Most responses to this term seem to have negative responses and associated it with "group think" or "herd mentality" and so forth.

I'd argue the only problem is that some degree of "conformity" is basically taken for granted, and that any argument against conformity taken to logical extremes would end in nihlism or absurdism.

(For example, learning the English language, or following the Traffic Laws in an English speaking country is a type of conformity, much as how the philosohpy of the Law is predicated on conformity within the realms of moral behavior, such as not commiting evil acts against others; obviously though there's a difference between a person who is "abnormal" in the sense of an Einstein or a professional athelete, or a very-well educated person, such as a scholar of law and moral philosophy - versus "abnormal" in the sense of a Jeffery Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy).

So my conclusion is that some pragmatic degree of conformity is more or less necessary and taken for granted; when people speak against "conformity" they're only doing so within a degree of acceptable reason, however beyond that is a very touchy subject which I want to avoid probing further, lest it degenerate into arguments and aburdisms.