Going against the group?: When is it legit? When is it delusional aggrandizement?

[Praus]

For examples, Martin Luther, the monk vs. the RCC,

Sadly, Martin Luther suffered from scrupulosity which is (arguably) a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

-> Scrupulosity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Martin Luther also suffered from obsessive doubts; in his mind, his omitting the word enim ("for") during the Eucharist was as horrible as laziness, divorce, or murdering one's parent."

Also he was really, really antisemitic and medieval besides.

I really think Luther is an inappropriate role model for modern day Christians--I suggest instead looking at first century A.D. Christians as much as possible.

 

[vic1980]

Wow great reply.
Thanks for taking the time to type all of that out.

I have a cousin, who's just out there.
They're a tough nut to crack, but there has to be an angle to get in their head

praying for them

 

[Liamson]

I feel like this is an oversimplification of what is actually going on.

Its not so much this... FITTING IN IS OVERRATED: The Survival Guide for Anyone Who Has Ever Felt Like an Outsider As much as it is that there is a difference in the moral orientation of why people choose to belong to their Ideals vs, choosing to fit in.


Because Doing what is Lawful, what is right, and what is good can be very different things.

And if at the End of the Day my conscience tells me that trying to fit in is going to compromise my personal integrity, my beliefs or the principles that define my values, I can guarantee I'm going to stick out.

And If I can prove why I'm right, I won't be the only one.

 

[Sophia]

I have definitely noticed many young people clinging to fringe beliefs just to feel like they have purpose, or some unique significance. It is a bit different than when elderly people do it, because the young person is not clinging to the past, but desperately hoping for present recognition, and future acclaim.

There's a teen in my youth group that loves talking about conspiracy theories. I don't think he is trying to get people upset, just trying to get noticed, and he's assuming that if any of them are true, people will respect him in the future.

On the other hand, my aunt (in her mid-40s) talks about conspiracy theories too, but does so to "open people's eyes" to the truth. She actual wants people to get upset, and do something about these theories.
Honestly, it comes down to her being depressed, and needing to feel significant. She claims Christ, but keeps sharing a "gospel" of worldly fear instead of Heavenly hope.

 

[Sophia]

I also know several older people who get caught up in the political or social situations in the world, and see the 'degradation of society' as being the enemy. They see themselves lone pillars of righteousness in a see of evil, and end up up just condemning anything new as being of the devil. They talk about revival, but only in a political or cultural sense.

I bring this up, because in the same sense, they are standing against the flow (a good thing when the flow is against God), but don't move forward to good things! Instead of being an influence toward the love of Christ, they end up just being rocks in the river, tipping over every boat that goes by, regardless of which way they are going. (pardon my metaphor)

One man at my church really doesn't like modern music (especially loud bass). We have a pretty youthful church, so this presents a bit of a problem. He rarely has a problem with the worship service, but he will often freak-out on the teens in the parking lot.
The young kids listen to Christian rap. He associates that type of music to evil. Instead of realizing that the kids are trying to separate themselves from the world by listening to godly lyrics, he condemns them for "conforming to the world".
Most of these kids don't come from Christian homes, so any time that they are displaying Christ, it is a victory... but when a fellow Christian rebukes them for the way they are sharing Christ, it is a discouragement to the kids, and hurts the cause of Christ.


Does any of this relate, or am I just ranting? Maybe I too am having visions of grandeur, and am actually not helping...

 

[Donkeyfish07]

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were great examples of going against the flow. The Unabomber and white supremacist types are a bad example of it. Can you think of a bad example of it where the person was not advocating violence or hatred?

 

[Praus]

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were great examples of going against the flow. The Unabomber and white supremacist types are a bad example of it. Can you think of a bad example of it where the person was not advocating violence or hatred?

Charles Darwin?

 

[IloveyouGod]

I'd say depending on what they're going against.

So for example, if what they're going against is something none religious, then my argument with them must be backed up with logic and academic facts to give it a credibility.

But if what they're going against is a religious issue, then my argument must be backed up with proves from the bible, academic facts and I'd put logic at the end because logic must be there, but somethings in the bible depends more on faith rather than logic.

No problemo.
Let's see if I can clarify.

You have a family member, living, behaving in very bad ways.
The family, the friends, everyone is trying to say, "Hey stop. Not good. Hault!"

Or let's say you have someone standing for racial superiority of one race against another.
Everyone in the world, is sayin...NOOOOO!

Let's say the people in my two scenarios above, refuse to listen, because they view themselves as a non-sheeple. They've associated themselves with others in the past who refused to go with the crowd.

In a sense they've self deluded and aggrandized themselves in their own mind.

How do you talk to them?
How do you make sure you're not one of them?

The one who goes against the crowd has been elevated in our history books, so those going against the crowd may associate themselves with them. What if in the midst of thinking we're doing right, we're in fact in the wrong? How does one examine their own cause?

Does that help?

 

[Jullianna]

Re: Going against the group?:

When is it legit? When the cause is truly noble, unselfish and God-breathed

When is it delusional aggrandizement? When the cause is self-glorifying/self-edifying hogwash

It all comes down to the voice in their head. Is it God's or something else? If God is directing them, it will show in other areas of their lives. If not, that will show as well.

If they have a problem with listening to God, His Word or with considering wise counsel, I don't know that anything you might say or do would make a difference. Praying for wisdom would be my first step.

 

[Liamson]

You guys might check out group dynamics instead of trying to do original research.

Beliefs within the ingroup are based on how individuals in the group see their other members. Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group members and deviate from unlikeable group members, making them a separate outgroup. This is called the black sheep effect. A person's beliefs about the group may be changed depending upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
New members of a group must prove themselves to the full members, or “old-timers”, to become accepted. Full members have undergone socialization and are already accepted within the group. They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its goals. Marginal members were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up to the group’s expectations. They can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. In a Bogart and Ryan study, the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization was surveyed. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less positive manner after they became full members.[28]
Depending on the self-esteem of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different private beliefs about the group’s activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or she is more likely to comply with the group even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.
In situations of hazing within fraternities and sororities on college campuses, pledges may encounter this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group. Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.


Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M. & Abrams D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.