The Ailments of Individualism

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Cue more jokes in this thread about how the player behind the nation named Jean-Paul Sartre isn't like the real Jean-Paul Sartre.

I would like to call into question the idea that individualism is the way forwards. Allow me to explain: the West seems to be built on this idea that we can change our situation. Even the Calvinists, who don't necessarily believe in free will (though by some gymnastics, some do, don't ask me how) still seem to support acting like we have free will, since we can't know everything about how we'll act in the future. However, this seems to be outdated for several reasons:

• Humans don't have free will
• Believing in free will and asking for choice makes us less happy
• Dualism is dead. There is no evidence that there is a portion of the human mind that exists without connection to the body. Many Christians (who are, in the West, the main proponents of this), even, think this way (hence the importance of the resurrection)
• Given the advancements we are quickly making in the fields of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and advanced computing, it is not impossible to think that the vast majority of our life choices may, in the future, be able to be predicted by an AI
• Furthermore, that AI may even know how to maximize happiness in the society at large with the fewest resources
• It is because people value the delusion of free will that things like the tragedy of the commons exists
• It is because people think their choices are free that deceptive advertising is so effective

While I certainly don't think society always has it right, it seems to me that if we continue down the path of unchecked individualism, we will run into issues with our society, our resources, and our own happiness. Perhaps it is better to focus on society as a whole, rather than focus on fighting for "choice" where none really exists. I do not yet have a solution to what this would look like in the West, and I don't pretend to.

So, NSG, should we continue to pretend that the individual knows best?
If you think individualism is superior to collectivism, why?
If vice versa, what's your solution to rampant individualism?

[Kowani]

A radical restructuring of society towards collectivism, honestly. You would need to change almost everything. That said, you would need a valid reason to do so. I pick climate change. That’s not something you can fight on an individual level. From there, you go about getting the people more culturally accustomed to collectivism. Additionally, the market regulations that are so sorely needed in certain parts of the world, so as to bring the market to serve the people, and not the other way around.

[Pacomia]

A radical restructuring of society towards collectivism, honestly. You would need to change almost everything. That said, you would need a valid reason to do so. I pick climate change. That’s not something you can fight on an individual level. From there, you go about getting the people more culturally accustomed to collectivism. Additionally, the market regulations that are so sorely needed in certain parts of the world, so as to bring the market to serve the people, and not the other way around.

Sure. Solving problems that concern us all should be a collective effort of us all. General life, however, should be individual.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

A radical restructuring of society towards collectivism, honestly. You would need to change almost everything. That said, you would need a valid reason to do so. I pick climate change. That’s not something you can fight on an individual level. From there, you go about getting the people more culturally accustomed to collectivism. Additionally, the market regulations that are so sorely needed in certain parts of the world, so as to bring the market to serve the people, and not the other way around.

Sure. Solving problems that concern us all should be a collective effort of us all. General life, however, should be individual.

Why?

[Kowani]

A radical restructuring of society towards collectivism, honestly. You would need to change almost everything. That said, you would need a valid reason to do so. I pick climate change. That’s not something you can fight on an individual level. From there, you go about getting the people more culturally accustomed to collectivism. Additionally, the market regulations that are so sorely needed in certain parts of the world, so as to bring the market to serve the people, and not the other way around.

Sure. Solving problems that concern us all should be a collective effort of us all. General life, however, should be individual.

Because…?

[Bombadil]

Relevant..

What I’m going after is this view that so long as public outcomes and social goods are produced by free individual choices, we shouldn’t be too concerned about what those goods ultimately produce. An example: in Silicon Valley, it is common for neuroscientists to make much more at technology companies like Apple or Facebook, where I think they quite literally are making money addicting our children to devices and applications that warp their brains, than folks who are neuroscientists trying to cure Alzheimer’s. I know a lot of Libertarians who will say ‘Well, that is the consequence of free choices. That is the consequence of people buying and selling labour on an open market, and so long as there isn’t any government coercion in that relationship, we shouldn’t be so concerned about it.’

What I’m arguing is that conservatives should be concerned about it. We should be concerned that our economy is geared more towards the development of applications than curing terrible diseases, and we should care about a whole host of public goods, in addition to that, and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish some of those public goods.

https://unherd.com/2019/07/an-elegy-for ... can-dream/

Personally I'm of the belief that a good society is one that maximises individual choice. However that requires deep thought as to what the outlines of that look like. For example, it means I believe in public healthcare because I think an individual's life choices are maximised by not having to worry about paying for insurance and what that insurance can cover or where. It frees them up to make better choices less constrained by worry. It means I believe in a strong focus on better education for all.

It also asks for a more equal society, maximised individual choice means for all individuals. Finally I strongly believe in absolute equality before the law. To an extent I'm not exactly decided but I lean to public funded lawyers over private lawyers. I don't think people should be able to pay for better representation.

Personally I feel a healthy, well-educated public would solve most of any other problems that would thus actually reduce the role of government.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Relevant..

What I’m going after is this view that so long as public outcomes and social goods are produced by free individual choices, we shouldn’t be too concerned about what those goods ultimately produce. An example: in Silicon Valley, it is common for neuroscientists to make much more at technology companies like Apple or Facebook, where I think they quite literally are making money addicting our children to devices and applications that warp their brains, than folks who are neuroscientists trying to cure Alzheimer’s. I know a lot of Libertarians who will say ‘Well, that is the consequence of free choices. That is the consequence of people buying and selling labour on an open market, and so long as there isn’t any government coercion in that relationship, we shouldn’t be so concerned about it.’

What I’m arguing is that conservatives should be concerned about it. We should be concerned that our economy is geared more towards the development of applications than curing terrible diseases, and we should care about a whole host of public goods, in addition to that, and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish some of those public goods.

https://unherd.com/2019/07/an-elegy-for ... can-dream/

Personally I'm of the belief that a good society is one that maximises individual choice. However that requires deep thought as to what the outlines of that look like. For example, it means I believe in public healthcare because I think an individual's life choices are maximised by not having to worry about paying for insurance and what that insurance can cover or where. It frees them up to make better choices less constrained by worry. It means I believe in a strong focus on better education for all.

It also asks for a more equal society, maximised individual choice means for all individuals. Finally I strongly believe in absolute equality before the law. To an extent I'm not exactly decided but I lean to public funded lawyers over private lawyers. I don't think people should be able to pay for better representation.

Personally I feel a healthy, well-educated public would solve most of any other problems that would thus actually reduce the role of government.

Do you feel that education would fundamentally counteract the constant biases the human mind has?

[Trinitarium]

Cue more jokes in this thread about how the player behind the nation named Jean-Paul Sartre isn't like the real Jean-Paul Sartre.

I would like to call into question the idea that individualism is the way forwards. Allow me to explain: the West seems to be built on this idea that we can change our situation. Even the Calvinists, who don't necessarily believe in free will (though by some gymnastics, some do, don't ask me how) still seem to support acting like we have free will, since we can't know everything about how we'll act in the future. However, this seems to be outdated for several reasons:

• Humans don't have free will
• Believing in free will and asking for choice makes us less happy
• Dualism is dead. There is no evidence that there is a portion of the human mind that exists without connection to the body. Many Christians (who are, in the West, the main proponents of this), even, think this way (hence the importance of the resurrection)
• Given the advancements we are quickly making in the fields of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and advanced computing, it is not impossible to think that the vast majority of our life choices may, in the future, be able to be predicted by an AI
• Furthermore, that AI may even know how to maximize happiness in the society at large with the fewest resources
• It is because people value the delusion of free will that things like the tragedy of the commons exists
• It is because people think their choices are free that deceptive advertising is so effective

While I certainly don't think society always has it right, it seems to me that if we continue down the path of unchecked individualism, we will run into issues with our society, our resources, and our own happiness. Perhaps it is better to focus on society as a whole, rather than focus on fighting for "choice" where none really exists. I do not yet have a solution to what this would look like in the West, and I don't pretend to.

So, NSG, should we continue to pretend that the individual knows best?
If you think individualism is superior to collectivism, why?
If vice versa, what's your solution to rampant individualism?

None of your bullet points are relevant to whether we should allow individuals to make all of their own decisions, if that is what you are implying. Fascism and communism are both flawed because they do not possess adequate methods of selecting leaderships that will not deteriorate into corruption and totalitarian despotism. Socialism is also ill-fated because of parasitism. Thus, I don't know what you would mean by "focusing on society as a whole."

The perception of choice is enough to instill the need to have freedom in making that choice, and at the end of the day God, and human evolution, has manifested an inherent drive for humans to act as if choices are made in the mind, by behavior. It's too much of a fuss to act otherwise.

Maximizing happiness is misguided because you maximize the happiness of genes that might not care about maximizing happiness, and if those genes prevail in the long-term, by reproducing at a greater rate than other genes, then maximizing happiness will be discarded altogether anyway. Thus, it is better to allow genes to compete -- fail and succeed, individually -- so that the best genes are rewarded on their own competence.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Cue more jokes in this thread about how the player behind the nation named Jean-Paul Sartre isn't like the real Jean-Paul Sartre.

I would like to call into question the idea that individualism is the way forwards. Allow me to explain: the West seems to be built on this idea that we can change our situation. Even the Calvinists, who don't necessarily believe in free will (though by some gymnastics, some do, don't ask me how) still seem to support acting like we have free will, since we can't know everything about how we'll act in the future. However, this seems to be outdated for several reasons:

• Humans don't have free will
• Believing in free will and asking for choice makes us less happy
• Dualism is dead. There is no evidence that there is a portion of the human mind that exists without connection to the body. Many Christians (who are, in the West, the main proponents of this), even, think this way (hence the importance of the resurrection)
• Given the advancements we are quickly making in the fields of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and advanced computing, it is not impossible to think that the vast majority of our life choices may, in the future, be able to be predicted by an AI
• Furthermore, that AI may even know how to maximize happiness in the society at large with the fewest resources
• It is because people value the delusion of free will that things like the tragedy of the commons exists
• It is because people think their choices are free that deceptive advertising is so effective

While I certainly don't think society always has it right, it seems to me that if we continue down the path of unchecked individualism, we will run into issues with our society, our resources, and our own happiness. Perhaps it is better to focus on society as a whole, rather than focus on fighting for "choice" where none really exists. I do not yet have a solution to what this would look like in the West, and I don't pretend to.

So, NSG, should we continue to pretend that the individual knows best?
If you think individualism is superior to collectivism, why?
If vice versa, what's your solution to rampant individualism?

None of your bullet points are relevant to whether we should allow individuals to make all of their own decisions, if that is what you are implying. Fascism and communism are both flawed because they do not possess adequate methods of selecting leaderships that will not deteriorate into corruption and totalitarian despotism. Socialism is also ill-fated because of parasitism. Thus, I don't know what you would mean by "focusing on society as a whole."

The perception of choice is enough to instill the need to have freedom in making that choice, and at the end of the day God, and human evolution, has manifested an inherent drive for humans to act as if choices are made in the mind, by behavior. It's too much of a fuss to act otherwise.

Maximizing happiness is misguided because you maximize the happiness of genes that might not care about maximizing happiness, and if those genes prevail in the long-term, by reproducing at a greater rate than other genes, then maximizing happiness will be discarded altogether anyway. Thus, it is better to allow genes to compete -- fail and succeed, individually -- so that the best genes are rewarded on their own competence.

I am implying neither of the western concepts of fascism and communism are the way forward. By focusing on society as a whole, I mean that we should stop focusing on neoliberal values like "liberty", which have no basis in science, and instead focus on a more holistic approach to policy, taking into account not what people want, but what would make them happy.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Agreed except the solution is Islam, not AI. I too reject free will and dualism.

[United Massachusetts]

Humans don't have free will

I refute it thus.

[Bombadil]

Relevant..

What I’m going after is this view that so long as public outcomes and social goods are produced by free individual choices, we shouldn’t be too concerned about what those goods ultimately produce. An example: in Silicon Valley, it is common for neuroscientists to make much more at technology companies like Apple or Facebook, where I think they quite literally are making money addicting our children to devices and applications that warp their brains, than folks who are neuroscientists trying to cure Alzheimer’s. I know a lot of Libertarians who will say ‘Well, that is the consequence of free choices. That is the consequence of people buying and selling labour on an open market, and so long as there isn’t any government coercion in that relationship, we shouldn’t be so concerned about it.’

What I’m arguing is that conservatives should be concerned about it. We should be concerned that our economy is geared more towards the development of applications than curing terrible diseases, and we should care about a whole host of public goods, in addition to that, and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish some of those public goods.

https://unherd.com/2019/07/an-elegy-for ... can-dream/

Personally I'm of the belief that a good society is one that maximises individual choice. However that requires deep thought as to what the outlines of that look like. For example, it means I believe in public healthcare because I think an individual's life choices are maximised by not having to worry about paying for insurance and what that insurance can cover or where. It frees them up to make better choices less constrained by worry. It means I believe in a strong focus on better education for all.

It also asks for a more equal society, maximised individual choice means for all individuals. Finally I strongly believe in absolute equality before the law. To an extent I'm not exactly decided but I lean to public funded lawyers over private lawyers. I don't think people should be able to pay for better representation.

Personally I feel a healthy, well-educated public would solve most of any other problems that would thus actually reduce the role of government.

Do you feel that education would fundamentally counteract the constant biases the human mind has?

Well I would overhaul education to be honest. I would switch focus from learning subjects to proving hypotheses through diligent research afforded by the wealth of information available. Do away with textbooks and teachers are more guides than instructors.

Regardless, it might not counteract but it would alleviate.

[Heloin]

• Humans don't have free will

That's a really massive philosophical debate you've brushed off like you know the one true answer.

[EastKekistan]

Cue more jokes in this thread about how the player behind the nation named Jean-Paul Sartre isn't like the real Jean-Paul Sartre.

I would like to call into question the idea that individualism is the way forwards. Allow me to explain: the West seems to be built on this idea that we can change our situation. Even the Calvinists, who don't necessarily believe in free will (though by some gymnastics, some do, don't ask me how) still seem to support acting like we have free will, since we can't know everything about how we'll act in the future. However, this seems to be outdated for several reasons:

• Humans don't have free will
• Believing in free will and asking for choice makes us less happy
• Dualism is dead. There is no evidence that there is a portion of the human mind that exists without connection to the body. Many Christians (who are, in the West, the main proponents of this), even, think this way (hence the importance of the resurrection)
• Given the advancements we are quickly making in the fields of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and advanced computing, it is not impossible to think that the vast majority of our life choices may, in the future, be able to be predicted by an AI
• Furthermore, that AI may even know how to maximize happiness in the society at large with the fewest resources
• It is because people value the delusion of free will that things like the tragedy of the commons exists
• It is because people think their choices are free that deceptive advertising is so effective

While I certainly don't think society always has it right, it seems to me that if we continue down the path of unchecked individualism, we will run into issues with our society, our resources, and our own happiness. Perhaps it is better to focus on society as a whole, rather than focus on fighting for "choice" where none really exists. I do not yet have a solution to what this would look like in the West, and I don't pretend to.

So, NSG, should we continue to pretend that the individual knows best?
If you think individualism is superior to collectivism, why?
If vice versa, what's your solution to rampant individualism?

Nope. I oppose collectivism at any cost.

[Kowani]

• Humans don't have free will

That's a really massive philosophical debate you've brushed off like you know the one true answer.

Welcome to modern psychology. We’ve done that before, we’ll do it again.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Do you feel that education would fundamentally counteract the constant biases the human mind has?

Well I would overhaul education to be honest. I would switch focus from learning subjects to proving hypotheses through diligent research afforded by the wealth of information available. Do away with textbooks and teachers are more guides than instructors.

Regardless, it might not counteract but it would alleviate.

Speaking from one human to another, I think we both know how easy it is to behave irrationally, even with the good side of western education. There are probably even metabiases we will never discover about ourselves. How do you propose that education can even begin to alleviate these in such a way that it would justify overall freedom of choice?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Humans don't have free will

I refute it thus.

Elaborate on what you're demonstrating.

I'm glad to see people frustrated, on a side note, about me asserting this. A good fervent discussion is my favorite thing about NSG.

[Bombadil]

• Humans don't have free will

That's a really massive philosophical debate you've brushed off like you know the one true answer.

Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.

This paragraph from the article is often cited to suggest we have no free will but I disagree with the conclusion, or at least what I would say is that we retain the free will to halt the cause and effect. So my stomach may say I'm hungry, saliva appears and I walk to the kitchen without having really made a conscious decision to do so. Yet in walking I can decide to not eat.

In a sense we should frame things as not 'making decisions' but in choosing to ignore decisions our minds have already made.

So, while 99% of our actions are not consciously made we retain the ability to guide ourselves through negating if only 1% of the time.

Well I would overhaul education to be honest. I would switch focus from learning subjects to proving hypotheses through diligent research afforded by the wealth of information available. Do away with textbooks and teachers are more guides than instructors.

Regardless, it might not counteract but it would alleviate.

Speaking from one human to another, I think we both know how easy it is to behave irrationally, even with the good side of western education. There are probably even metabiases we will never discover about ourselves. How do you propose that education can even begin to alleviate these in such a way that it would justify overall freedom of choice?

Merely being aware of existing understood biases is better than not. I'm not saying we have a perfect society, just a better one.

[Trinitarium]

I am implying neither of the western concepts of fascism and communism are the way forward. By focusing on society as a whole, I mean that we should stop focusing on neoliberal values like "liberty", which have no basis in science, and instead focus on a more holistic approach to policy, taking into account not what people want, but what would make them happy.

I think there is merit in this, but holistic should be defined, and happiness justified.

I mean, practically speaking, why should I care about the pot-smoking minority drug dealer/gas station attendent in the seedy part of town? He has nothing in common with me except his humanity, and that only guarantees him a right to be protected by the police and the second amendment. I don't care about any other aspect of his survival.

And why should I? He is not representative of my beliefs or my people.

You can have collectivism, but it must be chosen on the basis of genes. Protect the integrity of genes and you can have all the collective policies you like, really.

[Kowani]

I am implying neither of the western concepts of fascism and communism are the way forward. By focusing on society as a whole, I mean that we should stop focusing on neoliberal values like "liberty", which have no basis in science, and instead focus on a more holistic approach to policy, taking into account not what people want, but what would make them happy.

I think there is merit in this, but holistic should be defined, and happiness justified.

I mean, practically speaking, why should I care about the pot-smoking minority drug dealer/gas station attendent in the seedy part of town? He has nothing in common with me except his humanity, and that only guarantees him a right to be protected by the police and the second amendment. I don't care about any other aspect of his survival.

And why should I? He is not representative of my beliefs or my people.

You can have collectivism, but it must be chosen on the basis of genes. Protect the integrity of genes and you can have all the collective policies you like, really.

Because clearly, that’s the way to go. Drug Dealers need someone to deal to, and ignoring the root cause of the drugs because the people that are being sold to have “different genes” is just plain bad policy. Beyond that, what the fuck are you talking about, “integrity of genes?”

[EastKekistan]

Collectivism is pure cancer.

[Kowani]

Collectivism is pure cancer.

Laughs in reality.

[EastKekistan]

Collectivism is pure cancer.

Laughs in reality.

Well, I would rather have a dead world than a collectivistic one.

Any cat knows reality better than all collectivists.

[Bombadil]

Laughs in reality.

Well, I would rather have a dead world than a collectivistic one.

Any cat knows reality better than all collectivists.

Ironically to state this is to demonstrate that your beliefs have been chosen for you as opposed to being the product of individual thought processes.

[Trinitarium]

Because clearly, that’s the way to go. Drug Dealers need someone to deal to, and ignoring the root cause of the drugs because the people that are being sold to have “different genes” is just plain bad policy. Beyond that, what the fuck are you talking about, “integrity of genes?”

What "root cause" of the drugs? Assume the drug is part of their trabalistic culture. What are you going to do about that?

By "integrity," I mean homogeneity. Collectivism works better when you don't have division within the native demographic.