Observe these 4 scenarios : 1. Religious Hierarchy and Social Hierarchy 2. Appeal To Authority ("precious" leader or the governor of an entire group/society) 3. Appeal To Majority 4. Milgram Authority Obedience Experiments & Asch Peer/Group/Majority Conformity Experiment. Here in these circumstances an Individual becomes mentally and physically disarmed and totally succumbs to these factors pertaining to the "large volume of people" listed above. Perhaps Sociologists like Durkheim already knew that an Individual or a group of Individuals did not have any influence over the decision of the entire massive society or the entire massive religious community in the society. So this must be the reason why Durkheim kept the society greater than the individual. What do you think ?
This ain't a feeling, the only alternative to Individualism is authoritarianism , communism, socialism, Fascism globalism, totalitarianism, this is not a game, the enslavement of the planet is at stake, I don't know any other antidote to this madness other than individualism, it keeps power broken up into the smallest unit the individual, everything else is a form of inequality under the law, special rights are anything but equal, with individualism you can still join a share community or a co'op, or give your money to the poor, your just doing it voluntarily not by the force or coercion of the state
LOL. You are totally pushing collectivism, which all forms of tyrannical government fall under. You are not accurately portraying individualism nor collectivism. Collectivism allows mob rule via a government ruler(s) with force, i.e. violence. Individualism recognizes that groups do not exist. That a group is a mathematical quantification of individuals. Only the individual exists. A group is a mental construct that does not exist in nature. To protect the rights of the individual, is to protect all people and not just the ones that agree on a determined belief system. If 51% believed that everyone over age 65 should be put to death as they are old and useless and it’s for the greater good of the greater number, then your collectivism viewpoint would justify such a belief. The individualism viewpoint says the right to freedom of choice and authority over their property (which includes their body) is always in effect and to be backed up by the non aggression principal. Maybe you should read a little more and study history.
I think the first question only 10 seconds in is not accurate. “Do you think goals are best accomplished individually or collectively?” A more accurate question that better defines the separation between both concepts would be do you think responsibility is best assumed individually or collectively?
The best balance is Individualism. Period. If you want social policies, then make the argument, and show how, they are needed to protect the individual… which ultimately protects the collective that individual belongs to. Scandinavian countries are falsely associated with collectivism, but they have simply made the case that their social policies are needed to protect the rights of the individual.
I think the idea of individualism and collectivism as very distinct polar opposites is a false dichotomy anyway, because the collective functions best if made up of individuals free to express themselves, and the individual can only enjoy that freedom through the mutual aid of a healthy collective. And the individual is also shaped by their interaction with a collective, and on their own terms also shapes the collective through their interaction with other individuals within it.
To me, I think the easiest way to define collectivism and individualism is to say that collectivism is the giving of rights to groups and individualism is the giving of rights to individuals. And while these ideas are diametrically opposed this has to be judged on case by case basis. Taxes are a collectivist measure which clearly forfeits the right of the individual but the state can still have strong individualistic property rights. To say a society is more or less collectivistic is to look at aggregate policy and attitude and determine where bias on decistions tend to land more favorably.
I feel like the sales pitch for every system sounds good. It is never the system. It is the greed of someone that wants more than they are willing to work for that destroys any system. That could describe a rich person or a poor person.
I hate collectivism more than anything. The individual can get left out completely forgotten EVEN HURT in order to benefit the bland, the boring, and the brainwashed. I reject conformity, I reject us, I reject we, and only support beautiful me.
Excellent talk, spot on about Africa. But im in South Africa and we are rapidly adopting the individual culture due to rise in capitalism and private ownership of things
@@hohum2722 I very much do understand the argument. It's similar to most political arguments within the U.S. right now between the Democrats and the Republicans and they are both driving the country into the ground. For example, you don't need collectivist policy to protect the environment, and you don't need to ignore the environment in order to protect self-interest and freedom. The left generally implements some collectivist policy that does in fact erode (or at least lays the ground for eroding) individual freedom. The right maintains that there isn't a problem in an effort to protect individual freedom, but the inaction does indeed violate the natural rights of many individuals.
and would you rather like to live in a world where everyone around you wants to pursue their interest no matter how badly they might affect you, or that the people around you take in to account your interests and well being and respect it?
I respectfully disagree with you. Goals can be individual or otherwise. However, responsibility to my mind is more of an individual thing than a group thing. So if he framed the question the way you suggest he should have, I would have found it skewed. Thanks 👍
It's always interesting to me how those who are a member of the majority population or majority racial group who already owns and controls 90% of all economic & political resources speaks against collectivism. That is very suspicious and self-serving. For example, the mainstream white establishment has the luxury of not having to say let's "buy white" because they already do buy white by default because they already own & control 90% of all sources of economic & political control. Whereas the population or racial group that is in the minority can never expect equal access to economic& political resources because they must rely on the "illusion of inclusion.". So, out of necessity the minority group must practice collectivism to empower the group. It is a false narrative to create a individualism vs collectivism narrative. It is not about one vs the other. For the group in the minority, it is a matter of BOTH AND, not either or. For example, the best, fastest and most powerful way for African Americans to empower themselves economically is through the successful combination of BOTH individualism AND collectivism. The majority group has the luxury of pursuing only individualism because they already have open access to the system. In contrast, the minority group doesn't have the luxury of practicing strictly individualism because that would only benefit a relatively few Black individuals but would leave the masses behind. But the masses must practice collectivism in order to produce their own economic infrastructure and not continue to be a people dependent on another group to include them. It is disingenuous for Jordan Peterson to deride collectivism when he belongs to a group that doesn't need it. The goal is to avoid EXTREME individualism and EXTREME collectivism. But for minorites, BOTH are needed.
Without private property you wont be able to defend your self then your are not free so what does it matter having access to a public library, it wont matter you wont have the ability to prosper, taxes can produce a lot of public revenue voluntarily without force.. don't fall for the collective rouse, with individualism you can have both ,(you can be a family of socialists) with collectivism you only have the state says you can,.. you will own nothing and be happy eating bugs, is the best case scenario
private property itself dispossesses people and creates an underclass of those unable to own their own homes or means of making a living. It also can only be enforced through state-violence so is also never truly yours. Instead, a system of free association without such top-down power-structures would lead to personal property and collective property (owned not by the state, but by those who use/operate it)
I think that it is better to raise a kid to be collective mindset.. I see a lot of teens raised in individualistic mindset are more problematic and more unhappy when they deal their life compared to the collective teens.. If u have a chance to raise your kids in collective environment do it.. You are giving better life for your kids and help them deal life easily.. The teens raised in an individualistic society are more sad, more likely to do drugs and try weed and smoke.. This is based on a statistic ..
Maleki, that's the inevitable consequences of the individuaist society. In a really collectivist society, the medical care is more accessible. However, it's not a nice question to ask, unless you are a doctor and can help. But since you ask "what happened", I presume you are definitely not a doctor.
@loryandtiaraloryandtiara7046 this is the rudeness of individual culture, they think people should look the same, if you look different and there's something wrong with you. Respect is above all in a collective society. I would never trade Respect for anything. Woooow that person is sooo rude
Which elements of individualism and collectivism do you see in society? Does the balance skew more towards one or the other?
Observe these 4 scenarios :
1. Religious Hierarchy and Social Hierarchy
2. Appeal To Authority ("precious" leader or the governor of an entire group/society)
3. Appeal To Majority
4. Milgram Authority Obedience Experiments & Asch Peer/Group/Majority Conformity Experiment.
Here in these circumstances an Individual becomes mentally and physically disarmed and totally succumbs to these factors pertaining to the "large volume of people" listed above.
Perhaps Sociologists like Durkheim already knew that an Individual or a group of Individuals did not have any influence over the decision of the entire massive society or the entire massive religious community in the society. So this must be the reason why Durkheim kept the society greater than the individual.
What do you think ?
This ain't a feeling, the only alternative to Individualism is authoritarianism , communism, socialism, Fascism globalism, totalitarianism, this is not a game, the enslavement of the planet is at stake, I don't know any other antidote to this madness other than individualism, it keeps power broken up into the smallest unit the individual, everything else is a form of inequality under the law, special rights are anything but equal, with individualism you can still join a share community or a co'op, or give your money to the poor, your just doing it voluntarily not by the force or coercion of the state
I came from a collectivism society and now living in an individualism society , I can see the difference clearly
How do you not have more views/subscribers, you’re amazing
Thank you so much!! ☺ I really appreciate the kind words!
I agree ,best channel !
LOL. You are totally pushing collectivism, which all forms of tyrannical government fall under. You are not accurately portraying individualism nor collectivism. Collectivism allows mob rule via a government ruler(s) with force, i.e. violence. Individualism recognizes that groups do not exist. That a group is a mathematical quantification of individuals. Only the individual exists. A group is a mental construct that does not exist in nature. To protect the rights of the individual, is to protect all people and not just the ones that agree on a determined belief system. If 51% believed that everyone over age 65 should be put to death as they are old and useless and it’s for the greater good of the greater number, then your collectivism viewpoint would justify such a belief. The individualism viewpoint says the right to freedom of choice and authority over their property (which includes their body) is always in effect and to be backed up by the non aggression principal. Maybe you should read a little more and study history.
I think the first question only 10 seconds in is not accurate. “Do you think goals are best accomplished individually or collectively?”
A more accurate question that better defines the separation between both concepts would be do you think responsibility is best assumed individually or collectively?
The best balance is Individualism. Period. If you want social policies, then make the argument, and show how, they are needed to protect the individual… which ultimately protects the collective that individual belongs to.
Scandinavian countries are falsely associated with collectivism, but they have simply made the case that their social policies are needed to protect the rights of the individual.
I think the idea of individualism and collectivism as very distinct polar opposites is a false dichotomy anyway, because the collective functions best if made up of individuals free to express themselves, and the individual can only enjoy that freedom through the mutual aid of a healthy collective. And the individual is also shaped by their interaction with a collective, and on their own terms also shapes the collective through their interaction with other individuals within it.
Why isn't youtube recommending your channel to everyone?
Haha, that would be nice! Thanks!
Yeah, these things that make us socially aware are pushed less by the algorithm. Smh
To me, I think the easiest way to define collectivism and individualism is to say that collectivism is the giving of rights to groups and individualism is the giving of rights to individuals.
And while these ideas are diametrically opposed this has to be judged on case by case basis. Taxes are a collectivist measure which clearly forfeits the right of the individual but the state can still have strong individualistic property rights.
To say a society is more or less collectivistic is to look at aggregate policy and attitude and determine where bias on decistions tend to land more favorably.
Super amazing video! Thank you!
Hoping soon to have a good instructor like you.. Such an amazing in this fashion
Wow, thank you! I'm glad you're enjoying the channel!
I feel like the sales pitch for every system sounds good.
It is never the system.
It is the greed of someone that wants more than they are willing to work for that destroys any system.
That could describe a rich person or a poor person.
I hate collectivism more than anything. The individual can get left out completely forgotten EVEN HURT in order to benefit the bland, the boring, and the brainwashed. I reject conformity, I reject us, I reject we, and only support beautiful me.
Excellent talk, spot on about Africa. But im in South Africa and we are rapidly adopting the individual culture due to rise in capitalism and private ownership of things
Thank you, I found this content. Very helpful to my research in my assignments.. Keep it up.. And continue to spread knowledge..
Glad it was helpful!
You have to differentiate between vertical and lateral collectivism
I would choose my self interest and freedom over common good any time
So you'd be happy to pollute a =river that runs through your land and sod anyone downstream?
@@hohum2722 no, because that pollution hurts the individual!
@@csfischer007 You don;'t really understand the argument. when you do, please feel free to join in with the conversation
@@hohum2722 I very much do understand the argument. It's similar to most political arguments within the U.S. right now between the Democrats and the Republicans and they are both driving the country into the ground.
For example, you don't need collectivist policy to protect the environment, and you don't need to ignore the environment in order to protect self-interest and freedom.
The left generally implements some collectivist policy that does in fact erode (or at least lays the ground for eroding) individual freedom. The right maintains that there isn't a problem in an effort to protect individual freedom, but the inaction does indeed violate the natural rights of many individuals.
and would you rather like to live in a world where everyone around you wants to pursue their interest no matter how badly they might affect you, or that the people around you take in to account your interests and well being and respect it?
Thank you!
You're welcome! Thanks for the comment!
I respectfully disagree with you. Goals can be individual or otherwise. However, responsibility to my mind is more of an individual thing than a group thing. So if he framed the question the way you suggest he should have, I would have found it skewed. Thanks 👍
It's always interesting to me how those who are a member of the majority population or majority racial group who already owns and controls 90% of all economic & political resources speaks against collectivism. That is very suspicious and self-serving. For example, the mainstream white establishment has the luxury of not having to say let's "buy white" because they already do buy white by default because they already own & control 90% of all sources of economic & political control. Whereas the population or racial group that is in the minority can never expect equal access to economic& political resources because they must rely on the "illusion of inclusion.". So, out of necessity the minority group must practice collectivism to empower the group. It is a false narrative to create a individualism vs collectivism narrative. It is not about one vs the other. For the group in the minority, it is a matter of BOTH AND, not either or. For example, the best, fastest and most powerful way for African Americans to empower themselves economically is through the successful combination of BOTH individualism AND collectivism. The majority group has the luxury of pursuing only individualism because they already have open access to the system. In contrast, the minority group doesn't have the luxury of practicing strictly individualism because that would only benefit a relatively few Black individuals but would leave the masses behind. But the masses must practice collectivism in order to produce their own economic infrastructure and not continue to be a people dependent on another group to include them. It is disingenuous for Jordan Peterson to deride collectivism when he belongs to a group that doesn't need it. The goal is to avoid EXTREME individualism and EXTREME collectivism. But for minorites, BOTH are needed.
👏👏
Thanks for the comment!
The bible is Collectivism. That is all that matters.
Without private property you wont be able to defend your self then your are not free so what does it matter having access to a public library, it wont matter you wont have the ability to prosper, taxes can produce a lot of public revenue voluntarily without force.. don't fall for the collective rouse, with individualism you can have both ,(you can be a family of socialists) with collectivism you only have the state says you can,.. you will own nothing and be happy eating bugs, is the best case scenario
private property itself dispossesses people and creates an underclass of those unable to own their own homes or means of making a living. It also can only be enforced through state-violence so is also never truly yours. Instead, a system of free association without such top-down power-structures would lead to personal property and collective property (owned not by the state, but by those who use/operate it)
I think that it is better to raise a kid to be collective mindset.. I see a lot of teens raised in individualistic mindset are more problematic and more unhappy when they deal their life compared to the collective teens.. If u have a chance to raise your kids in collective environment do it.. You are giving better life for your kids and help them deal life easily.. The teens raised in an individualistic society are more sad, more likely to do drugs and try weed and smoke.. This is based on a statistic ..
What has happened to your upper teeth?
Maleki, that's the inevitable consequences of the individuaist society. In a really collectivist society, the medical care is more accessible. However, it's not a nice question to ask, unless you are a doctor and can help. But since you ask "what happened", I presume you are definitely not a doctor.
@@loryandtiaraloryandtiara7046 in a collectivist society his teeth would still be crooked, but now he’d also be starving to death.
@loryandtiaraloryandtiara7046 this is the rudeness of individual culture, they think people should look the same, if you look different and there's something wrong with you. Respect is above all in a collective society. I would never trade Respect for anything. Woooow that person is sooo rude
Lmfao, you are soooo wrong it isn't even funny.