Individualism vs. The Collective: How much does society shape who we are?

I find myself grappling with a certain socio-philosophical dilemma, and I suspect this forum might be the ideal venue to solicit some deeper reflections on the matter.

The question is this: to what extent does the individual shape the prevailing mentality, and conversely, to what degree does that collective mentality mold the individual?

My inquiry was specifically prompted by a statement made by Kish: When everyone lies, no one is lying. When everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

Is it truly possible to refrain from judging an individual for acts of theft, corruption, or other socially destructive behaviors that undermine our shared values?

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself grappling with a certain socio-philosophical dilemma, and I suspect this forum might be the ideal venue to solicit some deeper reflections on the matter.

The question is this: to what extent does the individual shape the prevailing mentality, and conversely, to what degree does that collective mentality mold the individual?

My inquiry was specifically prompted by a statement made by Kish: When everyone lies, no one is lying. When everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

Is it truly possible to refrain from judging an individual for acts of theft, corruption, or other socially destructive behaviors that undermine our shared values?

Isn't it just dependent on the person?
Some people have more influence over their surroundings and end up shifting the local mentality—we won't get into how that works right now—while others are easily swayed, so the environment changes them instead. Isn't that just how it is?
Plus, aren't there countless different levels to how these things interact?

Science will claim that collective consciousness doesn't exist—meaning "mentality" is just a myth. They'll argue it's an abstract category invented by people. According to them, every decision is strictly an individual act based on how one person perceives their surroundings. They'll say "mentality" is merely a label used to describe a pattern of behavior seen in a group, rather than a real phenomenon or entity. I disagree.

Regarding the response, I don't think it's possible to refrain from judging; judgment is practically all we are capable of doing. If you are looking for legal judgment, then you are on the wrong forum.

"Mentality" is one of those super vague terms people love to hide behind when they don't actually have anything solid to say... It’s basically just a way to wrap everything up in a cloud of confusion.
When someone starts slapping all sorts of labels on an individual by calling them part of some specific "mentality," it feels like they're just trying to sound smart while reducing a whole person to a mere statistic or a "case study."
But honestly, nowadays, it’s rarely used to describe one person. Instead, it's thrown around to categorize entire groups, or even whole nations...
I can't shake the feeling that it's become this convenient little tool for selling smoke and avoiding any actual, deep thinking about who someone really is, or what a group is actually doing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the word is useless—if it were truly pointless, we probably wouldn't use it at all—but most of the time, it just feels like empty filler...

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself grappling with a certain socio-philosophical dilemma, and I suspect this forum might be the ideal venue to solicit some deeper reflections on the matter.

The question is this: to what extent does the individual shape the prevailing mentality, and conversely, to what degree does that collective mentality mold the individual?

My inquiry was specifically prompted by a statement made by Kish: When everyone lies, no one is lying. When everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

Is it truly possible to refrain from judging an individual for acts of theft, corruption, or other socially destructive behaviors that undermine our shared values?

No. It isn’t possible, and frankly, it shouldn't be. If that were the case, I might as well just end it all right now. "You're better off drinking poison immediately than trying to live honestly"—that's an old proverb of mine, quite wise if I do say so myself.
And it perfectly describes the state of America today.👎🙏

you can't really have a culture without some kind of art backing it up, I guess
and you definitely don't have an individual without a certain mindset driving things.

so... there's your answer, I suppose.

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself grappling with a certain socio-philosophical dilemma, and I suspect this forum might be the ideal venue to solicit some deeper reflections on the matter.

The question is this: to what extent does the individual shape the prevailing mentality, and conversely, to what degree does that collective mentality mold the individual?

My inquiry was specifically prompted by a statement made by Kish: When everyone lies, no one is lying. When everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

Is it truly possible to refrain from judging an individual for acts of theft, corruption, or other socially destructive behaviors that undermine our shared values?

It's a two-way street; they both create one another. A strong individual can forge a mindset that eventually trickles down to weaker people who just fall in line. In that scenario, the individual builds the mindset, which then feeds back into the person through shared knowledge, effectively molding them. You could argue that a stronger person creates a weaker person, until someone comes along even stronger than the current status quo—someone who finally breaks the mold and crafts a new way of thinking. It's basically a cycle where whoever holds more weight wins.

I was particularly inspired by Kish's statement: Where everyone lies, no one lies. Where everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

That's true because if there is a total absence of truth, you don't even have the consciousness to realize truth exists in the first place.

Is it actually possible not to condemn an individual for theft, corruption, or other socially destructive behavior?

Sure, it’s possible—if those crimes are happening in a community where such actions are considered morally upright, acceptable, or even encouraged.

Who’s actually driving the bus here? Is it the individual shaping the collective mindset, or does the collective mindset eventually dictate the individual? In the beginning, a group of people operates based on their own logic and desires, gradually molding a shared culture. Every newcomer adds their own flavor to the mix, reshaping that collective identity like a ball of Play-Doh. But as time passes and the group expands, that "mindset" hardens. It becomes more rigid, leaving the individual with less and less power to influence its direction. This cycle has been playing out for centuries right up to the present day. By the time we arrive as newcomers, we have almost zero impact; instead, the established culture acts like a parental figure, molding us to fit its shape. Think of it as a mechanism: you have just enough influence to potentially break the system if you cause a minor glitch, yet your actual actions feel incredibly subtle because you’re just one drop in an ocean of people keeping the whole machine running.

Ha! 😳

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself grappling with a certain socio-philosophical dilemma, and I suspect this forum might be the ideal venue to solicit some deeper reflections on the matter.

The question is this: to what extent does the individual shape the prevailing mentality, and conversely, to what degree does that collective mentality mold the individual?

My inquiry was specifically prompted by a statement made by Kish: When everyone lies, no one is lying. When everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

Is it truly possible to refrain from judging an individual for acts of theft, corruption, or other socially destructive behaviors that undermine our shared values?

You really ought to check out this documentary, Cymatics 🙂


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2752013377089#

.. yeah .. it's possible .. .. and honestly, that's the future ..

Based on what I’ve managed to observe from my surroundings—and after digging through various, more or less scholarly sources—one realizes that mentality is simply learned or internalized. It happens during the process of upbringing, growing up, and general personality formation... much like how one absorbs an entire sequence of behavioral patterns, thought processes, and value systems. People often adopt ready-made personality types or identify themselves with a specific demographic slice, a certain cultural circle, an ideology, a faith, or an intellectual movement—and then they call this "individuality."

In this dynamic, the stronger force shapes the weaker one; family, society, and the media exert far more influence over an individual than that individual can exert upon themselves during their formative years. One might manage to assert some agency, but usually only quite late in life and in truly exceptional cases—and even then, they are often merely choosing between alternative prefabricated personalities or established ways of thinking, which they might slightly modify...

Furthermore, mentality is sustained and reproduced over time, as individuals pass their mindset onto those in their immediate environment who are still in the stages of development and personality formation. This process multiplies exponentially through culture and mass media...

Mentality does change with the times.
It is primarily driven by technological advancement and shifts in the requirements and conditions of economic and political systems—or, in extreme scenarios, sudden changes in living conditions and social regulations. Think of things like the imposition of different manufacturing regulations, the sanctioning of certain social activities, sudden famines, prolonged wars, and so on... or perhaps as a consequence of the isolation of a specific segment of the population, such as the prison mentality.
Mass media plays a significant role here, mostly by repeatedly broadcasting specific personality models, phrases, modes of thought, and norms over time—or simply by exposing the public to one ready-made mindset instead of another.
Religious organizations also have an influence, though they generally serve to maintain the status quo.
There have even been recorded shifts in mentality due to changes in diet or the regulation of hygiene habits.

An individual may have a marginal impact on society, whether through some form of activism, or quite simply by consciously altering their own behavior, forming their own opinions, and sharing them with others—or most concretely, through the raising of their own children.

Then again, a larger group of organized individuals might have a slightly less marginal influence, though in those instances, they often end up creating a new form of mentality without even being aware of it.

Generally speaking, mentality is difficult to change. For instance, it would be easier to shift a worldview or a way of thinking, largely because mentality is mostly unconscious within the individual and tends to form irrationally. Changes in mentality often manifest as a reaction or an adaptation, making it incredibly difficult to predict how—or by what means—one could intentionally alter the mentality of a population, other than through the methods of mass media, where a new model is simply imposed through repetition until the old one is pushed aside...

Historically speaking, the most effective methods for changing or shaping a mentality are organized education and the training of discipline within a population, or the long-term combined influence of a particular worldview and specific economic or political conditions.

At least, that is my personal opinion; I am certainly no expert.

And yes, obviously, one can refrain from judging—that happens every day. Whether that is right or wrong, and by what criteria we should judge it, is a different question entirely...

Quincy:

I was just sitting here thinking about how everything seems to be shifting lately, almost like you can feel the pressure building up before a storm hits... it’s that strange, heavy stillness in the air, you know? It reminds me of those long afternoons back in the Midwest where the heat just sits on you, thick and unmoving, and you realize that nothing is ever quite as stable as we like to pretend it is... people talk about certainty, but there's no such thing, not really... it all just flows and changes, much like how we try to make sense of the noise around us, searching for some kind of rhythm or pattern in the chaos... but sometimes, the more you look, the less you actually see... anyway, I suppose I'm just rambling now... kaže: The question is... It’s one of those deep, circular questions that keeps you staring at the ceiling at three in the morning, isn't it... how much does an individual actually shape their own mindset, versus how much is just the collective mentality of society molding them into what they are... it feels like a constant tug-of-war between personal agency and the crushing weight of cultural conditioning... you start out thinking you're making your own choices, truly believing you are, but then you realize how much of your internal compass was calibrated by the people around you, the media you consume, the very air you breathe in this country... and yet, there's that spark, that stubborn part of the human spirit that pushes back against the grain, trying to carve out a unique way of seeing things despite everything... it's a feedback loop that never really ends, a continuous cycle where we build our world and then our world builds us right back again... I wonder if we ever truly escape the mold... or if we're just reacting to it in increasingly complex ways...

It goes both ways, really... I honestly believe we’re born with a certain predisposition toward a specific mindset already baked in. In those early years, when you're just a kid, the mentality of whatever environment you're dropped into takes over—it basically dictates who you are—but as you get older, that individual spirit starts to catch up... you eventually find your own innate character and your own way of thinking, regardless of how you were raised...

Donna Campbell6 said:

I was just sitting here thinking about Florine, and honestly, my mind keeps wandering back to how everything seems to be shifting lately... it’s like one moment you think you have a handle on things, and then the next, the whole landscape changes under your feet without any warning at all... it makes you wonder if anyone is actually paying attention to the details that really matter, or if we're all just drifting along in this strange, modern haze... anyway, I suppose that's just how it goes sometimes... kaže: That question really hit home for me, especially after hearing that statement from Kish... It’s one of those paradoxes that just keeps circling back on itself... where if everyone is lying, then nobody is actually telling the truth, yet if everything is a lie, nothing really carries any weight at all... It’s all just a giant, swirling loop of nothingness...

Well, you know what they say... if you tell a lie often enough, eventually people just start accepting it as the gospel truth... it’s wild how that works...
It’s honestly pretty telling how so many people can spot a lie right in front of their faces, yet they just look the other way, ignoring everything they know to be true and doing absolutely nothing about it... It really just highlights the typical state of affairs in this country. You have to wonder if the issue is just pure ignorance born out of laziness and a desire for comfort, or if it’s something deeper, like it's actually baked into the very fabric of the American mentality... 🤷

Donna Campbell6 said:

I don't know, I was just sitting here thinking about how everything seems to be drifting toward this weird, inevitable conclusion... you know? It’s like we’re all just watching the pieces move on a board we didn't even realize we were playing on, and honestly, it makes me want to just throw my hands up and walk away from the whole mess... but then again, I can't, because that's just not how this works... anyway, regarding florine... kaže: Is it actually possible... I mean, really, truly possible, or are we just spinning our wheels in the sand here... because sometimes I sit back and wonder if any of this even holds water when you look at the bigger picture... Don't go judging... What exactly constitutes an individual's liability when it comes to theft, corruption, or those kinds of socially unacceptable, downright destructive behaviors...? It’s one of those questions that just keeps circling back around in my head, especially when you look at how people act nowadays... there's no clear line sometimes between being a screw-up and being a genuine threat to the fabric of everything we built here in America... it makes you wonder where the accountability actually begins and ends...

It’s entirely possible... honestly, that’s just the reality we live with every single day...
And who’s going to be the first one to throw the stone...

I suppose... mentality is really just those internalized, informal rules for how one behaves under certain circumstances. It sort of explains why our workers abroad don't maintain the same work ethic they have here in America. Using simple common sense, I guess, they realize that working hard actually pays off over there, whereas here... well, it doesn't feel like it does. The question is valid, I think. Even if we were to introduce incentives modeled after Western standards—which is what's being announced now (though, let's be honest, it'll probably just be rigged to benefit specific special interest groups anyway)—even if it were a genuinely well-designed reform, the core issue remains: how do you actually change a mindset? People need a certain mental framework because they have to make decisions every single day, and most people just don't have the time to sit down and rationally weigh all the ramifications of those choices. So, they simplify everything through what they call "mentality," or "folk wisdom," or just little jokes and sayings like "wing it, buddy" or "it wasn't meant to be" or "whatever happens, happens." It’s a way of coping, I suppose. Because humans aren't perfectly rational actors, yet at the same time, we can't act purely on raw fear or animal instinct either. It's a strange middle ground, I guess.

Well, now, a question arises regarding why certain individuals seem to absorb a specific mindset far more readily than others. I suppose one might wonder if some people are simply more stubborn, or if they are naturally predisposed toward one temperament over another. Personally, I suspect it is the latter case. People are born with varying degrees of creativity, I think; it seems only logical that a culture of laziness—the kind that serves mediocrity while frustrating those who actually want to build and create—would be particularly grating to those with a creative nature. Of course, it would be quite difficult to blame an entire nation for perpetuating such a lackadaisical attitude. It is much easier, perhaps, to point the finger at a small group of parasites within the parallel power who seize control and promote passivity just to suit their own interests. But when you look at it from that angle, you run into certain logical difficulties, because...

You can actually find a book online by Domagoj Margetić called "Parallel Power." In it, he goes after this specific group of people—you know, those "Hennessy guys," basically just former Republican tech managers and elites. He claims they were the ones who orchestrated the entire transition and privatized all the major corporations just to cling to the same power they held back during the old regime... I guess his point is that they were just trying to "smooth over" the shift to keep control. And honestly, that would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the author seems to lie quite a bit. He throws out these random, totally unproven accusations, like claiming there’s some connection to Muslim terrorists, which feels a bit much. Plus, he completely ignores the other, much larger faction within the party. It's like the right-wing Republicans and certain other bad actors are just conveniently bypassed or given an amnesty in his narrative. He places all the blame for the messy economic transition and the corruption on that first group. It starts to feel like he’s really speaking for the crowd that lost the election against Mason back in 2000. Since those folks were focused on fighting that war in Canada, it makes sense that they'd want to link the other corrupt politicians to Muslim terrorists. I suppose their ultimate argument isn't even about being honest or anti-corruption today; maybe they just want to get back to that conflict in Canada. He also seems incredibly bothered by the fact that Vujić funded certain intellectuals and their publications. But strangely, it doesn't seem to bother him at all that someone like Miroslav Kutle caused absolute chaos across the coast, including with outlets like the Free Dalmatian. If he acknowledged that, he’d have to link himself to that first group of crooks he hates so much—the ones Feral wrote about back in 2006. Then he'd have to admit that, in reality, everyone involved was just equally crooked.

I suppose this is what I’d call a certain kind of mentality. It’s just one group of crooks and liars pointing fingers at other crooks and liars, all just to pave the way so they can lie even more and steal even more in the next phase. And then, I guess, if you actually go ahead and write it down—if you provide the evidence and suggest that everything should be turned over to the FBI or some federal agency—you end up being labeled as someone in conflict "with all of society." It's because, well, practically everyone is living off some sort of questionable income, isn't it? One has to wonder how much people actually earned through honest work versus how much was just handed to them through nepotism, political connections, or those shady loopholes in the system.

I wonder... where is the way out of this cycle? It seems like there aren't many people left who actually bother to consistently avoid lying or stealing, mostly because being an honest person comes with such a heavy price tag. And those few who do try to stay upright? They’re already just exhausted from everything they've had to sacrifice. At this point, they don't even have the energy to try and fix a culture of dishonesty that feels pretty much baked into the system anyway. I suppose the thing is, the drive fueled by pure greed is just as powerful as the drive fueled by principle—but there are far more greedy people out there than principled ones, I guess.

But, I suppose, if you truly intend to make an impact from the standpoint of independent media or the intellectual community, it would be quite desirable to avoid adopting that same old mindset—you know, by simply not lying. And it isn't even necessarily true that everyone lies just for a paycheck; some people lie out of spite or pure malice, while others... well, maybe they just grab at any chance to have their five minutes of fame when they don't actually have anything intelligent to contribute. Or perhaps they are just pathological liars, or they lie out of cowardice because they're terrified someone might push them around for knowing certain truths. Mostly, it seems people lie or blend truth with falsehood just to bend things to their own will, since, frankly, nobody really values the truth for its own sake. Truth itself is worth absolutely nothing in this world, and maybe even less than nothing, if you ask me.

.. mindset is what experts call "mob mentality" .. the crowd .. the masses .. and those masses are always the ones pulling the strings ..
.. when the mob shifts, it feels like tectonic plates .. or entire continents grinding against each other .. that's how mountains are formed .. creating this illusion that some people are standing higher than others .. but in reality, it's all just dirt ..

.. do you guys actually grasp historical materialism .. or the idea of a sovereign, independent, free America?
.. the mindset of the ruling class .. the mob .. while individuals are stuck in every newspaper fighting against them .. clearly and fiercely ..
.. you wouldn't even see that kind of dynamic in Cambodia .. even among the Khmer Rouge ..

.. mindset is a biological state .. there's no point in arguing .. individuals within a pack of "mob mentality" don't need to be granted any freedom .. their sense of self is about as distinct as a rock in a canyon or a tree in a forest ..

.. and honestly .. it's all just a matter of perspective ..
.. Jesus was an individual .. though .. he still liked to hang out and tell stories ..
.. and even someone like Bill Clinton is an individual .. a farmer once told him he was quite a miracle .. the one true American individualist .. he's been in the spotlight for decades now .. and despite everything he's presided over .. nothing has changed his core ..
.. mindset is .. a club for the brokenhearted followers of the establishment .. whereas the individual .. is more like a lone wolf ..

I suppose there’s a certain hierarchy at play here. Even this forum seems to have its own specific "vibe," if you will. But it isn't quite the same as the mindset you find among the rank-and-file workers at Amtrak—most of whom probably didn't even finish middle school and might struggle with basic literacy, so they wouldn't even know how to navigate a forum like this anyway.

Amtrak basically acts as a breeding ground for a certain way of thinking. You really only need one Uncle Lou to infect the whole system; once that Amtrak-mentality reaches the top of the social pyramid, it starts shaping everything to fit its own mold. That’s why, I think, elections in a democracy actually matter. It isn't just about whether one candidate has better policies than another—since everyone ends up debating the same old issues regardless—but rather about shifting the collective mindset. In the USA, when the Obama mentality takes over from the Bush mentality, you see an immediate shift. The number of "redneck" types tends to dip while the number of "go-getters" rises, simply because the environment becomes more conducive to their growth, media outlets open up more opportunities for them, and so on.

I notice there are people here who can't stand USA Today, mostly because it's filled with writers like Jim Naylor, Jelena veljača, the FBI, and Jergović, all of whom contribute to a very particular cultural atmosphere. It makes me wonder... why hasn't anyone started a thread dedicated to the New York Post to dissect all the nonsense coming from Ivkošić, Jajčinović, and the rest of that crowd? To me, that lack of scrutiny shows just how low our collective intellectual standard really is.