort represent the part of the population, rational or not, who have already fallen under the conformity trap. And if this conformist predisposition is not removed, it will only continue to act as a sacred disposition of comfort, whereby those that fall within this camp are able to rely on conformity for even more high-impact decisions--and with this, this reliance will be even stronger for each decision.

Imagine if your children selected their choice of undergraduate university primarily because of the decisions of their closest friends. That would be a nightmare, wouldn't it?

But maybe, for these people that have already fallen under the trap, it is part of their identity to conform. The philosophical ramifications of such a belief is a topic for another article. However, the real fear is the lure which conformity acts for those who have yet to fall under its trap. These people are those that still let reason dictate their lives insofar as reason seems to be an appropriate decision-maker, as well as retain their sense of autonomy from the societal norms that have gripped much too many people from making independent decisions. These people do not let convention dictate their rational decision-making for its own sake--as pointed out in the previous paragraph, that would be senselessly irrational--but rather either have shaped their own identities or are in search for it.

Yet, of course, humans are inherently malleable. The way that conformity affects these people is through indirect influence. Although many decisions are chosen by these people through rational means--which means that 'popularity' is not considered a factor in the decision--there exist situations where rational thinking results in either confusion or uncertainty. And this is where conformity may strike best as a source of inauthentic living.

Let's imagine one more hypothetical scenario. You are a high-achieving Computer Science freshman at Princeton University searching for interesting internship opportunities over the summer. The only problem is, you have absolutely no idea what you want to do in life--a common struggle for many people your age. All you know is that, ever since high school, you want to create programs for innovative technology startups that would make considerable social impact. However, you see many of your Comp Sci peers flock to pursue careers in investment banking (or paths that would lead to such careers). Since you are someone who has not fallen under the trap of conformity, you don't let this conformity determine your decision to pursue investment banking--instead, it motivates you to research why everyone is flocking to investment banking. It turns out, investment banking provides some good bank as well as clout--and plus, it provides a stepping stone for many high-level corporate careers. However, you also notice the long work hours, the toxic work culture, and the seeming lack of impact that becoming an investment banker will have towards society--a dichotomy with your idealistic ambition.

Obviously, you are conflicted. You are very much attracted by the material benefits, but you are equally dissuaded by the disadvantages. Since you are a freshman, you don't see how trying one internship would hurt--you could still pursue your impactful career path should you not like your internship. So, you land a summer internship at a small investment banking firm in Chicago.

Throughout the internship, you are on the lookout for positive and negative signs to see whether a career in investment banking would be right for you. As you talk to your fellow bankers, you find yourself often involved in conversations with people who glamorize the careers in investment banking. They constantly talk about the salary they receive, and the lavish lifestyles they lead because of such a high salary. They constantly discuss the prestige that they hold amongst their peers outside of banking, especially within their families. And most importantly, they never talk about that ghastly 'social impact'--almost as if those two words were a taboo in the workplace.

Your thoughts become oversaturated by concerns about the topics that become frequently repeated--money and status--and subsequently, you worry less about that once-held idealistic ambition you had to make a 'social impact.' You sneer at the fact that your past self could not have possibly known what they were talking about. And at this point, conformity has never made a direct entrance to your decision calculus--you don't care that there are a lot of people at your office, or that a lot of your fellow Princeton students have dedicated their careers to investment banking. Instead, you are subconsciously affected by the frequent emphasis on money and status, that you genuinely start prioritizing these material aspects over your idealistic ones. And of course, the more you become enthused by the prospect for money and status, the more your love for money and status grows on you. Your previous concern for the long work hours is resolved because of the big salary. Your previous concerns for the toxic culture is resolved because you are surrounded by some of the best people across the nation. And your previous concern for abandoning your ambitions becomes negligible--the more you work, the more you stray away from idealism. You come to forget what your idealistic self thought. You abandon your self.

This is just a philosophical exploration to this topic. Being aware of the impact that conformity has on everyone obviously helps soften the potential harm that it has on our decision-making. That being said, it is not enough--we are all subconsciously malleable. My hope is that this awareness does not rest merely as awareness, but as conscious mitigation--you start becoming aware of opportunities for conformity to seep in your lives, and you actively prevent it for doing so if the consequence would be an abandonment of your authentic lives. Obviously, there is an argument to be made for the transformative nature of our lives, which gives credence to the belief that an authentic life is one that constantly changes. But for now, you are the only one who knows what about you is authentic, and what about you is inauthentic. Conformity should not stand in the way of that.

*Dichotomy, I know. By this I basically mean a tendency that is generated by external factors.