Does the concept of "the individual" just not exist anymore?

[Otterly]

but it does not imply that a group has independent agency.

But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the group is NOT an individual thing in its self.
- individuals behave one way
-individuals in groups behave a different way
-this can only be true if there is an extra quantity, influence (wrong word I think) I’d ‘something’ from being in the group. Where does that come from? Is it an emergent property?

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Demographics are a practical tool for market segmentation, but it does not prove that a group acts as an independent agent. What aggregated data does is reveal patterns, but those patterns emerge from individual choices. Demographics make analysis easier, but they do not replace the fact that every purchase is made by an individual with his own preferences. The "group" in advertising is merely a convenient abstraction, not an independent decision maker.

In the same sense, "this individual" is a convenient abstraction for the gooey mass of organic matter that constitutes a person.
Likewise, a neuron is a convenient abstraction for a set of chemical compounds that constitute a cell.
And chemistry is just a convenient abstraction for electrodynamic interactions at the atomic level.

Looking at smaller, more fundamental, components of a system doesn't make that view any more "correct." A tsunami looks no different from still waters at the atomic level. But whether or not a tsunami's coming my way is pretty vital information.

 

[Apteryx Retardi]

Group identities over individualism has been pushed by the "progressives" for, like, generations now. It only got really batshit in mainstream in late 2010s or so, but in academia etc it's been around for a long fucking time.

Obviously, the natural reaction to this is/was "No u. And fuck you, niggers". Without adding "not all niggers" every time.

And yeah groups differ statistically, it's basic pattern recognition really. Correlation or causation, sane people do profile. At least as a starting point.

Not to pick specifically on Kiwis but to use a few examples: "The India Menace,"

Poo's Law. Post hand, Pajeet...

 

[Fek]

No matter what group one totes as part of their identity, they will always carry a unique signature that will never be replicated. It is up to any given individual to decide what carries more weight. States of stress and negativity can cause labels to be adorned and cast away (as can societal pressures), but they're still only just labels. They're not >you<. You choose who you are, no matter the flock feathered together.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Individuals are always part of a larger collective. It is not possible to entirely separate an individual from their community or group, because said individual arose in that group. Communities, cultures, nations, and race will always play a factor. No one is as much as an individual as they'd like to think they are. Particularly since the NPC phenomena is real and many people, especially women, are programmed by those around them and in nowadays world the media.

My core point is that the idea that groups act as independent agents is misleading.
A colony of ants appears to function as a single organism, but that is nothing but a convenient description. In reality, every action, every decision, is made by individual ants. All social or "group" phenomena must be traced back to the choices of individuals. Without individual actions, no group exists at all.

Nice to know libertarians have their own version of Lysenkoism. Please apply your theories to agriculture and tell me your results!

 

[skykiii]

An individual encountering a situation where they know they will lose will act differently to one in a group. Let’s say two enemies are skirmishing. A lone scout from group A spots ten from group B. He hides because he knows he can’t win that fight. Then he goes and relays the info to his side. If he was with a hundred of group A, he could easily take out group B. Yes his decision is ‘his’ but it’s taken in the context of his group or lack there of.

Maybe I'm retarded but examples like this always bug me, because I'm not sure why this is a group vs individual thing at all.

All I see is a strategic consideration. Of course the lone scout isn't gonna engage. That would result in him being... ya know... dead. A scout's job is to gather intel and report back, not shoot at anyone that moves.

It's like, I don't avoid stepping on nails because everyone else does. I avoid stepping on nails because it fucking hurts. If someone came up to me and told me this indicates I'm giving into some collective groupthink taboo against stepping on nails, I'd probably just punch them for being retarded.

 

[Loris Yeltsin]

"The India Menace,"

Comfiest thread on the site, tbh.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

because individualism is a northern European concept that is beneficial for northern Europeans to develop for group cooperation it doesn't work with non whites non whites were put on this earth to be slaves to the white man it's in the good book