In fact, I think that group isolation is the key. I think the more isolated a particular group of people is from other, differing groups, the more harshly they impose their worldview on others, because being isolated to a particular group tends to lead the group to extremes of thought, it leads to an ignorance of other possibilities as viable, and it plays off of people’s tendency to please the group.

This may have tendencies to run one way or the other based on the size of the location, but by no means is it a one-to-one relationship. The extremely rich have more than enough resources available to them that they can willingly segregate themselves from other populations, whether they are in a idyllic country town or in the biggest city in the world. They can actively construct a system that keeps outsiders out, where those in the middle classes may have more bleed over between differing groups of people. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in a town with only ten people, you might not like the fact that one dude is black, but you’ll learn to accept it because he owns the only gas station. In time, you’ll probably even like him.

So I think how much a person is able to isolate themselves has more to do with the resources available to them. But sometimes they are natural resources. Sometimes it is the number of other people available as resources. Sometimes it is the number and variety of ideas as a resource. Sometimes the resources are monetary.

Anyways, what I guess what I was trying to get at is that I find egoism to be much more prevalent in densely populated areas like the city, where people who are not ourselves or those we know on at least a semi-personal level become anonymous, faceless mannequins that simply pass us by. Whether the people you know talk trash about you or not depends more on the kinds of people you interact with, and I think that living in a big city you can more easily weed those trash talking folks out from the group that you keep close. While those people in the small towns shove their criticisms in your face, how are they for egoism?
I guess I’m saying that in the city egoism dominates and while people may seem less critical it’s just that they hide it, and in small towns people seem more willing to lend a hand but more wary of what seems outlandish to them (as they only experience such a range in people), and so feel that as they are in a position to comment on the oddity at hand (whether it be your sexual orientation or your marital status), as they have no worry of backlash they should comment.

Now, as to statistics! We’re constantly being turned from humans into numbers on paper. Not only are we anonymous bodies wandering through cities stacked high with them, but our personalities are determined through focus groups and studies.

Hah, I always lose track of what I’m trying to get at. Tell me if you find it.

I don’t believe in pushing people around. I don’t believe in extreme self-interest. I don’t believe in placing a person’s right to choose above a person’s responsibility to those around them. I actually believe that behaving acceptably and in such a way that it doesn’t infringe on another person’s life is damn frigging hard and requires an immense effort.

I’m not proposing we completely ignore people. I’m proposing that we understand each other better and expand our definitions of what constitutes acceptable behavior. Basically, I think if a person’s behavior is not hurting another person, then it should be considered reasonable and within the bounds of acceptability. This increases the amount of freedom there is to go around. Period. The appeal of this system is that, if a fair number of people followed it, it would increase freedom and actually become self-sustaining/fulfilling.

The drawback is that it is completely unrealistic and naive - freedom does not exist wholly and people are selfish assholes. People must either work for it by pushing themselves to maintain it (thus choosing to give up a small amount of their own freedom) or they maximize their own at the expense of others’. Either way, all people do not have all freedom all of the time and few are willing to go to the effort to sustain such a system.

Given that, on a personal level, I think all one can do is ask oneself whether you would rather take some from others to give yourself the most, or whether you would rather give up a small amount of your own so that all may have it equally.

While it would be foolish and unfair for us to treat people according to generalizations and our own pre/mis-conceptions (whether from our own experiences or those of our peers), wouldn’t it also be foolish to completely ignore them? These days we’re finding that we have many of our unsubstantiated conceptions backed up by statistics, but do the statistics justify prejudices? Do they make them “correct”? Is it ever really fair to generalize, even if based on knowledge of a general trend?
Statistics, man, statistics! Sure, they’re cherry-picked to push a hypothesis more often than not, but if you can find enough events of something to show a general trend or some sort of commonality, should you not use that knowledge, at least to some degree, to influence your opinions and actions?

EVERYONE should be a good cook.

Anyways I’m un-sober and probably shouldn’t be trying to put out any “logical” arguements. peas!

But, yeah, as I’m thinking about it, I definitely am leaning towards the humility angle. I mean, basically, that’s what it boils down to, yeah? That people believe they have all the answers and live the perfect lives, and, not only that, but that what is best for them is best for everyone else, too.