Understanding the difference between the social and anti-social creative outsider

Taking their clues from Nietzsche, postmodern philosophers were biased toward the individual over the group, at times reaching the level of worshiping the individual. I believe this came from missing or greatly undervaluing knowledge of the Neo-Darwinist science of sociobiology, which showed us that group-selection trumps individual selection: as E.O. Wilson put it: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

The great psychologist Raymond Cattell believed that the key to evaluating the individual and the group was for society to have a way to understand the difference between the social and anti-social outsider, because creative outsiders can be virtually criminals in rejecting laws. This harmonizes with the understanding that group-selection is the primary unit of selection and individual selection follows after.

The bottom line for me in thinking about the group and the creative individual is to let individuals and outsiders freely create with no strings attached, that is, philosophers, artists, engineers, scientists, or whoever, but in the end the judgment has to come down to understanding and judging the difference between the social and anti-social work of outsiders. Cattell's field was in comprehensive psychometric testing and the tests work quite well in telling us much about social and antisocial people (as long as there is room for outsiders to fall through the cracks, which being outsiders they often do.)

Conservatism in general upholds social change and not radical antisocial change, but this tends to get lost in a conformity that allows no antisocial or social change.