Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
“Healthy people are trained to identify mental illness through social behaviourism"

Through lots of observations and assessments, I scientifically conclude that healthy people employ “social behaviourism” - social techniques which reveal mental illness in unsound individuals as if to be an evolutionary compulsion. Otherwise, it is because of the unwritten community goals in groupthink anxiety to identify and avoid risky individuals. These observations and assessments pertain to British culture, by and large, therefore I do not at this stage attempt to generalise my conclusions to American culture or otherwise.

I have to wonder if terror threats have played a considerable role in shaping these mentalities.

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone unaware of how psychologically competent many ordinary people are; this is practically the age of psychology we live in.

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: series0

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
People instinctively seek genetic similarities with the exception of the immune system. The recognition of decisive genetic traits is a matter of second. The average joe (which I suppose is your *healthy* person) simply spots what's not like joe and has no fucking clue whether it is more illness or more health than joe can handle.
It would be helpful if you expounded on all this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,028 Posts
Do a search. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...nds-who-are-genetically-similar-us-180952050/

As for the rest, it's obvious that we cannot be programmed to have an innate understanding of what mental health is - more a direction of evolution that is yet to be completed than a state. Instincts are empirical. How far one understands mental health = how close one is to completion. Can't look at the door through its own lock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Do a search. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...nds-who-are-genetically-similar-us-180952050/

As for the rest, it's obvious that we cannot be programmed to have an innate understanding of what mental health is - more a direction of evolution that is yet to be completed than a state. Instincts are empirical. How far one understands mental health = how close one is to completion. Can't look at the door through its own lock.
I see mental health as the evolution of wisdom. It would seem that our views coincide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keine Kageshirasawa

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,378 Posts
"Plans that either come to naught or half a page or scribbled lines
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way"

~Pink Floyd, Time
 

·
Spam-I-am
Joined
·
13,657 Posts
Through lots of observations and assessments, I scientifically conclude that healthy people employ “social behaviourism” - social techniques which reveal mental illness in unsound individuals as if to be an evolutionary compulsion. Otherwise, it is because of the unwritten community goals in groupthink anxiety to identify and avoid risky individuals. These observations and assessments pertain to British culture, by and large, therefore I do not at this stage attempt to generalise my conclusions to

I have to wonderful

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone unaware of how psychologically competent many ordinary people are; this is practically the age of psychology we live in.

Thoughts?
Any scientific data to back this up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
@vinniebob

I haven't been recording my findings physically, merely recording them mentally, and then using induction to come to sensible conclusions. Aside from sensible logic, the only other prerequisites for these findings were a keen eye and good judgement. I concluded scientifically, but as my data relied on subjectivity I cannot show you objective evidence; instead, it would be good if you were able to make the same observations yourself.

I am asserting what I believe to be wise for the intrinsic merits wisdom brings.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
Being terrified and anxious of everything is an evolutionary trait? Absolutley not. It’s a weakness, a sympton of a society which forces human beings to live ( if you want to call it living) in a way which is not healthy for anyone.

True wisdom is the ability to rise above all of the petty, insignificant problems-which causes weaker people to become anxious and unable to cope- to accept impermanence and find a way to be content with your own life no matter what the miserable and wretched throw at you.
Let them all sink to the swamp they’ve chosen to wade into and take care of yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Social skills are learned, initially through interactions with the primary caregiver. The back and forth between parent and child helps the formation of key neural pathways in the brain. Babies are born without the ability to regulate their own emotions, they're completely dependent on the caregiver to soothe and mirror emotions, the quality of the parenting is crucial. If everything goes well, the child forms a secure attachment, he's been socialized enough that he understands social rules for his age, he goes on to kindergarten and has fruitful interactions with other children which allow him to develop more and more sophisticated social skills. And so on until adulthood. People don't even notice the process if it goes well.

However, if a child has abusive or neglectful parents, alcoholic or drug-addicted parents, parents who provide catastrophic parenting, the child never receives the basics, emotionally or socially. He goes on to kindergarten, is afraid of other children or is aggressive towards them, doesn't understand social rules, gets rejected by other children because of it, or bullies other children to feel better about themselves, and it spirals on. Dysfunctional behaviour can go in all kinds of directions. And because he's being raised by the parents who created this problem to begin with, it compounds and usually never gets addressed until much later on. If at all. People who adopt children for example very often find out that the child - because they missed crucial developmental milestones in their early age from poor parenting - are behind on their social and emotional development, and they often suffer mental health issues as teens and adults - regardless of how high quality the parenting that came afterwards was.

Mentally ill people reveal themselves, it's not that the normies are using special "techniques" to root them out. Social problems are baked in the cake for most mental issues.
 
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Through lots of observations and assessments, I scientifically conclude that healthy people employ “social behaviourism” - social techniques which reveal mental illness in unsound individuals as if to be an evolutionary compulsion. Otherwise, it is because of the unwritten community goals in groupthink anxiety to identify and avoid risky individuals. These observations and assessments pertain to British culture, by and large, therefore I do not at this stage attempt to generalise my conclusions to American culture or otherwise.

I have to wonder if terror threats have played a considerable role in shaping these mentalities.

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone unaware of how psychologically competent many ordinary people are; this is practically the age of psychology we live in.

Thoughts?
Yeah. I realized some time ago that the real reason I can't get a job because people instinctively sense that I'm suffering from PTSD. The only people who don't are people who have some kind of vested interest in it, for example not being compelled to help me out financially - so they invent demented fantasies about how I'll get a job and will survive without their help.

For example I recently started listening to Fiona Apple. Mainly because it's visible from just looking at her that she's suffering from PTSD. I find it very interesting.

I also think that people have a limited Mojo reading ability where they sense which people are specialized by evolution for doing a specific job.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
307 Posts
There's a big difference between being mentally ill and not fitting in with social norms. Simply growing up with parents that don't expose you to social norms can make it hard to seem, "normal" and obviously a person can be perfectly normal in one culture and then move and be seen as very abnormal in their new culture. Mental illness isn't about being different; it's about being dysfunctional. In fact some things that are completely normal in some cultures are themselves dysfunctional so mental illness could even be seen as a normal or positive trait in those cultures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,015 Posts
It's both more simple and more complicated than that.

Human nature says - "It's all about me". That is the crux of social acceptance. Did an individual make the others feel validated in some particular way, shape, or form that they were desiring?

Often, especially with females, it's about validation of their own view of themselves as a validator (be grateful for their generous attention).
Among groups of women, if one can make the top bitch feel approved on basis of her appearance & her hospitality/generosity, you're in.
If an individual by turn can inspire enough others to treat her in that way, she becomes a top bitch. (I am using "bitch" in the sense of hierarchical assertiveness)

Now, any crazy person can learn to do that, and they do - often.

By turn, some higherminded people, both sane & crazy (pretending here that the distinction is ever that clear - I totally believe "everyone is a little bit crazy, it's a matter of degrees"), will abstain from acting out these social dances in recognition of the futility of it.

So, "Do you want to dance? Just remember, it's all about me!" is an invitation for which the response , I believe, demonstrates aspects of character other than recognition of reality (sanity).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
There's a big difference between being mentally ill and not fitting in with social norms. Simply growing up with parents that don't expose you to social norms can make it hard to seem, "normal" and obviously a person can be perfectly normal in one culture and then move and be seen as very abnormal in their new culture. Mental illness isn't about being different; it's about being dysfunctional. In fact some things that are completely normal in some cultures are themselves dysfunctional so mental illness could even be seen as a normal or positive trait in those cultures.
Yet they would be dysfunctional all the same. Dysfunction is something that can be objectively measured. Also, a person's ability tends to be apparent. This isn't so much the case when the observer is suffering from mental illness though. It's difficult for a healthy person with different norms from the culture that they now stay in to not feel abnormal and create awkwardness from those conflicting norms. The person can either assimilate the new norms into their behaviour and experience normal integration, experience healthy independence, or suffer from not being able to do either and experience mental illness/dysfunction.

I have observed a stark tendency that many mentally ill people feel compelled to drag others down to their level. This is probably to provide some kind of validation to their behaviour so they don't have to feel mentally ill. Simply trying to make others feel mentally ill is evil, and those individuals would never learn wisdom if they're stuck in their own illness that they try to propagate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I must apologise, but I don't understand a word of what the OP said. Can someone explain?
I can try, yeah.

"Through lots of observations and assessments, I scientifically conclude that healthy people employ “social behaviourism” - social techniques which reveal mental illness in unsound individuals as if to be an evolutionary compulsion."

From looking at people, I'm noticing that "normal, healthy" people tend to identify disorders in people through comparing differences in behavior, and ascribing those differences to evolutionary traits and disadvantages rather than purely societal forces.

"Otherwise, it is because of the unwritten community goals in groupthink anxiety to identify and avoid risky individuals. These observations and assessments pertain to British culture, by and large, therefore I do not at this stage attempt to generalise my conclusions to American culture or otherwise."

Healthy people tend to avoid these mentally ill since there is usually no simple solution and, after all, there is a selective biological advantage to stay away from these people. I've only noticed this behavior through my own culture, so I wouldn't say it applies to every culture.

"I have to wonder if terror threats have played a considerable role in shaping these mentalities."

Self explanatory
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
Through lots of observations and assessments, I scientifically conclude that healthy people employ “social behaviourism” - social techniques which reveal mental illness in unsound individuals as if to be an evolutionary compulsion. Otherwise, it is because of the unwritten community goals in groupthink anxiety to identify and avoid risky individuals. These observations and assessments pertain to British culture, by and large, therefore I do not at this stage attempt to generalise my conclusions to American culture or otherwise.

I have to wonder if terror threats have played a considerable role in shaping these mentalities.

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone unaware of how psychologically competent many ordinary people are; this is practically the age of psychology we live in.

Thoughts?
The concept you are discussing is warped in a specific way. You said 'healthy' people. That designation is incorrect.

Let that sink in first.

There is only 1 real health, moral health. Physical health is not as important although proper moral health will make you pursue it.

When you say healthy people, what you mean to say is, 'People well adjusted to the current society'

Here is the relevant amazing philosophical quote:

"It is no measure of success to be well adjusted to such a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

The designation I give to these so-called healthy people, prideful in their lack of moral awareness mostly, ignorant of their lucky position in the flow of things, is ... the mainstream.

The mainstream are merely possessed of lucky enneatypes. They are most common in the world for very good reasons. They have to be for the stability of mankind and life itself. But for them to then immorally take stock in that situation and edge out outlier motivations of the other 6 types is wrong. They do it constantly. They call this healthy, you did as well. It is not. It is an immoral choice.

Type 6 is the core of groupthink and types 9 and 3 transition to it. Type 6 is the most common type.

British culture has an overlay of type 1 thinking that pushes this order-based groupthink into a judgement paradigm as well. It is a classic order trap, very poisonous to freedom. Yet and still, your warning has merit to other cultures even if they are less affected than Britain.

Resisting the 'health' demands of the mainstream is very difficult. If you are not possessed of any of the mainstream (6,9,3) enneatypes in your tritype, then you are doomed to an 'unhealthy' life (according to them). Do not believe them!

Their types of success are moral failures. It doesn't make you moral. You still have to suffer and earn your wisdom as well.

I agree that social behaviorism is a rude and useless tool to identify health. It is entirely in error as a basis. Each set of motivations has healthy and unhealthy expressions. So, the expression itself is not one or the other. That is 'healthy' people's failure in awareness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealPsychologicus

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
@series0

Whilst your comment provided some good insight, it's not exact either.

When I say healthy people, I mean people who are not dragged down by mental illness; people who have a good control of their mind and can function fine in society. Whilst this may be easier for certain personality types, it does not change the distinction. People who are ill can achieve better health, and mental health is objective.

Moral health ties in with mental health. First of all, morality is a wide concept, and whilst a mentally ill person might commit no serious wrong against another, their totality of minor wrongs, ill experiences and lack of healthy virtue due to their illness, are more types of immorality. They go hand-in-hand and there is no sensible distinction to be made that supports your heavy critcicisms of the healthy mainstream.

In short, whilst your insight has practicability, you are generalising all well-adjusted to society people, and you made false distinction judgements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
@series0

Whilst your comment provided some good insight, it's not exact either.

When I say healthy people, I mean people who are not dragged down by mental illness; people who have a good control of their mind and can function fine in society. Whilst this may be easier for certain personality types, it does not change the distinction. People who are ill can achieve better health, and mental health is objective.

Moral health ties in with mental health. First of all, morality is a wide concept, and whilst a mentally ill person might commit no serious wrong against another, their totality of minor wrongs, ill experiences and lack of healthy virtue due to their illness, are more types of immorality. They go hand-in-hand and there is no sensible distinction to be made that supports your heavy critcicisms of the healthy mainstream.

In short, whilst your insight has practicability, you are generalising all well-adjusted to society people, and you made false distinction judgements.
You say the distinction I made was wrong and then you use my argument against me to prove it.

I meant that the distinction is blurred and that mental illness is most often directly linked to moral illness and only very rarely caused by external factors unrelated to moral choice. Note that this immoral choice can be from others, not the affected party. The key point in all of that is indeed the interconnectedness of it all.

What I was pointing out by the mainstream is that NO ONE is precisely moral. NO ONE is actually perfect and therefore fully healthy. In fact the second point is that society itself and what it considers healthy is mostly a 50/50 proposition of moral health at best. We are only at the dawn of our moral awareness as a species, standing on the rim of a 50/50 awareness and realizing that the pool of morality is wide and deep and we must let go of the sides and swim to be successful, morally.

The generalization I made is correct, and represents the relative stability of the mainstream, the 3 core value sets that allow for us to approach stability, the edge of the pool, rather mechanistically despite our lack of understanding of moral truth.

My insight is practical in many ways yes, but above all it is idealism. The idealism is the perfection-aiming non-acceptance of essentially all pragmatism, underscoring the moral failures of those assumed to be healthy by the system they themselves represent, the mainstream, without much input from the outlier types. The outlier types, assumed unhealthy, must now speak. Their, in many cases healthy, virtues must be included, integrated, to swim. Without taking in all streams, as Neitzche would say, we will fail at swimming and cling to the side of the pool in pragmatic and moral failure. The real age of ideology is upon us.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top