I agree with this claim, because it is human nature to conform and act like everyone else to prosper in society. I'm sure you have a point, but maybe you could come up with better examples. The problem with public opinion in our times is this idea that the crowd is always right. He gives a few examples to support his point. Are you saying that people are not aware that their opinions may not be as ironclad as they sometimes seem? Your clarifying the distinction addresses my second point.
Actually I think it's the other way round. Our prose standard, three quarters of a century ago, was ornate and diffuse; some authority or other changed it in the direction of compactness and simplicity, and conformity followed, without argument. Our table manners, and company manners, and street manners change from time to time, but the changes are not reasoned out; we merely notice and conform. When someone sees a market inefficiency that everyone else was ignoring, and then solves it, they are in position to collect economic rents until others catch up. It is in our nature to do and act as others; even if the action isn't good per say. He offers the idea that people follow certain trends without thinking them through.
First, and most importantly, I think that people think that being exceptional is a choice. If a big group of people are doing something, an individual will feel compelled to do the same thing or else they will feel uncomfortable about disagreeing with the majority. It is our nature to conform; it is a force which not many can successfully resist. He wrote that when deciding what to do, we should consider what's respected by our peers. This mistakes the value of expressing an opinion or having a vote.
He claims self-approval as the motivator for following fashions of all sorts , but most conformity comes from trying to navigate life: we do what works for our neighbors. This ties in with the fact that corn pone opinions are the result of siding with the majority and assimilating your ideas. We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. I like how Emerson felt about conformity, not to mention - to be exceptional, one must be a non-conformist. Worse, political leaders continue to exploit ignorance, but with sophisticated mass communication tools and technologies Twain could never have imagined.
Twain was wrong on his main point. Being exceptional is not a choice; becoming exceptional is, though it is a slow process, subject to setbacks, and not guaranteed of even eventual success unless—as is perhaps uniquely appropriate here—one is willing to move the goalposts when necessary, and find success where one is. Mohammedans are Mohammedans because they are born and reared among that sect, not because they have thought it out and can furnish sound reasons for being Mohammedans; we know why Catholics are Catholics; why Presbyterians are Presbyterians; why Baptists are Baptists; why Mormons are Mormons; why thieves are thieves; why monarchists are monarchists; why Republicans are Republicans and Democrats, Democrats. Sane is not the same as true. Time to tell us something we don't already know.
Rather, make your decisions as you will, regardless of the pressure of the crowds, with the idea that you will sometimes agree with and probably more often disagree with them, and become exceptional in that way. It is our nature to conform; it is a force which not many can successfully resist; what is it's seat, the inborn requirement of selfapproval. Half of our people passionately believe in high tariff, the other half believe otherwise. But as a rule our self-approval has its source in but one place and not elsewhere — the approval of other people. Being contrarian just for the sake of it can be silly sometimes.
After toiling as a printer in various cities, he became a master riverboat pilot on the Mississippi River, before heading west to join Orion. It is held in reverence. Throughout the essay he also uses a few semicolon Rivera 2 to emphasize an opinion as an original one. We might be poor as hell, heating our home with wood we cut, and eating food we grew and shot, but so was everyone else in our area, and there was nothing wrong with that. While you did provide an example of an anecdote Twain used in the text, you provided no examples if imagery. I think Jerry was right, in the main, but I think he did not go far enough.
It has hope that people may read it and consider it. I don't think there's any test for this, or any cure, other than making time to ruminate, meditate, and ponder. Or the brilliant kid with enormous potential, growing up in the bad neighborhood, who purposely fails at school to not get bullied. He tends to scrutinize the world around him which could be seen in his examples, such as the one about bottles of wine. The instinct that moves to conformity did the work. His wit and satire earned praise from critics and peers, and he was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty. If it works at all, it must be on such a long timescale that you forget that it was all fake.
We were poor, but not impoverished. If we want to improve for the better, we must go for it no matter how hard the beginning is. People tend to group together with those who believe similar things, each confirming preconceptions of the others. The hoopskirt runs its course and disappears. I should have said 'subtleties'. He basically states that people follow trends whether they like them or not.