The fashionably late Cool Paper

Cool is, by definition, elusive. If it was easy to get than everybody would have it, and then, as we all know, it wouldn't be cool. That's how we think of "cool": something ever-changing, something new and different. On the other hand, too different and you're shunned. 'Cool' is a delicate balance between standing out and fitting in-- As Jake says in his blog:

"Part of being a renegade, is also being accepting and nonchalant. Being nonchalant seems to be one of the coolest personality traits that one can have. It puts forth the image that you are capable of something, but choose not to do it. For example, a "nerd" and a smart person differ on the simple principle of appearance. A "nerd" comes across as socially inept, while a smart person can compete mentally with the "nerd", and also maintain a social grace that the "nerd" simply cannot compete with." (Jake F.)

This social aptness is worth a great deal to us, whether we know it or not. We long to fit in, even as we may be claiming the opposite. So deeply rooted is the fundamental desire to fit in with others, to believe their judgments and their ideas, that with only the presence of a strong leader and a devoted group of peers 200 high-school students were turned into fascist soldiers in just four days, and people who would normally assess their situation as an emergency can be convinced to remain calm merely by the presence of a bystander. This essay intends to show that the desire to fit in is rooted far more deeply in the human mental state than we are consciously aware of.

In 1967, an experiment took place. A high school teacher, unable to explain to his class why Germany had been so yielding to the Nazi movement, decided to start his own movement for the purposes of demonstration. He called this movement The Third Wave. He lectured on the strength that came through discipline, community, action, and pride. He gave his students special seating exercises, and assigned each a role. The experiment was designed to show that in the face of a strong leader and a large supporting group, the majority of students would feel somewhat compelled to partake in a fascist system. Instead, 100% of the students, and even some 170 extra that were not in the original class, formed a force for the imaginary cause with such dedication that it took an admission from the teacher and a direct comparison to Nazi Germany to snap them out of it. They had been told that the movement's aim was to eliminate democracy and that they would soon rise up in an attempt to reshape the world. They were fine with that. The teacher, Ron Jones, explains that even he was beginning to succumb to the experiment:

"I was exhausted and worried. Many students were over the line. The Third Wave had become the center of their existence. I was in pretty bad shape myself. I was now acting instinctively as a dictator. Oh I was benevolent. And I daily argued to myself on the benefits of the learning experience. By this, the fourth day of the experiment I was beginning to lose my own arguments. As I spent more time playing the role I had less time to remember its rational origins and purpose. I found myself sliding into the role even when it wasn't necessary." (Jones)

Even he, who knew full well what the experiment was a parody of, found it hard to face the group's overwhelming enthusiasm without becoming swept up in it. Not only the desire, but the instinct to fit in left the group with no option other than to gladly follow the terrible illusion that had been set up for them.

The subjects of The Third Wave's brutal reality check knew full well that they wanted to fit in. They had the feeling of being part of something bigger than themselves, and they relished it. But it turns out that humans are even more susceptible to the opinions of others than that. As it turns out, the reactions of others serve as a major determining factor in the most basic and necessary of our own responses, such as interpreting an emergency. One study on the bystander effect found that while a situation may be deemed hazardous by a person on their own, a group is far less likely to react to it, and when some members of the group were told not to react the naive participant became unlikelier still to take action. The experiment had three conditions: one where the participant was alone, one where there were three participants, and one where there was one participant and two confederates who had already been told how to act. In each condition the participants were told to take a survey, and in each condition smoke was slowly added to the room. When subjects were alone, 75% left the room to report the smoke. When the number of participants increased to three, the number dropped drastically to 38%. Finally, when one subject was joined by two passive confederates, only 10% deemed the situation worth reporting. Say experimenters Latane and Darley: "Most subjects had similar initial reactions. Those that didn't report it all concluded that the smoke wasn't dangerous or was part of the experiment. No one attributed their inactivity to the presence of others in the room." (Latane, and Darley) The subjects were obviously influenced by the presence of others, and yet it did not occur to them that this might have effected their behavior. The subconscious tendency to agree with the judgements of others led subjects to come to a conclusion that could have put their own lives in danger, without even realizing that they were being influenced.

So why exactly are we so susceptible to the influence of others? Why do we care so much if we fit in? What makes a group so appealing that it would shatter a lifetime of conditioning to think the opposite way, why can we be persuaded to unintentionally put ourselves in dangerous situations merely by the presence of a calm bystander? Perhaps this is a good time to remember that human psychology didn't just happen on its own. It was molded and shaped by millions of years of evolution, of dying if we made the wrong choice or upset the group. We come from a long line of creatures that had to fit in to survive, and the complex social structure once thought to be so essentially human may not be unique after all. The chameleon effect (or unconscious mimicry of others), one of the things once studied as being distinctly human, has now been proven to exist in capuchan monkeys (Yong). Furthermore, it seems to play an essential role in their society, as capuchans seem to have a deeper bond with those that imitate them than those that don't. Humans seem to feel the same way, reporting taking a greater liking to those that imitate them. But the article warns against using the method intentionally: "'If a person thinks he is being mimicked, it will backfire," warns Chartrand. "He will like the mimicker less.'" Sounding familiar? 'Cool' is a delicate balance between fitting in and standing out. We strive for it, and ridicule ourselves for doing so. But perhaps 'cool' isn't a societal construct imposed upon us against our will. It seems that in fact, 'cool' was already in our nature.

Works cited:

F., Jake. "Jake's Personal Free Political." Blogspot. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Jan 2010. .

Jones, Ron. "The Third Wave." 1972. Web. 23 Jan 2010. .

Latane, B., and J. Darley. "Latane, B., & Darley, J. Bystander "Apathy", American Scientist, 1969, 57, 244-268.." Web. 23 Jan 2010. .

Yong, Ed. "Monkey do, human do, monkey see, monkey like ." ScienceBlogs. 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 24 Jan 2010. .

Barco, Tony. "We're All Copycats." Psycology Today 1 Nov. 1999: n. pag. Web. 25 Jan 2010. .