Why, then, the eternal conflict between the individual and the group? Why does a Schiller or an Ibsen proclaim, “The strongest man is he who stands most alone”? Why do we have the group portrayed so often as the oppressor, the individual as the hero, genius, and martyr to the conventional ideas of the mass? Because the group has more fixed habits than the individual, or at least than the exceptional individual; because in most individuals the group factor is the dominant one by preference, and the struggle against it is both rare and mild; because, finally, the group mind does involve a sacrifice of the individual purpose on many occasions, and these are the test cases of the strength of the group itself. There are really two types of individuals who stand out from the group—the genius, or social discoverer; the criminal, or social rebel. Platt suggests that [35]“Man has never become entirely socialized”; his biological heredity always lags behind the social heredity of the group and leaves a residuum of conflict. Baldwin gives a broader theory, which may include this: [36]“The individual is the particularizing social force; society is the generalizing social force.” That is, the individual produces variations, which are then stamped out by social disapproval, or generalized by social acceptance. The genius thinks for the race; the mass of individuals have their thinking done for them by the prepared reactions of the group. Without the social group the individual would be as unformed mentally, as helpless ethically, as is the single bee without the hive. In Baldwin’s words: [37]“A man is a social outcome rather than a social unit.” All this by the way; if I were to take up the problem of the individual and group, it would occupy this entire study. I merely want to show its bearing on the central thesis here brought forward, which concerns the relation between group and group, rather than that between individual and group. 2.