Is individual personality inherently pathological?

[EndogenousRebel]

Basically asking if individualism makes you more prone to suffering via personality disorder. I bring it up because it seems like individualism creates a host of beliefs that may be harmless when you're younger, but as you grow older it seems like a personality disorder bubbles to the surface that is unmovable.

Rational below but you don't have to read it.
--

The notion of individualism is a recent modern conception. Before now, personhood was specifically tied to what someone provided to their family and tribe. Without your tribe it would be unlikely that you thrive in a way that sustained your metabolism in a healthy way, and you'd be more susceptible to mortal dangers outsides the collective protection of your tribe.

There are obviously downsides to not having individualistic ideals. I think a good illustration of this would be the Haitian zombies. Haiti holds the unfortunate yet interesting origin story for modern day undead beings, where essentially people took advantage of a population of people by scamming them into thinking that they are dead and must follow the orders of their necromancer masters if they want to continue living.

It was basically a system of slavery brought up and protected by cultural beliefs, something individualism would spit out like rotten food. But we can't ignore that this was before the internet connected our world. How much does this have to do with individualism vs collectivism but rather idiocy vs gullibility.

It's like the common phrase "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do the same?" It doesn't really require individualism, it just needs critical thinking.

By the same token, sticking with the group regardless of material outcome can be a decision that comes about from critical thinking. Safety in numbers is a real thing.

--

So where individualism becomes pathological, at least in our culture, is that there is a demand that we all be unique, while doing the same thing. We end up concocting some grand narrative that sets us apart from others and allow this to influence key decisions in life. In reality we are all monkeys that probably have hardly any defining differences if we didn't try so hard to make them.

 

[birdsnestfern]

The opposite I think. Walden is a good book on this topic. Being individual living just outside of 'the group / civilization' helps us develop that. Of course civilization is quite handy to fall back on for our groceries, travel, reproduction, etc. But, the only thing pathological about anything is what society forces you to believe is wrong with the individual, its just a made up construct that isn't real at all. Some psychologist trying to make a buck or society trying to force people to fear being different in order to make you a slave to some perceived power. Individualism is a sign of high intelligence.

Now, how do you balance the two? Beauty walks at razors edge. Its a fine line. Recognize the world that you see as just 1% of reality and everything else like its an upside down triangle resting on your head. You know/see that little trickle but can tap into much more of your spirit which is purely individual.

In Native American traditions, when you are IN a circle/tribe everyone is equal. This doesn't happen anywhere else. But you still have your own 'dream' and contribute something special to the world. I don't think you can verbalize too much of this, unless you are amongst really awakened folk without being ostracized. Perhaps it calls for a total redo of the group rules and expectations or a totally different kind of group in order to be more aligned inner and outer worlds.

However, what most of the sheeple are doing is not so much personality as ACTING from ego and pretending they have power. They are just mimicking other monkeys in order to fit in. They are really empty inside. They don't have real developed selves that could function without others. Do you need the social monkey games to belong? Not really, because they have false sense of belonging and revolve around someone ELSE having power, not you. Your own power is yours and all ANYBODY needs is a supportive society to our individualism. Love all those little dark places inside and make it safe.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The opposite I think. Walden is a good book on this topic. Being individual living just outside of 'the group / civilization' helps us develop that. Of course civilization is quite handy to fall back on for our groceries, travel, reproduction, etc. But, the only thing pathological about anything is what society forces you to believe is wrong with the individual, its just a made up construct that isn't real at all. Some psychologist trying to make a buck or society trying to force people to fear being different in order to make you a slave to some perceived power. Individualism is a sign of high intelligence.

I think that beyond acknowledging that you very much are a solitary creature with solitary thoughts, your understanding begins to wane. If you engage with this more, unless you're careful your bound to inflate your ego.

Not saying you can't have your own attitudes and opinions. I'm saying that at a point holding on to these attitudes or opinions to maintain who you are is corrosive, and at some point becomes a way to cope with, and reject change.

It's basically like having a religion about yourself, that is only about yourself. A mythology you want to see manifested and try to make true.

Perhaps you can also define yourself based on your history, and your past reactions, but creating a personality from this, as I said seems to be something we develop. Meaning that it's a skill we practice. What of this thing called personality when we aren't attending to it?

In Native American traditions, when you are IN a circle/tribe everyone is equal. This doesn't happen anywhere else. But you still have your own 'dream' and contribute something special to the world. I don't think you can verbalize too much of this, unless you are amongst really awakened folk without being ostracized. Perhaps it calls for a total redo of the group rules and expectations or a totally different kind of group in order to be more aligned inner and outer worlds.

Many tribes had different customs, and had a clan structure. I would think it's like many families that live together and respect each other for the sake of peace and plentiful contributions from each other.

I don't think they were blind to class though. For example, in Europe it was customary in war to kill underlings because no one cares about them but keep leaders and nobles alive to express etiquette and get more advantages due to their influence.

On the other hand native culture would have people kill the leaders and spare the underlings because followers dying doesn't really further a cause while killing leaders sends a message and is more worth while.

However, what most of the sheeple are doing is not so much personality as ACTING from ego and pretending they have power. They are just mimicking other monkeys in order to fit in. They are really empty inside. They don't have real developed selves that could function without others. Do you need the social monkey games to belong? Not really, because they have false sense of belonging and revolve around someone ELSE having power, not you. Your own power is yours and all ANYBODY needs is a supportive society to our individualism. Love all those little dark places inside and make it safe.

Right that's the opposite end of hyper individualism, forfeiting autonomy to a collective. Everything is poison at the right dose.

I would be inclined to worry about collectivist degeneracy if I saw it, but the way I see the world right now it's a bunch of individualists getting together. For clarity, it's like a bunch of narcissists teaming up.

Beyond thinking that individualism in excess is bad for the individual, I'm also starting to think it's bad for society. Idk, I'm probably wrong but I need someone else to tell me and validate my opinion.

 

[birdsnestfern]

But experience CAN be like a religion. And, this developed individual meant you had a healthy upbringing because you didn't stop growing basically. I think its when you stop growing and feel locked in thats different and society can do that because it has controls. It would make sense to me that if you developed in yourself, and kept developing, it would be a healthy thing.

Well, in this pandemic we are forced into solitude (many of us). Its natural to have a bit of every type, because it ensures that humanity will survive. Diversity. Cavepeople (Introverts) vs Hunters (Extroverts), help continue existence. Your bodys job is to pass DNA into the next line below you to help humanity survive, thats its purpose. Sometimes that means being a group person, and other times, not. The different kinds of people is how we do it.

Adding another thought: Personality may not develop fully if a child had traumas or was ignored or neglected in some way, or harmed. That would create blocks that prevent someone from developing their ego and inner child just the right way. But there is a book called I'm ok, You're ok that can help you break free from those blocks. And Soul Journeying can also retrieve lost bits of the soul also. So, pathologies can definitely be from those blocks or Childhood-PTSD.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think of it as pathology, but I agree people are incentivised to have their own headcanon of identity. It's unclear to me whether you're talking literally or figuratively about pathology. It seems like you start off talking about a sick individual and finish up by talking about a sick society. Not that that's bad it's just unclear exactly what your intention is.

 

[Balancing Act]

I feel that what people today call individualism seems as though it's leaning towards a "do what you want if you're not hurting someone" sort of mentality. People don't like delaying gratification, and freedom of choice allows us to get away with a lot. The modern world has so many conveniences that most of us have forgotten how to say no to what we want. I'm opposed to the statement "follow your heart" because people will use it as an excuse for practically anything. I don't claim to understand myself perfectly, but I've learned that pleasure does not equal happiness, and it can even hurt you. In this regard, I think I'd only partially with your hypothesis. Individualism is such a convenient excuse, even when it's fake, and you're really just going along with what everyone else is doing because you want to. The most important kind of freedom, imo, is freedom to do what you know is right. True individualism is found somewhere in that region. (The non-pathological kind)

 

[washti]

Could you give a bit of flesh to your ideas, dude?

So where individualism becomes pathological, at least in our culture, is that there is a demand that we all be unique, while doing the same thing

Whaa examples pls.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Could you give a bit of flesh to your ideas, dude?

So where individualism becomes pathological, at least in our culture, is that there is a demand that we all be unique, while doing the same thing

Whaa examples pls.

Gimmie a break I don't even know what interests people

We're all filtered like cattle from school, to work, to grave.

All (most) of these classes in school taught the same principles, because that's good diverse education I guess.

After all that we're told that we have to make something of ourselves.

Looks like the people before us did a good job of that themselves, so we have to diversify.

The institution exists to perpetuate itself, so it's not like we can flip a dial and change things instantly, and it's not like the institution is that effective besides bare necessities. Hallelujah I guess.

The biggest difference between people is access to resources which I'm told is not not due to institutions. People don't usually control their access to resources unless of course you are a ambitiously radical individualist. Opposite of what @Balancing Act says, an individualist is someone who chooses their own interest over others, and expects others to do the same. They find it very easy to get someone else to do something for them.

We all come from the same environment. Our institutions/culture basically beg these people to take charge, thus if you aren't individualistic you are basically losing out on having more autonomy in your life.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

But experience CAN be like a religion. And, this developed individual meant you had a healthy upbringing because you didn't stop growing basically. I think its when you stop growing and feel locked in thats different and society can do that because it has controls. It would make sense to me that if you developed in yourself, and kept developing, it would be a healthy thing.

To me religion has function of transcendence. A religious experience is feeling like you are reaching something majestic and divine. You are never supposed to transcend. The minute you tell yourself you have transcended you are a cook.

It's like someone saying they are done growing because they've grown all they can. That is exactly what someone's self-affirmed personality is.

Whenever you're individualistic you basically disconnect yourself off from others. I think we're talking about different things.

We just are. Our defining characteristics are formed by decisions we've made and our environment. Our individualistic culture I think does a bad job at defining how we should approach the problem of identity relative to our existential reality.

Suppose that it's useful to imagine what the perfect version of myself would do if they were in a situation, like being audited by tax entities. Unless I am very conscious of that exercise I might as well not think about personality at all should I?

Well, in this pandemic we are forced into solitude (many of us). Its natural to have a bit of every type, because it ensures that humanity will survive. Diversity. Cavepeople (Introverts) vs Hunters (Extroverts), help continue existence. Your bodys job is to pass DNA into the next line below you to help humanity survive, thats its purpose. Sometimes that means being a group person, and other times, not. The different kinds of people is how we do it.

I agree. Diversity is important, but do we need individualism to be diverse? I think we're talking about different things. I have a problem with individualists I guess. Not a problem with individualism.

But our culture seems to want individualist so I don't know, I guess by proxy I do want less individualism, but it's not

I don't think of it as pathology, but I agree people are incentivised to have their own headcanon of identity. It's unclear to me whether you're talking literally or figuratively about pathology. It seems like you start off talking about a sick individual and finish up by talking about a sick society. Not that that's bad it's just unclear exactly what your intention is.

So individualism is fine and needed let me say that. Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing.

To me personality is a social tool so that we have expectations for each others and our own behavior.

However, read my response to washti for more rational, society clearly broadcasts that it wants individuals, individualists, to take charge, thus creating a feedback loop of people who shape their personality around this requirement to be a special. Try to be unique. This is how it's pathological for society. Not to fall into a fallacy, it's just not natural.

Individualists out in the wild, created by the culture since they were toddlers, are depraved and have a chip on their shoulder, wounded, when they realize that they are special, like everyone else. I'm thinking most of them aren't pleasant to be around or are liked by people.

I feel that what people today call individualism seems as though it's leaning towards a "do what you want if you're not hurting someone" sort of mentality. People don't like delaying gratification, and freedom of choice allows us to get away with a lot. The modern world has so many conveniences that most of us have forgotten how to say no to what we want. I'm opposed to the statement "follow your heart" because people will use it as an excuse for practically anything. I don't claim to understand myself perfectly, but I've learned that pleasure does not equal happiness, and it can even hurt you. In this regard, I think I'd only partially with your hypothesis. Individualism is such a convenient excuse, even when it's fake, and you're really just going along with what everyone else is doing because you want to. The most important kind of freedom, imo, is freedom to do what you know is right. True individualism is found somewhere in that region. (The non-pathological kind)

Well I wish I knew what was right. I don't. Thus I must be the pathological kind.

 

[washti]

Dude, I will leave you with your grief. Hypnos just put a hand on my lids. I will be back if capricious Gods allow me to live one day more.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Dude, I will leave you with your grief. Hypnos just put a hand on my lids. I will be back if capricious Gods allow me to live one day more.

ciao

 

[Balancing Act]

an individualist is someone who chooses their own interest over others, and expects others to do the same. They find it very easy to get someone else to do something for them.

Perhaps individualism wasn't the right word for me to use, though I wasn't totally clear in my explanation. By the right thing, I didn't mean the good of others, but what makes you better (though it often ends up being the same thing. I do consider it an important distinction still), which I consider a higher form of self-interest than gain. It's investing in yourself, in a way.

Well I wish I knew what was right. I don't. Thus I must be the pathological kind.

Again, sorry I wasn't clear in my terms. Most people know when they should not do something, though that doesn't mean they always have the will to resist. Sometimes, as I've experienced in addiction, it is impossible to do without help. For those without that sense, I assume they'd have their own analagous struggle, though I have no clue what form that might take. To be clear: I don't think not doing bad things makes someone a good person, but it does set people at the start of the trail. I think it's even more about the effort and intention than about what you actually do.
What I am sure of is that the more successful people I know are also healthier, stronger-willed, and are willing to help others achieve things themselves.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

an individualist is someone who chooses their own interest over others, and expects others to do the same. They find it very easy to get someone else to do something for them.

Perhaps individualism wasn't the right word for me to use, though I wasn't totally clear in my explanation. By the right thing, I didn't mean the good of others, but what makes you better (though it often ends up being the same thing. I do consider it an important distinction still), which I consider a higher form of self-interest than gain. It's investing in yourself, in a way.

Well I wish I knew what was right. I don't. Thus I must be the pathological kind.

Again, sorry I wasn't clear in my terms. Most people know when they should not do something, though that doesn't mean they always have the will to resist. Sometimes, as I've experienced in addiction, it is impossible to do without help. For those without that sense, I assume they'd have their own analagous struggle, though I have no clue what form that might take. To be clear: I don't think not doing bad things makes someone a good person, but it does set people at the start of the trail. I think it's even more about the effort and intention than about what you actually do.
What I am sure of is that the more successful people I know are also healthier, stronger-willed, and are willing to help others achieve things themselves.

It happens with writing, speech is much smoother, but we are limited by what we can read here. I try not to get offended, and I hope I didn't offend you.

To me what you wrote was more of a ethical version of 'mind your own business' Which I guess is individualistic in spirit, since it's saying you prioritize yourself. I think what's tricky about that is that it doesn't really expose how ones inaction can hurt someone as well, it just brings up how ones acted behavior should be.

Intentions are also a tricky thing. I can say and tell myself my intention is anything, but what is true? Effort is funny because no one can judge how much is too little or too much besides the one putting in the effort.

If X happens and I try Y, was it likely to succeed and did I know this before the outcome, did I have other choices and did I do the due diligence to find them if the choices I was aware of weren't adequate? The only thing that excuses asking yourself these questions are youthful ignorance. Innocence.

We get stuck into patterns and set in our ways, and unfortunately can't keep that innocence and lose it somewhere along the way. It's not a bad thing, it's just the point where we are no longer free from accountability. Once that happens we are free to make mistakes until we again can no longer escape accountability. And again, with the mistakes.

So just to tie back into my point. People making sure that they don't inconvinience others is important. This isn't exclusive to individualism I don't think, if anything it's sorta related to community collectavist sentimentality.

Investing in yourself as a priority, I'm not so sure should be "owned" by individualism. It's more like self-preservation. And then if you are prioritizing your own investments for you family it's to protect your unit. It's this in excess, and the idea that we need individuals to be responsible for so many things that's absurd. People that take on that challenge set to them by the culture are poisoned if you ask me. Even if they succeed.

 

[Balancing Act]

I think what's tricky about that is that it doesn't really expose how ones inaction can hurt someone as well, it just brings up how ones acted behavior should be.

Good point, and I do consider that side just as important. That's where I think the more active virtues come in.

Intentions are also a tricky thing. I can say and tell myself my intention is anything, but what is true? Effort is funny because no one can judge how much is too little or too much besides the one putting in the effort.

Fully agree with you on this one. This is why I try to avoid judging people; you just can't know. I can't claim innocence, though. It's humbling to try going a day without judging people, and realizing just how much you do it.

If X happens and I try Y, was it likely to succeed and did I know this before the outcome, did I have other choices and did I do the due diligence to find them if the choices I was aware of weren't adequate? The only thing that excuses asking yourself these questions are youthful ignorance. Innocence.

I can't agree with you here. While I do think it's unhealthy to worry too much about those things, I believe reflecting on your mistakes is essential to avoiding them in the future, as long as you don't go too far into the hypothetical.

Investing in yourself as a priority, I'm not so sure should be "owned" by individualism. It's more like self-preservation. And then if you are prioritizing your own investments for you family it's to protect your unit.

I agree, now, that it doesn't match individualism, but self-preservation seems like a very cynical way of looking at what I described. I do not consider becoming better to be an end in itself, of course, but if self-preservation is truly the goal, I don't think that makes a very good motivation. I think religions have frequently been founded because people have a desire for something more than themselves, and I think that's a healthy thing. It gives people hope and something to hold onto. That's part of the reason helping others makes us happy, even when we gain nothing from it. Nothing in this world could ever satisfy us, and survival isn't a good enough end in itself.

If you're an aetheist, you have no need to accept that, since it relies on the assumption that there is a God (or maybe aliens mind-controlling us, or just a subtle nuance of evolution). In any case, you could substitute happiness for that. Many would rather die than be unhappy, so survival seems to be one of the means to that end, not the other way around.

It's this in excess, and the idea that we need individuals to be responsible for so many things that's absurd. People that take on that challenge set to them by the culture are poisoned if you ask me. Even if they succeed.

This is so relevant today, lol. I've been asked multiple times by complete strangers what I think of the Russia/Ukraine situation. It truly is fascinating how emotionally invested people can be in things that they have never experienced.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I can't agree with you here. While I do think it's unhealthy to worry too much about those things, I believe reflecting on your mistakes is essential to avoiding them in the future, as long as you don't go too far into the hypothetical.

A mistake is only a mistake to a person if they acknowledge/have had the chance to learn it was a mistake is what I'm saying. After they pass that threshold they can't really claim ignorance or innocence and they need to do whatever it is they have to do to stop it. Unless they are putting in the effort with intention of better outcomes (illusive as we just agreed on) they are at fault at any point they aren't doing that.

If unwilful ignorance is a sin on itself then we are all doomed. If by reflecting on something is the only way someone can find their way out of a behavior then that's what they got to do. I think more effort should be placed in what behavior they're trying to do and why they aren't doing it.

People that need to reflect on their mistakes I think are usually troubled in a very particular way.

I agree, now, that it doesn't match individualism, but self-preservation seems like a very cynical way of looking at what I described. I do not consider becoming better to be an end in itself, of course, but if self-preservation is truly the goal, I don't think that makes a very good motivation.

It is cynical considering our context. We are living in 2022, we have everything we could ever want preserve that isn't given to us. Maybe framing it differently, like "self-improvement" is a middle ground, but once you get outside your personal development and into attaining more material assets, you aren't improving yourself, your improving your position over others. Which I guess, is dumb not to when you consider economic realities.

You're right self-preservation does sound pretty bad in conversation, but I don't mean selfishness. Though, of course, what we are talking does have an element of that, we can't judge someone for wanting a sustainable and easier life. Depending on the expense is what I'm getting at. What will I sacrifice for this, and what I started this thread about is that personality to do these things is quite toxic.

I think religions have frequently been founded because people have a desire for something more than themselves, and I think that's a healthy thing. It gives people hope and something to hold onto. That's part of the reason helping others makes us happy, even when we gain nothing from it. Nothing in this world could ever satisfy us, and survival isn't a good enough end in itself.

If you're an aetheist, you have no need to accept that, since it relies on the assumption that there is a God (or maybe aliens mind-controlling us, or just a subtle nuance of evolution). In any case, you could substitute happiness for that. Many would rather die than be unhappy, so survival seems to be one of the means to that end, not the other way around.

My spiritual values are in tact. Statements like "nothing in this world could ever satisfy us" do strike me because it's true. We were not made to feel complete as we are in the present. I might say oxytocin and seritonin are my godlike puppeteers and that my decisions influence them, but I am no closer to lassoing these things by doing so.

I sorta see your point, that we shouldn't really pass judgement on individualists, or rather anyone, because they are only seeking the fullest life that fits them, but again, at the expense of what?

We know the type of world created when individualists are elected. It's almost like it's something humans create out of nowhere. We have well documented history. How long do you think humanity can go before we are born knowing that we must not allow complacency and authority to favor the few?

This is so relevant today, lol. I've been asked multiple times by complete strangers what I think of the Russia/Ukraine situation. It truly is fascinating how emotionally invested people can be in things that they have never experienced.

Strangers? That's perverse. Like gross actually. I would say, I don't like war and end it there.

 

[Balancing Act]

If by reflecting on something is the only way someone can find their way out of a behavior then that's what they got to do. I think more effort should be placed in what behavior they're trying to do and why they aren't doing it.

Fair enough. I do find a positive focus (doing good things rather than just not doing bad things) seems to help me and motivate me more.

People that need to reflect on their mistakes I think are usually troubled in a very particular way.

I think I see your point here. I have had the same few conversations running through my head for over a year now, trying to come up with how I could have expressed myself better, but it's useless. I can't change what I said.

Though, of course, what we are talking does have an element of that, we can't judge someone for wanting a sustainable and easier life. Depending on the expense is what I'm getting at. What will I sacrifice for this, and what I started this thread about is that personality to do these things is quite toxic.

By toxic, do you mean they do things hurtful to others or even to themselves? Is that where you'd draw the line with pathological individualism?

I sorta see your point, that we shouldn't really pass judgement on individualists, or rather anyone, because they are only seeking the fullest life that fits them, but again, at the expense of what?

Yeah, there is that problem. I don't have an answer to that. I think everyone deserves a chance, but it can become important to set boundaries to protect yourself. I have no idea where to draw the line.

We have well documented history. How long do you think humanity can go before we are born knowing that we must not allow complacency and authority to favor the few?

Hari Seldon could tell you. I couldn't imagine it being anytime soon, and I'm sure social classes will exist as long as we do. Different classes seem to have such different views. Almost everyone in the lower tiers wants to go up, but how many do? And when they do, it is nearly always at the expense of others. I don't think our psychology allows more than a few to truly succeed. "If you are not the best, you are nothing" seems too common of an opinion.

 

[Black Rose]

There are two kinds of jobs mechanical and academic. An individual makes their task fit one. As tasks become more abstract intelligence is raised. In America, there is a task hierarchy, simple to complex. Amazon is simple but least mechanical, they do not make/fix things with hands. but not abstract just simple move stuff.

The industrial complex is made as a service industry. moving things.

America devalues its currency to buy cheap outside the borders.

Supposedly this is best because more people can get jobs moving boxes than making things. (?)

But supplier lines broke, The army core of engineers had the make more ventilators and now more baby formula.

Two things:
robot labor
mental enhancement - pills/sonic waves

How will the top stay on top?
who owns the robots?

government restructuring - everyone is equal in intelligence - all are individuals now.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Though, of course, what we are talking does have an element of that, we can't judge someone for wanting a sustainable and easier life. Depending on the expense is what I'm getting at. What will I sacrifice for this, and what I started this thread about is that personality to do these things is quite toxic.

By toxic, do you mean they do things hurtful to others or even to themselves? Is that where you'd draw the line with pathological individualism?

I think the source of the toxicity comes from society manufacturing these people to take the reins on society, but most of them end up falling by the wayside because no one is special. It's like saying that if you play the lottery you will win.

So they create their personality around a ideal of individualism as their saving grace. I guess that's where my argument fall apart. I'm of the belief that once people do this to themselves, become the individualist, they set themselves up for things like midlife crisis and personality disorders.

I sorta see your point, that we shouldn't really pass judgement on individualists, or rather anyone, because they are only seeking the fullest life that fits them, but again, at the expense of what?

Yeah, there is that problem. I don't have an answer to that. I think everyone deserves a chance, but it can become important to set boundaries to protect yourself. I have no idea where to draw the line.

I would think it is in that person remaining grounded. Is a person achieving success via individualistic behavior, or genuine knowledge and skill? If it's the former, you're feeding something that on it's own doesn't have merit.

If I am at a store and don't have enough change for the cashier, and I insist that I'll give it to them later, and the insistence is what makes the cashier let it go, then what are we fucking doing here? I might have to explain that one again.

We have well documented history. How long do you think humanity can go before we are born knowing that we must not allow complacency and authority to favor the few?

Hari Seldon could tell you. I couldn't imagine it being anytime soon, and I'm sure social classes will exist as long as we do. Different classes seem to have such different views. Almost everyone in the lower tiers wants to go up, but how many do? And when they do, it is nearly always at the expense of others. I don't think our psychology allows more than a few to truly succeed. "If you are not the best, you are nothing" seems too common of an opinion.

It's possible to be socio mobile without screwing people, that is the plan, but doing that is the hardest way to move up the economic ladder. Most people will just add on or specialize in an already established industry where, yes, one company starting in a local area means that it's customers taking from someone else. Which might also be good for other reasons but not the point.

The people who are unreasonably individualistic rise to the top, and create a world that tells them that they deserve it, and that trickles down to people at the bottom wanting to deserve it too. The incentives are endless as long as the world is the way it is.

The best that can be done is promote and alternative, but I, an individual would be engaging in irony if I acted like I knew what that alternative is. Common sense would say more culture around Joint decision making is needed. Counsels and committees and all that.

The problem is that until we switch over to that system, joining that tribe of people may mean that you are sacrificing yourself for some good if you restrain you individualism. It's just something that would be really hard.

 

[scorpiomover]

So where individualism becomes pathological, at least in our culture, is that there is a demand that we all be unique, while doing the same thing.

Individualism used to mean that you did SOME things different to most people. One person read comics. Another person would go train-spotting. Another person was an avid camper. Another person was obsessed with politics.

Nowadays, individualism means doing something different to white, cis, hetero, Xian, Western males, because racism/sexism/homophobia/religion, yo. It is motivated by a group intention, and thus motivates group behaviour, and in the process, removes individual differences.