I think this was addressed in the post with the example of school conformists who "rebel" along with the rest of their group doing the same things, with the same clothes, language, fashion, music etc.

In your example, the aggressive alt-right "individualist" would be the equivalent as the high school rebel who is just acting a rebel and conforming to their adopted group.

Conformists are essential for any group cohesion. I imagine a key part of a conformist in any group is to define the out groups.

If we follow that argument to its limits, are there any true individualists?

Maybe it's just conformists with progressively smaller groups.

It reminds me of the early episodes of “Silicon Valley” where an endless parade of would be entrepreneurs proudly declares how they want to “change the world!” (to the point where it becomes comically tedious).

“Aggressive independence” for its own sake (at scale) can simply degrade into its own form of ironic groupthink.

"Yes we're all individuals" effect, or this https://www.npr.org/2019/03/10/702063209/man-inadvertently-p...

Classic.

This is true. The most important discovery in human psychology is that our behaviour is extremely context dependent. This is why it's so hard to draw any conclusions or make experiments that discover something universal. People have different roles and behaviours in different context, they can change their behaviour radically in the same context when they get different responses.

Psychology researchers know this, but in the folk psychology there is this assumption that you can observe people in context and that's how they are.

> Someone can be both aggressively conformist over some issues (and towards some groups) and aggressively independent over others.

Yes and no. In a purely objective context conformity is a personality mode shaped by a person's social reference group and the devotion or conformance to a single idea rests on the reinformance of the local group. For a highly conformant person you can change their opinion on a subject by dropping them into a different social context for a month at which point the devotion to a particular subject will be replaced by devotion in a different subject.

Perhaps the most defining characteristic of somebody extremely non-conforming is the potential and frequency for original and potentially unpopular decisions. From extremely conforming people originality is met with immediate hostility. In that hostility the person may not even realize they are emotional first without any consideration for the validity of that emotion.

> From extremely conforming people originality is met with immediate hostility.

I'd submit a common case of that is someone with a new idea and being confronted with all the reasons it will never work.

And that really does seem like a function of personality. The people saying why it won't work aren't being close-minded; they're gaving the idea a listen and thinking about it critically. They're may not even being outwardly rude. It's simply an unconcious preference to critique and find flaws.

Its not so much about ignorance or close-mindedness but insecurity and fear masked as offense, which is different than rationally forming doubts.

I don't see a contradiction in your example. I think such individuals are consistently being aggressively conformist with their group, but for the hyper-political, their group isn't the nation, but the party.

That seems to fit with PG's claim that "The call of the aggressively conventional-minded is 'Crush <outgroup>!'". Naturally that would extend to disobeying the rules of the outgroup, perhaps solely because the outgroup proposed them.

OK - I didn't spend that much time constructing my caricature but I still feel my point is valid if you want to modify them somewhat.

I myself remember feeling the strong pull of both "types" and I'd struggle to define myself clearly as either. (although I suspect I'm more frequently conformist than my overly flattering self-image depicts)

Isnt PG claiming that the "rules" are to value free expression and not turn people into heretics and that those who "break" this rule are bad and unworthy and never able to have new, original ideas and thus should never be listened to?

Sounds like he is trying to say "Crush <outgroup>!" to me...

Of course he is. Crush the tattletales!

Children think in terms like “tattletales” and “naughty.”