Is individualism a west European genetic trait?

[JQP4545]

55509

55510

These two pictures seem to match up fairly well. It seems as though the closer you get to Northwest Europe the more individualistic the culture becomes.

[Darth Revan]

Nope. It's Persian-Greek. The first to suggest a theology based on individual merits, faults and decisions was Zarathustra.
The first to transpolate it to conceptual logic (probably after getting in touch with Zoroastrianism) were Greek philosophers. Socrates being the apex of them.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Nope. It's Persian-Greek. The first to suggest a theology based on individual merits, faults and decisions was Zarathustra.
The first to transpolate it to conceptual logic (probably after getting in touch with Zoroastrianism) were Greek philosophers. Socrates being the apex of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4

DRD4 7R is a northern and largely celtic phenomenon and is the basis for this. That is one reason it's obvious the greeks today are not the same as yesteryears, they have mostly the opposite character now.

[JQP4545]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4

DRD4 7R is a northern and largely celtic phenomenon and is the basis for this. That is one reason it's obvious the greeks today are not the same as yesteryears, they have mostly the opposite character now.

This is true. Evolution is a rapid process and there is a great deal of variation within groups. This means that natural selection could change the character of a nation from individualistic to collectivistic.

[Graham]

There's a massive misunderstanding of the Scots Political status mentality, to put us top of Europe with England right now..

[Unome]

I think individualism applies to gender more than it does any racial/ethnic group.

Males are individuals. Females are socialites.

[Velda]

I think individualism applies to gender more than it does any racial/ethnic group.

Males are individuals. Females are socialites.

Everything concerning these is explained in the following book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowds_and_Power

In German language
http://rsv.daten-web.de/Germanien/Masse_Macht_und_Rangordnung.pdf

It also deals with the question of being an "individualist".
Yes, most people in the western European world try to be individual - in outer appearance, style, their genes are also very individual, as mixed. They do, what they want, don't care about family, tradition or whateve rules. They want to have fun, work, what they like, as a woman being emancipated, have 1.4 kids on average etc.

Does this individualism of "values" has something to do with the individualism of genetic mixture? What do you think?

[Wanderer]

I think individualism is indeed genetically-driven, and it does peak in NW Europe.

[Szegedist]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=55509&d=1425070425

Hungary can into Western Europe.

[Harkonnen]

Individualism is barbarian trait and peaks in Finland.

[catgeorge]

LGBT Freakshows


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Q5JFHrGNk

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Individualism is an European philosophy\ideology and it is linked to Europeans overall, not just the westerners. I highly doubt that it is a genetic trait.

[Harkonnen]

Individualism is an European philosophy\ideology and it is linked to Europeans overall, not just the westerners. I highly doubt that it is a genetic trait.

No.

Individualism is a barbarian trait. Barbarianity breeds individuality, not civilization. Just look at the Chinese; those suckers have been civilized for fucking ten thousand years.

I repeat: Finns are the most individualistic.


Aulis J. Alanen described the Finnish cavalry:

"Our [Finnish] Hakkapelites cannot have been any sort of fine representatives. I should mention a parade of the Gustaf Adolf troops in the Thirty Years' War, while the king still lived. At first went the blue, yellow, green etc. mercenaries of the regiment in their flashy gear. Then came, clothed so-so, bridles and baldricks repaired with birch bark and cord, legs hanging from the backs of their small, shaggy horses, cutlasses dragging on the ground, a troop of hollow-cheeked but stern-eyed men. When the Dutch ambassador inquired who they were, the last rider, a fat German Quartermaster [kuormastovääpeli] in charge of the cargo proudly replied "The royal Life Guards: Finnish, pärkkele!".[citation needed]



Obviously there is nothing more individualistic than acting like a pig on a military parade. It's very literal FUCK YOU TO ALL AUTHORITY

You can compare it to this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHZIUdHm6b4

Some early accounts on Finns

In the fall of 1669, when New York ruled the Delaware River valley but most of its colonists had come from Sweden, fears of a conspiracy to restore the area to Swedish rule filled the court at New Castle. The contention, confusion, and downright ignorance that have surrounded the incident ever since are reflected in the lack of agreement on its name. Variously called (in more or less chronological order) the Intended Insurrection of the Long Swede, the Insurrection in Delaware, the Uproar Among the Swedes, and the Long Finn Rebellion, it remains a virtually unknown event from an obscure corner of colonial American history. Few are the people who even know that it happened. It has inspired a highly fanciful work of early American literature, James Kirke Paulding's Koningsmarke, the Long Finne: A Story of the New World, but little historical analysis. There is not even a proper narrative of what happened, when, or why. Using the few available fragments, this article provides a plausible account of the incident and argues for its significance to both the early history of the Delaware Valley and the broader colonial American experience. I deliberately label it the Revolt of the Long Swede (even though the main actor may have been a Finn) to draw attention away from prevailing concerns with ethnicity and towards the more relevant issue of transatlantic political loyalties.
The controversial idea that not all of the Swedish colonists on the Delaware welcomed the transition to English (and thus proto-American) rule may explain why, when the event has been mentioned, it is usually dismissed as not terribly serious. Already in 1669 a colonial New York official investigating the incident called it a "silly intention of an Insurrection amongst the Finns at the Delaware."In the mid-eighteenth century, Israel Acrelius, the noted Swedish missionary to and historian of the colonial Swedes, described the "Uproar Among the Swedes" as a "great disturbance" in which an "impostor by the name of Königsmark came among the Swedes ... and found many followers, especially among the Finns." Acrelius worried that the "impostor" had "wellnigh brought his countrymen, who were innocent, into evil report and suspicion" had not their "honesty" been established by "many proofs before." Notice that Acrelius devotes about as much prose to exonerating the Swedes as to describing what happened.
The emphasis on the loyalty of those who did not support the Long Swede rather than the cause he may have stood for continued into the early twentieth century. The Swedish American scholar Amandus Johnson, whose two-volume history of New Sweden remains the authoritative account of the colony, gave the events of 1669 only a few lines in an unpublished manuscript. In his words, some "of the 'better Swedes' ... did not join the 'insurrection,' as it was called, and apparently notified" the English authorities. As with Acrelius, his emphasis is on Swedish loyalty, not the event itself. The rebellious elements are an embarrassing mixture of Finns and Swedes of a lesser sort.
The one positive assessment of the "rebellion" merely presents the flip side of this coin. In their book arguing for the important Savo-Karelian Finnish influence on American backwoods society, Terry Jordan and Matti Kaups see the incident as part of a pattern of "repeated mutiny and insurrection," running from 1653 to at least 1709, when "the provincial council of Pennsylvania still categorized the Swedes as 'exceedingly Insolent' in their dealings with the government and given to 'Invective language.'" A group of seventeenth-century Finns, they argue, bequeathed to later generations of Americans not just the log cabin, but also "individualism," "disregard for government and law," a penchant for mobility, and other such traits. They celebrate what Acrelius and Johnson disdain without advancing our understanding of what happened or why.

Governing the Finnish-dominated Delaware seems to have been an English monarchist’s
nightmare. As another Englishman later noted about the Dike Mutiny, “if the Fins had been drunk, no good would have come of it.

[Harkonnen]

Also see my thread about Black Finns

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196163-Black-Finns&p=4083600#post4083600

Bercovici confirms that this was not a singular impression, stating that other locals were convinced that the sauna was a place for strange and exotic worship. Wandering north from St. Paul, he had first visited the Danish community of Askov, Minnesota, and praised the disciplined order of the community’s Scandinavian immigrants, who were eager to assimilate, perfecting their English faster than any other nationality. But he paints a stark contrast in Finnish Embarrass, where no two Finns and no two houses are alike.

[cosmoo]

55509

55510

These two pictures seem to match up fairly well. It seems as though the closer you get to Northwest Europe the more individualistic the culture becomes.

Worthless map. The most brainwashed countries are "most individualistic" on this map. Doesn't make any sense.

[cosmoo]

No.

Individualism is a barbarian trait. Barbarianity breeds individuality, not civilization. Just look at the Chinese; those suckers have been civilized for fucking ten thousand years.
Exactly. And maps of OP don't correlate with barbarism at all.

[Deneb]

I can see a correlation between human progress and individualism, according to the map: the more individualism, the more wealth.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

No.

Individualism is a barbarian trait. Barbarianity breeds individuality, not civilization. Just look at the Chinese; those suckers have been civilized for fucking ten thousand years.

Don't get me wrong but that's one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. The unrivaled European progress and civilizations in the last centuries is deeply connected to an individualistic school of though and the experimentation of new ideias that originated from it. That's one of ours most distinct traits. On the other hand, China will never stick out if they keep basing themselves in herd mentality, conformity and indoctrination, they will become eventually an economical\military superpower but that is mostly due to their cheer size, social engineering of the masses and labor force. They still have a long way before becoming a "powerhouse" of progressive new thoughts and ideas if they do not approach a more individualistic methodology.

[LoLeL]

Bullshit comparison :bullshit: