Go here, and read this article, all the way to the end. Especially if you’ve ever listened to a co-worker blathering on about hope and change, and thought, “no, I don’t want to start an argument or stand out…”

Implicit in the Left’s continuous attempts to exaggerate Obama’s perceived support is the belief that “a crowd draws a crowd” and that undecided voters will be drawn to the Obama camp if they think “everyone else” is supporting him. But is that an accurate assessment? Is there any evidence that it’s true?

Well, actually, yes.

And that evidence was collected fifty years ago.

Starting in 1951, Asch, a professor at Swarthmore College, ran a series of unusual experiments to generate a quantitative measurement of the subjective term “conformity.” The experiments, which many now consider somewhat unethical and a bit sadistic, went like this:

A volunteer was recruited to participate in a vision test. He was brought to a room with seven other volunteers who were also to take the same test, in a group. Little did the volunteer know, however, that his fellow “volunteers” were all confederates of the experimenter, and the test was not a vision test but a psychological torture session designed to elicit conformist behavior. The experimenter would then unveil a pair of displays, one showing a single black line, and the other showing three black lines of varying lengths. The volunteer is told to simply state which of the three lines most closely matches the length of the single line.

The volunteer, who was always placed in the second-to-last position, was only allowed to state his answer after he had heard most of the other faux-volunteers give their answers. For the first two rounds, these confederates were instructed to give the obviously correct answer; in each instance, the test subject would then also give the correct answer. But starting on the third round, the confederates, as instructed by Asch, intentionally gave a consistently wrong answer; the goal of the experiment was to see if the volunteer would “break” and also begin to chime in with the wrong answer as well. Most volunteers would resist for a few rounds, but eventually the majority would cave in at least part of the time and give the wrong answers in complete defiance of their own perceptions. Overall, the test subjects gave the wrong answers 36.8% of the time — an astonishing result.

Should you speak up? Should you speak out? Should you engage an Obamabot? Well, yes. Just have an escape route planned; they’re not all rational, when challenged, you know. For the sake of your fellows, (who will probably slink for the shadows, leaving you unsupported, the ingrates).

…the pressure to conform drops precipitously if the subject is aware of even a single fellow dissenter. All it takes is one person to shatter the facade of unanimity, and suddenly the number of conformist answers drop from around 33% to around 8%. With more dissenters, it drops even further.

Now as any of my longtime readers know (Hi, mom!), I wrote off the Republican party back in 2006 over pork and immigration. I may vote for its candidates, or I may vote Libertarian, but I don’t consider myself a member of either one. I’ve supported the Jacksonian Party, with a membership of one. (Or two.)

Next week, I will have more information on how to stand up, en masse, and refuse to conform. Stay tuned.