Western culture has become obedience training. Everything from schools to entertainment has an underlying narrative of obedience to authority.

I don't believe it's in our genes I believe it is conditioning through a multi generational effort of parasitic authoritarian regimes to exploit the majority for their personal convenience.

This sounds right to me, although I wouldn't put it past them to try something like what the OP suggests. You can bet they research all potential forms of mind control and population control.

Our modern public school system is modeled after the Prussian system which was designed specifically to create citizens obedient to the whims of the state.

Interesting ideas. You're more knowledgeable on authoritarianism than I am, but I've kicked around an idea that might also tie in with authoritarian liberals.

The PC culture has led to self-censorship in order to avoid public ridicule. It's not so much about empathy, but more about preserving their reputation. This may not be apparent amongst everyone that tries to be PC - some do have bleeding hearts, but for the most part I don't think I'm too off the mark.

That being said, I think the PC culture has been infiltrated and exploited for the benefit of government. Pretty soon we are going to reach a point where people don't want to question official narratives because it wouldn't be politically correct to do so. I think some liberals fall into this way of thinking and are not actively aware that by self-censorship they are repressing critical thinking and their ability to grow their intellect.

Well put, but I think your barking up the wrong tree here. We all are aware of the scope of what their doing, the truth is, some of these things they're doing may be just blind ignorance. Do you think human beings were much smarter 10,000 years ago? There has ALWAYS been intelligent, driven, perhaps arrogant men who take charge of situations. Over time, those men decided to work together to fuck everyone else; all we're seeing is the culmination of that strategy; to work behind the scenes and divide the masses. Whether or not history allows us to FUCK them back, remains to be seen.

Eh.. I hear you, but I'm tired of trying to make OTHER people do things. I only (seriously) engage with people I consider intellectualy significant (2.5% of the population) on a real, practical level. Everyone else does not see the greater picture, and likely won't.

Stockholm's syndrome is a real thing.

Human beings are social animals. Among some physical characteristics, it is what has made us the most successful animals on Earth.

The vast majority of people (thanks to religious beliefs that humans are somehow special in nature) fail to acknowledge the nature of our being as socially evolved beings, and that we have very deep, innate tendencies to socialize.

The most integral part of being social is fitting in. People who seek power will always exploit that.

Accepting your fate as a citizen in an authoritarian regime is completely typical. Those who don't, don't fit in.

It's only difficult to understand if you have some mistaken belief that you are a magical snowflake in nature created by some cloud monster.

You aren't. You are an animal, participating in a culture derived from the evolution of society.

The most integral part of being social is fitting in.

Sure, but fitting in with whom? With which culture/s? There are multiple, distinct, competing cultures (often existing in the same geographical area), institutions, etc.

Perhaps part of the reason we have evolved the notion of the individual (after tens of thousands of years of civilization and hundreds of thousands of years of tribal living) is because it describes something real yet symbiotic with the many societies that exist.

Yes we are animals. But we could just as easily point out that we are large collections of atoms at an even more fundamental level than the one where we're animals. I don't see any problem with this.

Whether we are animals or not, the point is, we have somehow evolved the notions of individual minds, of freedom, of various modalities of reasoning, etc. We can, to some extent, temporarily (or even for decades) override our various biological drives in order to pursue abstract goals.

e.g. think of people who sacrifice their health and youth in order to build lasting contributions to civilization (e.g. the top 10 mathematician Ramanujan died at 32 (he could have led a less extreme lifestyle, gotten more sleep, and probably at least lived into his 50's, but he purposefully chose not to)).

The point is, the neocortex is a game changer, not just an incremental increase in processing ability. It allows people to say "my contribution to this world is going to be this cathedral I'm building, or this theory I am investigating, rather than investing in having many (or any) direct descendants."

Accepting your fate as a citizen in an authoritarian regime is completely typical. Those who don't, don't fit in.

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson understood the meaning of "fitting in" with the dominant socio-economic system (British mercantile empire). He understood it yet he nevertheless said "nah, I'm not going to do that, sorry". And apparently he was correct in behaving this way.

You are an animal

Nobody is saying otherwise.

you are a magical snowflake in nature created by some cloud monster.

There are plenty of atheists who value individualism and who function in ways that are adverse or contrary to the (sometimes negative) goals of the prevailing society. You are basically conflating religion with the issue of individualism vs. collectivism. BTW, there are religions in collectivist cultures as well (e.g. shintoism, buddhism, taoism, etc).

I find that it is actually the same people who start out as fundamentalist Christians who often end up as aggressive atheists.

The people who are non-authoritarians have their lives taken over neither by religion nor atheism crusading. They are too busy building/creating stuff and generally advancing our civilization.

"Authoritarianism," as the term is used, is ill-defined and little more than a smear word.

Certainly, the book "The Authoritarian Personality" was little more than a racist diatribe against the majority of Americans, especially men, based on fraudulent Freudian pseudo-science.

Please don't use the word "science" in conjunction with 9/11 truth. You're embarrassing yourself.

Science is how it is proven that 9/11 was an inside job.

Real, hypothesis-driven, reproducible, peer-reviewed science? Are you sure?

Are you sure?

Peer-reviewed papers

Peer-reviewed papers 2

Peer-reviewed papers 3

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Lololol. I don't think I could compile an assortment of worse journals in a single place. I suppose you're right that they're 'peer-reviewed', but don't you think there's a reason that they're all in such dodgy (often for-profit, i.e. Hindawi) journals?

So prove them unreproducible and you'll have a better and believable comment.

You're right, I could do that. Or, I could just dismiss them (as I do with most papers in lousy journals) and get back to my real research and actually try to help people.

Good luck with your research.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, because I've caught a lot of hell on here the last few hours, but I hope you're being sincere.

If so, thanks. Seriously.

I don't have to agree with you (9/11) to appreciate helping being fundamental.

Thanks. You're a nice guy (or gal). Thanks for being supportive. I appreciate it.

PS. Your user-name is one of my top 10 favorite elements!

Simple application of physics will tell you something isn't right. I don't need to appeal to authority to tell me what's true and what isn't.

Simple application of physics will tell you something isn't right. I don't need to appeal to authority to tell me what's true and what isn't.

Quite right. The other guy seems to be working hard to reverse perceptions about whose side the peer-reviewed science is actually on. It certainly isn't on theirs.

NIST assumed almost all of its conclusions in relation to its "explanation" of what happened to building 7 on 9/11. NIST advanced conclusions which were not supported by verifiable evidence. Again and again, NIST used arbitrary criteria to shape its use and interpretation of its methodological activity, and, from time to time, NIST just fudged data (as was the case in the issue of freefall).

Bill Whitehouse, Framing 9/11, 2010.

[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

Public statement given by NIST lead "investigator", Shyam Sunder. Available:-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

Later official statement by NIST, after the first statement was publicly proven wrong by a high school physics teacher called Greg Chandler. Available:-

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Statement made by NIST lead "investigator" Shyam Sunder to Popular Mechanics magazine for its infamous "debunking" article. Available:-

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

NIST's findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC.

Later NIST statement, again after the first was proven to be absurd in a paper released through the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Available:-

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

To sum it up, only literal paid shills are still trying to argue that there hasn't beeen a fucking astronomical cover up. They are the only people who do it. Not even total, tank-thumping morons are still onboard the ship. They left about two, maybe three years ago. Now the only people riding the boat are the liars and the ideological zealots who figure, "probably, but everybody important got a warning, so who cares?"

And that's why this isn't real science. Do you have a PhD in physics? Engineering?

Please don't use the word "science" in conjunction with 9/11 truth. You're embarrassing yourself.

Please don't make cynical appeals to ridicule in order to circumvent the massive stupidity of your first sentence. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you what you think is stupid, but it's not cynical to say that the 'science' often invoked on this sub isn't actual science. It's just true. The 'science' people talk about here is done with the conclusion in mind, it's not peer-reviewed, and (for the most part) it's not done by actual scientists.

I don't object to you believing in conspiracy theories, but I do object to you all invoking the name of science in service of your theories.

I'm not sure what you what you think is stupid, but it's not cynical to say that the 'science' often invoked on this sub isn't actual science

You didn't mention this sub. You said 9/11 truth. When people chop and change their argument mid-conversation it makes dialogue difficult and tiring.

in service of your theories

Which theories are these? This conversation began because you said it was "embarrassing" to use the word science in conjunction with 9/11 truth. Since the central premise of 9/11 truth is that the government's theory is false, you are now rather absurdly trying to change reality from black into white. The government is the one with the theory. The scientists who are part of the 9/11 Truth Movement are the ones who disagree with it. The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is true for the American government and their Mickey Mouse pseudo-reality and it is true for you and your idiotic assertions about science.

Except the members of the "9/11 Truth Movement" are the claimants. The vast majority of people think that terrorists brought down the twin towers (even if the 'official story' isn't 100% accurate), so the people with the alternative hypothesis (you) have the burden of proof. Right?

Except the members of the "9/11 Truth Movement" are the claimants.

Except no. Except you are yet again trying to twist cause and effect backwards. The government gave a narrative about 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth Movement then appeared to argue that narrative is false.

The vast majority of people think that terrorists brought down the twin towers

It was certainly terrorists, but I think you'll find the vast majority of people don't believe they had anything to do with al Qaeda. In fact, they were almost certainly Israeli military. One poll I saw conducted by TNS Emnid in Germany found that only one person in every ten believed the official story, so again you are blindly reversing the facts. It's degrading and silly. Please stop.

Besides which, this is quite literally a fallacy within a fallacy, since the burden of proof does not change dependent upon how many people are making the claim.

I guess I see what you're saying, but I must be missing something. The Government claims narrative 1. You claim narrative 2. The government's narrative is the current official narrative of events. Even if a plurality of people don't believe it, most don't think of it often, and it doesn't affect their daily lives. You want to change the dominant public narrative. Don't you think you have more to prove than the government?

As for the number of people that believe this or that, I'm sure you can "find a poll" that says anything you want it to say. That said, I just looked at a couple of (seemingly reputable) polls, and it seems more people are unsure of it than I thought. I don't know what this means. My initial instinct is that people just need better hobbies and/or more meaningful jobs and lives.

I guess I see what you're saying, but I must be missing something.

Possibly the entire conversation prior to you asking if I was a scientist.

The Government claims narrative 1. You claim narrative 2.

I personally do, by method of eliminating all plausible alternatives. But I am not the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. The only real platform of ubiquity is the (empirical) argument that the government's story is somewhere between implausible and impossible.

Even if a plurality of people don't believe it, most don't think of it often, and it doesn't affect their daily lives. You want to change the dominant public narrative.

Well, firstly, it is you who is claiming that it is the dominant public narrative. As I have just pointed out I think you'll find that isn't the case at all. But secondly, my duty lies only to my species. You seem to be saying it is a better idea to let a mass murder happen, and all the subsequent deaths which can be traced back to it, rather than open my mouth about something which -- in my opinion -- a five year old could work out must be true. You don't need to be a scientist to know the WTC buildings were blown up. I hate to shatter your illusions, but you would have to be a bit special to believe anything else. What, three skyscrapers just imploded because of fire? Jet fuel? Lol. Come on. You can't believe people buy that shit. That's naïve. There are semi-mainstream rap stars like Immortal Technique writing lyrics about it, so your assumption that this is not public knowledge already is a little misguided. The media is simply bound to the endless premise that America and its allies -- namely Israel and Saudi Arabia -- are always the good guys. They never attack. All of their actions in the world, in the entire of history, have always been defensive. That's also the government narrative, hence why the media almost exhaustively concurs to it.

As for the number of people that believe this or that, I'm sure you can "find a poll" that says anything you want it to say.

Of course. As soon as I heard you bring up "majority opinion" I groaned, because opinion is irrelevant. Even qualified opinion. Facts are what matter. Can you demonstrate that what you are saying is true, and without involving any type of logical fallacy? This is what matters.

That said, I just looked at a couple of (seemingly reputable) polls, and it seems more people are unsure of it than I thought.

It does vary, but generally speaking, people in the US I think are more likely to believe what they are told by their own government. Not always true, but I bet it's a different story to England, where I'm from. I guess you could argue that I pick my friends based on their opinions, but I've been hard-pushed to find anybody these last five or ten years who doesn't think the official narrative is a joke. It's just a natural point of agreement with most people that it was an inside job. Makes a good ice-breaker at parties, in fact.

I don't know what this means. My initial instinct is that people just need better hobbies and/or more meaningful jobs and lives.

More distractions? The same obedience? The same suicide missions into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight wars based on murder and lies? Why do you think people need more of these things? More authority telling them what to think and feel? Why do people have to live in a pseudo-reality? What is so bad about the real one?

You make some interesting points. But frankly, I've skirted too much of my work already to write much more. Two last things I'd love your comments on:

1. I realize I got off topic, but I never really asserted that you couldn't believe the 'conspiracy' theories that you believe. All I was ever asking for is that people stop acting like the 'science' mentioned in relation to these things is REAL science. I understand that every once in awhile some research on a 'conspiracy theory' topic makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, but it's certainly not a coincidence that all of the journals that publish this stuff (see the list that was commented upon a few comments ago) are absolute disasters of journals with Impact Factors well below

2. The problem with all of this "conspiracy theory" stuff is that the "conspiracy theorists" never really have to defend they're argument to the end. They can always hide behind "you're brainwashed by the establishment". For example ...

Conspiracy Theorist: I believe this to be the way it happened; the gov't is bad. Devil's Advocate: But these facts prove that you're wrong Conspiracy Theorist: Those aren't facts; you're just brainwashed to believe those are facts.

In a way it's almost like arguing with the devoutly religious person in that faith (either in a god or in the complete brainwashing of everyone except for the exalted conspiracy theorist) can just end any argument.

What say you to these things? I'm honestly interested. Not trying to troll.

1.I realize I got off topic, but I never really asserted that you couldn't believe the 'conspiracy' theories that you believe

I'm done because you won't stop reversing the facts. If you (i.e. the government) offer me an unsupported theory about a conspiracy of Jihadists and I disbelieve it, then I am not the conspiracy theorist. You keep trying to forcefully insert this same false assumption into the conversation.

Ok, keep going. Please comment on the other ideas I put forth in that comment.

Ok, keep going. Please comment on the other ideas

I think you mean other false assumptions and general betrayals of logic.

Ok. Fine. I said I was done. I was honestly interested in what you would say, but ok. We're done. Remember, I'm a JIDF sociopath.

p.s. What the hell does JIDF even stand for?

^ Real scientist.

Ahahahahahaha!

I don't get it. What's funny here? That I don't know what JIDF stands for?

I don't get it. What's funny here?

What is funny is that you appear to genuinely believe appealing to your own false self-authority on the internet is going to convince anybody that you aren't really a silly JIDF troll.

Why would I be a JIDF troll? Because I disagree with you?

If someone disagrees with you, why would you automatically assume that they are a professional troll?

Why would I be a JIDF troll?

Well that's a stupid question if ever I saw one.

Because I disagree with you?

Because you're posting fraudulent/false information and derailing the thread topic.

Even if it's a stupid question (I don't believe it to be one), please answer it. Why would I be a JIDF troll?

Seriously, are you a scientist? And I don't mean a "citizen scientist", I mean a real, Ph.D.-toting scientist.

Seriously, are you a scientist? And I don't mean a "citizen scientist", I mean a real, Ph.D.-toting scientist.

A PhD is a doctorate in philosophy. Philosophy isn't a science.

You also didn't answer my question here. Are you a trained, graduate degree-possessing scientist?

You also didn't answer my question here. Are you a trained, graduate degree-possessing scientist?

Well, your question was silly. Firstly, it's the internet. I can claim to be the head of NASA if I want. But I don't make claims I can't -- or am not prepared to -- support evidentially. Secondly, even if I were head of NASA, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to either the validity or non-validity of my argument. Hence, your question was silly.

Except it does matter. If you're a scientist, you have greater authority to speak about science than if you aren't a scientist. Why can't you just answer the question. Are you a trained scientist or not. Clearly you aren't, so why wouldn't you just confirm that?

Except it does matter.

Except no it doesn't, because whatever I say you have no way of knowing whether or not I am telling the truth. Why are you saying things which are so blatantly false and silly?

If you're a scientist, you have greater authority to speak about science than if you aren't a scientist

This is a public forum. Everybody has the ability to post an argument on equal terms. I don't need to hide behind a false appeal to authority, thank you very much. My argument stands up on its own two legs without me claiming you should believe me because I'm Batman.

You're right. All of you can pretend to be experts and smart without anyone knowing your real level of intelligence or expertise.

You're right. All of you can pretend to be experts

You seem to have drawn some extremely arbitrary boundaries with that statement. It is logically false to imply that you cannot pretend but I can. You keep repeating stupid and logically false things, despite repeated requests to please stop.

Except I am an expert in something. I'm a real, trained scientist. With a Ph.D., and a publication record, and grant funding. I contend that I'm an expert in how science works, primarily since I've done it (successfully) for over a decade.

If you were an expert in anything, I'd be happy to hear it. But you seem to think that expertise doesn't count for anything. By that account, next time you need your car fixed or something done to your house, just grab the nearest hobo and have him or her do it. See how that works out for you.

Except I am an expert in something. I'm a real, trained scientist. With a Ph.D.,

Ahahahahahaha! Well, thanks for proving me right. The claims of a liar on the internet a scientist does not make. If you are a scientist then I am quite literally Mary Poppins. Lol. Fuck off back to Israel you twerp.

But maybe, just maybe, you should appeal to people who know more than you on a given topic. When I'm sick, I go to an MD because they know more about health than I do. When I need to get something fixed on my house, I go to a contractor because a contract knows more about fixing my house than I do. Generally, I try not to comment or espouse on things I don't know or understand. I go to experts.

I kind of wish conspiracy theorists did the same, because you might actually learn something rather than spouting the same things over and over to each other. But if you asked real experts I'm afraid they might disagree with you! No worries, you can just say they're brainwashed!!!

But maybe, just maybe, you should appeal to people who know more than you on a given topic.

You keep deliberately missing the point. Anybody can claim to be whoever they want to be on the internet. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Facts are the only thing which matter. Einstein was a patent-clerk in Switzerland, not a scientist, when he disproved possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived. You are just a textbook drone, using all the familiar fallacies and dirty tricks to force your false version of reality down people's throats. Very boring and unoriginal.

You don't think authorities on a given topic (any topic) are more likely to have an understanding of the facts than you do? That's a pretty narcissistic view, isn't it?

Do me a favor, look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. Given that you seem to think you know more than experts on ANY topic, it seems like you may be a good fit.

You don't think authorities on a given topic (any topic) are more likely to have an understanding of the facts than you do?

This fallacy arbitrarily assumes:-

A) They disagree.

B) I am not one of them.

C) They/I cannot be wrong.

D) Subjective opinion is the same thing as objective fact.

Your posts are so littered with hilarious and nonsensical fallacy, you can only possibly be yet another sociopathic JIDF troll.

I wish no one had ever taught Reddit man-children the word "fallacy", as it gets tossed around without even the slightest understanding of what it means.

I give up. Yes, I'm a sociopathic JIDF. You got me. Good luck in life.

I wish no one had ever taught Reddit man-children the word "fallacy",

Save the personal attacks for someone who cares what you think. You are a stupid JIDF troll who is trolling -- stupidly -- for the JIDF. Your opinion is worth about as much to me as a piss in the mouth, as it should be to any rational person.

Oh my gosh. Why do you care so much. Why would you think I'm part of the JIDF (just looked it up. nope. not a part of that).

Oh my gosh. Why do you care so much.

Since you have been downvoting me all afternoon, I would say that question actually appears to apply only to you.

Seriously, I haven't upvoted or downvoted a single comment. I'm completely uninterested in upvotes or downvotes.

Seriously, I haven't upvoted or downvoted a single comment

But you have already shown yourself to be a liar. Why would anybody believe you?

What have I lied about?

Is this a joke? For the vast majority of scientists, the terminal degree (neglecting post-doctoral training) is a Ph.D. In a few places (e.g. Oxford), it's called a D.Phil., but it's all the same.

Either way, I've learned what I needed to know: you aren't a scientist.

Is this a joke?

It depends what you mean by a joke. It was a stupid question to which I gave an equally stupid answer.

For the vast majority of scientists, the terminal degree (neglecting post-doctoral training) is a Ph.D. In a few places (e.g. Oxford), it's called a D.Phil.,

Are you retarded? A PhD is not the same thing as a DSc. One is a doctor of science. The other is a doctor of philosophy.

No, I'm not retarded. In the U.S., Canada, and UK at least, the terminal academic degree for scientists is the Ph.D. When you finish graduate school, that's what Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, and Caltech grant you. Not a DSc (though those are awarded in some countries). The moral of the story here is that if you don't understand what a PhD is (even if you are from a country that doesn't grant PhDs), you are certainly not a trained scientist. If you are not a trained scientist, I'm afraid I don't value your opinion on issues surrounding science.

No, I'm not retarded. In the U.S., Canada, and UK at least, the terminal academic degree for scientists is the Ph.D.

Frankly, I have no interest in your derailment of the prior conversation, and even less interest in your attempt to change the linguistics of my initial comment. I said that a doctorate in philosophy is not the same thing as a doctorate in science. It isn't. You do not need a PhD to be a qualified scientist and this is a fact. However you try to spin language to make it not a fact, it will still be a fact.

Oh. my. gosh. Except in rare cases, a PhD (or a DSc or a DPhil) is the mark of a qualified scientist. And now you're moving the goal posts. You didn't say that "a doctorate in philosophy is not the same thing as a doctorate in science"; you said that a PhD wasn't a scientific degree while a DSc is. And that's just wrong. Please stop.

Or ... now that I think of it ... maybe the granting of PhDs a way the establishment keeps heroic 'citizen scientists' from knowing the truth? Might I be on to something?

Oh. my. gosh. Except in rare cases,

Did you miss the part where I said I have no interest in your bullshit argument? I have explained why it is bullshit. I cannot do more than that.

It's cute that you just don't want to answer the question.

It's cute that you just don't want to answer the question.

It's much cuter that you think science is decided by emotional appeals to self-authority.

I don't. I just think experts know more stuff about a given topic than non-experts do. You don't think that, apparently. That's the big difference here.

I don't. I just think experts know more stuff about a given topic than non-experts do.

You keep referring back to this same fallacy where you imply that the Sun isn't hot as long as I say I'm a scientist on Reddit. I wish you would please stop because it's very stupid. You can't force a square peg through a round hole.

Wait, maybe I misunderstood you. Do you think that all of the people that are walking around with PhDs studied philosophy?

Wait, maybe I misunderstood you.

Maybe you just said something dumb. It happens.

You're being a dick. I'm just trying to argue with you about something.

You're being a dick.

Whatever you say.

I'm just trying to argue with you about something.

About something pointless and irrelevant to the thread topic. Whether or not I am a scientist has no bearing whatsoever on whether the arguments being used to discredit the official narrative are scientific. None.

The irony of your comment is truly delicious. Thank you.

You're welcome?

The most integral part of being social is fitting in.

Sure, but fitting in with whom? With which culture/s? There are multiple, distinct, competing cultures (often existing in the same geographical area), institutions, etc.

Perhaps part of the reason we have evolved the notion of the individual (after tens of thousands of years of civilization and hundreds of thousands of years of tribal living) is because it describes something real yet symbiotic with the many societies that exist.

Yes we are animals. But we could just as easily point out that we are large collections of atoms at an even more fundamental level than the one where we're animals. I don't see any problem with this.

Whether we are animals or not, the point is, we have somehow evolved the notions of individual minds, of freedom, of various modalities of reasoning, etc. We can, to some extent, temporarily (or even for decades) override our various biological drives in order to pursue abstract goals.

e.g. think of people who sacrifice their health and youth in order to build lasting contributions to civilization (e.g. the top 10 mathematician Ramanujan died at 32 (he could have led a less extreme lifestyle, gotten more sleep, and probably at least lived into his 50's, but he purposefully chose not to)).

The point is, the neocortex is a game changer, not just an incremental increase in processing ability. It allows people to say "my contribution to this world is going to be this cathedral I'm building, or this theory I am investigating, rather than investing in having many (or any) direct descendants."

Accepting your fate as a citizen in an authoritarian regime is completely typical. Those who don't, don't fit in.

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson understood the meaning of "fitting in" with the dominant socio-economic system (British mercantile empire). He understood it yet he nevertheless said "nah, I'm not going to do that, sorry". And apparently he was correct in behaving this way.

You are an animal

Nobody is saying otherwise.

you are a magical snowflake in nature created by some cloud monster.

There are plenty of atheists who value individualism and who function in ways that are adverse or contrary to the (sometimes negative) goals of the prevailing society. You are basically conflating religion with the issue of individualism vs. collectivism. BTW, there are religions in collectivist cultures as well (e.g. shintoism, buddhism, taoism, etc).

I guess I see what you're saying, but I must be missing something. The Government claims narrative 1. You claim narrative 2. The government's narrative is the current official narrative of events. Even if a plurality of people don't believe it, most don't think of it often, and it doesn't affect their daily lives. You want to change the dominant public narrative. Don't you think you have more to prove than the government?

As for the number of people that believe this or that, I'm sure you can "find a poll" that says anything you want it to say. That said, I just looked at a couple of (seemingly reputable) polls, and it seems more people are unsure of it than I thought. I don't know what this means. My initial instinct is that people just need better hobbies and/or more meaningful jobs and lives.

Except it does matter.

Except no it doesn't, because whatever I say you have no way of knowing whether or not I am telling the truth. Why are you saying things which are so blatantly false and silly?

If you're a scientist, you have greater authority to speak about science than if you aren't a scientist

This is a public forum. Everybody has the ability to post an argument on equal terms. I don't need to hide behind a false appeal to authority, thank you very much. My argument stands up on its own two legs without me claiming you should believe me because I'm Batman.