Skip to main content

Why independent people invite troubles

· 7 min read
David Len
David Len
Producer, software developer

I am surrounded by independent thinkers. 1

From this limited sampling, I learn that most of these independent thinkers had an episode of being misunderstood, disagreed, or ridiculed by the people around them.

Given that society generally prefers conformity, those who stand out or question the status quo are generally meet resistance from social exclusion to hostility.

This is also a common trope in anime, movies, videogames, pop content we consume -- where the protagonists are often portrayed as independent people who frequently invite opposition and antagonists.

We come to take for granted that this is just the way it is and think nothing about it. Perhaps its just a "main character syndrome", where everyone universally has the same experience of rejection, its just that only the survivors get to tell their story and the rest of us romanticize those misunderstandings and adversity.

This romanticization, while inspiring, obscures the fact that the experiences of independent people are not unique or extraordinary but rather a common consequence of their nonconformity.

I believe there is a structural reason why anyone who attempts to be independent will meet opposition and social challenges, and is very uncommon for independent people to be ignored or celebrated. 2

A conformist can't be disagreed​

Simply because a conformist's reward function is to be agreed. If they ever get disagreed, they will just shift their ideas to what is conventionally accepted.

By sampling bias, it means deviants will experience 90% of all disagreements. 3

Deviant minds are easy targets​

A deviant often become easy targets for those seeking to enhance their social reputation.

Opposing the establishment, especially in fields like politics is a braindead strategy to gain attention and support.

For example, political candidates may rise to power simply by positioning themselves as opponents of the existing order, without necessarily offering substantial or innovative policies.

The case of Tachibana Takeshi is a great illustration. His political ascent was primarily fueled by his opposition to the NHK fee -- a stance that resonated with many who were dissatisfied with the status quo. However, once in power, it became evident that his strategy, politics, and philosophy lacked depth and he lost his momentum after "the dragon has been slain".

The point is "braindead opposition strategy" against any target that sticks out is very rewarding, and deviants unintentionally create opportunities for others to gain prominence by simply opposing them.

The act of contradicting a deviant is low-risk / high-reward behavior, making deviants easy targets for those seeking to elevate their own social standing.

Changing minds forces people to reflect on weaknesses​

Acting as a messenger of truth or promoting independent ideas is high risk. It is much simpler and less risky for individuals to conform to the majority opinion than to challenge it.

When deviants change people's minds, they encounter resistance because their message forces others to confront their own vulnerabilities or mistakes.

This can lead to defensive reactions, as individuals feel compelled to double down on their established positions to avoid appearing wrong.

This dynamic is even more obvious in institutional settings, where admitting the validity of an deviant's ideas means rejecting the institution they are part of -- it is an equivalent of being placed in an "ideological death ground" if one has a career or is dependent on the survival of the institution.

In cases of a person being placed in "death grounds", the pushback is desperate, regardless of how right a deviant's ideas are.

In most cases, the pushback is directed to the deviant itself, regardless of how much this antagonism is justified.

It is inevitable for deviants to invite trouble​

So long as we have a social dynamic that rewards reputation and conformity, status consciousness becomes an investment with ROI. Then, being a deviant inherently invites trouble.

It is not that any individual personal have an issue against deviants -- most individuals would prefer interacting with a deviant over conformists.

However, the social system finds it easy to penalize deviants because status consciousness means some agent find their ranking and rewards threatened by uncommon behaviors. 4

The act of questioning norms or presenting alternative viewpoints disrupts the equilibrium and can threaten the reputation of those invested in maintaining the status quo.

I'll argue that due to this dynamic, it is impossible for anyone to have true independent thinking unless they have complete detachment from status consciousness. 5 6 7

TLDR​

Deviants invite troubles because challenging the status quo disrupts social dynamics and threatens the reputation of those who benefit from the existing order.

The obstacles faced by deviants are not always personal and its more likely rooted in human nature and the structures of society.

While independence is crucial for innovation and progress, it comes at a cost that not everyone is willing or able to bear.

To all deviants: Don't be a drama queen and think everyone is out there to get you. Everyone is "out there to get you" because that is what people do. 3

Get over it and keep working.

Footnotes​

  1. if you can't see what I did there, I'm disappointed. ↩

  2. There are cases of autistic people who can do own thing competently and oblivious to the negativity or oppositions of others. While such ignorance means they are not held back by public opinion, it is still more probable their avant-garde work meets more resistance relative to support. ↩

  3. Inversely, it could mean any person who experienced a chronic disagreements are more likely to see themselves as a deviant -- this is fallacy thinking. Someone who is consistently disagreed may see themselves as a deviant, but that doesn't mean they are not a conformist. A conformist can keep saying the wrong thing, be disagreed by a diverse group of people, and they will wrongly imagine that they are a deviant and the rest are conformist. ↩ ↩2

  4. In cases of a group of people who don't compare with one another, you notice that independent behaviors don't meet as much rejections as these groups have no status games to play with one another. Since neither cares much about their own reputation, another person's action doesn't bring them any threat and you observe less "witch-hunting" behavior. ↩

  5. A simple observation is to observe artists and their behavior pre-fame and post-fame. An artist is an embodiment of independence. But anyone who observes an artist that rises to fame is that they become less controversial the more popular they are. If my theory is true, artists who gets less controversial become like that because they have more interest in developing status consciousness. ↩

  6. I expect pushback for saying this, but I think this reason also explains why creative women are less common than creative men. Women are more status conscious, so there is a disadvantage in the capacity to hold independent thoughts. That is not to say women are less creative -- a woman who is detached from status conscious are just as capable of being creative. Inversely, a man that is burdened by status-conscious will have as much trouble being creative. ↩

  7. This theory also support the observation that many great art in ancient history was done by non-hetero people (Michelangelo, Nikola Tesla). But as LGBTQ and DEI gathers more social momentum and subsequently more conformist, you see a decline in the quality of art produced by non-hetero people if they happen to be absorbed by the conformist movement (Snow White and Concord are the latest disasters). ↩