novapsyche | (no subject)

A friend (

delosd) lists his opinion on OSBP.

I never thought I'd be in the position where I had to argue for the effects of peer pressure. (Warning: the last link is a .pdf page.)

Of the article, I pointed

delosd to this passage:

More disquieting were the reactions of subjects who construed their difference from the majority as a sign of some general deficiency in themselves, which at all costs they must hide. On this basis they desperately tried to merge with the majority, not realizing the longer-range consequences to themselves.

But there's also this:

In one series the size of the opposition was varied from one to 15 persons. The results showed a clear trend. When a subject was confronted with only a single individual who contradicted his answers, he was swayed little: he continued to answer independently and correctly in nearly all trials. When the opposition was increased to two, the pressure became substantial: minority subjects now accepted the wrong answer 13.6 per cent of the time. Under the pressure of a majority of three, the subjects' errors jumped to 31.8 per cent. But further increases in the size of the majority apparently did not increase the weight of the pressure substantially. Clearly the size of the opposition is important only up to a point.

If OSBP had only one person going up to someone asking, "Can I ask to touch your breast?", I would not have put up the argument that peer pressure had anything to do with it. However (and especially in the instance of the girl in the hallway being approached by a group of people [I assume the group was larger than three]), the ability of peer pressure to sway someone's opinion on something, even something they are absolutely sure of in private, is significant and can't be flicked away.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Keep in mind that several things that Ferrett mentioned happening at ConFusion didn't actually happen, and at this point I'm pretty much discounting most of the ConFusion story.

(He "heard" that someone came up to someone and said "Are my breasts good enough." Those that were there claim this never happened at all.)

I remember reading that the girl in the blue outfit was a friend of people in the group but was not known to Ferrett, so I believe that part of it was true.

You assume wrong.

The people that approached 'L' were one who asked her if she'd mind if another specific woman touched her breasts. And while there was another woman right there, side by side, there was no "We're all doing it, you should, too." or statement from her of any sort.

Generally, by the time Penguicon rolled around, there was only one person going up to another, (usually responding to a question about the button) saying "We're doing a social experiment, and it's about the answer to the question 'Can I touch your breasts (or butt)?'"

I fail to see how your argument shows that this is a special case of peer pressure that differs significantly from all others.

Furthermore, why are feminists insinuating that women are incapable of navigating the waters of peer pressure? Haven't we done so our entire lives? This isn't high school. Peer pressure was a much bigger deal back then. Yes, there are people who still haven't learned to deal with it effectively. Yes, they are taken advantage of constantly, even by the very feminists decrying OSBP.

But how is this a special case?

I fail to see how your argument shows that this is a special case of peer pressure that differs significantly from all others.

I never said it was a special case. In fact, I'm pretty much saying that what occurred is basically how social pressure plays out.

Furthermore, why are feminists insinuating that women are incapable of navigating the waters of peer pressure?

I am not only a feminist and a woman, but I'm also a scholar of social science. I'm not insinuating that women cannot weather social pressure--I never divvied this up between or among genders at all. I'm talking about plain human nature.

OK, then, there is no argument here against OSBP.

You're saying there is social pressure involved, as there is in every single social interaction we have every day of our lives.

Since it is not a special case, women are free to participate or not, and it is not therefore against your own feminist values.

I'm saying that there was and is an element of social coercion that existed for OSBP, and no amount of people saying "Well, no there wasn't" or "Well, that happens all the time" changes that.

I participated. It's not like I'm armchair analyzing this.

If the creators of OSBP really wanted to perform a "social experiment" (as this has generously been called), then the onus was and is on them to make sure that participants were participating freely.

Well, all I can say is they participated as freely as anyone ever participates in anything.

Does the government ensure that everyone who votes is never pressured by outside social forces? Nope.

When you wear that sexy shirt in the morning is it the store's responsibility if a guy checks out your rack? Nope.

I'm just sayin', people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Period. It could be worded as a "social experiment," but what it really was was an attempt to get people to think about what it means to touch eachother.

You know what they found out? A whole hell of a lot of adults are way too afraid of it; Personally, I think that's a problem.

Okay. Here is my argument about OSBP as it stands:

1) It was anti-feminist because it focused on the female breast as an object of public attention and (yes) groping.

2) It was flawed deeply in its methodology, as a gang of people descending on someone who is not prepared will instinctively sense social pressure, which leads into the problems that I've highlighted in this particular post.

3) If the experiment was merely focused on adults being comfortable in letting others touch them, then I must ask why (a) it wasn't the "Let's Hug Each Other" project and (b) why it was focused on the female breast.

4) The fact that men were also touched does not negate that this specifically focused on the female breast. It singled out that one particular body part for public scrutiny and inspection, therein colluding with centuries of paternalistic and patriarchal policing of women's bodies.

Does the government ensure that everyone who votes is never pressured by outside social forces? Nope.

No, but we also adhere to the idea of the secret ballot, which reduces the perception of social pressure to a significant degree.

people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Period.

Then I would like to know when you are going to ask the people who organized OSBP to admit where they failed in their responsibilities. As the record stands, this is less a social experiment that "proved" that people are afraid to touch each other but more an opportunity for random people to grope others who had little or no idea of what to expect.

I disagree that people had little or no idea what to expect. People who wore the pins either asked about them specifically, or were informed privatelt of the purpose of the project. Rarely was more than one person involved in giving another the pin, as far as I know.

I also fail to see how anything that focuses on the female breast as something that is wonderful to touch when one is invited to do so freely is anti-feminist.

Your point is valid. This argument is really getting into free-will versus determinism territory. Our justice system is predicated on free will. Psychological research muddies those waters. Lawyers frequently use defense strategies that stress deterministic factors in a client's life. Peer pressure falls in the deterministic realm.

And just because you can fart out the Star Spangled Banner, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do in public. Just like the OSBP. Like many well-intentioned activities, it was a poorly concieved. It's also true that no animals were harmed in the OSBP and the subjects reported positive feelings.