I could be considered a "non conformist" in many aspects. I often try not to follow what is popular and "in" simply because it is popular (unless I see that it could actually be good). Because of this, I often cringe as I look on at all the people around. They all seem as if they are paper cutouts. About a year ago, I tried to explain it using math:
"If the equality rule of huamnity is in effect, person x equals person y. Therefore... x = y. Therefore x = x. Therefore, if equality is in state, people seek to become other people."
I can only wonder if there's any truth to this. Am I truly wrong in the respect that people seem to want to be just like each other? Is the idea that equality is responsible actually true?
It is a matter for debate on the whole "naturally social" thing.
Not being social is bad for the population of humanity as a whole (less help from outside sources, less chances to mate, etc). Social humans have been the "fittest" humans for the last 200,000 years or so and continue to be so.
While there are obviously going to be variations within the trend, exactly as evolutionary laws tell us there should be, the overwhelming trend is toward humans as social creatures. However as our technology continues to allow for increasing independence and lack of symbiosis within the species we are seeing this expressed in a much smaller fashion than, and in new ways, than what was previously seen.
No longer do we require strength in numbers, on a local scale, to ensure safety, a good harvest, and plentiful meat. We can get all of that without ever leaving home. However we still require social interaction, just as we are sitting here on the internet. We are interacting socially, bonding with others of the species, even though we never need to leave our home.
Furthermore, look at our tradition of animal husbandry. Initially we used animals as crops and as protection. Now we have no need for these, with the exception of the farmers and ranchers, yet we keep pets. Why is that? The most supported explanation is companionship. Why would an introverted, anti social creature have need of companionship.
Continuing with that, there are numerous well documented psychological and physiological benefits to pet owners, most notably in an increase of endorphins, seratonin production, and decreased blood pressure. Again, why would a non-social creature experience such benefits from social interaction?
Physical and social interaction is so important to our species that a newborn will often die simply from a lack of attention, even though they receive all of the necessary nutrients for survival, and this has been observed, although not extensively documented, in not only humans but many of our closest cousins.
Locke got that from Aristotle, just sayin' though.
I learn something new everyday.
It is a matter for debate on the whole "naturally social" thing.
Hence this forum. But as samy said, it is a sake of survival that man enter into a state of society, and be social.
I prefer to be by myself most of the time, which means that man is not always a social creature.
Again, you will always have outliers.
While there are obviously going to be variations within the trend, exactly as evolutionary laws tell us there should be, the overwhelming trend is toward humans as social creatures.
Just to throw in religion: God made Adam, and saw that he was lonely. So he made woman.
when you see lets say george clooney wearing unusual pants and shirt and then jennifer lopez goes and hits on him (oh those clothes make you look hot) you you will go and try out that pants and shirts if i am correct so you are trying to be like him you see your brother with an iPad you go and buy one when your born you know nothing excpet what god gave you so you go and act like your parents you eat like them think like them and speak like them....
To say such is not in place in this thread. And did I question you on evolution? No. I simply offered to AG my world view, as you did with yours.
You're the one that introduced it as a line of discussion relevant to the topic. And you can question evolution all you want. It's a proven fact. It doesn't require faith or belief because it is true, unlike some opinions as to why we feel lonely when we lack companionship.
I prefer to be by myself most of the time, which means that man is not always a social creature.
I am quite the same. I value my own time just as much as time with others.
There is a fine line that I walk between being social and keeping to myself. TeH internetz does a good job of this as I can have a heated debate yet walk away and return to it within the comfort of my own space of head as well as surroundings.
Just to throw in religion: God made Adam, and saw that he was lonely. So he made woman.
This is not a religious thread and nor should it be. Why bring in this line of reasoning unless your using it to make a point. I would take that to mean that even in our early stages humankind has understood the need for companionship and the religious aspect is merely a sideline to the fact that this idea has been around for a long time. But I dont think thats what you meant, correct me if Im wrong tho because there are likely other texts faaaar older than chritianity that could show this.
I don't really feel like going through 4 pages of oppinionated responses, so here's my opinion. Many people try to be like others because it's their natural response. Everyone as a child tried to be like someone else (fireman, scientist, princess, etc.) When they learned they weren't going to be that they started to derive off others. Only a few individuals did things that were different and they are call strange and weird, but is it actually different or just another derived characteristic. Example- I'm different, i'm scene... there are other scene people in the world and you got it from someone else. By saying this, we are all faceless individuals in this lost world of lives. The only way to achieve a face is to do something truly different, or amazing. You can invent something or save a hundred people, but hey if you look at you are just copying people before you.
You're the one that introduced it as a line of discussion relevant to the topic.
Really? If I look back, you first put in your world view, and I seconded with mine. 2 goes after 1, so how is 2 first?
And you can question evolution all you want. It's a proven fact.
Then I'm sure that you would be quite happy to comply, and show some proof?
This is not a religious thread and nor should it be.
Like wise, this is not an evolutional thread, and nor should it be. And to delve on your topic of companionship, many of the early religions had some form of a god, and soit would have comforted people to know that there was someone out there.
I would consider myself a nonconformist. I say screw what society wants me to be, I'll choose who I am thank you very much. Though I can see why people would want to be like everyone else. They do not want to break away, they don't stop the flow of the river. I prefer to be the random rock standing dead center in the middle, making the water go around me. But then again, would I not fit in with some of the other random rocks in the center, and is not my rock just part of another flowing river? I just choose to stay away from the larger of the two.
