Here's some results to the experiment that I posted some weeks
ago. I got five answers. The general reception was rather positive
although it was also pointed out that the vague way the question
was written didn't help answering.
One of the answers pointed to the duality of belonging into a
group. It could be seen as either constructive or destructive.
Another answer saw identification as most likely a healthy thing,
as being honest to oneself. One reply pointed out that it wasn't
clear to them what it meant to be a part of an identity group,
due to a different culture or language barrier. Then there were
two answers with several different viewpoints in each. Belonging
is a part of humanity with real benefits, yet the group can be
pushing uniformity. The belonging can muddle the line between
one's own views and group views, but it is possible to share
the groups views without being a part of a group. There are also
groups that actively predate on people. Being true to one's self
is the way to know if the shoe fits. Then there was an interesting
idea about the group membership and groupthink happening at the
same time, like they are the same thing, almost. The person sees
the subscription to a group in itself a negative thing, even if
the group was not negative in it's output. The person sees that if
one is a member of a group, then the option is to be honest about
it, which might make them as a reader question the opinions of
the writer more based on the group affiliation.
I found the answers quite interesting. First of all, I am quite
happy to hear that the concept of identity has not overtaken the
world, and it is possible to be online and not know the term.
I am also glad of the understanding and nuance of the answers.
It seems that people here are as thoughtful as I had assumed.
The background for this little experiment was that I was reading
someone on autism, and related surprisingly strongly on the
content and even the style. I don't think that I can actually
be an autist, since it seems to me after some reading that the
core of being on the spectrum is about lacking cognitive empathy.
I just can't see how I would severely lack it. But, I am quite
sure I would be diagnosed as some neurodivergent or other if
I was born now, and went through the world as a child of
the 2020s.
What I relate most strongly with this writer is that there is a
large group of people who are smart but somehow socially lacking.
The mainstream culture is sort of pretending they don't exist.
Like, let's say the companies with their personality test hiring
practices and always mentioning that they are looking for a
"good team player", meaning an argeeable extrovert. The companies
are actively keeping away neurodiversity. And I have been part
of some of these hiring rounds as the company representative, so
I can see that it would be extremely hard for a "wrong kind" of
marginalized person getting in. Also, I do get some comments
once in a while about "it's ok that not everyone is social"
and "you are so hard to read sometimes", and actually when I am
under too much stress the first thing I do is try to isolate as
much as possible to regain control.
I don't think I will be getting my membership card from the
neurodivergents any time soon, but I feel like if I was part of
any minority group, it would most likely be this one.
It seems to me now a bit hard to say what this "experiment"
actually was about. I guess I found it an interesting opening
to ask the question, since I myself felt a strong pull towards
a group, but as some of the people who answered, I too have
skepticism towards being a member of a group. I sort of like
the answer "It is possible to share the views of a group yet
not be a member of a group". It seems to keep the individualism
of the person while still acknowledging that the views may be
close enough to a group to even be identical. Yet, the freedom to
differ in the future remains.
