To begin with, this topic is not at all what it seems. The question posed here may seem whether human beings survive better alone, that is, individually; or as part of a group, that is, socially. Any normal human being of moderate intelligence can answer without second thoughts: Human beings survive better as part of a group. But is this really the question worth asking and discussing here? Unless I am dealing with a highly dysfunctional sociopath/psychopath who is determined to destroy most of humanity, I don't think I should be talking about, discussing, and explaining a common sense "universal truth" here. The question I want to ask or should be asked is: “What measure of balance should there be between our individuality and sociability/social participation?” There is no doubt about the inability of human beings to survive loneliness. In our detention centers (Prisons), solitary confinement is one of the worst punishments. Humans are essentially social animals. They need physical and emotional contact with other humans to survive. Newborns especially cannot do without physical human contact and can even die without it. “Lack of physical contact can impede normal development and can even lead to higher rates of illness or death in newborns.” Furthermore, in times of crises and disasters, families and communities stay together, help each other and, therefore, ensure a better survival rate. Support from society is essential for realizing most of our individual potential. An example of "nature versus nurture", in which many experts have found the lack of social skills to be very harmful, is that of Chris Langan. In Chris Langan we find the case of a... middle of paper... tradition, backwardness and narrow-mindedness – and how the majority through inculturation can socially condition beliefs and endanger a person's safety let alone his individuality. As Ayn Rand so beautifully stated, individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote to eliminate the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Ultimately, it is very clear that in most cases, giftedness/talent/individuality and normality/social conformity are highly incompatible. Social institutions resist change and radicalism. But sometimes change is more beneficial than the damage caused by the dissolution/reshaping of institutions. And here lies the equation that defines the balance between individuality and sociality.