It's depressing for individualists to see others able to convince themselves of the truth of some idea, such as a religion, a political faith such as socialism or something downright nutty like climate change hysteria to give their lives meaning. This can make them grumpy, and explains why recent research has shown that grumpy people are less gullible than the rest of the population.
This doesn't surprise me at all. Its one of the reasons why being part of a football crowd is so enjoyable.
I recall reading somewhere (sorry, no link) linking depression with more accurate perception of the world. So its not clear which way causation runs. Depression -> Accurate Perception -> Individualism; probably its more complicated than that.
So what you're both saying is that depression (Perry) or grumpiness (Pete) is not the cause of an individualist metacontext but rather the result of it. Makes sense to me. Of course, the "expert" draws precisely the wrong conclusion:
Because East Asian people were far more genetically susceptible to depression and anxiety than Europeans and Americans, they had built up a way of living that protected them from it, she said.Westerners on the other hand, were less susceptible and so had a riskier less supportive society.
Leaving aside the obvious problem of giving much credence to the reliability of data on something as inherently judgmental as the incidence of reported depression rates in a closed society like China, what we are running into here is the recurring problem of confusing correlation with causality. I'm not sold on her hypothesis.
On the cheery side, it lends to Ahrent's "banality of evil"
concept. Or, the idea that nobody ever went broke by underestimating the American public.
Buttcheek-to-buttcheek togetherness, not only fits well at mass meetings, it works in mass graves as well. The safety-in-numbers factor is good only against individuals
and is short-lived and overrated. Thousand year Reich of twelve years.
It's not so much "love" of who or what is popular, as an
infatuation. Costumes, settings, make-up, props, music
and theatrical production. Seduction by a pro.
Of course individualists are prone to depression when they live under the tyranny of collectivism. Can they repeat the research in a more individualistic society? They might (with luck) find the collectivists are depressed there.
When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
Nice thought, Tom! Only, where are we going to find that society?
Tom beat me to it, and this is exactly the problem. Note that we are not talking about clinical depression (which can indeed be genetic, and so the point about Asians may well stand), but the hopelessness and loneliness of being surrounded by people who are either too stupid to understand reality or too weak to face it and to take responsibility for their lives (or all of the above).
I can easily see how there's a connection between individualism and depression. Once you manage to throw off the social-collectivist hive-mind and think for yourself, you cannot fail to see how deeply into-the-shit 'society' has got itself.
Anyone vaguely fiscally-aware who truly appreciates the vast debt Gordon Brown and his decade of- public-sector-spending-like-a-drunken-sailor has got us into *should* be deeply depressed.
All I can say is let's have another beer with our anti-depressants (I recommend Zyban and Budweiser) and re-read Marcus Aurelius. It's the only way to get through the Kumbaya singing group think that is now the United States.
But seriously, if you are truly an individualist, you can only but be depressed (for yourself, your posterity and the society/civilization) about the Collecitivist Nanny State that is being created in the West and how that will impact upon you living your life and enjoying the fruits of you labors (after taxes).
Most time Depressive is a pejorative used to describe a Realist
The equation here seems to be that individualism = isolation. I think in the practical sense, this is true, but in the theoretical sense there's no reason why it should be. We are all individualists together.
Or, as Bill Hicks put it:
'People who hate people, come together!'
'Fuck you.'
When considering the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists, it is good to keep in mind that the major who shot up Ft Hood was one of them.
It is a profession that is engaged in its own group therapy; and, failing there, extends a helping head to the rest of us.
>> When considering the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists, it is good to keep in mind that the major who shot up Ft Hood was one of them.
Frankly, no it isn't. You could have picked "soldier" or "American" or any number of inappropriate labels to back up your political point. That's only natural, but it doesn't make you any more right.
We should judge professions like psychology on the best work they produce, not the worst who claim to be amongst their number.
It's hard to be happy when so much of society is repressive and most of your friends either don't notice or don't care.
The equation here seems to be that individualism = isolation. I think in the practical sense, this is true, but in the theoretical sense there's no reason why it should be. We are all individualists together.It isn't even true in the practical sense. There are plenty of individualists to socialize with, and most indeed do. Problem is, society is ran by collectivists, and they aren't even a majority. It's the 'undecided' or the 'unaware' or just plain lazy (both intellectually and practically) that are the problem.
WOW! Another "A study shows....."
Correlations: Female menstrual periods cause the phases of the moons - and thus tides.
However, today the advanced and forward thinking psychiatrists (at least in the U S) are fast becoming neuro-pharmacologists - as are neurologists.
It may be unfair to those at Evanston, but a more realistic "study" might be made of the nature of (and limitations in) the human interactions and relationships in societies falling in their classifications. Elements such as friendships, trust, confidence, loyalties and other things that sustain both group and individual existence may offer more of value than determinations of anxiety or "depression."
There are tendencies in such "studies" to delineate categories and classifications that affect the nature of analysis.
This too, like coffee and caffeine, shall pass.
"If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains!"
Haha!!! If I hadn't already finished my pomelo fruit, I'd have knocked it all over my sofa laughing!
One brief note on the contrast between China and the West: China has an eremitic tradition that is believed to be around 5,000 years old and those hermits have also been among the most respected people in Chinese history. So, a traditionally collective society seeks to idealize the most hard core type of individualist ever known. Just a thought.
Brian: "You are all individuals!"
Crowd (In unison): "We are all individuals!"
Lone Voice: "I'm not!"
>> It isn't even true in the practical sense. There are plenty of individualists to socialize with, and most indeed do.
Perhaps I was a bit too strong in the way I point it. My thinking is that there is the state/official opinion about everything. If you disagree with that, then you're isolated from a significant source of opinion - even if everyone else is similarly isolated.
I forgotten which poll it was (I think about drugs?) where people rated their own attitudes as liberal, but they felt everyone else's opinion was more conservative.
Indeed, Blanket. The problem with us individuals, that even when we are a majority (as I believe we mostly are), we tend to keep to ourselves and refrain from action, until pushed so far that it may be too late. We almost by definition tend not to be "activist". In fact, growing up in the SU, the term itself was used as form of praise by the establishment, while at the same time being used sneeringly by the masses in strictly private settings. To this day I hate this word, but when I put my emotions aside, I don't think that this attitude serves us well. I don't know though if we can ever truly overcome what seems to be inherent to individualism itself, i.e. the tendency to be on the defensive until pushed just too far.
Paraphrasing summarization of the writings of the Russian activist populists that blazed the trail to what evolved as a "collectivist" [?] social organization:
"It is only the insecure who crave social solidarity and communal life; individualism is always a luxury, the ideal of the socially established."
That seems to auger a different view from the "study."
If I may, individualism does not equal freedom (even individual freedom), and "collectivism" (a specifically modern delusion) is hardly the only alternative to the atomised life of the post-Christian West. One would have thought this was obvious given that a) Britain has become significantly more individualist over the last few decades and b) it's become much less free (even more 'collectivist' by certain lights.)
But what the hell, I've tried pointing this out before and, with the exception, of Paul Marks, you all appear totally incapable of even grasping this point, let alone accepting it, so I'll probably just leave it at that.
Oh I understand the influence of and importance (as well as not over stating that importance) of the 'social' dimension as well as the 'individual'. But what *you* seem unable to understand is that individualism and being social are in no way in opposition to each other.
And yes, individualism does not equal freedom. It is a pre-requisite for it however.
Depression in the face of the rise of statism and the decline of civil society - seems like a rational reaction.
As for other forms of being an odd mind. A person who rejects what people try to convince him of at school, university, and via the mainstream media, is likely to be "odd" almost by definition.
Whether one calls such a person "crazy" or "a person with a very high resistance level" is a matter of perspective.
"You would say that Paul" - I do not deny it.
LOL Sunfish!!!!!
* clank clank *
If the Big O were an evil genius, he'd sneak Paxil into the water supply.
Is there some kind of freedom that is not "individual?"
Granted there are some levels that are attained by group membership, but apply to the members.
It occurs to me that studies like this are a first step to labelling those who don't 'fit in' as 'crazy.' Only this time you'll be medicated into submission instead of being thrown into an expensive asylum... totalitarianism on the cheap, as it were.
Quite so.
But remember the enemy (ah my "paranoia" shows itself by using the word "enemy") like "educating" people - "helping them and "healing their minds".
Not just fringe leftists like Jim Jones ("just drink the cool aid children") although he was a great San Francisco "healer of minds" supported by Congressmen and so on. But also the mainstream left - although these days people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi are the mainstream left.
Let's also not forget that Oliver Sacks guy and his study of the terrible curse of "affluenza": the problems that people "suffer" because of mass affluence.
Freedom is slavery; ignorance is knowledge; etc.
Then would someone like to say what is 'individualist' and what is 'collectivist'? I have an idea that most 'collectivists' are sociopathic individualists in that they see only *themselves* as true individuals, and the rest of the world as sheep. I have yet to see a collectivist advocate a position that is not their own - it's always "the greater good requires *my* idea of utopia to be carried out", if you know what I'm saying.
Whereas individualists recognise the existence (if not necessarily the validity) of other people and other viewpoints and are open to discussion and reasoned arguments. So I see it, at any rate.
Gregory:
I have yet to see a collectivist advocate a position that is not their ownLive long enough and you will. True collectivists are a minority, but they are out there - I ran into one or two.
Alisa: Wow. I mean, like, you've seen a collectivist who's openly gay but if the State says being gay is bad, he'll go after women instead, or who's personally pro-abortion but if the State says it's illegal, she'll prosecute abortionists? Something like that?
Must have been like seeing a rainbow unicorn with a virgin from Las Vegas riding on top. Beyond my comprehension, and quite possibly shorting out my reality circuits.
Rebooting in progress...
Don't know as I'd ever get the chance to see such a creature even if I live to beat Methuselah's record.
Individualists will (almost) always be less happy and more worried than our collectivist "brethren" simply because we believe that our past is our fault and our future our responsibility.
If I am to answer for my mistakes, both those in the past and those I've yet to make then I *must* consider my actions more than one who can blameshift. This will manifest itself as being less happy and could cause side effects that manifest as mild depression.
Gregory, gays are in fact an excellent example: there are Christian organizations, as well as individual priests, who claim to be able to help gays become straight. Obviously I cannot comment on their success, but they do have willing customers. Of course it is not the state to which they submit, but rather to a religious doctrine, but same difference, no?
Abortion is a weaker example, since unlike sexual orientation it is simply a matter of conviction, which is much easier to change.
Jezus, you guys are depressing.
I'm a cheerful individualist and I make no bones about it.
Collectivism is a religion for serious, somber, prodnoses and little bossy napoleons. They're not happy.
Individualism however is enormous fun. After all, we can have ambition and a path to self-actualization without feeling guilty about it.
I think this research is probably rubbish.
Also, I wish folks would realise that though they are responsible for themselves, they aren't responsible for others they haven't agreed to look after.
"Then would someone like to say what is 'individualist' and what is 'collectivist'? I have an idea that most 'collectivists' are sociopathic individualists in that they see only *themselves* as true individuals, and the rest of the world as sheep."
The essential difference between a collectivist and an individualist opens up over the question of the nature and source of values.
Being unconcerned over the consequences of their actions for others is a frequent, if not inevitable characteristic of collectivists in high political office, but it is not essentially important to the concept of collectivism per se.