Nothing wrong with being a loner

Instincts are not exactly the same for everyone. Some humans are not instinctively gregarious. Fear (I suspect even irrational fear) is 1 of the most common human instincts yet I have none & am much the better without it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would agree with you in the sense that you're using the word, but I was thinking in terms of biological instincts passed by heredity. On second thought, though, I think this opens another door: if there are genes which code for gregarious behavior, then do humans have a full set? Most apes are instinctively gregarious, and the advantages, I think, are that they can distribute the energy of watching for predators that way, and they probably can share the benefits of foraging that way. By all the evidence, humans seem to have always lived cooperatively in tribes or enclaves. But after reading your comment, I remembered that some male gorillas are loners, who tolerate a harem or females with offspring in tow, as long as they only eat his scraps. So now, for anyone who, like me, thinks we are mostly the product of genetic and cultural programming, this leads to the scientific question of how genetics and acculturation interact, and to what extent the gregarious instinct can be squelched by other instincts, such as those in the gorillas who, I suspect, probably are acting out a higher priority for sexual selection.

This is another quite deep subject I think. We tend to think of fear as an emotion, when it's typically nothing more than flight from a predator, given the choice of "fight or flight". Of course big ferocious animals like grizzly bears can be scared off by strange noises, which indicates that they have evolved an instinct equivalent to flight from predators which may have more to do with a sense of risk associated with their curiosity. But consider the birds who had no fear of Darwin. They had evolved in a world free of predators.

How do you mean that? If you were near Times Square when an alert came on your phone that a bomb was detected there, surely you would at least exit the area, right? Or if a culvert fell from a truck into your path as you were driving, surely you would use the brakes and steering to avoid it, right? Or did you just mean you wouldn't panic? Because at some proximity to that culvert, or upon seeing a man rip open his trench coat to reveal a vest wired with sticks of explosives, you would probably at least feel a sense of urgency in taking evasive maneuvers. I mean any normal person would expend a lot of effort to avoid being slaughtered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah okay guys

Anyway , nothing wrong with being a loner

Through history most deep thinkers were

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being a loner is much harder than walking with the herd. The herd or village can compensate for deficits within its members. While the loner needs to be a herd onto him or herself. The loner needs a higher level of self reliance because there is no herd to compensate for any short comings. If a herd member needs water, they don't have to figure out how to get it. They look for someone else, in the herd, to point the way for them. The loner has to be more innovative and more self reliant, and figure out how to find water on their own. The herd can carry those without self reliance, those who would go extinct, if they became separated from the herd. The loner can separate and survive without the herd.

Based on this, one might expect that the loners, when they return, would be leaders of the herd, since they can survive with or without the herd, and therefore can lead the way for those without self reliance. But this is not always the case, since the loner is often driven away by the herd and not allowed to return. This irony has to do with politics of the herd, where words speak louder than actions. Those without self reliance, even with respect to ideas, assume the words mean the same as action.

In some American Indian cultures, the adolescent boys to men are ritualistically forced to leave the herd and become loners. They get very little in terms of supplies, and they need to prove they can survive as a loner. Some cultures require they need to fight and kill a bear or mountain lion, with a simple weapon they need to fabricate. If and when they return, with the skin of the bear or the feathers of the eagle, they become future leaders. Those who never leave the herd, learn how to adapt via the manipulation of words, instead of actions.

The natural purpose of the loner was the training needed to become a leader, who self reliance would benefit the entire herd of group reliant. He may even start a new herd. But this natural way changed once culture builds a capacitance of books, were one can approximate self reliance, without ever having to leave the herd. Innovators often leave their business herd to become leaders of a new herd of people, like it was from the beginning.

 

Not a post I would have expected from you, Wellwisher.
Nothing much to add, other than that in this time, there are very few avenues by which the loner might "prove himself" in order to become part of the herd. Or by which he might establish his own.

Very good.
Now let's see if you can apply all of that to those who society now deems as "unwell".

"...and talking to myself in public
and dodging glances on the train
and I know....I know they've all been talking about me
I can hear them whisper
and it makes me feel like there must be something
wrong... with me"

Matchbox 20 - "I'm not crazy"

 

In socialist philosophy, the self reliant individual is replaced by more dependency on the herding instinct of bigger government. One is forced to conform to the needs of the herd, with too much self reliance, apart from the herd, a taboo. Wealth and business, apart from the government, is taboo and evil to the herd, since it means self reliance that provides for its own little herd. The increasing number of homeless and unwell that wander the streets, is due to lack of self reliance skills, being taught within a dependency herd culture.

The America Indian cultures would not teach their young males to be overly dependent, on the herd, and then force them out into the wilderness to find their bear or climb the mountain to find their eagle. Rather they would teach them to be more self reliance, apart from the herd, so if when they had to wander, they were better prepared for success. Liberalism sets the wanderer up for failure, so he is afraid to leave the herd. If he does, he is not prepared; unwell.

The immigrants of past, knew they would not be fully accepted as part of the status quo herd, and therefore they knew they may need to wander on their own once they reached the shored. Their parents prepared them to be self reliant through the ethic of hard work and education. The new illegal immigrants assume a culture of blind herd acceptance and dependency, so if and when they need to separate, they are not prepared and will remain or become the unwell wandering the streets needing to be rescued.

With the American Indians, the females were taught to be more herd dependent learning the social and practical skills needed to help the herd. The teen age girl would not be forced to leave the tribe on her own and kill the bear. She did not need the same self reliant skills. This is true today, with feminization of culture, teaching everyone how to be dependent, in the proper PC way. The problem is if somehow one had to wander one will not be prepared; need other social programs still attached to the herd. Hilary Clinton says it takes a village, which may be true more for the indian women, children and elderly. But this is not how they taught the Indian male. They needed a different education.

If you went back 100 years ago, when culture was more masculine, you did not have the same level of the dependent unwell we have today. They would have been more self sufficiency skills taught, such that those who wander by instinct or circumstances, find a way to survive and/or start their own herd. This is all done with little or any big herd government programs.

 

You just levelled up.
Lore +1.

 

The other aspect, is the positive politics within the herd. If you were a four year old child, you can learn and be taught to be self sufficient in the home. The child can learn where the water and drinks are, where the food is in the fridge. Mom can prepare various healthful meals and snacks, all organized in little color coded containers, set up in sequence. The child can learn how to bath or shower and dress yourself with all their clothes clean in the closet and drawers, and all the shoes with velcro. The TV and computer can be set up and locked to certain activities, etc.

In the microcosm of the home, herd, even a child can be functional and appear to be self reliant, if the logistics are all organized into ease and they are taught basic tricks. On the surface, the small child appears very self reliant. However, this is made possible by the herd (work of mom) and not innate self reliant skills, the child possesses beyond basic learn and memorize. The main advantage of the herd is an illusion of self reliance, made possible by symbolic mom and dad within culture. Culture can create the logistics such that even the brain of the small child can appear self reliant, even when not prepared to live on his own in the real world

The positive politics of the herd, is fundamentally connected, to mom and dad pushing for different things within the herd, trying to strike a balance and compromise to different needs. The natural male sees the need for more self reliance, to deal with scenarios within hard reality. The male will prepare the military just in case there is the chaos of war. While mom sees the need for more self reliance, in home and fantasy, to make to make the child feel confident; within culture.

The Republican party is more about business and self reliance that often seen as apart from the herd. The complaint is they don't pay their fair share to the herd, but prefer to remain alone. This is more traditional masculine and caters to the instinctive needs of the male, who will need to find his bear or eagle. This journey requires they be self contained at some point.

The Democrat party is more about self reliance, but in the context of a structured home created by government (mom). This is more feminine and deals with the needs of women and children. The women don't expect to leave or if they have to leave the herd, they want the herd set up with food trees all organized for them with a bear skin coat on a rack. This is very expensive, labor intensive and requires laws rules, regulations and procedures. The four year old child above can appear self reliant but this requires a lot of overhead to pull off.

The purpose of self reliance is to lower the overhead needed by the herd. The real self reliance teen age child, does not need mom doing all that extra work in the background, to create an illusion of self reliance. They are able to act apart and with this they can lower the cost of the overhead. But if the overhead gets too low, the cultural illusion for the four year old child is lost.

This loss of illusion is why scare tactic about losing resources works better for women and children. On the other hand, the scare about being forced to be dependent on bigger government herds, scares the males, since they will not be prepare for the self reliance needed to hunt the bear all by themselves, if government forces an illusion for them. There is a balancing act between different needs.

 

I say there's nothing wrong with being a loner, as long as you can support yourself while doing it. On the other hand, if you're a loner and you value your lifestyle but can't sustain it without large amounts of outside assistance, then you obviously need to reconsider some of your self-contradictory values.

There are also tons of people in this world who are alone but mistakenly assumed to want it that way. As I get older I learn and realize it more and more, society is brutally cruel and unfair. If you're a 300 pound obese woman, you're always going to have to work that much harder to earn basic respect and support for whatever you do, whether or not your weight actually affects the task. On the other side of the coin with the sociable folks, I look at many of the people I grew up with and see nothing more than rotten bullies who got rewarded by society for the nasty ways they behaved towards others earlier in life; they all think they're wonderful people but have never been held to account for the way they once damaged or destroyed other peoples' lives and relationships. Imagine being that 300 pound woman, or someone with a severely disfigured face or whatever other flaws you want to name, and not only do you have to struggle that much harder to earn basic respect and recognition, but you have to deal with constant bullying and revulsion expressed by society at large, and the only friends you'll likely have to help you get through are other victims of bullying and isolation who haven't been able to break through the bubble themselves.

People can be real serious pricks to each other sometimes and massively magnify mistakes or faults while ignoring non-superficial merits. The world is filled with victimized outcasts who don't really have much choice when it comes to being alone and feeling constant rejection, and I don't see any natural principle which guarantees fair or equal treatment (indeed, at times evolution seems to favour the opposite).

 

We are, after all, a group species. So I would hardly call relying on the group unwell. If our problems stem from anything it's that we don't help each other and share our resources enough.

We are not a solitary species and I think our problems arise when we are expected or forced into acting like one.