Society and individual's relationship to it

The topic of an individual's relationship to society has long interested me.

As burdensome as societal expectations are to some and empowering to others, we're still constrained by it and expected to engage with it in order to ensure our own survival. 

But something has always interested me: what about those who succeed at effectively disengaging with society, either through their wealth, physical power, or both? True independence, or at least as independent as one can become in the modern age. For the purpose of this article, I'll be limiting my focus to those who elect to distance themselves from society by wealth and prestige rather than through force and/or something akin to isolationistic survivalism. 

Before we can dissect the more granular aspects of this phenomena, I should clarify what I mean by this trend: I'm referring to people of significant wealth and prestige who no longer after meaningfully engage in society in order to preserve an (often high) quality of life to which they're accustomed. People who see society(and the modern day bureaucratic and government institutions that define it) as deeply flawed and imperfect, and more often than not a tedious chore or limiting miasma that only detracts and distracts them from their primary goals and ambitions in life. To them, no growth or enrichment can be had by engaging in the modern era - and any engaging they must do is reluctant, and begrudging. People who view society --- and the crude mundanities of it all -- as an inherently negative experience, and seek to detach themselves from it and isolate from it as much as would be possible. Their goal isn't to save or redeem the world, merely survive in spite of it. And unlike most of the population -- these people can, and often do just that.

There's also the matter of social intelligence. The ability to "read a room" per se and respond dynamically and accordingly is a learned skill to many. It's not something that comes naturally or manifests in a vacuum, but a honed skill - no different than mastering a foreign language or coding. And for those proficient enough in the field, it's easy enough to manipulate or at least nudge people in certain directions once you understand how they work - and what stimuli they respond to. Though, what is "healthy socialization" if not mutualistic manipulation by both parties involved the other? I'd argue there is none - all socialization is some permutation of manipulation one way or the other --- it's just that in polite society it's in poor taste to acknowledge such subtext openly. Rather - what is often called manipulation is relegated to impolite or harmful social engagement - to one or both parties, for example: shouting, harassment, doxing, abuse, gaslighting, and enabling.

The more expansive someone's social intelligence is, the easier it can be to engage with different aspects of society outside of one's personal Overton window, both on a macro cultural/regional level and on a personal angle and adapt your personality and code switch as needed.

But if social intelligence can be accrued and cultivated by engaging with different parts of society, I'd argue the reverse is at equally true (or at least a correlative factor, other factors being one's lifestyle, penchant for dangerous drugs, age, and other factors that might limit neuroplasticity) ---- the longer someone doesn't engage with societal norms and expectations, the more they lose or degrade their social intelligence. Much like not working out, weight lifting, or running for long stretches of time (as well as eating unhealthy foods) might degrade one's physical health and strength - not engaging with wider society, especially those you disagree with, will limit your capacity to adapt to and meaningfully engage with ideological or personality types different from one's own. Rather - in these cases of profound and long term isolation/"independence" - from nominal social conventions, people tend to become their truest selves, unmarred from what they are required to be in order to operate in society in good form. 

For example, take Elon: the heir to an ultra-wealthy family, who could choose to never work a day in his life should he choose - yet his crippling inferiority complex, narcissism(which I'd argue is a defense mechanism from said inferiority complex), and penchant for drugs like ketamine manifests as this bizarre Frankenstein's monster of someone who both needs and demands endless praise, while simultaneously refusing to change the core essence of who he is to demand in order to seek said praise. He could use his wealth and status to do a lot of good for the world, yet due to his psychological state and his unwillingness to seek help or introspect means such altruism will never be his goal -- with any good he might momentarily impart be done in larger service of feeding his own ego. 

Elon isn't socially intelligent -- and without the wealth and prestige he was born into or later stumbled upon, he would be forced do seek help, or at the very least do some meaningful self reflection if we assume his intention of enmeshing himself further into polite society remained the same. He doesn't currently have much, if any, social intelligence because he isn't obligated to engage with society the way most people do, and the apparent degradation or absence of his ability to deal with disagreement reflects this. He isn't a high functioning sociopath like JD Vance - but rather a low functioning or mediocre one, and Elon's conduct reflect that.

Elon isn't alone in this regard, and is representative of at least a subsect of billionaires and multimillionaires ---- people who "liberate" themselves the constraints and expectations of the government and more generally society at large, only to self destruct to their own vices, self destructive lifestyle, and crippling personality flaws. Some fall to hedonism, others follow Elon's path of insecurity and demanding to be the center of attention, or perhaps follow of the Bill Gates/Blackrock/Clintonian style of neoliberalist politicking and "playing the game" even after they've secured their respective power bases for themselves and their vassals and/or descendants for several decades, at least. No matter what path of self destruction members of this group follow, they're slaves to their own egos with no societal constraints to keep them in check. 

However, as tempting as it is to cast a broad stroke --- not all those who were born into or achieve fiscal and popular success fall into this trap. Jane Goodall, Sting, and many others could likewise remove themselves from society if they so choose to - but instead try to help it, as dictated by their own personality and sense of ethics --- whether that's through participating in charitable endeavors, advocating for humanitarian causes they sincerely believe in, advancing the causes of science, being a patron of the arts, or simply trying to better some small element of society --- there are many in the world who do sincerely want to do good and *be* good. Not performatively or for clout - but sincerely and truly. These types of millionaires and billionaires are generally mentally sound, retain a laudable sense of ethics, and limit their social media engagement to what is required to promote their personal projects --- fame and wealth to them is a means to an end, not an end upon itself. Perhaps unfortunately, this commendable humility makes these names comparatively muted or afterthoughts in the public zeitgeist, at least stacked against the Viveks, Trumps, Trudeaus, and Elons of the world. 

If these two very morally different groups of people can come from the same socioeconomic class(in other words those with "fuck you" money), and what can be done to begin tipping the scales in the latter's direction? Both groups are populated by members of old money and old names, as well as the nouveau riche - and both groups include people from all walks of life, national, religious, and cultural - so what are the factors that corrupts certain people's hearts and purifies others? I wish I knew, I truly did. And one day I hope to stumble upon those answers.

But until I do, I will say this: Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals - and those who somehow manage to free themselves from the shackles that weigh down the rest of the world are at risk of falling into a far darker fate if they're not careful, and if they lack the morality to ground themselves. And that independence from society, when it rarely happens, reveals someone's truest and most sincere character, for good or ill.