Generalizing Makes Sense Because Individuals Are Rare
The phrase "You shouldn't generalize" has been growing in popularity quite a lot in recent years.
The idea is that we should always treat everybody as an individual, and never as a part of larger collective or reference group. Everybody is unique, everybody is special, and everybody deserves a chance at our undivided attention.
I used to believe this, too, but as I've gotten older, I've started to see how this is bullshit. While it's true in theory that everybody is an individual, yes. But in practice, it just doesn't hold up, at all.
The biggest problem with thinking this way is that it consumes a lot of energy trying to give everybody a chance. What I mean by this is that when we try to have a dialogue with someone, it always consumes our time and resources, which are limited to begin with. It can be considered noble and admirable to try to connect with someone with opposite views, but how many times do you remember changing someone's mind in a debate?
Individuals exist, but they are extremely rare. The way the vast majority of people function is they latch on to a reference group, learn and embrace their memes, and act accordingly from that point on.
A feminist spreads feminist memes; an environmentalist spreads environmentalist memes; a socialist spreads socialist memes; libertarians spread libertarian memes. Hell, ironically, individualists spread individualist memes.
I absolutely admit that as a "contrarian" I spread contrarian memes. It's a habit, it just happens that whenever I'm part of a group for a given time, I start pointing out its flaws and becoming a contrarian.
There's very little room for original thought with most people, and I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I'm filled with them, either.
The problem is that these people often think that they came up with their thoughts on their own, even though they're just parroting the charismatic leaders of their chosen reference group.
It's largely pointless to even focus on people as individuals, since if you want to predict outcomes, you need to learn the mechanisms and functions of the things you want to predict.
And humans are no exception. We are a mechanism.
I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine about Finnish immigration. She supports it, I don't. She asked me why I don't support it, and I said that it doesn't work, it doesn't produce favorable outcomes. She then asked for my opinion on a recent political debacle in Finland, closely related to immigration, and I told her I have no idea, I don't follow politics.
She was confused as to how I can have an opinion on immigration if I don't even follow politics.
I then tried to explain to her that I don't have to know what is going on right now. All I need are the variables of the immigration policy, the mechanism behind it, so to say, and I can pretty much say that the end result will be a catastrophe. I've been saying for a long time, and since people are being worried about it now, it seems that I've been right.
My point being that whatever is going on right now has always been the inevitable outcome of the immigration policies. Had the negative effects not happened now, they would have happened a year from now, two years from now, three, five, ten.
Humans are predictable.
It's an unpopular idea, but my bold claim is that you're a lot better off studying collectives instead of individuals. What it does is it saves your energy. By treating everybody as an individual, there's an almost certain chance of you investing your time on idiots, and not making a return, while learning how collectives act, there's an equally large chance of you being able to avoid idiots.
Yes, you will probably miss out on an interesting person or two, the chances are hugely in your favor when you choose the latter option.
If you don't believe me, think of members of different reference groups you've had conversations with. Feminists, socialists, libertarians, environmentalists, Christians.. ever noticed how a large percentage of them sound exactly the same?
When you've had a conversation with a third wave feminist, you've had a conversation with all of them. And the same goes for all the other groups you can think of.
This is why it just makes sense to learn the patterns of these larger groups, then make note of who belongs in what collective, and either interact with them, or avoid them, based on whether or not those patterns are favorable to you.
If a group's behavioral patterns are harmful to you, and society, you should just avoid people who are a part of that group. Just straight up. Why waste time on someone who with a 99% certainty is an idiot? That doesn't sound smart at all, and this is why the modern age gospel of "Everybody is an individual" annoys me to no end.
Trust me. Individuals are very rare, and chances are you won't even encounter any.
Sometimes you do, but you probably just got lucky.
The individual sometimes emerges when the persona starts to break down - then it might become interesting - then they may have a chance at individuation - maybe.
I don't think it has yet become common knowledge that part of the brain's amazing efficiency is its laziness - by that I mean that as much as possible is run as background services so that our consciousness is rarely needed as anything more than observer.
Enough, I think.
Reminds me of this:
I like "Don't judge!"
or FIFA's slogan "Putting an end to all discrimination"
I discriminate against harmful people, personally. For instance, I discriminate against them by not accepting them in my social circles.
True
Here's Jordan Peterson on individuality. This is a 5 minute mashup from his talk "New Years Letter to the World"
If anyone wants to really find out about personality, listen to this. He hates - HATES - postmodernism.
"The problem is that these people often think that they came up with their thoughts on their own, even though they're just parroting the charismatic leaders of their chosen reference group."
very true :-)
You got very close to dominant views in (social) psychology regarding this topic. The central presumption is always that people are limited in the amounts of energy and time they can invest in relationships. Another one is the fact that people want to increase their chances of survival by being social animals and grouping together. Therefore, to efficiently reduce the time needed to indentify the other's attitudes and intentions, we create categories of people based on a few traits. If those do not match with yours, why invest time in someone who is likely to oppose you down the road?
Another issue with individualism is the fact that reference groups are always needed to express yourself, as you said. You will only gain from standing out as an individual if the groups you associate with are seen as somewhat exclusive and beneficial. An individual disconnected with everyone will only be called a weirdo.
Judgment calls just are what they are and will not go away. Neither will discrimination. Mind you, this is not to say that population-level issues such as immigration are all to be regarded as bad and given up on. By mingling and repeated exposure to other people's ways, social barriers will eventually be lowered. It just takes time and energy.
Hi Schattenjäger,
Your completely right, Originality is lacking today.
Most people are the same and find it hard to be different.
It's very ironic, because in Post-modernity 'Individuality' is suppose to define us.
Ha. I could go on and on about the harms of postmodernity. But I don't think this was brought forth by postmodernism, I think this how people always been, as a species. I guess the "meme" of individualism is a new-ish one, as you said, created by postmodernism.
Interesting views. I suppose every 'individual' is created out of a mish mash of different memes, values and beliefs, mixed in with their own predisposition towards empathy or psychopathy. This is how the world was built. How they mix and interpret their experiences however defines them as an individual and creates gradual change and learning in the world and an evolution in thinking. The Internet has given people access to many more different cultures and opinions and is creating a renaissance in cultural evolution, making the world far more 'shades of grey' rather than black and white.
Its all Prickles Vs Goo
The answer to all these arguments is always BOTH. We are both individuals and a collective, Both the whole and pieces of the whole.
Nature Vs Nurture ..... answer is BOTH! Your a product of gentics yes but also effected by the environment you grow up in.
Determinism vs Free will .... its Both with the deterministic part of reality being natural law but within the rules of nature you have free will.
As a people we must stop with the illusion of duality and realise we have all the answers, they are in the paradox of Unity, in the grey between the black and white, very simple very beautiful. Systems can be fluid, there is no need for these rigid polar systems anymore, they are being pushed by the controllers of society because without dividing us there is no control.
I think there needs to be a differentiation between okay generalisation such as "People from Country X are patriotic" which isn't defamatory or insulting and bad derogatory generalisation such as "People from Country Y are lazy". The line can be thin but common sense will usually get you through. Also, agreed 100% on your point that generalisations make sense because people really are not that unique for the most part.
Those generalizations are the same thing, though?