Hyper Individualism | INFJ Forum

Hyper Individualism

bickelz

BOINK
Jan 1, 2011
2,292
554
0
MBTI
infj
Enneagram
4w5
So I just pseudo finished a book my Psychology professor wrote called "Nations of One" and it was all about the notion of the evolution of hyper-individualism (HI) in the late 20th and 21st centuries. HI is defined exactly how it sounds, an excessive amount of individualism. But this individualism was brought about by the current economic system that says if you have money, you can be happy. The saying "greed is good" has become our motto in a sense.

She believes that this has lead to an immense feeling of loneliness and emptiness in our lives. For some of the HI individuals, they believe that they are what they consume. For developed HI individuals, it is about finding your true self while trying to balance the economic part of our lives, the stage that many of us are at now. People consume to fill a vacuum. Love, trust, truth, art, music and written language have taken a backseat to money and what it can do for us.

She also made the point that when many people are looking for relationships, they look for what the other person can do for them only, a very economic point of view.

Now, I don't want to go on and say "we need to return to values" like Sara Palin but there is a void in our society that needs to be pointed out. Speaking of Ms Palin, my professor also made the point that the "freedom" that is talked about by people like her and other Americans is HI; the ability to consume to fill the void. That is what seems to be their working definition of freedom.

Has anyone else heard of this? What do you think of it?

Sorry this was poorly articulated, I left a bit out so if there are questions, i could answer them for better clarity. I should also note that I don't think she believes that individualism is bad but rather that the circumstances in which people are becoming individualistic were not evolutionarily developed.
 
Of all of the problems that exist today, I seem to think people miss the most important one - People are not happy. So many people I know are on mood stabilizers, and I have a hinting feeling that it's because we don't live our lives in a way that is naturally satisfying. Pumped full of need, chasing happiness as if consuming more will lead to it... it is a temporary high. A temporary escape from the droll lives we live day to day. Escaping our nature, as social beings who do act in silly ways sometimes, seems to be the call of quite a bit of the popular advertising today. Ripped body, fancy car, stoic face, free from the need to be content... instead of being content.

So many rich people are sad, and yet so many of the impoverished are happy so much of the time. Does wealth lead to happiness? Wealth is a tool, and if we live our lives in a way that facilitates our happiness it can make it easier. Just as having many instruments can spread a musician's ability to practice their art, so wealth can allow someone who knows where to invest their life to be happy because it allows them more variability and options. So much of the time though, wealth becomes the goal as opposed to living. Collecting instruments as opposed to playing them, as if having more and more will make us happier. Such is life though, and we all are in a process of learning who we are and what we truly value and how we are best. There's no single stock answer. So many are so engrained in the "Get get get!" way of life that it's hard to break out of though, especially when so many around us are participating in it and pushing (or plowing) it forward. Future projections of happiness when I finally get enough.

The things you own end up owning you.
 
Last edited:
People often get caught up in how to attain happiness and forget their long-term goal. Don't worry about whether it's "individualist" or "like Sarah Palin." Just ask yourself, "will this benefit me?"
 
People often get caught up in how to attain happiness and forget their long-term goal. Don't worry about whether it's "individualist" or "like Sarah Palin." Just ask yourself, "will this benefit me?"

Well, these aren't my opinions, I have only just read them. But I think a major point is that we're not in tune with other people as much as we're supposed to. Instead, we are alone and fill the void with consumerism.

Ultimately, we have to do what is best for us, not necessarily what will benefit me. Sometime the best thing for us might have to do with the collective society.
 
Ultimately, we have to do what is best for us, not necessarily what will benefit me. Sometime the best thing for us might have to do with the collective society.
That's certainly true. But I was getting at how we shouldn't worry about how our actions might relate to a set of ideals, like individualism, Palinism, you name it. We should just work semi-blindly towards the goal.
 
That's certainly true. But I was getting at how we shouldn't worry about how our actions might relate to a set of ideals, like individualism, Palinism, you name it. We should just work semi-blindly towards the goal.

You must be careful about how blind/oblivious you are about where you are going because if you don't know the destination, you don't know what the side effects of the destination could be. This is the economic reality of today pertaining to the environment and many other issues.
 
That's why I'm not a politician. On a small scale, that approach works fine for me, but I often forget the dangers of generalizing my personal values onto the bigger picture.
 
That's why I'm not a politician. On a small scale, that approach works fine for me, but I often forget the dangers of generalizing my personal values onto the bigger picture.

I don't believe this is a value judgment. What the book was pointing out was that HI is not the way we evolved to live. It's not how we're meant to live together. I don't think there is anything truly bad about capitalism but there are some definite repercussions.
 
HI seems largely a cultural issue. Do people not have responsibility for their choices in life anymore? Sheez.
 
She believes that this has lead to an immense feeling of loneliness and emptiness in our lives. For some of the HI individuals, they believe that they are what they consume. For developed HI individuals, it is about finding your true self while trying to balance the economic part of our lives, the stage that many of us are at now. People consume to fill a vacuum. Love, trust, truth, art, music and written language have taken a backseat to money and what it can do for us.

She also made the point that when many people are looking for relationships, they look for what the other person can do for them only, a very economic point of view.
Agreed. It happens more often than not.
Liberals or Democrats, I think it happens both ways. They just use different objects to assuage their hunger.

[MENTION=3454]DrShephard[/MENTION]; I agree with your words;
So many rich people are sad, and yet so many of the impoverished are happy so much of the time.
On this one, however; I think it's too much of an oversimplification. The impoverished are generally looked happy because they are trying to be happy with what they got. You can't worry much about happiness or love or friendship when your basic needs aren't really filled.
I think it's not the kind of happiness people want, albeit the attitude of 'being happy with what you got' is important too.

As for the rich, I kinda agreed however. Some people began to see what they have / consume as an extension of what they are.
 
I agree, there are issues/reprocussions at work within our present culture as noted. HI might be one way to describe it...it must be if she were inspired to compose an entire volume on the basic phenomenon.

At the same time I think/observe we would be pretty helpless to know how to balance out the situation. To do this is not something the culture will support at present....one must do this within. That is the only way for now. For the culture to adjust would take a major shift and I dare not speculate (and shudder to think) what it would take to make that happen.

In the end, though, culture (and values) can only move forward. We cannot return to the the "good old days" or a overly sentimentalized view of the past (although some seem to try for this). Mere nostalgia will do little. No, we can never return to the past.......although we, and our values, can be informed by the past, and I believe this will, in the end, be the truest way forward. For the individual this is possible now, but for the culture? I think the rope is wound too tight at present to expect much in this regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inquisitive
Don't Buy - Ask Why?

I agree with your Professor. What is the name of her book?

Capitalism promotes the idea of individualism. The pursuit of happiness in our constitution has been manipulated to mean Buy Buy Buy - things - to make the wealthy richer and richer. It is indeed making us sicker as a society. It is indeed killing our Earth.

The groups of people I have begun to engage with are all aware of our addiction to our desires - our emotional needs - our emotional greeds. When we practice being present in any given moment we are using our awareness to see what harm can be done with our actions. As your professor pointed out - our excessive consumption leads to harm.
The practice of mindfulness allows one to see the motivation behind one's desires and give one a choice to act on that desire or not. We are all dedicated to practicing mindfulness so as to minimize our harm to self, to others, and to the planet as a whole (including all the creatures on it).

Humans need to be able to create in their own way to reach true satisfaction in their life. The source of happiness comes from within us - not from things purchased outside of us. This notion has been completely buried under years of conditioning through the media and the church. Either you go to the big neon sign store to buy your happiness or you go to the big steeple to pray for your happiness. IMO - Neither act works.

If you look at Eric Erikson's Developmental Stages of Life you can see as an adult gets older they need this or they will become bitter and jaded about life. We were taught the range of age groupings can vary depending upon the individual but essentially all of us from the Western culture's tend to follow this theory.

We need to be able to use our gifts! The assembly line, machine like mentality of this Industrial time has almost destroyed our vibrancy as humans.

Erickon's Psychosocial Stages of Development
1 Basic Trust vs. Mistrust 0-1 Hope Dependency or Paranoia
-when the parents present consistent, adequate, and nurturing care, the child develops basic trust and realizes that people are dependable and the world can be a safe place. The child develops a sense of hope and confidence; this is a belief that things will work out well in the end -when the parents fail to provide these things, the child develops basic mistrust, resulting in depression, withdrawal, and maybe even paranoia

2 Autonomy vs Shame & Doubt 2-3 Will Obsessive/Impulsive or Avoidant
-if parents guide children gradually and firmly, praise and accept attempts to be independent, autonomy develops. The result will be a sense of will which helps us accomplish and build self-esteem as children and adults -if parents are too permissive, harsh, or demanding, the child can feel defeated, and experience extreme shame and doubt, and grow up to engage in neurotic attempts to regain feelings of control, power, and competency. This may take the form of obsessive behavior; if you follow all rules exactly then you will never be ashamed again. If the child is given no limits or guidance, the child can fail to gain any shame or doubt and be impulsive. Some is good, as it causes us to question the outcomes of our actions, and consider others' well-being. This may also result in Avoidance; if you never allow yourself to be close to others, they can never make you feel ashamed

3 Initiative vs Guilt 4-5 Purpose Constricted or Antisocial/Narcissistic
-the child becomes curious about people and models adults. Erickson believed the child does attempt to possess the opposite sex parent and experience rivalry toward the same sex parent; however, a true Oedipal Complex only develops in very severe cases -if parents are understanding and supportive of a child's efforts to show initiative, the child develops purpose, and sets goals and acts in ways to reach them
-if children are punished for attempts to show initiative, they are likely to develop a sense of guilt, which in excess can lead to inhibition. Too much purpose and no guilt can lead to ruthlessness; the person may achieve their goals without caring who they step on in the process

4 Industry vs Inferiority 6-12 Competency Helplessness or Shallowness
-occurs during Latency, but Erickson did not think this was a rest period; the child begins school and must tame imagination and impulses, and please others. If adults support the child's efforts, a sense of competence develops -if caretakers do not support the child, feelings of inferiority are likely to develop. Too much inferiority, and inertia or helplessness occurs (underachievers). Too much competency and the child becomes an adult too fast, and develops either into a Histrionic or Shallow person
One way to divide Erikson's stages is into two groups of four -- the first four have to do with figuring out the world, the last four with figuring out yourself

5 Identity vs Role Confusion 13-19 Fidelity Identity Diffusion or Fanaticism
-young adults attempt to develop identity and ideas about strengths, weaknesses, goals, occupations, sexual identity, and gender roles. Teens "try on" different identities, going through an identity crisis, and use their friends to reflect back to them. Marcia offers four resolutions: Identity Achievement (crises and commitment), Moratorium (crises and commitment later), Foreclosure (commitment without crises), and Identity Diffusion (no crises, no commitment) -if they resolve this crisis, they develop fidelity, "the ability to sustain loyalties freely pledged in spite of the inevitable contradictions of value systems" (can be friends with very different people)
-if they fail to resolve the crisis, they develop identity diffusion; their sense of self is unstable and threatened; too little identity and they may join cults or hate groups, too much identity and they may show fanaticism

6 Intimacy vs Isolation 20-24 Love Promiscuity or Exclusion
-intimacy is the ability to be close, loving, and vulnerable with romances and friends. It is based in part upon identity development, in that you have to know yourself to share it. The virtue gained here is love. Failure to develop intimacy can lead to promiscuity (getting too close too quick and not sustaining it), or exclusion (rejecting relationships and those who have them)

7
Generativity vs Stagnation 25-64 Care Stagnation or Overextension
-if you have a strong sense of creativity, success, and of having "made a mark" you develop generativity, and are concerned with the next generation; the virtue is called care, and represents connection to generations to come, and a love given without expectations of a specific return -adults that do not feel this develop a sense of stagnation, are self-absorbed, feel little connection to others, and generally offer little to society; too much stagnation can lead to rejectivity and a failure to feel any sense of meaning (the unresolved mid-life crises), and too much generativity leads to overextension (someone who has no time for themselves because they are so busy)

8 Ego Integrity vs Despair 65-? Wisdom Presumption or Disdain
-this entails facing the ending of life, and accepting successes and failures, ageing, and loss. People develop ego integrity and accept their lives if they succeed, and develop a sense of wisdom a "detached concern with life itself in the face of death itself" -those who do not feel a sense of despair and dread their death; it's too late to change their lives (Ebenezer Scrooge just managed to avoid it) Too much wisdom leads to presumption, too much despair to a disdain for life
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
Talking about the past / nostalgia;
The ironic thing about returning to the past is that it's:
a) often a imagined, generalized, often deluded / rose-tinted, skewed perspective of the past (omitting other stuffs, while exemplifying the other);
b) It's vague. What do they mean by the past? An era? A specific moment? During what timespan? A year? A month? A day? A week? While advertising them might work, try setting political goals from something vague. (of course, the politician themselves should have thought about it)
c) not specifying whether growth or damage is involved,
d) often not mentioning whether it will change or not afterwards.

so basically it's still politics. It's not so much returning to the past as much as a shaping after a crystallized view of the past. A view that is often someone's, chosen and desired by a group of people.

And...I guess the HI shows at that point*? At least that's what I think. CMIIW?

*Granted, I'm speaking while looking at the tea parties / the conservatives, but liberals often have this kind of HI-fueled politics too.
 
I know what you mean [MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION]; I keep thinking those Tea Party people are talking about when slavery wasn't illegal...
I agree with you response wholeheartedly in regards to the rose colored idealism of the past.

And thanks [MENTION=2578]K-gal[/MENTION]; I love the stuff you post even if I imagine it is filled with fairy dust and teddy bears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kgal
From a cultural and individual perspective I think hyper individualism is great. It allows for free expression. Living in a collective, unified Asian country; you get to learn that being differenet just does not fly or you have to suppress your expression to a certain degree. The pressure to follow a predetermined gender, social and status is great as opposed to living in the US; you can be who ever you want and express what you feel without being made feel guilty.

I think balance is needed in the US when it comes to excessive consumerism and over hyped celebrity media and such. We are just overdoing it; like in the Roman days. I think having too much money makes you sad/unhappy is subjective. According to a Harvard study you only need $40,000 to be happy. Not if you live in New York! That's chum change here!:m075:
 
From a cultural and individual perspective I think hyper individualism is great.
I agree, and this is where I would not want necessarily to return to some lesser mode....it's better to evolve through this as a matter of balance and growth rather than to try and turn the clock backwards.

btw, I also agree about the ideas expressed about embracing a more historic/nostalgic view. Although I favor this approach as a whole, I agree that at present we have little real grasp of human history and certainly not enough to extract the insight we need to intentify and integrate any wisdom that may be gleaned. Funny thing is, I have seen this kind of thing happen for myself within a group/micro-culture, and so I know it is possible and extremely fruitful/transformative. This is why I place so much hope here.
 
he believes that this has lead to an immense feeling of loneliness and emptiness in our lives.

It's also the spurring psychology behind what's hollowed out and continues to fracture our economy.