Individualism and Collectivism | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Individualism and Collectivism

I think individualism is an illusion.

Every person is individual in the same sense that a cell is individual within the body. However, just as a cell will eventually die if you cut it away from the body, an individual will die as he or she is cut off from society.

The greatest punishment that we can conceive is to be isolated and left alone. That is why solitary confinement is used in prison to punish those who are being punished.

Humans are interdependent with one another. We rely on each other for resources, protection, support, etc. and we are reliant on our environment to provide for us.

I just don't see why compare individualism with isolation, in my point of view they are completely seperate from each other. Being individualistic doesn't neccesary mean that you're all by yourself and lonely. I consider myself an individualistic person but from time to time I would still take advice from my family but it's up to me if I chose to act upon that advice or to ignore it. Though I agree partially that being an extreme individualistic or an extreme collectivist is an illusion because we still depend on so many factors like the oxygen to breathe, animals to get food from and your parents to develop, but when it comes to making your own choices and the road of your life, that is when I would find that out on my own. The reason I dislike groups and collectivism altogether it's that it is easy to blame other people for your own wrongdoings. However, when you're by yourself, the only person you can blame is yourself.

Pfff, c'mon...
That's what entrepreneurship is for.

Then I shall become an entrepreneur :D
 
I just don't see why compare individualism with isolation, in my point of view they are completely seperate from each other. Being individualistic doesn't neccesary mean that you're all by yourself and lonely. I consider myself an individualistic person but from time to time I would still take advice from my family but it's up to me if I chose to act upon that advice or to ignore it. Though I agree partially that being an extreme individualistic or an extreme collectivist is an illusion because we still depend on so many factors like the oxygen to breathe, animals to get food from and your parents to develop, but when it comes to making your own choices and the road of your life, that is when I would find that out on my own. The reason I dislike groups and collectivism altogether it's that it is easy to blame other people for your own wrongdoings. However, when you're by yourself, the only person you can blame is yourself.

Then I shall become an entrepreneur :D

Individualism by definition is belief in self reliance and personal independence. To go back to my cell analogy, a cell must be self reliant to a degree in order to be of any use to the rest of the body and must be able to function with a certain degree of independence in order to fulfll the functions it needs to survive and replicate. So as you can tell, I was using the example of isolation to denote an absolute form of individualism, not the realistic version.

Collectivism is a belief in the importance of human interdependence. It has nothing to do with blaming other people for your wrong doings. It's the recognition of the fact that you can't live without other people in your life. Humans are social animals and they need one another.
 
I understand that this is an individualistic-bias article but I think it does a good job explaining why people are better of thinking for themselves rather than making decisions based on a group concenssus.


There are two basic ways of understanding the relationship between individuals in a group. The first way is individualism, which states that each individual is acting on his or her own, making their own choices, and to the extent they interact with the rest of the group, it's as individuals. Collectivism is the second way, and it views the group as the primary entity, with the individuals lost along the way.

Objectivism supports individualism in this sense. In a different sense, individualism is meant to be whether the individual is different from everyone else, or whether he makes up his own mind about things, or what-not. But in the individualist-collectivist sense of the term, individualism just means that the individual is a separate entity, making his own choices, thinking his own thoughts, and responsible for his own choices.

Collectivism views it in some other way. It sees the group as the important element, and individuals are just members of the group. The group has its own values somehow different from those of the individual members. The group thinks its own thoughts. Instead of judging the group as a bunch of individuals interacting, it judges the group as a whole, and views the individuals as just members of the group.

Collectivism might sound strange at first. I've known people who reject it as a straw man, a made up argument that's easy to attack. So let's give some reasons why people might accept it.

First, there's knowledge. Think about it in a few ways. First, how much of what you know did you learn from other people? That's taken to mean that nobody is truly an individual. Second, when coming up with an idea in a group, there's usually an exchange. It wasn't one person who invented the idea from scratch, but a group effort. So again, it's seen as the group that made the decision. Third, you're a product of your culture, right? Your outlook on life is at first very much dominated by the views of the people around you. If you're raised in a Christian home, you will very likely believe in Christianity.

Of course, the individualists sees this all in a different light. It's true you learned from others, but your mind had to grasp it. It's true that the invention took more than one person interacting to form, but each step along the way was made by individuals. It's true that you grow up within a culture, but you're free to accept or reject it. Being a part of these groups doesn't make you act the way you do. That's up to you.

Another reason for collectivism is the idea of mob mentality. When people are in a group, they sometimes stop thinking and just go with the wishes of their peers. Objectivists refer to this as second-handedness in a more general sense. But when someone is unwilling to think for themselves, and accept the wishes of the people around them, it looks and smells a lot like a collective. The only flaw is that the individuals are choosing to go with their peers, and they can also choose not to.

So do people actually view others in terms of collectivism? We need some examples.

An enormously significant example is that of racism. Racism is the view that there is a race of people, usually determined by skin color and appearance, and that they're all basically the same. Racism is fundamentally collectivist. Instead of viewing individuals by their own actions, values, or attributes, the group is judged and the outcome is arbitrarily assigned to the individuals. In other words, you get praised or blamed not by your own actions, but by the actions of someone else (or more than one person). This is a huge injustice, and turns the whole concept of moral judgment upside down.

There are other forms of collectivism. Any time where the group is considered to have a life of it's own outside of the individuals. An easy example is a nation. People often attribute qualities, values, etc., to an entire nation. And the nation often claims to have values that are different from the individuals.

Another example which I like to use but upsets some people is marriage. Marriage is often treated as a collective. This is why you hear things like "making the marriage work", as if it had a life of its own and the husband and wife are just there to satisfy it. What this example illustrates is that the collective need not be big. It's really a perspective issue. If you see the husband and wife interacting, then you can say things like "if you want to get along better, you should do this". But when the marriage becomes a value in itself, and the husband and wife are told to sacrifice in order to make it work, then they are acting as collectivists.

Ethically speaking, there are a number of problems with collectivism. For instance, because the collective is seen as having an importance higher than the individuals that make it up, those same individuals are asked to sacrifice for it. It is created into an intrinsic value, and destroys one's ability to rationally pursue one's own self-interest.

It also interferes with justice. Justice is concerned with making moral judgments about other people and acting accordingly. But collectivism destroys proper moral judgment by attributing value choices to the whole group, instead of the person making the choice.

Individualism is the proper approach to this problem. Moral judgments are made by moral agents. The person making the decision gets credit or blame for it. Values are agent-relative, and the person makes his choices by seeing how the value impacts his life. It is the individual that ethics is concerned with, and collectivism just obscures this point.

Reference: http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml
 
I understand that this is an individualistic-bias article but I think it does a good job explaining why people are better of thinking for themselves rather than making decisions based on a group concenssus.




Reference: http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml

Yuck!

Sorry, but objectivism is idiotic.

That article defines collectivism as seeing individuals as just members of the group. That is a false premise. Collectivism sees individuals as interdependent members of a group. Whoever wrote that article has no idea what they are talking about.

The science of ecology has more or less proven the evolutionary advantage of collectivism over individualism.

Groups of organisms cooperate in order to better compete, and as a result, the organisms that can best cooperate have had higher levels of reproduction. The fact that primates naturally live in tribes is evidence that humans are where they are today because of collectivism, not individualism. Collectivism is encoded in our genes.
 
Last edited:
Even in an individualistic society, people are still "interdependent" on other people through the marketplace.
That's pretty much the definition of trade... A voluntary transaction, that is mutually beneficial to both parties needs.
In collectivism, a presumed "authority" has to make calls about who gets to steal from whom.


And this...
The science of ecology has more or less proven the evolutionary advantage of collectivism over individualism.
...is a completely blowhard statement.

It's not even wrong.
 
Yuck!

Sorry, but objectivism is idiotic.

That article defines collectivism as seeing individuals as just members of the group. That is a false premise. Collectivism sees individuals as interdependent members of a group. Whoever wrote that article has no idea what they are talking about.

The science of ecology has more or less proven the evolutionary advantage of collectivism over individualism.

Groups of organisms cooperate in order to better compete, and as a result, the organisms that can best cooperate have had higher levels of reproduction. The fact that primates naturally live in tribes is evidence that humans are where they are today because of collectivism, not individualism. Collectivism is encoded in our genes.

Well, if we are talking about our genes then you should know that they may also be mutations that over time may prevail and become dominant if they can pass those genes onto their offspring. Individualism may be that mutation that has dominated over collectivism over the century but we can't see that dominance yet because it may take some time for it to become apparent.
 
I think Humans are collectivist by nature, in the west we kid ourselves that the extended family (or the "tribe) is not important but I think it is tremendously important for our psychological development.
 
I think Humans are collectivist by nature, in the west we kid ourselves that the extended family (or the "tribe) is not important but I think it is tremendously important for our psychological development.
I'd like you to meet my family.
 
Even in an individualistic society, people are still "interdependent" on other people through the marketplace.
That's pretty much the definition of trade... A voluntary transaction, that is mutually beneficial to both parties needs.
In collectivism, a presumed "authority" has to make calls about who gets to steal from whom.

ROFL!

The constructs of "authority" and "capital" are not objective.They require the subjective recognition of human beings. The recognition of the value of your currency, deeds, stock certificates, etc. requires the consensus of your fellow human beings, otherwise it is objectively nothing but paper. I don't have to recognize that a deed symbolically represents property rights to a piece of land. In order to get people to acknowledge capital, the construct of authority must be used. For example, if I damage property that you have paper for, then a political force is going to make me pay for it with equitable capital via use of authority. They are going to make me recognize the value of your paper. I also don't have to recognize authority. As such, authority has only two means by which to make me recognize it. The first choice is through violence, and the other choice is by giving me a piece of the authority through democracy.

That is the reality. Otherwise, you would be forced to stay at home and defend all your physical goods and your land with your shotgun. There would not be a great deal of economic exchange, because there would be no recognized currency. People would have to barter. In essence, there would be very little freedom.

So forgive me if I think your political ideology is a load of crap. You may have disdain for authority but it is necessary for capitalism to truly exist and function.
 
Last edited:
Well, if we are talking about our genes then you should know that they may also be mutations that over time may prevail and become dominant if they can pass those genes onto their offspring. Individualism may be that mutation that has dominated over collectivism over the century but we can't see that dominance yet because it may take some time for it to become apparent.

Evolution takes several generations. If individualism is a mutation, then it has yet to demonstrate its worth to society as virtually most societies are still primarily collectivistic, and true individualists tend to be terrorists and serial killers. Indiviualism lends itself well to egotists and sociopaths.
 
Last edited:
I think Humans are collectivist by nature, in the west we kid ourselves that the extended family (or the "tribe) is not important but I think it is tremendously important for our psychological development.

I agree with this. With a few reservations. My dad's side of the family (all SJ's) is very much about sticking with family no matter what, because you can't choose them. I disagree with this. If there is a family member you don't get along with, why should you be required to be around them if you don't get along? I see this as similar to a forced friendship, which is something I will not do.
 
I agree with this. With a few reservations. My dad's side of the family (all SJ's) is very much about sticking with family no matter what, because you can't choose them. I disagree with this. If there is a family member you don't get along with, why should you be required to be around them if you don't get along? I see this as similar to a forced friendship, which is something I will not do.

I'm not saying that all extended families/tribes are good, just that a strong extended family is more optimal than just a strong nuclear family. The nuclear family has a lot of weaknesses, including a lack of appropriate role models (the family ideally should be big enough to have good adult examples of each of the temperaments at least), another weakness is the with the death or departure of one parent all the burden goes on to a single person, that is too much to ask of one individual.

When I say extended families I don't mean all the separate individualistic nuclear families that just happen to be related that we have in the west, I'm talking of an ideal where everyone depends on each other. It's in our nature, if people don't feel that tribal connection with their family they seek it out in other ways, through gangs and hooliganism etc.

Yes I believe it takes a village to raise a child. :D

What I don't understand is how so many individualists can stand living in such big nations.
 
Last edited:
I support individualism and encourage a sense of an expanded ego. I feel people should always be free of thought and action (until it harms another/restrict their thought and action). However, no one can comfortably survive without the assistance and generosity of others. This generosity can't be forced, because that would contradict the individualism. Therefore, with people generally thinking of those around them as part of our own well being (we want to keep our friends healthy, so that we don't become depressed, but this isn't the conscious motive). However, this can only be encouraged, not forced. If one person doesn't want to contribute to another, let them be alone, and social psychology will make sure they're not supported and weeded out.
 
The constructs of "authority" and "capital" are not objective.
Clearly.

They require the subjective recognition of human beings. The recognition of the value of your currency, deeds, stock certificates, etc. requires the consensus of your fellow human beings, otherwise it is objectively nothing but paper.
Currency quite plainly has it's own fairly objective value (more below), whereas things like stock are much more speculative (being essentially privatized fiat currency).
Land and property deeds, however, are pretty objectively recognized.
You can only gain them through original appropriation (well, actually, we stole everything from the First Americans), or through trade.

I don't have to recognize that a deed symbolically represents property rights to a piece of land. In order to get people to acknowledge capital, the construct of authority must be used. For example, if I damage property that you have paper for, then a political force is going to make me pay for it with equitable capital via use of authority. They are going to make me recognize the value of your paper. I also don't have to recognize authority. As such, authority has only two means by which to make me recognize it. The first choice is through violence, and the other choice is by giving me a piece of the authority through democracy.
You make these statements under the presumption that law enforcement only works with governmental power.
Law enforcement, like any other service, can be privatized.

That is the reality. Otherwise, you would be forced to stay at home and defend all your physical goods and your land with your shotgun. There would not be a great deal of economic exchange, because there would be no recognized currency. People would have to barter. In essence, there would be very little freedom.
I think you are confused by something.
Currency predates fiat currency...
Currency original completely contained it's own value, which is why Roman coins and the like were made of gold. This evolved to goldsmith deeds that were essentially contracts between you and him offering the equal value of the metal you exchanged for it. Currency as a system of guarantee is immune to government meddling, which is why it no longer exists; governments want to be able to "manage" inflation.
Is the problem that you think contracts cannot exist without government?
 
Currency quite plainly has it's own fairly objective value (more below), whereas things like stock are much more speculative (being essentially privatized fiat currency).
Land and property deeds, however, are pretty objectively recognized.
You can only gain them through original appropriation (well, actually, we stole everything from the First Americans), or through trade.

I explained why currency does not have an objective value. (more below).

Deeds of any sort are in no way "objective". People have to recognize what the deed represents, otherwise it is nothing but a piece of paper. As such, you need something of a consensus from your fellow human beings to recognize the value of your deed.

As proof of this, I hereby reject all deeds that you own and proclaim your property mine. Now without an authoirty to protect your property, you are hereby force to stand guard of it, or I will come and claim it.

Wow, it wasn't all that objective was it? What can you do? Get some people together who recognize the value of your deed to help you defend it? Oh wait, that would still mean it is subjective!

You make these statements under the presumption that law enforcement only works with governmental power.
Law enforcement, like any other service, can be privatized.

Yes, we only have to look at Blackwater to know how wonderful that works out.

I think you are confused by something.
Currency predates fiat currency...
Currency original completely contained it's own value, which is why Roman coins and the like were made of gold. This evolved to goldsmith deeds that were essentially contracts between you and him offering the equal value of the metal you exchanged for it. Currency as a system of guarantee is immune to government meddling, which is why it no longer exists; governments want to be able to "manage" inflation.
Is the problem that you think contracts cannot exist without government?

I'm not confused about anything. Frankly, I was trying to simplify it for you, but if you need me to extrapolate then I have no problem doing so.

Gold only has value because humans give it value. Humans value, rare, shiny metals. Heck, at one point in history, salt was traded ounce for ounce for gold. As such, gold amounts to little more than a commodity without any objective value. Commodities in turn need the concept of private ownership, otherwise I could just take your gold, salt, whatever, and there would be little you could do to stop me. Hence you need an authority to help protect your commodities so you can transport and trade them, and you need an authority backed currency in which to determine the supply and demand for your commodity.

Unless of course, you just want to barter it. Which is what I said you would end up doing.

Want to trade 5 chickens for a bar of gold?
 
Last edited:
I think individualism is an illusion.
Individualism is used to describe an ideology which promotes self-interest. That is to say, you are more likely to know what you want for breakfast than I do. Even if I was to do a widespread nationwide culinary habit survey, this would still likely be true. In regards to collectivism, there needs to be clarification to whether we are talking about forced collectivism or voluntary collectivism. Hence that historically, one form of collectivist society has been more successful than any other, of course I'm talking about the family unit. I hope that some people see where I am going with this - it is important to consider scale as well as access to information when considering political ideas.
 
Last edited:
My view on the debate between individualism and collectivism is to combine the power of these two philosophies and to let the combination grow in its own, beautiful direction. I think that we should try and understand what makes people support ideas of individualism and collectivism before judging either philosophy.


What is good in individualism is that everyone gets to be themselves. Everyone gets to be the way that they naturally are, no one has to be a certain way just because they're a girl or a boy etc. Everyone can grow in their own direction and people don't have to be the same. Everyone is considered as their own personality. There doesn't have to be a norm that everyone should be introverted or extraverted, for example. Everyone gets to be themselves. That's the merit of individualism.


But collectivism is important, too. People need each other, and it is important for people to feel unity with other people; to feel that they are a valuable part of a community. I believe that today's general atmosphere is a little bit distorted in thinking of people as their own individuals instead of team members. I believe that people would feel a lot better if they weren't expected to be so independent, so individualistic-- if it wasn't a virtue to be "unique" and "different", or an exceptionally ingenious or successful "individual". An individual genious can achieve only a small percentage of the good that ten average team members can achieve.


So, I guess I lean towards collectivism (at least in today's world that overrates individualism and often understands it in damaging ways), but I do not want to deny the value and importance of a certain kind of individualism that considers and acknowledges everyone's personality.


It's interesting to see that many INFJs prefer individualism despite their use of Fe and I, as a probable INFP, and Quinlan, as an ISFP, prefer collectivism despite our use of Fi.


I also tend to agree with Satya; humans are social animals. I think that the Western society tends to forget that.


I didn't read the whole thread yet because of a lack of time, I think I will get to that later.
 
Last edited:
When I say extended families I don't mean all the separate individualistic nuclear families that just happen to be related that we have in the west, I'm talking of an ideal where everyone depends on each other. It's in our nature, if people don't feel that tribal connection with their family they seek it out in other ways, through gangs and hooliganism etc.

Yes I believe it takes a village to raise a child. :D

Yes, I agree! I grew up in a loving nuclear family and my childhood was good, but I have always longed for an extended family where I could be just one member of a large group and have all kinds of different people coming and going. It would feel like such a safe haven.
 
It's interesting to see that many INFJs prefer individualism despite their use of Fe and I, as a probable INFP, and Quinlan, as an ISFP, prefer collectivism despite our use of Fi.

Yeah it is interesting, I wonder if it might be because Fi is inherently individualistic regardless of societal standards, where Fi might be comforted by societal collectivism perhaps Fe feels bound by it.
 
Last edited: