Simply disagreeing with others or thinking differently causes a dose of stress. That’s who we are: a sociable species that feels at ease when its place in the group is indisputable, so expressing opinions sometimes generates tension or fear. be rejected, offend others or cause instability in our environment.
However, everything has a limit. If we refrain from expressing personal opinions out of fear of rejection or exclusion, we are equally nullified by such attitudes, we can only snever a group, a collective or a community, where there is only consensus and they remain unchanged, there can be no evolution.
- “The human species is made in such a way that those who walk the road already traveled throw stones at those who teach something new.
- “Voltaire?.
There are great advances in the world that have only been possible because someone has been able to make their voice heard and express opinions, even if they were not shared by their environment. If Martin Luther King hadn’t strongly opposed racial discrimination, it probably wouldn’t have been an evolution of civil rights. The same thing happened with Nelson Mandela and many others throughout history.
It takes courage to express opinions when they contradict the opinion of the majority; human groups behave in such a way that they seek mutual identification by consensus; members who endanger the unity of the group are often rejected, at least initially; such rejection ranges from small gestures of disapproval to ostracism, if necessary.
Intuitively or consciously, we all know that. Majority always tends to prevail, and when you express opinions that go against almost everyone, you put yourself in the spotlight. Digital superiority has a psychological pressure effect, so we must must must must must must must must must must must must must must muster the courage to say what we think aloud.
This question is an almost instinctive issue. Human beings need others to live. Physical and psychological survival depends on others, as we can hardly stay alive and healthy if we are completely alone. To go against the majority, you have to challenge this survival instinct, so it’s not easy.
During the 1950s, Solomon Asch, an American psychologist, conducted several experiments on the group’s pressure and its effects. In practice, he discovered that getting away from most was very difficult.
Researchers conducted collective questionnaires. Within the group there were “infiltrators” who imposed a majority tendency on incorrect answers. The result is that at least 37% of the people studied preferred to join the majority’s responses, although they thought they were wrong.
Subsequently, neuroecononomist Gregory Berns studied the changes that occur in the brain when people def from most and the results of their research have shown that this disagreement increases the activity of the amygdala, which treats emotions, including fear. voltage levels.
Adapting to groups costs less emotionally than expressing opinions contrary to those of the majority, however, if we behaved like a passive herd that only follows in the footsteps of others, we would probably contribute to strengthening totalitarianism and collective progress would be virtually zero. .
Charlan Nemeth, a researcher at the University of Berkeley, showed that judges’ decisions were much more accurate when some members deviated from majority opinion. These dissensions have led to a reconsideration of the facts and circumstances, which has led to more balanced conclusions.
When someone questions the opinion of the majority, they are forced to gather more evidence to support their position, it is very positive.
While difficult, we earn a lot when we cultivate the ability to express personal opinions. In principle, the important thing is to be honest with yourself. We may be wrong, but that’s not the most important thing. let onese be guided by one’s conscience and claim the right we all have: to think differently.
As a group, it is important to learn to listen to those who think differently, as well as to avoid valuing how many people think in the same way, paying attention to the most valid arguments.