But it's somewhat understandable why this happens. Those in a position of power want everyone to see a convincing enough reason behind their actions so people won't be opposed to them, be more obedient and just don't dissent. So they resort to elaborate logical fallacies, portraying everyone as never changing simple minded static blobs that can be classified into categories in order to judge, ban, punish and police them. Ironic, given what the article classifies people for.
What the rules are is complicated by all the unwritten rules. Many people speed, but never more than 10 over the limit, and they'll even get irritated by people driving at the posted limit.
> PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life.
The problem is they'll also conform to rules that don't let others live their own life. So if there's a clique of people, the aggressive conformist might mark an outsider for ostracism, and the passive conformist will dutifully uphold that.
But "sheep" is awful. I always think of the cringey post of, "Imma sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves." Unspoken: ...so the shepherd can then send the lambs to slaughter.
Unethical life pro tip: If you are breaking the rules, at least make a case for why they don't apply to you.
"I'm only stealing to feed my family."
"This isn't an invasion, we're just annexing our own population on the other side of this border."
At the extreme, this is the base for civil disobedience: it is a disruptive breaking of the rules, but in a morally conscious and thought through way.
Its not related to such subjectivity as the subjectivity is itself a likely form of conformity.
That would be the same person, but behaving differently depending on the field or the context.
One can do society more harm being passively conformist than using mildly pejorative terms. In Paul Graham's essay, the object (the "sheep") of the critique is more dangerous than its subject (the author). I would even go on to say that it is an ethical duty to be independent-minded.
Spoken like a true aggressively conventional-minded person.
I read this two dimensional presentation only as device to discuss a theoretical point, and not something that could have any practicality.
In particular, I think a lot of people switch from the "sheep" quadrant and the "naughty ones" pretty freely. They'll want to obey rules until they hit one that they feel doesnt' make sense and/or needs to be broken, and ideally will get back to being "Sheep" once it doesn't make sense to be a "naughty one" anymore (i.e. rules have changed, or better, they changed the rule)
That's also a reason why I see places like startup hubs where people consciously behave in unconventional ways (= be jerks, most of the time) to feel like they're "naughty ones" shouldn't be lauded, and being indepdendent minded should be balanced with benefits to the surrounding people or society (if you break big rules, it should have a big payoff for everyone)
PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life. In other classifications it would be "lawful neutral" for instance.