U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-12-2019, 12:11 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923

Advertisements

Thank you for sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sad_hotline View Post
Here it is. Forgive its slightly aggressive tone, I was in the midst of a serious argument. Note that it is not all encapsulating in the context of this thread, as I had written it for the context of another thread. It may also come off as very socio-politically biased, but I had argued from a relatively moderate standpoint in the thread, generally speaking. Also note that this is merely my observation, and my observation is inherently limited of course:

BEGIN QUOTE
--------------------

Unfortunately, the problem is far more grave and nebulous beyond work. If you care at all what is actually wrong, consider these points:

1) Men are falling behind. While this has been mostly smokescreened as women "taking the lead" in educational attainment, men are starting to falter and fall behind as boys. Some have suggested this being due to initiatives to boost college-readiness being suited towards girls. Boys fall behind because of this, but if women are succeeding, then everyone is satisfied with the status quo. This might not seem like an issue, until they become adults, and socio-economic standing and educational attainment suddenly control their dating prospects. Men, who have traditionally been the higher achievers and the breadwinners, are suddenly finding the tables turned, and just as many men are not open to the idea of their partner being more financially dominant, so too are many women uninterested in "dating down" to a lesser educated, lesser earning male. This is likely a part of point 3 below.

2) Confusion over manhood. #MeToo has brought to light many disgusting characters, but has also altered what it means to be a man. Many men are now incredibly cautious around women, for fear of being labeled a harasser. I don't know how many insufferable stories I've heard from boomers about how they asked a women out several times or followed her as some display of affection. If you did that now, you would absolutely get the social can. Men, who have been and still are expected to be the gender to "make the move" are suddenly having any mite of male bravado being labeled an offense. Suddenly, many men feel as if they are walking a very thin line.

3) Sex. 28% of young men are sexless, greatly increased from its typical variance of 12-18% since the late 90s. Meanwhile, 18% of young women are sexless, only slightly increased from its typical of variance of 10-15% since the late 90s. This can be due to a variety of factors, such as porn crushing men's drives, men being too cautious (see point 2), men falling behind and being less datable (see point 1), etc. One reason I postulate from my own experiences is online dating. With men now more cautious to act in person (point 2), dating is funneled into the online realm, where people are summarized by looks and brief summaries, rather than their real-life personalities and warmth. Women have a far easier time finding dates (many women's profiles I have seen are absolutely inundated with matches), while men tend to experience radio silence and having few matches. This has given rise to one branch of online hate that has lead to a few mass-casualty events in North America: incels. Incels can have a whole book about them, but basically they are a large sub-culture of extreme self-hatred and misogyny.

4) Loss in national pride. Shifting curriculum in schools have lead to many young Americans being taught extremely critical views on American history. America is now a shame for many young Americans who no longer care for what this country has stood for. In a general survey, only 40% of millennials reported to want to live in a capitalist society, with 46% preferring socialism, 6% preferring communism, and 8% preferring fascism. Mindless do-gooding of previous generations to "right America's wrongs" have created such a hostile environment for any degree of American patriotism to flourish, that it is common to see nothing but negativity and disgust towards America in young people. There is such a supreme focus on injustice and wrong, that many people forget just how good many of us have it. You see this grotesquely in the latest Kaepernick debacle, where he calls the Betsy Ross 13-star flag "racist" without a single educated argument, and Nike pulled their shoes with the flag off their shelves as a result. Politics will only get far more ugly as we see my generation gain power and turn their extremely critical eye on America.

5) Loss of identity. This is the part I expect people over 35 to understand the absolute least about. Many societal standards are rapidly being edited and re-edited month by month. "Toxic masculinity" has become a common theme that young people often cite, referring to either perceived male arrogance/ignorance/inaction/etc. It is as unclear as ever what a man is supposed to be. Likewise, many people are being called out on their race, especially if they are white. I am 'not really that white', so I don't feel this as much, but the constant "call out" of white people as wrongdoers has helped contribute to the rise of the alt-right. This group is even more nebulous than incels, and includes harmless commentators to dedicated, violent fascists. Whiteness has long been the societal norm, and now it is being changed in real time, and much of alt-right propaganda has sought to draw in impressionable young men over the majority-minority shift that will come in the 2040s. In a rapidly changing social climate where whiteness and maleness are often derided, many young men of ALL races, and of the lonely 28%, are reverting to more extreme ideologies to find identity, hope, guidance, and strength.

[Edited out for brevity]

We are entering a potential Weimar Republic scenario. Maybe it can be averted, but maybe it is too late.

-------------------
END QUOTE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2019, 12:13 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeydance View Post
"As such, wouldn't the belief in these ideologies qualify as a mental illness?"
well, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) had
homosexuality as a mental illness until 1973. so, yeah, try another one.
They clearly got that wrong, so.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 12:16 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal_Native View Post
Suppose I really, really hated global warming and I had a YouTube channel and on my YouTube channel I explained how driving gasoline cars contributes to global warming. So far, so good...not too many people would push back on that.
Now, some chick listens to my YouTube broadcasts and really agrees. She REALLY hates global warming. She subsequently walks in the Exxon and shoots half the executives with a gun.

At point is she mentally ill?
Would need more info. Sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 12:17 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Retired View Post
How about the performance and verbal IQ factor?
Chronic adult offenders ( incarcerated ) have an average IQ of 85.
Sure, those are important considerations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 01:17 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taramafor View Post
first, "Illness" is subjective. There are many many problems with mental illness labels themselves and how they are misused or otherwise used as excuses to shame people into thinking they're "broken". Reverse logic also applies. People using labels as excuses to not make an effort about a situation. The very things that can be a problem can also be what holds us together for example. would it truly be fine to never have a problem? I'd be surprised if anyone here has never broken down when something really bad has happened. to put things into context I know what it's like to feel "nothing at all" when you get the worst possible news. I KNOW I got problems. I KNOW it can be hell to struggle with hard emotions or lack thereof that comes with it. But I also know if I hadn't been "that broken" I would have been worse. The lack of emotions? A defence mechanism to prevent being overwhelmed. Someone hyper and told they have ADHD? Well, are they happy as they are or shamed into thinking they're "sick in the head" and "Should be changed" when it's their desire/choice and not yours? The list goes on. Do you ACTUALLY know your problems when you have to talk to someone about them? Then how can you admit to having a problem if you're not aware of the problems? Let alone the reasons as to why.

You can also help someone that doesn't want to be helped. Provided you use no nonsense logic that calls bull**** to a situation (but you must at all costs be 100% certain of the situation and that you're accurate in your observation). Such a situation would be asking someone the following question. "If you don't care about that person why do you complain about them?" This in turn gets the other person to realise they actually do care. To themselves. Without you having to tell them. It gets rather technical but that's the general theme. I'm not going to wait for someone to see a shrink if I'm concerned about them putting a bullet in their head if I care about them. Simple as that. Such questions make people less depressed and we always laugh things off in the end. So I can only deduce that my actions have a positive effect as opposed to a negative one. But we're taught NOT to help people if they don't want it. Helping isn't the problem. "Deciding for others" is the problem. There's a very large difference between the two. My actions. Your actions. My course of action. Your course of action. This above all else bust be made clear. Yet people often try to control others. Often without meaning too but that does not remove the harm/damage such actions cause. Even careless words can be potentially lethal, and unfortunately often are. Stress inducing? At first, sure. People don't automatically know this **** and talks need to be had. But once someone knows they know. Send reminders when mistakes are made.

What is "normal" can actually be very very harmful. Sleeping at odd times might be justified. People in different time zones. Long distance. We're taught that arguments should be avoided instead of faced when it actually works the other way around because that's how communication goes at times. We're indoctrinated to believe "Be normal. Be like others. Be nice and lie with a fake smile". But it's all a lie. Lies I do not stand for. In the end you can only be yourself. Don't fit in. Just find the reasons. Be that grumpy person because you're bloody human. You are as you are but there's reasons even if not yet detected. Personally I'm good at finding them. In others as much as myself. Some people won't listen. Some will.

We're taught that we can't control others. That it's "wrong" to manipulate them. But that's how I've saved lives. And I needed a good talking too as well even if I didn't want to hear it at times. I simply cut out the part that involves lies and secrets. Manipulation isn't deception. It's an attempt to change someone else's behaviour patterns. I want things. You want things. We won't always state exactly what we're doing. Not even I'm THAT pedantic. No one is. Just be CLEAR about what you're doing and why. Manipulation can be honest. Most people misuse it and don't mean to be dishonest but end up being so. It's more habit then indoctrination. Instead of thinking "indoctrination" try considering "habits". What we we USED to doing? Can we make an effort to change that? Pills won't fix it. That is not a long term solution. Only "working on ourselves" changes things. Do you want too? Is it YOUR problem or are OTHERS complaining about it and MAKING it your problem? It's often taught that YOU'RE the one that's ill. But what if THEY'RE the ones spreading the disease?

Unfortunately we live in an age where things are TOLD to you rather then THINKING FOR YOURSELF. We get spoon fed answers instead of being asked the hard questions. I ask those hard questions. What if a hug hurts? What if I need that seemingly bad thing? What if I need to be "ill"? I'm human. But so are you. You need to be ill too at times.

From here we're often taught that a shrink of THE answer when it's not always (or even rarely) the case. A shrink can NOT be there for you to THAT capacity. Anyone that's ever used the "It's their job" excuse obviously hasn't considered the fact that a shrinks job prevents them from being "fully there". For that you need someone that is unbiased that has your back. Someone you can trust fully that uses cold logic where it's needed. And pal, you can't trust a shrink fully. Because despite their training they are biased and don't know you better then you know yourself. Everyone is biased of course but when you're "ill in the head" are YOU in a state to ask the hard questions yourself? When you're emotionally devastated and feel like your internal organs are about to burst?

For reasons like this, no matter how emotionally distressed I become, I always hold onto cold, unbiased logic. In the end "honestly" is the only cure. Truth. facts. So something can be done about the situation. emotions can be a part of that even if it can get in the way. People get taught to lose sight of that though. To be "emotionless and uncaring" even to their own family. As if "They should survive on their own with no support". To that I ask... Who's there for you when it's you that's a mess in the corner? Why aren't you there even if a shrink can help? Why are their problems not also your own if you claim to care? Coddling has its place as well as firm lectures. Just don't let it get in the way. To quote "my pain is their pain. Their sorrow is my sorrow". It means "i care enough to deal with the problems". But some people have so many of their own they just... don't want to care anymore. Can honestly relate to a degree but your own problems aren't an excuse to not care about others. If you don't give a **** why should I?

But let's be honest here. Is even half of this taught? The only lesson that I know of that works is this. Lead by example. be that person that takes an interest in other peoples problems without knowing better. Ask the hard questions. Be there for them unasked for so they have a reason to be there back and see if they respond in kind or don't want too make the effort. Which you might have to fight for. It can be a fine line but it's one that must be walked. 'Cus if you're not willing to walk that line then you're not willing to make an effort. And if you don't make the effort then you don't care enough. That's the simple logic. Tell me you don't care about my problems and I'll move on and you won't have to deal with me. Thing is no one has ever told me to bugger off after I take an interest in them. And i asked them if they wanted to be done with me. Cus, you know, pain and all. But who isn't eh? We're all "ill too extremes". In fact I view "normal" people that have "never had a problem" as EXTREMELY dangerous. People that have had problems are better prepared. People that are fully ignorant with no experience are much more likely to cause harm. That doesn't mean I avoid "normal types". Only that I always strive for that communication and will be a "pain in the ass" about certain topics. Because even if they're not fun they're still very important and potentially live saving. What you read in this one single post is normally in small chunks in one on one talks. But I aren't about to make 10+ posts when I can put it in one here.

And you know something? Those impossible situations that people go on about? They happen. For better and for worse. And not being prepared for the worst can be why people die. With YOU being a part of the reason why. To blame? Hm... Sometimes I wonder. But most certainty RESPONSIBLE for how you affect others either way. Do bad situations "just happen" or did YOU have a hand in why a situation escalated as it did? Pretend you had no part when it was clear you did and I am blaming you. As I blamed myself. I learned. I adapted. I go out of my way to make the "good impossible things" happen. I earned that skill and talent. Where others would be taught "It's hopeless" I'm the one plowing through. Want to tell me to give up and that it's "better/healthier" to move on? Nope! I made that effort. They made it back. Years of hell but in the end tears of joy. Things worked out. Where others get taught to "give up" or "move on" I never accept defeat. Provided things are kept honest.

The key seems to lie in irrational fear. Or even proven rational fear at times (mistrust for example). Dealing with that is the key. Even accepting and embracing it can be key. It's all in the approach and the situation. Context.

The key also lies in hate. Hate is there. Has substance. When someone feels nothing for you then that's when you know you're in real trouble. The former can be turned into better things. The later? It's not even there to be turned into anything at all.

That's about it. Keep in mind much context is missing that I'm not going to write because, believe it or not, this is the short version. trust there are reasons for what I say or don't. Only in changing our perception can we "be healthier" for others. Doesn't mean having to like it. Does mean be willing to understand why a situation isn't as it appears to be. "Nice" can be harmful. What "hurts" can also heal.

Oh, and one last thing. I maintain the stance of "loyalty over morality" myself. Means I try to be a loyal person. The few that matter over the many that don't (most don't matter. Most people have NOT been there for you to that degree. Most CAN be but until they ARE there they are not yet "there for you"). I'm not a "good" person. I can and will be bad. But I'll never leave your side. Make of that what you will.
I'm with you on so much of this. Thank you for sharing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 01:39 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
I don't think they are all the same. I don't think the El Paso shooter was mentally ill. He had history of racist beliefs but not mental illness. The Dayton killer on the other hand did have a history of mental problems and even killed his own sister during his rampage.
I don't think they're all the same either. I'm referring to the belief systems behind these attacks. There are people who share those belief systems who don't kill. But when they do, it's because of that belief system. I'm thinking believing in these things would qualify as a mental illness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 01:43 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
I especially appreciate Gohangur's #2 and PassTheChocolate's commentary about it.

All I can say here is that the brainwashing and mental illness, in cases where both are present, may be a chicken-and-egg question. Bad ideas inculcated from childhood may well cause or intensify mental illness. It's also plausible that mental illness made one unusually susceptible to those ideas already. Still, think of White Southerners pre-Civil Rights Act. The vast majority of them certainly WERE NOT mentally ill, despite having obviously wrongheaded beliefs about race. Similar story goes for Apartheid Era White South Africans.

At the end of the day, brainwashing isn't really the issue. LOTS of idea even mainstream society today accept as true were taught in manners and techniques similar to what we call brainwashing. The actual issue is "What does it mean for something to be proven true?" "What's the difference between a falsifiable claim and an unfalsifiable claim". Also, there's the matter of "what is truth". Plus far too many other details to list in this space.

BOTTOM LINE: We need to teach and learn how to think better, and society's really dropping the ball here. The media doesn't do it. The education system (esp. pre-college) doesn't really do it*. Certainly the entertainment and advertising industries certainly don't do it.

*Probably because parents and powers that be don't want their children learning about "controversial" ("unflattering truths about our history or present society", "immoral false values", teaching kids how to "con" others, teaching kids that questioning the "good pillars of the community" is not hooliganism, etc). In short, the powers that be have an interest in only glossing over critical thinking skills in the education system before age 18.
Great points, thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 01:49 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
We have 4 people in our lives that we would say "we're not surprised" if they would commit a mass shooting.

Two truly are mentally ill and have spent time in psych facilities. The man has been violent, a drug user, an alcoholic, can't keep a job, has threatened and attempted suicide many times and planned on taking my daughter with him the last time. The younger one is ten, has tortured and killed animals, has threatened to hurt and kill family members, doctors say she is too young to be labeled a psychopath.

The other two are men who have failed to launch. No friends, no relationships, excessive amounts of time on the computer, no jobs, babied by their mothers, no social skills. Both seem to have a skewed sense of reality and life, yet not severe enough in their mothers' eyes that they would ever be taken to a doctor for a diagnosis or treatment. Who knows what resentments they are building up over time, what they're reading online, who they're associating with as online peers.

What I really don't see is any sort of political or racial hatred, it's more about them not attaining the basic needs of life (a mate, a job, a friend, sex, their own home, etc).
Do you think they would be more susceptible to indoctrination?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 01:54 PM
 
21,051 posts, read 16,871,551 times
Reputation: 39392
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheChocolate View Post
I don't think they're all the same either. I'm referring to the belief systems behind these attacks. There are people who share those belief systems who don't kill. But when they do, it's because of that belief system. I'm thinking believing in these things would qualify as a mental illness.
No I don't think it does at all. Most of Germany was okay with the holocaust, were they all mentally ill? No. They were just full of hatred toward Jews after being convinced by people in power that their lives were in peril because of Jews, it was them or the Jews. Now the El Paso guy believed that too, except he believed his life (or lifestyle) was in peril because of migrants from Mexico.


Again, I think the Dayton guy was mentally ill, not El Paso.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 02:28 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,065 posts, read 14,379,331 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
No I don't think it does at all. Most of Germany was okay with the holocaust, were they all mentally ill? No. They were just full of hatred toward Jews after being convinced by people in power that their lives were in peril because of Jews, it was them or the Jews. Now the El Paso guy believed that too, except he believed his life (or lifestyle) was in peril because of migrants from Mexico.

Again, I think the Dayton guy was mentally ill, not El Paso.
I understand what you're saying, but is it on the basis that the mentally ill can't control themselves or their emotions? Do you think that being able to do so means you're not mentally ill?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top