Individuality Race

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

If races existed, which they obviously don’t, duh, then I believe one of these races, more than all the others, would be the “most individualistic” race. This one, particular race, seeks difference, separation, uniqueness, originality, and distinction. Individuality is the highest value and prize, among this particular race. And the males and females of this race, both have a different approach to this individuation, and separation.

I believe that males have a natural tendency to separate from society, and become individuals, more than females. Call this “sexist” if you will, it might be. I don’t know, I’m just guessing. So let’s not make a big deal about this. Let’s say it’s possible. It’s possible that males are naturally divisive and distinct. It could have something to do with male expendability, maybe. But, the females of this race are also individualistic and want “equal pay for equal work”. So both males and females of this race are individualistic.

But between males and females of this race, the most individualistic people, are males of this race.

This creates a problem between the males and females of this race.

Because as I see it, in my life, females tend to copy the males they admire, are sexually attracted to, and want to emulate. A female becomes seduced by this male, and in order to get his interest, sexually, she copies him. I see this very often in romantic couples of this particular race. The female adopts the clothing style, and the sub culture, of the male she sexually desires. For example, there is 1 girl in an engineering class, with 29 other males, of this race. She has a lot of selection, advantage. She doesn’t have to compete against other females. And she gets to choose from 29 males. This sounds like a good deal.

But is it??? NO!

Want to know why? You don’t? Shut up, too bad, I’m going to tell you anyway.

It’s a bad deal, because this 1 female engineer will have an enormous pressure to adapt to the sub-culture of her group, which is, engineering, stereotypically a male dominated sub culture (stereotypes are evil and I hate them, there should be a quota to force 15 girls into an engineering class, and only allow 15 males, an equal amount).

And this might be difficult for the female, since she will need to perform some mimicry, some emulation, some copying of the males of her group. She attempts to copy what the male engineers do, say, dress, think. And this last one is the most important. She attempts to copy how males think.

That maybe much harder, to copy how somebody thinks. Because what if somebody is lying to you, or being dishonest, or only presenting half truths? What if you attempt to copy somebody, and they are using a persona, a false version of their true self? That would be difficult.

I forgot where I was going with this post. The point is, that this one race has the most need to “be an individual” and “stand out” and “be different”. And this need for difference, for uniqueness, is different between the males and females of this race. I think this particular race, the females, adapt really well to other cultures, because the females of this race, have the hardest struggle to adapt to the males of the same race, because the males of this race are very, very innovative and effective at separating, being different, and becoming “individuals”.

2

Well first, are you familiar with Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions?

He actually studied how different nationalities are more masculine, feminine, individualist, or collectivist.

Second, are you familiar with work on masculinity versus femininity over agency versus communion? This is actually a classic sociological concept. Typically, femininity is shown to be more prone to communion whereas masculinity is shown to be more prone to agency.

However, in light of modern politics, this kind of gets twisted because femininity is revolting against traditional values. It values individuality in order to change things.

On the other hand, feminism has portrayed capitalism and patriarchy as being synonymous, so the regulation of free enterprise has lead to centrally planned communion.

The last thing you might want to consider is the rise of geek-feminism which has aimed to get femininity involved more with math and science. This is despite how feminism typically opposes a priori reason as synonymous with patriarchy, capitalism, Western Civilization, and Judeo-Christian tradition, and yes, femininity seeks to learn from experience as a breeding defense mechanism in order to avoid taking risks which could lead to getting hurt. A priori reason, however, is necessary to analyze ideas in advance of experience which is basically how math and science work - people come up with theories before testing them.

Basically, you end up with women who are kind of practicing individuality, but not really. You end up with a bunch who are basically just provoking men to compete in proving themselves to women while the women simply use their charm and manners to take credit for their work…

…so yea, you’re really not that far off.

3

To answer your questions, no, and no, I’m pretty clueless about formal information. I don’t read much and am unfamiliar with a lot of modern technical jargon and practical knowledge.

However, you and I, we seem very like minded, which maybe a coincidence, or maybe not. It’s very curious though. Are you copying me, or am I copying you, or are we similar due to a shared genetic heritage and lineage? It’s hard to say without more information. Regardless, you should take this as a compliment. It’s rare that I like other people. I like the poster “Antithesis”, but that’s about it. I like you too, now.

4

Must be the Native Americans, because that is how they struck the incoming Europeans and the archetype became American via their influence. There was shit little individualism in Europe back then, clear hierarchies and roles and deference to both secular and religious authorities that would have and did find offensive.

5

Go on

6

Could mean ‘elaborate’ or ‘who ya kidding’…
No, I meant it. 1491 is one great read that addresses the issue. It is about the various NA civs and tribal ways of life based on recent research. Not quite what either the indian worshippers or the manifest destiny thought was the case. There are other works also.
amazon.com/1491-Revelations- … 1400032059

7

Well, if you want to talk about specific races, that supposedly exist, even though we both know there is only one race, the human race, and let’s suppose a “white” race existed, then I would make one remark about that.

Whites, along with yellows, do exceedingly well at adapting other cultures. So they mimic very well. For example, yellow women in korea adapt white beauty standards. But there is also a large segment of white women in european countries, and usa, who are also adapting yellow beauty standards. You can see this exchange and clash of culture if you look for it on youtube and the internet.

For example, some white women are doing their makeup and posing as yellow women would. And alternately, many yellow women are dying their hair blonde and wearing blue contact lenses. So this seems to be a cross cultural competition of sorts, a competition of beauty, between two separate races, assuming of course that races even exist, but they don’t, so nevermind.

8

Sounds like a lot of non-individuals. Though some small minority might be doing this as part of a more real individuality, but they are exceptions.

9

“Finally, there was considerable overlap among various Homo species and sub-species during human evolution, as for Neanderthals and modern humans (e.g., Noble & Davidson 1996). The diffusion wave model for the spread of modern humans posits that modern humans emerged as a subspecies that had a selective advantage because of a co-adapted gene complex with N homozygous loci (Eswaran 2002; Eswaran & Harpending 2002). At intermediate values of N (~4–5) mating between moderns and archaics is strongly selected against on the assumption that individuals must have all of the “modern” genes in order to benefit. Offspring of matings between archaics and moderns would be heterozygous at these loci, and only (1/2)N of the grandchildren of such matings will be modern. This would provide strong selection pressure for the evolution of a human kinds module specific to the genetically influenced physical features of human kinds.
Within populations of modern humans, studies show measurable genetic distance even between closely related groups, as between English and Danes (e.g., Salter 2002). Individuals have a greater genetic interest (inclusive fitness) in their tribal and ethnic groups than outgroups and would benefit by mechanisms that fostered discrimination between ingroups and outgroups— the same evolutionary logic underlying social identity theory (see below) or, indeed, Gil-White’s exaptation model.”
[Separation and its Discontents]
–MacDonald, Kevin