this is a conversation me and a friend had on the subject

i decided to copy and past it here cause i think it expands on some of my points, and i'm too lazy to try to convert it into essay form.

When it comes to joining an alternative culture, I think people are driven by the rewards of belonging to that culture. Rather than wanting to alienate or be anti-social, I think people who want to be part of alternative culture generally exist in an environment where major trends is alienating them or their interests to some degree. Major trends outcompete minor trends, pushing them to the fringes.

Some people probably enjoy being part of a cultural movement partly because it is minor and that can be viewed as anti-social, but the dominating incentives are pro-belonging, pro-social and pro-whatever it is about that culture that appeals.

Generally speaking, we're social creatures before we're anti-social creatures (but of course there's the always the odd nut job).

i think you're right that people in general want to belong in one way or another. but i feel like the pursuit of belonging can lead to antisocial behavior. i see alternative trendsters spending a great deal of time and energy ****ting on the mainstream cultures that many of their peers adopt. in the process of doing so they find a sense of belonging but part of that sense of belonging is in the shared alienation from mainstream culture. so it doesn't seem mutually exclusive to me.

also, could you comment on the example of cults that literally pressure their members to cut of ties with the outside world? they give their members a sense of belonging while simultaneously promoting behavior that is seen as antisocial outside the context of that cult, imo.

Alternative culture is the same as regular culture, it's just marketed as being alternative culture.

red car is the same as blue car. it's just painted red

Regarding this, I think it is interesting to go outside the current scope of this discussion and look at meme theory.

What you're describing is something that generally happens in extremist religious groups, but maybe not exclusively. I think what such groups generally have in common is that they adhere to a belief system, values and culture that is basically out of sync with the greater society which they find themselves in. As such, there is a real threat of corruption from the outside. Mainstream thoughts, values and culture are a threat to the very existence of such groups.

Undoubtedly, many such alternative cultures have died out, possibly due to outside pressure (knowledge, belief, values) seeping in or perhaps internal pressures driving people away. As the outside world shares information faster, survival probably becomes even more difficult. The groups that do survive with their strange ways intact are the ones who have employed some trait or tactic that makes them competitive. Isolating their members from outside influence is a powerful strategy in this respect.

So I'd say it's not necessarily that everyone with strange beliefs are anti-social and want to isolate themselves. It's just that you have a natural selection on the meme level that removes such strange ideas unless they are somehow protected, such as by an isolationist culture.

JWB, what are your thoughts when you apply this to religion?

I AM USING RELIGION AS AN EXAMPLE. PLEASE DO NOT START A F*CKING CRUSADE HERE PEOPLE. (This is directed at everybody btw)

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/01_groups.png

According to this pie graph and your theory, anybody who is not a Christian is being antisocial. You tell a Muslim he's not adhering to the norm, being Christianity, and he'll be offended. Hell, I would. If I'm doing something, it's either because I believe in it, or I find it most comfortable.

I guess my point is, who is to say what the social norm is and what isn't? In my mind, the only way you're being antisocial is if you're not socializing with ANYBODY. Just because you're part of a group that likes different thing from the masses doesn't mean you're antisocial.

Hell, even Bronies are social with other Bronies.

A Muslim isn't being antisocial because they were likely raised by Muslims in an environment that was conducive to becoming a Muslim. They exist in an environment that believes differently, but they're socializing with their more immediately relevant environment (i.e. their Muslim family/community).

I think when joining a religion can be antisocial is when you get crackerass, wannabe hippies and celebrities becoming Buddhists because they want to feel special. They were likely raised, if not as Christians, then in an environment that was more accepting and encouraging of Christianity than any other specific religion, but have chosen to go an entirely different direction, likely as a reaction against cultural norms.

Maybe it's a word usage issue? I just don't see that as being anti-social at all. Like, what exactly are we talking about here? If I see a kid outside practicing his Buddhist five star exploding palm technique in the courtyard with 20 of his hippie friends, my first thought isn't "Wow, look at those anti-social f*cks". Like, that's just silly. They're outside and active.

If I liked everything that everybody else liked but I spent every single day locked up in my room by myself, am I less anti social than a homosexual Buddhist liberal that likes free form jazz, yet also goes out every single night?

I just don't get the definition of anti-social everybody seems to be using in this thread.

I don't think that alternative trends are inherently antisocial. I think an alternative trends can be antisocial, but it isn't because it is alternative.

Take Antony Hagarty for example.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vMa9KQlxNj8/hqdefault.jpg

She used to walk around NYC in the early 2000s wearing a trench coat, combat boots, and the words "**** off" written on her face. This is objectively antisocial, both in the antagonistic, psychology sense, and in the more general "don't talk to me, I don't want to interact" sense.

You can look at Leigh Bowery, for example

http://www.wgsn.com/blogs/wp-content...wery_Looks.jpg

Someone who took drag and turned away from the 'feminization' of the male sex, instead opting for an abstract, almost masculine aesthetic -- very tall, very big, very imposing, very intimidating. This was incredibly antagonistic in the culture Leigh Bowery exposed his visual and performance art to (1980s-1990s England). It wasn't necessarily avoidant, moreso antagonistic, and counter to the very stiff, rigid, uniform, almost aesthetically communistic mindset of England at that time.

Ignoring the psychology definition of antisocial, and looking it from a social standpoint, I think that the concept of being antisocial is, nowadays, very subjective. You could argue that nothing is really antisocial in the same way you might argue the nonexistence of universal morality. It's all a matter of perception, really.

If I saw someone dressed up like Leigh Bowery walking down the streets of NYC I would definitely want to interact with them. I think that in contemporary culture, it's less a matter of antisocial and more a matter of mainstream stigma vs things misunderstood, or a sheer lack of even attempting to understand.

You could argue that in the deep, rural south of the US, being gay is antisocial. In Russia, the punk group Pussy Riot is seen as antisocial. We can look at it objectively if we deem the concept of being antisocial as counter to the mainstream, but that would be the easy way out.

I think that in contemporary society, with the way culture is now, there is a place for everyone with the internet. No matter who you are (generalizing for the sake of fluidity), there is a community or culture where you are an antisocial and one where you are normality.