>>12564900>scientific socialismI guess the researchers would own the publishing companies and research facilities? This is such an asinine idea. See
>>12566312.
>>12567567>we should see individualist ants outcompeting the colonies if you were rightYou are trying to use the analogue in place of the thing you want to actually discuss. Human beings and ants are not the same thing. The person you responded to understands this, and properly extended the analogy to, specifically, human being scientific endeavor (the actual topic at hand).
You regressed it back to the analogue, which isn't how you use analogies.
For that matter, you would never seen "individualist" ants because that is not a thing an ant is. There are no known solitary ants, and such thing stands drastically in contrast to every other living/survival habit of all other ants known. On top of that, there are virtually no individual structures within ant species - there are queens, and that's about it.
However, while human beings are also arguably communal animals, is it not uncommon whatsoever for solitary humans to succeed and individualism virtually a given.
The whole point of an analogy is to simplify an idea so that you can lead someone with a lesser understanding to the more complicated point you wanted to make, not to try to discuss the analogue as if it were the thing itself. Learn to stop doing this honestly rather stupid thing.
