[QvhhbjLy]

Individualism and Socialism, these two ideologies oppose one-another. The former supports the role of the lone individual; the latter supports the role of the combined society. These represent two distinct entities: an individual organism ('Humanity') compared to a collective organism ("The State").

It is a matter of self-identification: are you individual or social, psychopathic or sociopathic?


One of the first biological, instinctive impulses developed by all living organisms is the fear of foreignness. This is "Xenophobia". As individuals, all creatures fear other creatures in physical appearance unlike themselves. As indicated by proof of identical twins, identical twins form much more 'Significant' pair-bonding than "normal" people. Identical twins even often attend the same school, college, and marry other identical twins. Why is this; what is the reason? The reason is lack of fear. Whereas all biological organisms distrust creatures of unlike appearance ~ the identical twin as a genetic phenomenon should not come as a surprise with respect to the demonstration of Xenophobia or the lack thereof.

This is not absolute… even identical twins share dissimilarities in some (very small) appearances, tone of voice, displacement, attitude, ideology. One becomes 'Dominant' over the other, although perhaps only noticed by a few (ie. their mother). Mothers often can distinguish between two identical children whereas outsiders and strangers cannot… call it "maternal intuition" although deeper reasons become apparent. The smaller subtleties demonstrate a clear lack of 'Identity' as a separation between the two. In other words, in the simplest terms: Identical Twins really means almost-identical twins. It is not-quite-so. There exist small dissimilarities if not from birth then throughout development. If one identical twin suffers a car accident, and becomes dismembered, then the body is no longer 'identical' to the other twin. This is a primary example.

Furthermore, in non-human species, "identical twins" remains a matter-of-fact. Using insects as an example, a mother/queen insect may birth 100s, 1000s or perhaps 1000000s of "identical twins". This is the genetic nature of insects, and some other species. Thus Xenophobia becomes all the more apparent as a natural, biological mechanism. In other words, the fear latent in dissimilarity is compulsory to all living beings. There exists a fear of the unknown.

Thus Xenophobia becomes manifest & evolved into the concept of 'Sociopathy'. As a result of Fear-driven paranoia, given the basic dissimilarity of appearance between species (eg. insects & humans), a catharsis occurs and allegiances form as Species themselves. After all, what is Specie or Genus anything more than superficial appearance? Does a human identify with leopards, monkeys, or fish in the sea? The answer is: "No." Because humanity is its own (category of) Specie. "We" constitute "Humanity". We are Human.

But this is not good-enough in terms of Biology and Evolution. Because at distinct points in Human History, the Predator of Mankind eventually became Man-himself. By rising to the top of the "food chain", and the pyramid of the animal kingdom, man eventually "turned on himself". The fictional & mythical story between Cain and Abel represents this Truth. As Mankind eventually protected his own specie (ie. Tribe) from Predation… the Predation turned brother against brother. The first "Murder" is a reflection of this fact. Since Mankind had no other challengers to the throne of power, and Evolution, Man became pitted against himself as a creature of survival & habit. After all, a human cannot "murder" non-humans. Proven by the fact: non-humans are not afforded "Human Rights" but rather lesser, inferior "Animal Rights". This is how Humanity thinks of "animals", as "lesser beings".

This presumed, biological, and innate sense of superiority becomes evident through the concepts of Xenophobia and Sociopathy. By understanding the development of both… one can understand the formulation for Inferiority or Superiority Complex. Because one seeks to determine master, to slave, as primary, to secondary. This is Predation. Man represents domination on this 'hierarchy' as he exists within the "Animal Kingdom" himself. If Man (factually) is an animal then we are all reduced to the terms implied by our own statements. We are either animal and thus "equal to" other animals. Or we are "Man" and thus "superior than" other animals. This is the logical necessity implied by the summation of Xenophobia and Sociopathy.

Make no value judgments! ~ It neither is 'good' nor 'bad' that Mankind divides ourselves into tribes, ethnicities, races, countries, cultures, religions, etc. It simply is a fact of the matter. Because xenophobia merely does not apply to that of Specie and Genus, but also the inner-conflict of man, the one represented by the first 'murder' in all of Human History of Brother to Brother, Cain and Abel. Because before this distinction of "mankind" as a specie, no such 'murder' could exist. After all, Murder is figurative & symbolic. Murder represents an interspecieal transgression! It represents a conflict between 'Man' as those of the same family would kill one-another, destroying the concept of survival (as a specie), rather than work as a collective against "external threats". But Man has no "external threats" now, or for a long, long time passed.

However Sociopathy is the result of an ancient, primal fear. Because men (used to) fear the dark jungles, plains, and forests… we had developed a sense of innate trust between likeness. "Because you have the same skin as me ~ we can trust another." And its development… "Because you have the same face as me ~ we can trust another." Or… "Because you share the same House, Clan, or European Flag as me ~ we can trust another." Even further… "Because we call 'God' by the same name ~ we can trust another." This represents the transition of human trust from social institution to social institution throughout all of Human History. Trust is the key to survival. But is this true???

Of course not!!!


Just because you are of the same colored skin, does not mean a man will not murder you, or because of ethnicity, phenotype, culture, religion, society, flag, whatever. Thus the concept of 'Trust' runs much deeper than these things… these 'Social' contrivances. As Cain and Abel represent: upon the first Murder between brother & brother, trust cannot occur within any family based upon either likeness or sociopathy. Thus sociopathy develops both an inherent false sense of trust and communion between people. And if you cannot trust another based-upon superficial appearance alone then what is left to trust and form allegiance with?

This is the difficult question I plan to leave everybody with…


If Sociopathy is the evolved response to Xenophobia (in all possible lifeforms) then what is the true nature of 'Trust' and 'Likeness'? Why do people trust, and in whom, and how? What is the nature of 'Trust' if brothers cannot trust one-another, and the Will to Power exists within the first family circle? Finally speaking… gazing-upon one's own Reflection in a mirror ~ how can anyone refuse to trust that primary form of likeness?

That is where the truly disturbing questions begin…

[myspacepro]

U|nome, instead of presenting your dehumanizng opinions you should just do what I tell you.

[celddiskend]

If man is an animal then yes my opinions are dehumanizing, but is this true?

[nizcreare]

Physical Anthropology ---> Race & Ethnicity in Society.

//mod

[Hftqdxpm]

If man is an animal then yes my opinions are dehumanizing, but is this true?

My twin's an animal I know that much.

[sjdflghd]

Socialism is problematic in that it is a very specific form of collectivism, other than that I agree with you. Although, humans evolved to exist in communities of around 150 people, ergo we can't really know more than 150 people as true humans, beyond that we have to make use of stereotypes/assumptions.

Skin colour is probably not a great indicator of someone's intentions most of the time, especially not in a mono-racial society (when it is no indicator at all of their intentions), but on occasion (as has been noted in the thread on segregating prisons to stop interracial violence/rape) it can be useful.

[zlopikanikanza]

I mainly am interested in: 1) physical similarity in non-human species, including insects as the most obvious example, 2) genetically identical twins, and 3) how people identify with their own self-image, like in a mirror.

And how 'Socialization' becomes produced coinciding with physical identification of others; people generally trust those who look similar in appearance.

[Kuncher]

tl;dr: We look for reasons to trust others since humans are both social creatures with group identities as well as egotistical creatures who love to boost their own ego. As a result, we look for ways to boost our ego via group identity subconsciously (sometimes consciously as well). The occurrence of trust based on arbitrary features such as lineage, religion, etc, is simply an expression of us boosting our ego via group identity.

And now onto the actual post...

Ultimately, I think the relationship between trust and group identity is a question of in-groups and out-groups.

The classifications of groups you pointed out for the basis of trust are just that: groups. As such, we can say that all non-reclusive humans belong to at least one group. Correct? That will give that individual distinction between those who he knows and feels affinity with based on group membership, and those he does not know and feel affinity towards. Naturally, he begins to view himself as a member as that group which will solidify into definite groups in the individual's mind. He then begins to view the group as a faucet of himself.

For a real world example, take the goths. If a person hangs out with a goth clique long enough, he will begin to associate himself with goth culture. Eventually, if the interaction with the goth clique continues, he will begin to take on goth values, clothing styles, thought patterns, etc. He himself might not say the words, "I am a goth," but he will think it on an unconscious level, that he is apart of the goth group, and thus view the group as a representation of himself.

Anyways, back to the point...

Herein lines the secret of in-groups and out-groups. Our hypothetical man has created a group identity for himself. For the purpose of this post, it is the goth group. For this next part, we need to agree that man is an egotistical creature. He enjoys that which boosts his view of himself, and that which increases his view of himself relative to others. In other words, he likes personal success (winning contests, compliments, praise, getting raises, etc) as well as seeing others fail in areas our hypothetical person prides himself in.

If we keep this quirk of human nature as well as our understanding of how humans see the groups they belong to as a faucet of himself, we begin to understand where this blind trust from group membership comes from. Because man is egotistical, he wants to see the best in himself. Because he is apart of a group and sees the group as a faucet of himself, he wants to see the best from his group because he will be seeing the best in himself by proxy, whether consciously or subconsciously.

From here, a known phenomena known as "confirmation bias" takes over to reinforce these mechanisms in play. Confirmation bias is just the tendency for people to look for situations which confirm their views of the world. Subconscious cherry picking of facts, you can say.

As a result of all of these mechanisms, our individual begins to trust those in his in-group more than those in any out-group, even if there is no statistical basis which says that his group is, in fact, more trustworthy than anyone outside of his group.

If you'd like to read more on in-groups and out-groups, I'd highly recommend digging around. The concept of in- and out- groups is of importance to sociology and psychology, so there's been a lot written on the subject as well as related subjects.