<p>If you are interested, please feel free to respond. </p>
<p>==</p>
<p>By assumption, there is always some commonality within a given social group (we’ll take the na</p>
<ul>
<li>If some person has some traits in common with a group, then why should he join it? How are social groups formed? </li>
</ul>
<p>[Group</a> (sociology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Social group - Wikipedia”>Social group - Wikipedia)
[Group</a> (sociology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Social group - Wikipedia”>Social group - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
people form friendships/groups based on similar interests, values, and experiences. using this theory you can explain why, for example, when people are at gatherings where they do not know anyone they tend to seek out those who look like them. it’s human nature to presume that because some one looks like you that they would have had similar experiences, interests, and values.</p>
<p>your analysis is incomplete. you fail to define any context. context is the ONLY reason why such superficial qualities carry on any statistical value relevant for the newcomer to judge subgroups in a group.</p>
<p>Ah yes, but technically, a Kantian analysis would disprove the latter part of your assumption, regardless of its a posteriori status. Further, given that the sum of all characteristics is a whole, that is, not, there should be no disqualifier with respect to the former. A priori knowledge itself is not itself knowledge (Aristotle demonstrated this quite clearly long ago), and is in fact but an assumption. Applying a Lockean-Smithian-Marxian context-based hyperbolation, then, we should arrive at an answer that is clearly paradoxical. But if it is, then what is? And if what is is, then what is “is”? Metaphysically, this question is probably irrelevant, but it does have much bearing on your postulation. (See Hegel for more - he and Heidegger have covered much ground here, and it would be an exercise in futility to spend further time on it.)</p>
<p>Sorry, I couldn’t help it. ;)</p>
<p>hey pyro, go on aim, silly.</p>
<p>Oh snap.</p>
<p>haha yeah, it’s on now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point flew right over someone’s head…</p>
<p>It was a joke, in case anyone still hasn’t gotten it; the paragraph is absolutely meaningless. I tried to drop as many names as possible. Maybe I should have made it more obvious…</p>
<p>Wait; where’d Pyroclasm’s reply go?</p>
<p>
as long as humans still have the natural tendency to rationalize things, then, no, we’ll never stop making distinctions between things.</p>
<p>you don’t ever really get along well with, and completely trust, a group of your peers. you’re always watching out for competition for resources/mates, alpha-male/female tendencies, just dominance in general. most of this is unconscious, but it’s deep within your genetic makeup to think that way and will be until you’re too old to reproduce and your hormone levels drop.</p>
<p>yes that’s why you should trust the people who have fewer incentives to cheat on you.</p>
<p>(aka socially awkward people like me :p)</p>
<p>especially in high school, since we don’t have anyone else to hang around with other than our internet buddies. :p</p>
<p>^^^
are you really socially awkward?</p>