One of the most fascinating revelations of targeted marketing is how thoroughly it shattered the myth of “individuality”—so quietly, we hardly noticed. 

In Western societies, it’s a long-standing tenet that each individual is unique. While that may hold true in a philosophical sense, in practice it’s not all that hard to sort us into groups and assign us categories. Just take a look at your online ads — they’re reacting to different fragments of who you are.

Though patterns are often framed nowadays in the context of AI and the fascinating correlations models seem to uncover, it actually stems from something far less advanced.

It turns out that, as a species, we’re exceptionally good at profiling — and, within reasonable bounds, we’re also pretty good at performing those profiles. It’s hardly a secret; it’s used every day to deliver us the “best offers” and “most relevant services.” Like that bit from Futurama where the only clothes available are the ones you’re already wearing.

This habit has deep roots. In advertising and design — suspect disciplines if ever there were any — we’ve long relied on “personas”: essentially reductive character sketches meant to stand in for real people.

Critics of these techniques often argue they fail to capture the true expression of individuality that exists within each of us. But do they really?

In a world where everything is “targeted,” we still act offended—and pretend that objects are mass-produced precisely because we’re all uniquely special. The joke writes itself.

And it’s telling—almost poetic—that it’s in Western societies, so deeply anchored in the canon of personal identity, that these reductionist tools have found their deepest hold.

The problem however is not that we are in a pattern. Is that they are intensifying. We have look at these from many perspectives and while the critic usually focuses on social media I don’t really think AI models will fall so far of the mark. 

As expressions of the dominant social order that produced them, these models are simply tasked with being the most average denominator of our society that they can be.

And while there’s a part of us that welcomes certain biases—like those that uphold democracy or equality—we’d be wise to stay alert to how broader patterns shape our choices, often without us even noticing.

Mostly because computers are always seeking to optimize—finding the quickest path to the “best” possible outcome. By that metric, the most efficient way to stop a gambling addiction is simple: make you broke. No money, no betting. Logical—and spectacularly flawed from any humane or societal perspective. 

I’d argue that one quick—though not necessarily easy—solution is simply coming to terms with the fact that societies are collectives. Each collective decides what it values, but it does so within the bounds of shared group mechanics and a collective psyche.

Not good, not bad—just reality. As much as our sense of individuality might resist the idea, it doesn’t change the underlying truth. And the more we develop AI, the more will these patterns amplify, for better or worse.