Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by PunkBillCarson, May 9, 2018.
You two are really identifying, conformity or stagnation ?
Except that introverted doesn't mean non-social. You can be introverted and still be very social. And I'm not convinced that there isn't some level of inherent social need in humans. Again, being social doesn't mean being out constantly, or having all of the friends all of the time, or being some kind of party animal or something. It just means you interact with people, at all, at some point. Going to the corner store and and acknowledging the cashier while you pay for stuff is being social. Having a conversation on a forum is being social. Walking through a crowd without speaking to anyone is, on some level, a social interaction. I'm all for letting people do their own thing, but on some level, complete isolation isn't going to do anyone any favors. I do think the need for social interaction is not the same in every person, and is sometimes exaggerated, but I would have trouble believing it isn't a thing.
If nothing else, there's the biological urge to reproduce. You can't do that yourself, no matter how hard some people try
Primates in general tend to be more social when they're individually vulnerable. Gorillas and orangutans, especially the males, aren't anywhere near as social as the smaller monkeys. If you took reproduction out of the mix, the great apes would mostly be loners.
It's tricky and misleading to draw broad conclusions from evolutionary biology, but we're definitely a lot less vulnerable and arguably less driven by reproduction than we once were... in the sense that there's less danger for the individual, and a smaller percentage of our lifespan is spent during the main reproductive years (15 to 40 is a big chunk of your life when you only live to be 45 or so, but not so much when dying in the 70s or 80s isn't unusual).
On the other hand, civilization is largely based on interdependence. So even though our biological drives aren't pushing us to mingle as much, the systems that we created along the way (law, infrastructure, politics, economics, technology, education, etc) force us to depend on others. In a way, we've replaced the real necessity of mutual interaction with an artificial necessity.
People at the frontiers tend to be more individualistic than those in either less developed societies or more civilized environments. That goes for physical frontiers (the Wild West was a good example) as well as conceptual frontiers (think about the difference between the early days of the Internet and now).
Some people have no difficulty continuing to act socially when there's no basic necessity for it; but even social people are affected by living in an environment where there's no real threat to make interaction necessary. That's one reason why there always has to be an enemy out there somewhere, even if our religions and governments have to invent them. And that kinda explains why people feel (consciously or otherwise) that they can take or leave laws and customs more now than in past generations.