What this tells us is, when we seek to understand the legitimacy of a group or its claims, we must necessarily ask: does the
group or its claims recognize the inherent dignity of individuals, and does the group or its claims promote living a dignified human existence?
If the group does recognize the inherent dignity of individuals and promotes living a dignified human existence, then it and its claims have standing and deserve consideration. If it does not, then it is an oppressive organization or institution that imposes an ideology upon its members and should be challenged. In short, the dignity of the individual and his or her rights should always be the focal point of any group, organization, institution, or ideology.
Implications for Individualism
Despite the rhetoric of advocates and their attempt to ground arguments in terms of science, individualism is not going to end. Individuals are, at their core, thinking beings
who use their reason to initiate speech and
action. By contrast, groups are political entities: they are defined by their beliefs and values, but more importantly they are defined by their
numbers. The more people that belong to a particular group, the more power and influence the group will have over other groups and other people.
But this does not necessarily imply that groups are better at decision making than individuals. One can cite psychological and behavioral studies, as we saw earlier, that claim groups are more effective at decision making than individuals; but a person need look no further than research conducted on Facebook groups to understand that being a member of a group does not necessarily lead to better decision making:
Facebook knew that teen girls on Instagram reported in large numbers that the app was hurting their body image and mental health. It knew that a 2018 change to its news feed software, intended to promote “meaningful interactions,” ended up promoting outrageous and divisive political content.42
There is also research confirming that, “although most people consume information that matches their opinions, being exposed to conflicting views tends to reduce prejudice and enhance creative thinking.” Paul Resnick and colleagues at the University of Michigan's School of Information recently noted that “filters will isolate people in information bubbles only partly of their own choosing, and the inaccurate beliefs they form as a result may be difficult to correct.” The result is “news aggregators and feed-ranking algorithms is more likely to perpetuate ignorance than knowledge.”43
As for decision making taking place prior to the individual knowing it, that research was conducted in 2008 using brain scanners. Co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist, said: “Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done.” But admittedly, the study left the door open for free will. As noted by Haynes, “Real-life decisions – am I going to buy this house or that one, take this job or that – aren’t decisions that we can implement very well in our brain scanners.” Moreover, though he doubted it at the time, Haynes acknowledged free will may kick in at the last moment.
Neuroscientist Mark Hallet of the National Institutes of Health puts it into context by arguing such a result may well "originate in a misconception of self as separate from the brain.” Another way of thinking about it, he said, was “that your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing.”44 Finally, Max Newlon, president of the Harvard Innovation Lab-incubated company BrainCo, points out the human brain "possesses two distinct thinking modes: analytical and intuitive;" and, “depending on the task, different thinking systems work more effectively.” Dr. Dehra Harris, assistant director of applied performance research for the Toronto Blue Jays,
99