top of page

The Algorithm Theory For Individuality

Updated: Feb 24


A female intellectual and inventor.



It is arguable, and even reasonable, to claim that individuality has been on the decline in recent times. This is due to a number of factors, including:

  • The rise of the herd mentality, where there is more peer pressure than ever before.

  • The negative association of eccentricity with mental illness, perversion, and other negative things.

Indeed, due to the authority of the norms, individuality has appeared to be significantly declined in favor of being accepted, desired, and liked by the world. True individuality is pretty much within your eccentricity.


And yet, there is this claim that every single individual is unique, different from any other person on the planet. This claim appears obscure, given how uniform the modern world appears to be. A sad truth can be that there are millions like you and me, with similar personality traits, beliefs, occupations, and so forth.


The reason for that is because the term "million" is not that big of a number compared to the world's population, which is around a few billions, with hundreds of thousands being born every day. With overpopulation, it is a bit scary to think that you and I are not that unique like we think we are, in a world where much of our jobs' positions could be replaced by countless candidates.


Perhaps you think it's not that scary, that you are, at least professionally, replaceable. But for me it is scary, to realize that I am not that unique like I think I am. My 7 books, my personal philosophy, -- all are my potentially-feeble attempts at refusing to be "like everyone else."


The reason is that I don't want to be expendable like your average henchman in an action movie. The henchman is never remembered, but the main villain is, even if their presence is shorter in time. The main villain is still more valuable than the countless henchmen who appear over and over again.


But I digress. In order to try and better distinguish our individualities, I've come up with a theory, or form of measurement, in the form of a personalized series of numbers. The idea is that the more variety of numbers you have in accordance with your individual attributes, and the more of them you have, the more unique you are. I chose numbers specifically because it is easier to distinguish series of numbers than it is of words. For example, many people can be shy, introverted, and like cats, but how many people can be 9-2-4 at the same time?


The determination of numbers is done by the following: Ask yourselves as many questions you like, and think of a maximum of 9 questions, with 0 being none of them or no preference. The thing is, the more questions you ask yourself, and the more answers you have - when you know which of them to choose - the better you can be at discovering your individuality.


Come to think of it, there doesn't need to be a maximum of 9 answers, since most often there are more than 9. If you happen to know all the names of the world's countries you can even go to around 100 or 200 in your number, should you ask yourself a question regarding countries and nationalities. With so much potential questions and answers, it seems that one can be more distinct than initially believed, with 0 also being a legitimate answer, since we can also be defined by our lack of deed, belief, and so forth; a lacking that can be changed in the future.


Regardless, this theory is far from perfect. There is no universal set of questions, so someone who has 9-2-0 can be awfully similar to someone else who has 0-9-2 in some region of their algorithm. Furthermore, there are no universal sets of answers to each question, so someone who has 9-0-2 can be similar to a different set of numbers that represent the same answers.


The solution to these problems is within the creation of a global database, such as a website, with a universal representation of numbers and the same questions in the same order, which is updated on a regular basis. That way, our personal way of introspection will not get in the way of better understanding ourselves as distinct individuals.



Such construction of an algorithm is difficult, and at best can be done by an A.I. system, but it just goes to show how complex we actually are, even the more simple-minded within us. The complexity of the human brain is enough to serve as an example to that.

Regardless of my theory's flaws, I believe it can be compared to Winston Churchill's view of democracy: It is the worst form of government we've devised, except all the other worse governments. In other words, my theory may be bad, but can you think of other maticulous alternatives?


Mathematical psychology failed to survive the 20's century. It is no longer relevant. Instead it has been replaced with psychometrics, a field that attempts to measure psychological concepts. I believe it is the best way to measure individuality. It is like the DNA of the mind - complex, unique, and always prone to change.


All we need to do is to build specific models that are based on this article's rationale to at least try and label people in accordance to different criteria. It can theoratically replace the Myers-Briggs type indicator without having to alitgn people in different categories. I'd like to suggest that the indicator in question is faulty as people can change throughout life and thus not necessarily belong to specific categories (INFJ, ENTJ, and so on).


(By the way, I used to constantly jump from INFJ to INTJ. From the very start I doubted the credibility of this indicator. For the 2023 September revamp of this article, I remain an INTJ).


For this algorithm theory of individuality to succeed one must devise questions whose answers resonates with them the most. That will make one avoid jumping from one algorithm to another like with the MB indicator.


The point of this theory is for one's unique individuality to be translated into number form, and last as long as possible. That will be one's number. The number that transcends external measurements such as birth date, the total sum of names and so on. You know, details which have nothing to do with one's more-innate individuality.


If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it to spread the word of this theory!

105 views0 comments

Comments


Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosocom's Founder & Writer

I am a philosopher from Israel, author of several books in 2 languages, and Quora's Top Writer of the year 2018. I'm also a semi-hermit who has decided to dedicate his life to writing and sharing my articles across the globe. Several podcasts on me, as well as a radio interview, have been made since my career as a writer. More information about me can be found here.

image.jpg
bottom of page