Herd Mentality at LHS

Herd mentality refers to the tendency of individuals to blindly behave in the same way as their peers. In our everyday lives, this mentality becomes visible through the way people dress, talk, and behave, whether consciously or unconsciously. A conscious example is shopping for new clothes⁠—many people buy styles that are in-fashion or popular. An unconscious example is how people adopt the accents of the region they live in. These examples also fluctuate between one’s conscious and subconscious. On the face of it, herd mentality seems rather innocuous. However, when it leaves our everyday behaviours and transcends into our ideologies and politics, it isn’t so harmless anymore.

The current political climate is becoming increasingly polarised, and Lexington is no different. However, instead of resolving issues through rational and balanced discussions, LHS students are embracing a herd mentality. There is generally one opinion that dominates the town, and people who disagree conceal their opinions for fear of being “different.” As a result, people shut down opposing arguments before giving them any consideration. This results in a dogmatic climate that stifles creativity and forecloses the possibility of realistic change. Those opinions must be listened to, at least in order to contest them and conclude in a robust manner that those arguments are poor. The issue with the rigid, dogmatic mindset is that your opponent is highly unlikely to be persuaded by your side. Embracing level-headed discussions allows both parties to arrive at a compromise⁠—a significantly better option than remaining in a constant state of conflict. Furthermore, your adversary is much more likely to find flaws in your argument than people who share your opinions are. The ability to find and rectify errors in your arguments is an important skill that enhances not only critical thinking but the capacity for radical change. It is this process of iterative argument testing that can allow us, as a society, to improve as much as possible.

Herd mentality also poses significant harm through its influence on social media. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people post on Instagram, Snapchat or Facebook about their views on certain political events. But how many of them do you think actually know what they’re posting about? Many of these people are merely posting to fit in with their peers and depict themselves as in-line with the “correct” point of view. Of course, there is a distinction between such people and others who share nuanced, well-researched opinions, but the majority of social media posts merely contain one-line, clickable catch phrases or hashtags that people have picked up elsewhere and don’t contribute meaningfully to the discussion. If you asked those social media posters even one follow-up question regarding their opinion, most would have nothing relevant to say. While posting on social media isn’t intrinsically bad, and often does communicate the urgency of an issue, it frequently demonstrates the lack of knowledge and preparedness that teens have on these key issues. Ultimately, this mindless proliferation of information results in the formation of closed off communities. The only way you can persuade other people, especially policymakers, to listen to your side of the argument is to rigorously defend the position against every potential attack.

The necessity of these argumentative skills is present on both sides of the political spectrum. On one side, many conservatives hold the belief that liberals can’t argue rationally and merely appeal to feelings to justify their conclusions. Viral videos like “Ben Shapiro destroys a liberal snowflake” display this commonly held viewpoint, because the liberals in these videos have been shown to collapse to feelings or emotion as a source of argumentation when confronted with difficult examples. On the other hand, many liberals believe conservatives are uneducated, unintelligent and can’t be reasoned with. Videos like “Putting Donald Trump Supporters Through an Ideology Test” show this commonly held perception, as the people continuously parrot one-line tags they’ve heard President Trump say without actually responding to the question. Both of these examples show that due to a lack of mutually inclusive discussion, each side has reinforced stereotypes about the other side being unable to argue for their position and thus have disregarded their opinions. This is counterproductive for both parties since they isolate potential compromises. Regardless of the opinion that someone personally holds, the ability for both sides to be able to articulate why they have those beliefs is the first step to being able to eradicate the immoral ones.

This article doesn’t aim to sway readers to one side of the political spectrum or the other⁠—both sides have their flaws. This article merely advocates for open-mindedness and rational discussion as opposed to upholding dogmatic, dominant viewpoints. Next time you want to post about some new policy, make sure that you are truly educated on the topic and have the ability to rearticulate and refine your opinions. Next time you come across an opinion you don’t agree with, approach it with the mindset that it will be a good discussion that both parties can benefit from. You might even change their mind. Don’t just follow what the herd mentality at LHS is, because more likely than not, those people don’t know what they’re talking about either. You have the ability to truly change the dominant viewpoint for the better, instead of remaining mired in the status quo.

by SIMRAN GANDHI