In many industries, beliefs stick not because they’re constantly tested, but because repetition makes them feel true. Through social proof and conformity, repeated claims from credible sources can slowly turn uncertainty into “common sense.”

The coffee industry is a clear example. For decades, Arabica, the most widely cultivated and consumed species of coffee plant, was treated as the standard for quality, while Robusta, known for its high caffeine content, hardy nature, and bold, earthy flavor, was seen as a lower-grade bean mostly used in instant coffee and cheap blends. Over time, that split became embedded in grading systems and specialty coffee culture, shaping what people learned to recognize as “good” coffee. In reality, what looks like objective quality is often just shared belief, reinforced over time by culture, economics, and repetition.

To better understand how these assumptions form—and what it takes to challenge them in practice—I spoke with Eirik Holth and Gabriel Shohet, co-founders and co-CEOs of Black Sheep Coffee. As operators who have built and scaled a coffee business by challenging long-standing industry assumptions, they offer an inside perspective on how consensus is formed—and how it can be questioned from within.

Why Disagreement Feels Threatening

The psychology of conformity has been studied for decades, and the findings are consistent: people often align with group consensus even when they know it is wrong, driven less by confusion and more by the social cost of standing apart.

Research shows that social exclusion activates neural systems involved in threat, salience, and affective distress processing, including regions such as the insula and anterior cingulate cortex that have also been linked to the emotional component of physical pain, helping explain why rejection can feel physically painful.

In professional settings, this dynamic is often even stronger. Speaking up rarely comes down to courage alone—it depends on how supported and secure someone feels within the organization. In practice, it’s less about willingness and more about whether they have enough protection within the system to absorb the cost of disagreement. For most people, that protection may be limited.

Holth describes entering the coffee industry with a mindset shaped more by curiosity than convention.

“Everyone tells you, no, you cannot go and source beans directly,” he recalls. “Okay, let us travel to the plantations and meet the farmers. Let us start tasting beans. Very quickly, you have something that the industry had been overlooking for years. But you have to be willing to ignore what everyone is telling you and just go look for yourself.”

Groupthink and the Weight of “Everyone Knows”

Groupthink can emerge in organizational settings where harmony and conformity are strongly valued, creating conditions where individuals are less likely to critically evaluate alternatives or voice dissent. In such environments, people may self-censor when speaking up feels socially risky, especially when organizational norms discourage disagreement.

Research further indicates that when people speak up with concerns or disagree, they may feel pressure to stay quiet or go along with the group. In these situations, people often hold back their true opinions or adjust what they say to avoid conflict. Over time, silence can be mistaken for agreement, and ideas that were never really challenged start to feel like proven facts.

Shohet noted, “We launched 100% Robusta in a world dominated by 100% Arabica.” He pointed to the challenge behind questioning a standard once it becomes widely accepted. When an entire industry converges around a single idea of quality, stepping outside of it requires not just a different product, but a willingness to question what “everyone knows” to be true.

The Unsexy Truth About Going Against the Grain

There is a persistent myth that challenging consensus requires a single dramatic act of courage. The data—and the lived experience of people who have done it—suggest otherwise. Grit has been defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals, and is linked to sustained achievement across domains.

Related literature has found that the perseverance component in particular—the ability to keep going despite obstacles—is the most consistent predictor of long-term success. In other words, confidence that you are right matters less than the ability to continue working when there is still no external confirmation.

For Holth and Shohet, their journey reflects this kind of sustained, iterative effort rather than a single defining moment. “It was naive, of course,” Holth says. “But without any doubt or looking back. A series of continuous improvements. There will be a lot of grit. That will probably be the key ingredient. The unsexy truth is there is no real shortcut.”

Action Steps

Here are some ways to apply these ideas in practice.

Question the evidence: Before accepting a widely held belief, slow down and ask whether you’ve actually reviewed the evidence yourself or are simply trusting consensus. Repetition can feel like proof even when it isn’t. What evidence would actually change your mind here?
Separate idea from social discomfort: When disagreement feels uncomfortable, don’t ignore it—but don’t follow it blindly either. Ask whether the discomfort is coming from the idea itself or from the social risk of standing apart. Am I reacting to the argument, or to the feeling of being out of alignment with others?
Test before committing: Instead of fully committing to a contrarian idea, test it in small, reversible ways. Run low-risk experiments that give you real feedback before making bigger decisions. What is the smallest version of this idea I could test this week?
Prioritize learning over validation: Expect progress to take time. Rather than focusing on immediate validation, ask whether you are still learning and refining your thinking as you move forward.
Check whose timeline you’re following: Be intentional about outside influence. Ask whether advice, funding, or expectations are helping you make evidence-based decisions—or pushing you to move on someone else’s timeline. Whose timeline am I actually operating on right now?

Bottom Line

Conformity isn’t a flaw—it’s the brain doing what it’s designed to do: track social risk and protect belonging. The challenge isn’t removing that instinct, but not letting it decide for you. People who challenge consensus aren’t less sensitive to it—they’ve learned to rely more on evidence, stay with uncertainty long enough to test it, and protect their independence of thought. Comfort and accuracy are not the same thing.

© 2026 Ryan C. Warner, Ph.D.