books on this, and specifically of the impact of sociopathic schizophrenics and their day-to-day impact on the public forum. I know ted kaczynski came close to discussing this with 'surrogate activities' - where the nominal politics is just a cover for a person to justify their psychological desire to (do some antisocial activity). But I've not found very much putting that together with the general epidemic of insanity, non-reality and aggressive unreason, coupled with the arguably counterproductive SSRI abuse to 'stabilize' those people... a person on the brink of suicide, very angry and hate-filled toward the world, who is untreated for this but pumped full of suppressant drugs and plopped in front of a keyboard to make other peoples lives miserable.
I'm curious for books dealing with this and social media as the outlet for those people, i.e. (you) ...
Also, I suppose, did any of the facebook critiques mention any of this? The notion of rewriting peoples brains by social media as ticking the box for the DSM criterion for schizophrenia (selective delusion, self-reinforcement of delusion, enmity to others, etc.) ...the role of these people in promulgating conspiracy theories, disrupting politics, etc. how the society couldn't tolerate the, but wouldn't treat them, and decided to enact massive censorship using them as the excuse.
Big subject anyway.
oh and pref books which DON'T boil the fricking thing down to blaming it all on contemporary political factions, like ted made the mistake of doing.
OP
Blindsight
so.... who are the crazies? the scramblers or the vampires or the baseline egotists?
also this is huge when considering the thing in terms of internet; not just IQfy but twitter journos and comments in general
>the arguably counterproductive SSRI abuse to 'stabilize' those people... a person on the brink of suicide, very angry and hate-filled toward the world, who is untreated for this but pumped full of suppressant drugs and plopped in front of a keyboard to make other peoples lives miserable.
given the vast number of young people and old people thrown onto those drugs during the 'social media age'
errrrrrrrrrr............ really, that was all? the only response? some junky sci-fi novella
depressing.
It’s probably more tangentially related than straight-on, but you might The Transparent Society by Byung-Chul Han. It’s a quite short philosophical essay on the consequences of grandstanding ourselves to the world constantly (like we do through social media). Burnout Society is also worth it as a complement, as it tries to explain mental health issues through the pressure of contemporary work ethics (constantly trying to improve vs. having a boss and meeting deadlines).
Don’t expect statistics and real-world examples though, they really are essays in the Montaigneian sense (although with a little more philosophical meat on the bone). I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but seeing as you write a lot of separate ideas in the OP, I’d say you’re not looking for statistics, percentages and scientific reviews anyway.
If you want a more specified view of the effects of social media, Your Undivided Attention is a good podcast. Although I feel like the episodes are steadily getting worse, the earlier ones are worth a listen.
>I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but
doesn't look like it, but thanks for trying 🙂
>Your Undivided Attention is a good podcast
yeah not bad, i guess
>Your Undivided Attention
Yeah episode 4 is more interesting on this topic. I've still got to extrapolate for the context, but it's good. Considering that the 'partially literate' could count as a vulnerable group being exploited by propaganda; the partially literate going ape over a trigger word and going off onto attacks over things that aren't real.
Overall the winding up of imbalanced or uninformed persons; setting them off onto crusades of sociopathy, ... it's probably ultimately correct, as like the chicken that laid their egg, but it's a very long term view and it removes responsibility of the crazy person for their actions. The only way it fits is in the broader environment of social media, where the making of an extremely negative response fuels the dopamine which feeds the frenzy.
It does seem to come back to the problem of anonymity (on the part of an attacker; enabling 100% of this, and as a presumption made of the reading audience; where the attacker can cast, say, a former marine as a leftist to attack the character to ignore the argument), and which nobody wants to address.
one last bump - any last booooooks or authors or thingsssss IQfyeratoi?
these were the interesting ones so far,
>The Transparent Society by Byung-Chul Han
>Your Undivided Attention
>(various)
>Anatomy of an Epidemic - Robert Whitaker
>""The Slow Death of the Concept of Schizophrenia and the Painful Birth of the Psychosis Spectrum" - Jim Van Os
>Jonathan Crary - 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep
>Saving Normal
and maybe
>Blindsight
still curious how this is to be read:
Saving Normal is great, but I'd add on Crazy Like Us which shows how the US is exporting its mental health model which is also the least likely to cure anything. Crazy Like Us is journalistic, but Saving Normal is more likely to sway western doctors because it's by one who was a major authority on the subject.
Kind of a funny thing, then, something so central the life, thought and realpolitik of the modern westerner and virtually nothing exists on it.
Perhaps.. as I suspect.. you can only study the thing for a short while before becoming horribly depressed and losing the will the write about it.
It’s also a wildly hard problem to diagnose and requires a set of theses that are hard to defend. How many authors have tried and failed to accurately diagnose the psychological state of their age? Individual psychology is hard enough, group psychology is even harder.
>Individual psychology is hard enough
I obviously disagree with this; if you're reasonable well-read in the background literature of the diagnoses and the meaning of the words then it's as easy to spot from someones actions as it would be spot that that their leg was broken to diagnose a broken leg.
>It’s also a wildly hard problem to diagnose and requires a set of theses that are hard to defend. How many authors have tried and failed to accurately diagnose the psychological state of their age? Individual psychology is hard enough, group psychology is even harder.
It's more that the implications are unwanted by substantial portions of the society, so the thing just cannot move forward. i.e. if so many are recognized to have (bubonic plague) then that means radical steps must be taken, people are unwilling. I think this is moreso why we've seen reversals in treatment to the consequence of massive epidemic (normalization of socially pernicious acts).
This, I think, is why the normalization (and degradation of the terminology) has had to occur since the enough of the society (for whatever reasoning) refuses treatment.. and from there it was a plunge into the progressively worse and worse. Including the abuse 'of' terminology as pejoratives or preemptive pejoratives by the most seriously sociopathic.
e.g. the USSR, vilified s they were, came very far with what was called Sluggish Schizophrenia: west hated this, but if you look up the criteria for that diagnosis then you find the character traits of the attention prostitutes and the sociopaths, esp, as ted says, those who use politics as an outlet- which is like 100% of the major civil problems.
>group psychology is even harder.
It is now, if we're trying to solve social media we have to solve this this and this first, it's just one layer of impediment atop the former, atop the former to the former, etc. gross stagnancy due to non-compliance. On the other hand if "everything" is bad then it makes it far easier to stop wasting time on irredeemable things and begin on new paths - for the self anyway.
wow that was a fricking essay wasn't it lol
MY TIME HAS COME
mental illness, psychiatry, and their proliferation
Anatomy of an Epidemic - Robert Whitaker
My Lobotomy - Howard Dully
The Myth of Mental Illness - Thomas Szasz
""The Slow Death of the Concept of Schizophrenia and the Painful Birth of the Psychosis Spectrum" - Jim Van Os
social media and non-reality
Amusing Ourselves to Death - Neil Postman
Simulacra and Simulation - Jean Baudrillard
>""The Slow Death of the Concept of Schizophrenia and the Painful Birth of the Psychosis Spectrum" - Jim Van Os
Thisssssss looks particularly interesting.. as well as most of those titles; Postman I've read, Baudrillard I've certainly got on my to-do list. Not sure about Szaz, the title seems dismissive.
Problem, though, is that those I've read are all pre-internet and although Postman mentions the coddled egotism he wasn't aware of the rapid depths of what was to come.
>>Your Undivided Attention is a good podcast
>yeah not bad
i'm up to episode 4 in this lol
good list until Szasz
>Szasz
Yeah I didn't like the looks of the premises of these two (Szasz and Vos). Denying that people are mentally ill is unhelpful since it provides no means to deal with or resolve their behaviors.
e.g. If Jim the sociopath in't a clinical sociopath, for example, then the solution to his actions is a blunt answer: punch him in the face, rather than work to resolve and cure his problems so that he's not a source of antagonism and disorder and being punched in the face by others.
>If you haven't read The Utopia of Rules or Capitalist Realism yet, you've also got about 40 hours of Adam Curtis
I haven't, no... I read the Crary thing last night - the final few chapters at last get to social media but there's not much focus on it, it's interesting though for sure. related.
>Or how much Sigmund Freud really just fricking hated humanity.
Ah come on, the original criterion for things like schizophrenia and autism and the investigation of the subconscious - these things remain perfectly valid. If you notice it's 'we' (our society since 1940) who refuse to take them seriously and ended up watering down the diagnosis and making treatment impossible... preferring lobotomy then chemical lobotomy to anything reasonable.
>But the gist is that we took all the wrong lessons from WWII and forgot why the great depression happened.
Perhaps, but I'd say it's more an societal unwillingness to have come to terms with psychology.
I'll give Adam Curtis a try though, since you seem intelligent.
>Fritz Perl
Nice... I've read and watched bits from him before.
>Anyway, to have a better discussion, what's your question?
On the pernicious impact of persons exhibiting hostile or asocial behavior as to their effect on the people around them, adding to this (or perhaps beginning with this) social media.
e.g. 100 people are perfectly happy and in good order, along comes a "bad apple" and drags them all down into a pit of suspicion and hatred by doing things which are disorderly (lying, stealing, rumors) and forcing them to change their good habits in order to defend and counter the actions of the "bad apple" and some copy the bad apple. Thinking either on social media or just in groups in general.
In context, I would say 'that' is what Ted is really observing when he describes the 'surrogate activity' in its more pernicious socially-orientated forms.
>The problem may be older than we may think.
For sure. It's definitely amplified by soc-med in massive ways - but optimistically I think it makes the actual problem a much easier target for us to identify though - when it's depersonalized and not a matter of 'Jim' doing (bad) but of the workings of (Jims brain pattern and its causes) in the gestalt.
>Crazy Like Us which shows how the US is exporting its mental health model which is also the least likely to cure anything
For sure. It's not even aiming to cure anything at this point: lobotomy then chemical lobotomy (drugs).
>It's not even aiming to cure anything at this point
The most interesting thing out of it was the west has always been really bad at treating schizophrenia, like so bad it's statistically unlikely they are not causing longer and more protracted psychosis in their patients. If treatment is so bad that doing nothing is more likely to make the patient well, maybe do nothing.
>e.g. 100 people are perfectly happy and in good order, along comes a "bad apple" and drags them all down into a pit of suspicion and hatred by doing things which are disorderly (lying, stealing, rumors) and forcing them to change their good habits in order to defend and counter the actions of the "bad apple" and some copy the bad apple
I heard something like this in Saplosky's research on apes. He spoke about longevity and well-being of communities that don't engage in as much aggression displacement and hostility though.
>social media or just in groups in general
Social media add and an extra layer of illusion. We're already projecting enough as it stands, and social media only adds to it. That way "bad apple" can be "worse apple" if it is on social media.
>I think it makes the actual problem a much easier target for us to identify though
The actual problem is living in illusions and projecting hard, which is what we do, and with social media, we are doing more and more of that. It doesn't make things any easier for us. I know that soon a point is coming when I'm going to use internet way less than I have been up to this point.
>but of the workings of (Jims brain pattern and its causes)
Not sure what you mean here.
>i.e. if they weren't disrupted then how far and how fast might they progress?
I don't think we're in that cycle at this point. We're not progressing.
>Saplosky's research on apes. He spoke about longevity and well-being of communities that don't engage in as much aggression displacement and hostility though.
>I don't think we're in that cycle at this point. We're not progressing.
Oh I agree, I'm suggesting, as you say with Saplosky, how much more efficient a society/community/group will be when it has solved this problem.
>>but of the workings of (Jims brain pattern and its causes)
>Not sure what you mean here.
i.e. if we recognize pernicious social contests (lying about others) as being surrogate activities, then we don't mistake those 'pernicious social' things as if they were legitimate opinions on (subjects of interest). Jim is cured of this if the group is educated, if the group isn't educated then Jim perpetuates terrible things throughout the group. (brain pattern is probably more a poetic use than the actuality of the cause of his actions)
> "bad apple" can be "worse apple" if it is on social media.
Much agreed. So if social media is surrogate activity (in the worst sense) then we can understand how 'Jim' perpetuates massive badness
> I know that soon a point is coming when I'm going to use internet way less than I have been up to this point.
For me it was a matter of cutting off and cauterizing the worst forms of peer influence; peoples depression dragging you down and slowing you down by demoralization. Internet is still a great tool, we have today the entire collection of mankinds knowledge at our fingertips to compare and contrast, but it may be that we're the only people capable of recognizing the vast applications (and unique point in time) of this ....and that the impediment to recognizing this stems from that 'negative influence'.
>how much more efficient a society/community/group will be when it has solved this problem
It hasn't solved the problem. It just so happened that the members of that group didn't displace their emotions (via bullying for example). It's not that the possibility of that was done with. It was more of a good coincidence, as far as I take it.
>i.e. if we recognize pernicious social contests (lying about others) as being surrogate activities, then we don't mistake those 'pernicious social' things as if they were legitimate opinions on (subjects of interest).
Okay, I agree with that one. For that to be the case, there has to be a clear division between healthy goals and unhealthy non-sense. Nowadays, the line is blurred.
>So if social media is surrogate activity (in the worst sense) then we can understand how 'Jim' perpetuates massive badness
Okay, well others act based on 'Jim's' behaviour, which help him perpetuate this badness. It's off topic, but I had an association with Karpman's triangle. Jim's behaviour is perpetuated by enablers and their behaviour is no less neurotic than his.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
>Internet is still a great tool
Yeah, I've come across some great things as well, but you know, there comes a time.
Byung Chul Han - Burnout Society
Mark Fisher actually wrote quite a bit about mental health which makes sense because he killed himself
Jonathan Crary - 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep
Some Italian philosopher whose name I cannot remember wrote about biopolitics specifically relating to memeflu.
Giorgio Agamben?
TED ITT
E
D
I
T
T
Saving Normal by Frances Allenz.
It doesn’t really romanticize anything like the things you’re asking for, but it’s a good explanation to what’s going on.
Allen Frances*
God fricking damn it i can never get his fricking name right. Don’t let my incompetency spill onto him, check it out and make up your own mind.
>Allen Frances
This looks good, I agree that the diagnosis 'habit' is a bad problem for every level of a thing; to declare depression due to circumstance as if it were a lifelong condition that is not able to be solved. I see it more applicably as errors in thinking; being mistaken, etc., but there is a case to be made for normalization of a temporary condition; i.e. if you're trained to think in the compartmentalized manner of a schizophrenic (or whatever some delusions) then your pathways will be set into that pattern from habit and resemble the actions of a schizophrenic - not from a chemical origin but from a socialization origin where "the habit" is just normalized for you.
In context here with social media the brain, I would argue, is being habituated into extremely poor reasoning and delusions of others. IQfy is bad for this but discord is probably the worst given the 'comfort' and 'human voice' resembling more a human community.
Social media amplifies the worst facilities of the socially-orientated mind. That's been my conclusion anyway, that much of what we see isn't just individuals being insane but insane individuals being enabled to enforce and perpetuate insanity amongst others around them; lowering the bar to below baseline levels of reasoning in order, nominally, to perpetuate some political narrative which they've attached themselves to for social leadership status or just for social status w/o the politics.
>Solves your woes
idk, even if 99% unplugged and ignore the influences we'd still find the 1%, still in that platos cave, forcing the rest of us to go along with whatever they declare.
The ignoring of all feedback in that gamergate and net neutrality scandal and every election are good examples of this: every single criticism was declared to be a russian chatbot or a troll just pretending to oppose (whatever) and in the minds of the people in the boardroom making the decision to do this or that perhaps they truly believed this; i.e. it's very easy to make up any ad hominem about all people who disagree with you.
again, anonymity is the source of this. If you are hidden from view then your words can be taken from you and declared to be false as you can declared to be this or that... and there's no way prevent it from happening.
I think this is no more different than the small child level of intellect and maturity; to just insist on an untrue thing. Whereas, as said:
media amplifies the worst facilities of the socially-orientated mind.
It is hard to watch this happening. I am nothing but sympathy to your perspective. There is nothing I can really do about but instead look after myself the the community I interact with. I know its not much, and its not a solution to the problems caused the this third industrial revolution, but it is the best I can manage while still making the best of my life.
aw, thanks cigar man iu[2].jpg
>>i.e. it's very easy to make up any ad hominem about all people who disagree with you.
media amplifies the worst facilities of the socially-orientated mind.
I mean, the lie shows that the person/attacker isn't attempting to convince the other party or reach the truth of a matter, but is appealing to the social group to dismiss the other party.
i.e.
socially orientated.
How open are you to considering that all of these things were the unforseen, unplanned, uncared for consequences born from an organic marriage of the cold war, science, economic theory, and postmodernism as a whole?
That's almost a given, isn't it? Like nuclear contamination of groundwater as an:
>unforseen, unplanned, uncared for consequence
you could argue the anarchy of capitalism as the main cause.
>you could argue the anarchy of capitalism as the main cause.
If you haven't read The Utopia of Rules or Capitalist Realism yet, you've also got about 40 hours of Adam Curtis documentaries to watch.
Pandora's Vox is a good essay to read as well.
But the gist is that we took all the wrong lessons from WWII and forgot why the great depression happened.
Or how much Sigmund Freud really just fricking hated humanity.
>sociopathic schizoprenics
Please stop posting
the moronic 22 year old boomer vibe is intense here
>using words without knowing what they mean
check
>ted kaczynski invented this very general and well known idea
check
>everyone i dont understand is insane
check
just learn a little more about the world before you start word vomiting tard shit everywhere
well none of that's true, but if you set out to confirm that you're a malding gen-x'er with asocial chronic depression, you did that. Obviously you're painfully unaware of what schizophrenia is also,
see traits: alogia, asocialability
compare others of happy faces and intellectual interest to yourself with these above criterion in mind. then drink the floor cleaning drank of death.
legally moronic esl moment
Hey Jim, what took you so long?
Eh, great topic
I've found that writing of Fritz Perls on Gestalt therapy and some buddhist writing may be useful here.
The problem may be older than we may think.
Anyway, to have a better discussion, what's your question?
, to have a better discussion, what's your question?
>On the pernicious impact of persons exhibiting hostile or asocial behavior as to their effect on the people around them,
i.e. if they weren't disrupted then how far and how fast might they progress? Without the pernicious social element occurring in petty popularity contests the focus itself on reality and problem-solving would be immense, plus they would have uninterrupted cohesion to work together.
>the role of these people in promulgating conspiracy theories, disrupting politics, etc. how the society couldn't tolerate the, but wouldn't treat them, and decided to enact massive censorship using them as the excuse.
this is probably in some footnote of a book on the sackler's but that's part of the advertising of older antipsychotics like haloperidol etc
schizophrenia in the US is a black disease which conveniently starts around the civil rights movement and seems to be best treated by giving levels of drugs that would make an elephant in a rut snooze half the day away peacefully
if you get the old advertising for the era it's pretty clear what they're treating is political unrest and doctors being uneasy around black people who tell them the CIA are murdering political activists in their homes on American soil because that sounds like some shit that didn't happen lol
That is a fantastic point.
Okay, so there is the political abuse 'of' psychology and psychiatry occurring (same with sluggish schizophrenia in USSR), but at the same time people exist who 'do' exhibit those disorders (i mean: those manners of errors in thinking). I would say that the very evil thing to do would be to offer no treatment at all, then the lunatic and the legitimate person are conflated and both are ignored, as we're evidenced to say "it's a crazy conspiracy theory" and ignore it, whether it is or not.
e.g. the criterion for schizophrenia is identifiable and when examined actually in terms of the thought-processes and actions (from the thought-processes) come to describe a great deal of pernicious actions in contemporary society. Again, look at the tickboxes for sluggish schizophrenia in the USSR.
I think this is more to do with the 'medicalization' of the notion that a thought-disorder is not a thought-disorder but some inborn unchangeable thing, this is easily demonstrated to be a false notion but it explains why the rationale to "not treat (anything)" (and then have a society suffering the consequences) has occured.
It reminds me of the argument against why grammar stopped being taught in english schools (in the middle 70's); they said it was too difficult and that children were being whipped for non-compliance, whereas it was a matter that the teachers were inept and resorted to extreme punishment. Think of how that situation came about, then consider the lobotomy as the 'last resort' to inept practice. In both instances the argument is a non-sequitur as it was made at the time, since one thing has nothing to do with the other (grammar does not entail physical punishment) so it seems more as an excuse was being made to abandon the study of an otherwise very valuable thing.
e.g. if we 'cured' mental illness then we wouldn't be able to marginalize political elements in our societies as being 'crazy people', likewise if we had 'good culture' on social media then we would be able to silence political or academic opinion with ad hominem
>we're evidenced to say "it's a crazy conspiracy theory
lol they literally killed hampton in the middle of chicago and none of the white people saying that was a crazy conspiracy theory that never happened got schizophrenia meds
a lot of the people saying there was no evidence the CIA were killing their own citizens on home soil when they're not allowed do shit on US soil were the doctors prescribing shit
it's not evil to not let mfs take their racist fairytale out on you, that's just basic self respect
Oh I know about that and I agree with you, my point was:
>>e.g. if we 'cured' mental illness then we wouldn't be able to marginalize political elements in our societies as being 'crazy people',
that is: the society wouldn't be able to brush off legitimate concerns about government/policy/whatever as being "crazy," then the society would be forced to take seriously the abuses carried out that we the cause of the concerns.
i.e. we'd be able to filter and remedy the cases of actual delusions so that 'crazy' couldn't be used as a way to dismiss non-delusional evidenced-based reality-based critique.
here, give me some videos or authors for more stuff on this;
>if you get the old advertising for the era
>the advertising of older antipsychotics like haloperidol
there's a book called the protest psychosis which is about locking up blacks and hippies for being chronically left brained
>there's a book called the protest psychosis which is about locking up blacks and hippies for being chronically left brained
Ha that's funny in a dark satire kind of way; that's the error that Ted made, of course, when he observed surrogate activities but put it all into the camp of (one contemporary political faction). But, I would think (from an outsider looking in) that it doesn't take much to see that the observed behavior is identical in group/individual regardless of their verbal professions to (believe in this or that), since the basis in reality for 'them' (i.e. the actual matters claimed by a such person to motivate them) is secondary to egotism, and it would be easy to differentiate between a basis in reality and a non-basis in reality (narrative seeking, etc. confirmation bias, etc.).
>You're ignoring that current treatment looks like a form of medical abuse.
I'm agreeing with you entirely - I said that the problem 'of' the so-called 'treatment' is that it does the approach that a simple error in perception is like a "genetic inborn thing" that a person is stuck with for their entire life. And that this approach is arguably born from a conflation or watering down of the diagnostic terminology, as like to take the original criterion for Autism and smash that down to form a fine paste to spread over a hundred different behaviors; and then to turn (e.g. Autism) into a group category which defends the erroneous diagnosis; as if like "a community of people with twisted ankles" who would find themselves opposing the treatment of the twisted ankle or the recognition of the twisted ankle as an impairment.
>I would say that the very evil thing to do would be to offer no treatment at all
So far the best evidence for treating psychosis is making sure it's not a known disease causing neurological problems, and after that, making sure they sleep, eat and talk to people close to them on equal footing. Most psychosis is very brief. The places it is not brief and reoccurs are where there's western psychiatric interventions for the patient. The western treatment is likely what causes it to be a debilitating, long term and usually intractable disease, and seems to have extreme impacts on other bodily systems and functions.
from:
>I would say that the very evil thing to do would be to offer no treatment at all
>>So far the best evidence for treating psychosis is making sure it's not a known disease causing neurological problems
Then you mistake the lunacy of a persons asociability for a legitimate normal 'personality', and you allow the person to demoralize everybody around them. That's not a solution.
Bad actions ought be recognized as being what they are, then bad actions are shamed by the society: then the people who are inclined to perpetuate those behaviors are impeded from doing so and gradually learn why those things were unwise.
I mean, you're not wrong:
>making sure they sleep, eat and talk to people close to them on equal footing.
a low-key attuning to 'normalcy' is the way to go about it; but arguably this is already happening and it has no effect as the person is told that they aren't in error but that their 'personality' is "just that way" (reminds me of something else) and they make no effort to end the action brought about by their so-called "psychosis". It ends up just becoming an excuse for low functionality or out-right bad actions.
Even then this is more the result of a diagnostic term being watered down and spread over a hundred different things of varying severity from 'nothing at all' to actual extreme neurological impairment; autism for example, rendering the term inactionable for use (for being inactionable in focused diagnosis and treatment).
We have a long medical history of doing this with 'medical terms', things like "the pox" referred to a hundred different things for example. It may not be intentional, is what I'm getting at.
>for a legitimate normal 'personality', and you allow the person to demoralize everybody around them
It's not a personality disorder. It's just usually a transient illness not a chronic one. Turning it into a chronic one wouldn't even make it a personality disorder because you have an obvious removable stressor. You're ignoring that current treatment looks like a form of medical abuse. Let's try not to legitimise that because doctors probably shouldn't have free reign ethically or legally to make patients have worse outcomes.
> I said that the problem 'of' the so-called 'treatment' is that it does the approach that a simple error in perception is like a "genetic inborn thing"
I said that the problem 'of' the so-called 'treatment' is that it does take* the approach that a simple error in perception is like a "genetic inborn thing"
A good percentage of what gets called mental illness originates from physical inflammation caused by chronic irritants of some kind. Not all of it, but I suspect a surprising amount from how both the convenient processed food, commonly taken medications, and the tap water might as well look designed to make people feel like shit
A lot of it is diet and exercise. Some of it is probably founder problems becoming evident. However, a great swathe of it is direct to consumer advertising, both of symptoms and putative cures. Doctors play a part, but pharma got a lot of very sketchy drugs through to populations where doctors can't legally prescribe them, so it's not just doctors. Both pharma and industrial scale processed food have a lot of overlapping interest.
I don't know about the actionability of this; if you find a lunatic you'll have a harder time getting him to change his diet or lay off the booze (which is hard work for him) than to stop beating his children (which is less effort for him).
By the same frame of reasoning I could shrug off dealing with the problems of other people by advocating my own diet for them, wouldn't make any difference at all lol
>It was more of a good coincidence, as far as I take it.
It sounds interesting anyway.
>Okay, well others act based on 'Jim's' behaviour, which help him perpetuate this badness. It's off topic, but I had an association with Karpman's triangle. Jim's behaviour is perpetuated by enablers and their behaviour is no less neurotic than his.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
That's the thing, who actually instigates the drag-down and why and how does the group be influenced by it. With things like preemptive attack and the cause of the aggression in a person it's not an infinite number of possibilities as to why they do what they do. But if the group itself is educated in or given the language to identify those things as they arise then the group is immunized and the problem-person finds that what they do has no effect, and gives up.
>That's the thing, who actually instigates the drag-down and why and how does the group be influenced by it.
It's a group effort. Sometimes the impulse may come from the bad apple coming to a group and sometimes the group invites a bad apple.
>But if the group itself is educated in or given the language to identify those things as they arise then the group is immunized and the problem-person finds that what they do has no effect, and gives up.
Sure, except this happens very rarely. I don't think we're at that point now, to be able to educate ourselves this way and work this way.
>I don't think we're at that point now, to be able to educate ourselves this way and work this way.
Not until we can accurately identify the causes of the "bad apple," I think the non-reality basis is the impetus behind 'most' of those things... I want to add "social contest" to "non-reality" but that's more difficult to prove. Non-reality, however, can be demonstrated in every case and if, then, the focus of a person is not observing with and deducing reality then it's on a "human construct" (popularity, social/asocial, whatever).
Maybe the social-focus is the baseline disposition which the group naturally moves away from whilst "bad apples" represent the moronation to draw them back from logic/evolution/maturity by impeding those processes where the group would otherwise advance; not to give them anything different but just to impede them with a non-reality-basis - i.e. it isn't a subversion (on the part of the "bad apple") to steer them from one thing to another, it's just a shutdown ... that is: it's not rational from their own perspective; to destroy or confuse the group or drag them down to below baseline is harmful even to the person doing it.
>Not until we can accurately identify the causes of the "bad apple,"
In small communities, negotiations work much better, and so does finding out the reason for why bad apple causes disturbance.
>non-reality basis is the impetus behind 'most' of those things...
Of course, we live in a projection, at least for most of the time. How does that manifest itself in a group? You get a bad apple that starts causing disturbances (just one way of disrupting the healthy group working) because of unresolved and projected issues, and other members of the group enable him or try to help him, again by having unresolved issues and projecting. I'm getting back to the Karpman's triangle. Members of the group take on these roles in order to resolve their personal issues while not solving the issue at hand - the real issue.
So, yeah we live in a fantasy of our own creation, and I think that that is the primary problem, which is also why I think we're not at a point of being able to solve the issues you are describing.
>it's just a shutdown ... that is: it's not rational from their own perspective; to destroy or confuse the group or drag them down to below baseline is harmful even to the person doing it.
Yeah, I'm thinking the same, and I think this describes people like Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk.
I'm not sure on that one, but I definitely solved a decent deal of my own problems by just messing around with my diet. As in from being dependent on aspirines to be able to function on a fundamental level (being able to make my own meals) to not taking any and doing just fine.
Truth is women control your plate, if it is fine for them, they think it is fine for you. If you don't cook your own food, or at least, never bothered with it, then chances are you are being fricked in some way or another.
>myth of mental illness
Jim cower under his bed because he believes black helicopters are buzzing his house, there's not even any noise to suggest a helicopter has been anywhere near his area.
explain what's going on here without using any psychiatric language.
it's a metaphor for blackies ruining his neighbourhood
Another idiot foiled by the title.
yeah, me and the whole world, what a genius author.
It is some stupid shit about mental illness not being an illness. As in: "bruh software isn't hardware". I bet it was groundbreaking at the time, but nowadays sounds like ok, cool story.
I really think I should read this thread, but im too lazy rn.
So I post this and will read it afterwards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
jerry marzinsky
ah.. dehumanization, the other alternative; second to idntifying the societal problems and blaming an outgroup only to have the problems not go away when the outgroup does.
No, that's the my nextdoor who recognizes and realizes the threat of blackies ruining his neighborhood - Jim has a paranoid delusion. He could find a rationale for this (a false cause to explain his delusions) from the ideology of the man nextdoor, or the man across the street, who believes in the opposite ideology. Question is: is Jim a help or a hindrance