Is the group more important than the individual?

[jamil]

Is the group more important than the individual?

I'm curious about how that might impact your instincts on the pandemic. How does that shape your thinking?

So four poll options each split into two concepts:

1. The group is at least a little more important than individuals: it's time to start lifting some restrictions.
2. Individuals are at least a little more important than the group: it's time to start lifting some restrictions
3. The group is at least a little more important than individuals: it's too early to start lifting some restrictions.
4. Individuals are at least a little more important than the group: it's too early to start lifting some restrictions

I'm looking for what your instinct is for both parts, individual vs group. And, too early or too late. Choose the answer that best fits your instinct for both.

There's no bacon option because even if you're in the middle, you're not exactly in the middle. I'm asking about your instinct more than your opinion. Where does it hit you in the gut?

And if you'd like to post why you picked the option you did, that'd be awesome.

 

[patience0830]

Now . . .it depends. Am I answering as an individual. . . Or a group?

And the restrictions are unconstitutional.

 

[jamil]

Now . . .it depends. Am I answering as an individual. . . Or a group?

And the restrictions are unconstitutional.

This isn't a group poll. You're not collaborating with everyone else to determine the answer you should choose. So obviously everyone is answering as an individual.

Also, there shouldn't be a depends. What's your instinct? Your belief about constitutionality will likely fall along the lines of your instincts.

 

[OakRiver]

I don't know if asking the poll in a framework established by COVID-19 restrictions is ideal. It could suggest that individuality and the notion of individual rights is only applicable in certain situations.

Framework aside, in legal and political terms, I believe that the rights of the individual are paramount. To place the rights of the group drives a horse and stagecoach through many of the protections afforded to us as citizens, and there will be no end of "think of the children" justifications for limiting what people can do, and at worst, over time, citizens can be seen as nothing more than resources of the state, similar to what we see in those countries with more distinct communist political systems.

 

[KLB]

You could easily tweak that question and be asking about politicians and political parties.

Personally, I am not in favor of giving up personal freedom for some illusion of group safety, whether it is the restrictions around Covid, guns, or something else.

 

[churchmouse]

This is well overdue to stop. Open it up people. This is a game to those we elected into power. Prove me wrong please.

 

[DRAIN SURGEON]

Individual lives matter!

 

[jamil]

I don't know if asking the poll in a framework established by COVID-19 restrictions is ideal. It could suggest that individuality and the notion of individual rights is only applicable in certain situations.

Framework aside, in legal and political terms, I believe that the rights of the individual are paramount. To place the rights of the group drives a horse and stagecoach through many of the protections afforded to us as citizens, and there will be no end of "think of the children" justifications for limiting what people can do, and at worst, over time, citizens can be seen as nothing more than resources of the state, similar to what we see in those countries with more distinct communist political systems.

One part is for the purpose of informing the other. That's all. Many people think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Some people think that the individual level is most important. Whichever way you think of it, it will affect one's instincts differently.

Research confirms that we're very instinctive creatures. We're constantly building our understanding of the world, and our minds compare the information we bring in against our understanding of the world. We interpret incoming information from the understanding of the world we have. When the interpretation of incoming information is consistent with our understanding of the world, we pay less attention to it. Okay. I understand this. It's no big deal.

When the interpretation of incoming information conflicts, we pay more attention to it. It's different. There may be something harmful that I have to pay attention to. Our minds are biased towards our current understanding of the world--our current beliefs, as a protection. That bias is instinctive: interpret new information, compare it to my understanding of the world, make a judgement. That all happens nearly immediately. Thinking/analyzing comes later. And after analyzing, the new information may update our understanding of the world, or we may reject it. And because the bias favors the current understanding, we tend to reject it.

So, why do the "shut it down" people trivialize the people who want to open it up? They trivialize the motivation to something as facile as "all that protest just because you want a haircut." Why do the "open it up" people trivialize the people who want to keep it closed. They say things like, "all this and it's just the flu." Or, "it's all a hoax. Why are you falling for it."

My hypothesis is that people have a different understanding of the world, but many people share the same basic understanding. So what basic understanding is mostly responsible for all this? A big part of it is current circumstances. If you're unemployed, you're way more likely to be pissed that everything is shut down. In the analysis phase you're way less likely to accept some new information into your understanding when it means that possibly your circumstances are justified. The inverse is also along those lines. If you're employed, and especially if you have a loved one that is sick or has died, it's going to be hard to justify making the risks even worse by opening things up. Both those circumstances have an understandable pathology to ignore facts that counter the thing that drives their beliefs.

But. There are more people who don't have that circumstance and their instincts are driven less by their own circumstances and more by their own understanding of the world. THAT's what this poll is about. A pattern I've seen on both side seems to emerge around individual vs group importance. If you think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, you will likely favor a top-down approach, keeping it shut down until the danger is past. If you think the needs of the individual outweigh the needs of the group, you'll favor a bottom-up approach, like opening things up and letting people decide for themselves according to their own risk aversion, whether to stay locked down or not. But, there is a contingent of people who want it opened back up for the sake of the group.

 

[jamil]

You could easily tweak that question and be asking about politicians and political parties.

Personally, I am not in favor of giving up personal freedom for some illusion of group safety, whether it is the restrictions around Covid, guns, or something else.

Even though this is in the political section, it's not really trying to sus out the politics. It's getting at instinct. You're first hit with information, what's your gut reaction?

Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Of so, stay closed, or open up?


Do you think the needs of the individual are more important than the group? If so, stay closed, or open up?

What does your gut tell you?

 

[patience0830]

This isn't a group poll. You're not collaborating with everyone else to determine the answer you should choose. So obviously everyone is answering as an individual.

Also, there shouldn't be a depends. What's your instinct? Your belief about constitutionality will likely fall along the lines of your instincts.

Irony and sarcasm lost on you today, huh?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty.

However, while all things are permissible, not all things are good. I'm not going to go around licking toilet seats just because I can.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Hhhmmmm

 

[jamil]

Irony and sarcasm lost on you today, huh?

Right? The irony is that I answered it straight up.

Now I'm being sarcastic.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Nothing is ever more important than individual liberty.

Why do people join the military, sacrificing their individual liberty and possibly their lives?

 

[Usmccookie]

We are inividuals that work together towards a (un)common goal. Without the individual the group doesn't exist. I don't get Satisfaction from the actions of others. Quite frankly i don't care what others do, so long as it does not effect myself, my family or anyone else negatively.

Free thought and individuality is what has made us great and advanced so far.

 

[Usmccookie]

Why do people join the military, sacrificing their individual liberty and possibly their lives?

Because they chose to for the benefit of others. You can be part of a group and have a brotherhood and retain your identity as an individual.

Individuals working together for a common goal.

 

[ATM]

I will be collaborating with others as a group to determine the answer we should choose.

 

[Old Dog]

The interest of the group is the the basis of SOCIALISM is it not?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The interest of the group is the the basis of SOCIALISM is it not?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - Karl Marx.

 

[churchmouse]

I will be collaborating with others as a group to determine the answer we should choose.

Seems reasonable to me.