<p>Much behaviour is ritual (in the non-religious sense) not rational.  Ritual behaviour evolves by trial and error, so if you had a good experience after throwing salt over your shoulder then that behaviour gets set in.  Compared to ritual, rationality came late to human civilisation.  Furthermore human behaviour is tribal, so it is <em>tribal</em> ritual, which makes the bar for rational breakthrough all the higher.</p>
<p>The tribal nature of human behaviour is described in Prof. Alford's <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Political-Theory-C-fred-Alford/dp/0300059582/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Group Psychology and Political Theory</a> (1995)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In this innovative book, C. Fred Alford argues that the group - not
the individual - is the most fundamental reality in society and that
political theory has overlooked the insights of group psychology and
leadership. ... Alford asserts that small, unstructured, leaderless
groups are the closest thing to the state of nature that political
theorists write about. According to Alford, none of the familiar
traditions in political theory - including modern state-of-nature
theory, liberalism, communitarianism, postmodernism, and feminist
theory - makes sense of the group experience. Most contemporary
political theorists have erred in starting from the position of the
individual and moving to an understanding of the individual's struggle
to belong to the group and civil society. Instead, says Alford,
political theorists should realize that the group is the state of
nature, and that civil society is the product of the individual's
struggle to separate from the group and develop a sense of self.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are also phylogenetic instinctive group or pack behaviours which are deeper than ritual, described by Konrad Lorenz in <a href="https://books.google.gg/books?id=rIVK7wuY3kIC&amp;pg=PA240&amp;lpg=PA240&amp;dq=%22instinctive+behaviour+mechanisms+much+older+than+reason+and+not+directly+accessible%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=bW6dO1nEiW&amp;sig=ACfU3U3K-O9XMFnDEzNy4KX09biTMHSGYg&amp;hl=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">On Aggression</a> (1983) page 240</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The motive power ... stems from
instinctive behaviour mechanisms much older than reason and not
directly accessible to rational self-observation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Elias Canetti described 5 types of pack behaviour in his 1960 book Crowds &amp; Power (<em>Masse &amp; Macht</em>) which correspond approximately to the 6 types of group behaviour in Alford's book.  Canny political operator can manipulate the transmutation of these behaviours for better or worse.  This is where rationality can play an important role in curbing unreasonable behaviour, although in this case most of the people involved will not be aware of it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-18T09:29:26.833Z
2022-12-18T10:19:54.447Z
2022-12-18T10:19:54.447Z
Chris Degnen
<p>There are irrational or even nonsensical conventions/lifestyles/costumes/norms that people don’t question but take for granted for a long time. Then some people start questioning them, then more people question them, and a time comes when the unreasonable convention is abolished.</p>
<p>Why are such conventions accepted for long time? Is it a matter of psychology or is something related to sociology? Any theory around to explain that? Any reference about that topic?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-09T06:36:07.703Z
Welcome to Psychology.SE. Can you please give a couple of examples of these *"irrational or even nonsensical conventions/lifestyles/costumes/norms that people don’t question but take for granted for a long time"* which have been abolished? So we don't repeat what is already known, what have you read on the subject?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-20T18:40:41.037Z
@ChrisRogers for example, gender separation in some contexts in some countries. For example, in some universities in some Islamic countries, there are 2 gender-based restaurants, while students of both genders can go have their meals together in any restaurant outside universities. This doesn’t make sense, but students don’t question it.
Sasan
<social-psychology><reference-request><rationality><norms>
Why do people take unreasonable conventions for granted?
Sasan
# Why do people take unreasonable conventions for granted?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-08)

There are irrational or even nonsensical conventions/lifestyles/costumes/norms that people don’t question but take for granted for a long time. Then some people start questioning them, then more people question them, and a time comes when the unreasonable convention is abolished.

Why are such conventions accepted for long time? Is it a matter of psychology or is something related to sociology? Any theory around to explain that? Any reference about that topic?

**Tags:** social-psychology, reference-request, rationality, norms

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome to Psychology.SE. Can you please give a couple of examples of these *"irrational or even nonsensical conventions/lifestyles/costumes/norms that people don’t question but take for granted for a long time"* which have been abolished? So we don't repeat what is already known, what have you read on the subject?  
> **username_0**: @ChrisRogers for example, gender separation in some contexts in some countries. For example, in some universities in some Islamic countries, there are 2 gender-based restaurants, while students of both genders can go have their meals together in any restaurant outside universities. This doesn’t make sense, but students don’t question it.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-12-18. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Much behaviour is ritual (in the non-religious sense) not rational. Ritual behaviour evolves by trial and error, so if you had a good experience after throwing salt over your shoulder then that behaviour gets set in. Compared to ritual, rationality came late to human civilisation. Furthermore human behaviour is tribal, so it is *tribal* ritual, which makes the bar for rational breakthrough all the higher.

The tribal nature of human behaviour is described in Prof. Alford's [Group Psychology and Political Theory](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Political-Theory-C-fred-Alford/dp/0300059582/) (1995)

> In this innovative book, C. Fred Alford argues that the group - not
> the individual - is the most fundamental reality in society and that
> political theory has overlooked the insights of group psychology and
> leadership. ... Alford asserts that small, unstructured, leaderless
> groups are the closest thing to the state of nature that political
> theorists write about. According to Alford, none of the familiar
> traditions in political theory - including modern state-of-nature
> theory, liberalism, communitarianism, postmodernism, and feminist
> theory - makes sense of the group experience. Most contemporary
> political theorists have erred in starting from the position of the
> individual and moving to an understanding of the individual's struggle
> to belong to the group and civil society. Instead, says Alford,
> political theorists should realize that the group is the state of
> nature, and that civil society is the product of the individual's
> struggle to separate from the group and develop a sense of self.

There are also phylogenetic instinctive group or pack behaviours which are deeper than ritual, described by Konrad Lorenz in [On Aggression](https://books.google.gg/books?id=rIVK7wuY3kIC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=%22instinctive+behaviour+mechanisms+much+older+than+reason+and+not+directly+accessible%22&source=bl&ots=bW6dO1nEiW&sig=ACfU3U3K-O9XMFnDEzNy4KX09biTMHSGYg&hl=en) (1983) page 240

> The motive power ... stems from
> instinctive behaviour mechanisms much older than reason and not
> directly accessible to rational self-observation.

Elias Canetti described 5 types of pack behaviour in his 1960 book Crowds & Power (*Masse & Macht*) which correspond approximately to the 6 types of group behaviour in Alford's book. Canny political operator can manipulate the transmutation of these behaviours for better or worse. This is where rationality can play an important role in curbing unreasonable behaviour, although in this case most of the people involved will not be aware of it.


---

