with_discipline | 075

[Open, but filtered AWAY from the Borg Queen and O'Brien]

[So T'Pol is really bad at small talk. Really, really bad. She tends to need a few minutes just to figure out what to say, because it's awkward. So there's a few seconds of silence, because on some level she can't believe she's actually bothering.]

I'm - curious. Most take individuality for granted; I hope I'll be forgiven when I say humans particularly so. On Vulcan, individuality is honored and respected, to an extent, but even on Earth, there are those who would give up a portion of their identity as an individual in order to be a part of something. It is, I believe, more than a 'mob mentality.'[She's throwing in human phrases with less and less hesitation lately, but it still sounds kind of. weird.]'

I would like to know what the majority of you find an acceptable cause for one to give up his or her individual identity. [And that sounds terribly awkward, because she's thought about this plenty, and it's really just an almost desperate hope for new answers.]

[Private to Data]

What can you tell me of the Ba'ku?

[Private to the EMH]

[She actually sounds almost impatient.] Have you made preparations?

((OOC: Slightly backdated to earlier today. T'Pol's been acting off because her daughter died about this time a year ago for her. So recklessness and idle chatter, yay! :|))

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, we are a relatively weak race. Even on our own planet, we're not that strong in comparison to other carnivores. However, we've learned cooperating with a group provides protection, and we want to feel safe. Being deprived of that group is pretty unsettling.

Robin Dunbar is an anthropologist that compared the brain sizes and structures of primates in comparison to their groups. The number of people in a group that human brains would work well with has been debated being between 150 and 200 some. This is people we familiarize ourselves with. That we care about their names or what's going to happen to them.

That's one of the reasons we end up forming prejudices too. It's easier apply a personality to a group of individuals if you can't contemplate each one individually. For us, that is. [And it's something he depends on for his line of work.]

I think we have a problem realizing where the group is useful, and where it's not.

Indeed. That does seem to occur frequently in human history. It is, however, the refusal to contemplate a group individually that I find difficult to work with.

You mean the reason why someone wouldn't want to be part of a group or why someone wouldn't want to be a part of a collective?

The difference is minimal; I mean, there is a tendency, apparently not only in humans, that makes it easy to see a faceless crowd, instead of a group of individuals.

The difference is the capacity to reason. [And suddenly...] [Private] In my organization, for example, we abandon our lives as part of society in order to ensure the safety of Earth. I dress only as I'm dictated to and no longer have any lasting recorded government evidence of ever having been alive. However, if I don't agree with what they're doing, I still retain the sentient option to act against them. I have before. It was a wise choice [Even if it got him shot, it got him the boss he likes.]

I use that faceless crowd to hide myself in to do my work. But the faceless crowd is also a way that we defend ourselves. We anthropomorphize an entire group so we can react quickly to it and judge it as a potential danger. It's an instinct. We're going to do it. The problem is adhering to that preconception so strictly that you're never able to see the individuals.

You erase your social identity while preserving a personal one? There is logic in that. [Why can't the Borg be like that.]

Indeed. Most have difficulty in abandoning their preconceptions.

The organization is also structured to exist for thousands of years into the future and open technological gateways when humans, as a group, have reached certain points of social growth. Another case of us having to judge a group rather than an individual. It only works if you consider consider how those individuals in it are affecting and changing the group.

But yeah, a lot of people have problems abandoning those. [Narvin.] I would rather keep my identity and my preferences. You're part of a crew, right? You're not in charge, but you've had to disagree with your captain before?

Everything, it seems, is circumstantial.

I have; on occasion, he's listened. [Oh Archer.] I understand that necessity.

So do you think if supplied with your knowledge he'd make the same exact decisions as you with it?

Of course not. I've shared that knowledge in the past. It doesn't alter his personality.

Which is why an individual is better than a collective. You need that option to do as you like, even if you function as part of a group.

Agreed. But enforcing that is somewhat more difficult.

You're doing better than I could.

That seems unlikely.

075 | [Voice]

[Filtered | Voice]

[Filtered | Voice]

[Filtered | Voice]

[Filtered | Voice]

[Filtered | Voice]

[Private| Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]

[Private | Voice]