Completely Random Thoughts

[Nobody]

If we eliminate all groups and are supposed to only identify as 'human', then we will all be expected to act the same and think the same, which is not healthy for humanity. 

Actually, the opposite is more likely.  Not identifying as a member of a group allows a person to make his/her own decisions and come to personal conclusions without the worry of alienation from the group.

I have really enjoyed losing all party affiliation, for instance.  I don't have to agree with parts of the party line that I don't agree with.  I don't have to deal with the whole, "how can you be friends with him?  He's a democrat or republican" bullshit.

Actually, groupthink is just a self imposed limitation, and not joining groups doesn't prevent you from doing much of anything worth doing.  Also, it makes it easier to be a contrarian, not harder.

[Quantum Vagina]

I'm starting to use the voice and method of talking that I use when talking to customers on the phone in my everyday life. Someone posted on Facebook that their phone had been stolen, and my first thought was "Oh my! I've very sorry to hear that your phone has been stolen, I know it's a huge pain to have to go through that, let's pull up your account and see what to do to get the phone and account on the lost or stolen list!" Apparently my trainer does that when talking to his 1 and a half year old daughter. Dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[Variety of Cells]

If we eliminate all groups and are supposed to only identify as 'human', then we will all be expected to act the same and think the same, which is not healthy for humanity. 

So, one big group is bad, but lots of smaller groups are good?  Sorry, what you are saying in that sentence above is exactly the problem with groups, people treated the same in them even though they are all individuals that might share some statistic.

Everyone should be treated as an individual.

Except the clones of course, fuck them...

But individuals are made up of groups.  Imparting all negative (and positive) stereotypes onto every individual in a particular group is harmful and unwise.  But ignoring the groups that make up a person is also unwise.  There is nothing wrong with groups themselves.  Being a part of a group can be very rewarding, and they can help protect and provide for you.  Solidarity is a strong feeling.  It makes logical and evolutionary sense to be part of a few groups.  It's an individual's view of other groups that can cause problems.

If we eliminate all groups and are supposed to only identify as 'human', then we will all be expected to act the same and think the same, which is not healthy for humanity. 

Actually, the opposite is more likely.  Not identifying as a member of a group allows a person to make his/her own decisions and come to personal conclusions without the worry of alienation from the group.

I have really enjoyed losing all party affiliation, for instance.  I don't have to agree with parts of the party line that I don't agree with.  I don't have to deal with the whole, "how can you be friends with him?  He's a democrat or republican" bullshit.

Actually, groupthink is just a self imposed limitation, and not joining groups doesn't prevent you from doing much of anything worth doing.  Also, it makes it easier to be a contrarian, not harder.

Not joining a group prevents you from doing quite a lot actually.  It's pretty hard to get a job in the US if you aren't a citizen.  To get a work visa you need to be a citizen of some other country.  And voting is right out.  You can't gain the spiritual benefits of religion without being a member.  And you can't crash at your parents place when you lose your job if you aren't a member of your family.  (And you can't post here without signing up)

There are a lot of groups that aren't worth joining.  But there are also a lot of meaningful groups that impact our lives, and make an individual different from those who are not in the same group.  Ignoring that doesn't make sense. 

[Nobody]

Two things: groups are composed of individuals.  Vice versa makes no logical sense.

And citing families and citizenship is a major stretch, given where the conversation started.  I guess being an American citizen makes me part of a group, but that's not what Marty or myself were referring to, which would be better described as "sub-groups", which are created more to separate people than anything else. 

I didn't chose my family, so I don't see it as a group akin to considering myself an Irish-American (I don't.  I'm just an American).  Where my ancestors lived means very little to who I am and how I live my life today.

[d00hickey]

Kind of wished I was around for the bulk of this discussion, when I took that Native American Studies class (like the name or not that's what it said on the syllabus) as part of my minor in Cultural Anthropology (dropped out eventually so no degrees here )

People Identify very strongly with where they come from, think nationalism, patriotism, or just being proud of your home town. For a lot of people this is one of the greatest force in developing their identity.

On a completely different subject I don't know if "Native American" is the the best term to use or not, it's an interesting discussion though.

I would like to make the point that the term America doesn't mean USA, it's the entire land mass on this hemisphere including two continents. So being called anything American is a pretty broad description. A guy from Chile and I guy from Canada are both Americans.

[Nobody]

"Citizen of the United States of America" is a little long winded.  "US citizen" is better, I guess.

[RVR II]

"Citizen of the United States of America" is a little long winded.  "US citizen" is better, I guess.

IMMAMERICAN MAN!!

[Variety of Cells]

Two things: groups are composed of individuals.  Vice versa makes no logical sense.

And citing families and citizenship is a major stretch, given where the conversation started.  I guess being an American citizen makes me part of a group, but that's not what Marty or myself were referring to, which would be better described as "sub-groups", which are created more to separate people than anything else. 

I didn't chose my family, so I don't see it as a group akin to considering myself an Irish-American (I don't.  I'm just an American).  Where my ancestors lived means very little to who I am and how I live my life today.

The groups a person joins, be it voluntary or involuntary, very much shape and form the way a person thinks and acts.  Therefore, an individual is composed of the groups he/she is a member of.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I'm not talking about families or book clubs, I'm talking about classifications of people.

[Variety of Cells]

I'm not talking about families or book clubs, I'm talking about classifications of people.

Ok, and what are some examples of the classifications you are talking about?

EDIT: As in meaningless terms like "Native American"?  Well I agree that particular term meaningless and potentially harmful.  Though there are others that serve a purpose. 

EDIT EDIT:  Really, the term "Native American" refers to 'people the western world swindled and murdered to take their land, that lived on the continent known as America'.  So the term has some use, because that is a common experience that all Native American's ancestor's went through.  But the name itself isn't very accurate or appropriate. 

[Nobody]

Two things: groups are composed of individuals.  Vice versa makes no logical sense.

And citing families and citizenship is a major stretch, given where the conversation started.  I guess being an American citizen makes me part of a group, but that's not what Marty or myself were referring to, which would be better described as "sub-groups", which are created more to separate people than anything else. 

I didn't chose my family, so I don't see it as a group akin to considering myself an Irish-American (I don't.  I'm just an American).  Where my ancestors lived means very little to who I am and how I live my life today.

The groups a person joins, be it voluntary or involuntary, very much shape and form the way a person thinks and acts.  Therefore, an individual is composed of the groups he/she is a member of.

No, the group is composed of its members.  The individuals are "influenced" or, possibly, "shaped" by what they have learned or experienced as a result of being members of those groups.  Semantically, "composed of" is just not logical.

I learned a lot from my parents, my opinions are partially influenced by my time spent with them, but I am not my parents.  I am very much an individual, separate from and different from them.  I am not an amalgam of them other than genetically.  I certainly don't contain all of the genetic data of everyone I went to high school with, nor was I particularly influenced by the majority of those people, since I didn't even know most of them. 

Citizenship is even greater of an abstraction.  I know maybe a hundred or so of the millions of US citizens out there, yet I'm composed of them all?  That's nonsense.  I'm thinking this would make sense to me if I were a big fan of collectivism, which I'm not. 

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Several paragraphs deleted, just don't feel like going into it any more.

[Nobody]

Several paragraphs deleted, just don't feel like going into it any more.

Too bad.  I was interested in your take on it. 

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I'll just say that going back to the first comment about how humans evolved to think in groups, I'd say that's something each person needs to fight against, think for yourself and don't follow.

Then there's the whole can of worms when it comes to "pride", way to complicated for random thoughts.  And I'm in a lousy mood at the moment so can't think of any jokes to add...

[d00hickey]

I'll just say that going back to the first comment about how humans evolved to think in groups, I'd say that's something each person needs to fight against, think for yourself and don't follow.

Then there's the whole can of worms when it comes to "pride", way to complicated for random thoughts.  And I'm in a lousy mood at the moment so can't think of any jokes to add...

A agree with you that people should think for themselves.

Culture is defined as: The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

The key word being 'collectively'. Whether or not you "fight for yourself, think for yourself" could be a product of your biology but is more likely a concept ingrained in your culture.

Individuality is a cultural concept shared by many people collectively, you could feel this way alone but you cannot deny the effects of the culture of the people around you, from your life, on your belief systems.