The Prevalent Mentality
A nearly ten-year-old theory of mine described. Since my first admission (of eight admittances, give or take) to a psychiatric wing of a hospital, this is my realization; I believe it rings true:
The antithesis of psychosis is the prevalent mentality, the prime driver of inequality: People who are tranquil of unjust societies and at peace with being controlled by severely corrupt, if not absolutely evil, governance. Most "sane" people blindly comply or ignorantly consent to the mistreatment of themselves and others. Most people deemed "insane" placed faith in friends, family, and authorities undeserving of trust and were devastated by discoveries of betrayal. Far more often than not, psychotics yearn for indemnification. Some are active in its development, while others passively await its arrival.
What do you think of these thoughts?
The antithesis of psychosis is the prevalent mentality, the prime driver of inequality: People who are tranquil of unjust societies and at peace with being controlled by severely corrupt, if not absolutely evil, governance. Most "sane" people blindly comply or ignorantly consent to the mistreatment of themselves and others. Most people deemed "insane" placed faith in friends, family, and authorities undeserving of trust and were devastated by discoveries of betrayal. Far more often than not, psychotics yearn for indemnification. Some are active in its development, while others passively await its arrival.
What do you think of these thoughts?
Comments (38)
I don't get the correlation between prevalent mentality and "inequality" that ends up with psychosis. I just see all your arguments very twisted.
Quoting Bug Biro
These are very general arguments. Not all the persons act with the same pattern. There is not an absolute truth towards of how the individuals or authorities should act.
Quoting Bug Biro
I think not. Look at the revolutions of Iran or Peru.
Most of the governments are corrupt anyway... so it is very difficult to make a comparative with those who live under a government with zero corruption.
I think that summary inaccurately reduces all mental illness to two dimensions, whereas I believe the large group of emotional and cognitive malfunctions to be four-dimensional. It can, however, be subdivided into smaller groups for ease of comprehension and discussion.
OTOH, I very much agree that one major cause of mental illness, emotional breakdown and conceptual dissonance is the gap between experienced reality and received wisdom. That is, the lies we tell children from the moment they are born. It isn't just the organs of corrupt governments that lie: parents, teachers, employers, news outlets, pastors, movies, salesmen, barristers - all kinds of people lie about all kinds of things, everywhere, all the time. Entire mythologies are constructed out of untruths to define a nation's self-image, just like an institution's or individual person's.
Attempting to reconcile these disparate narratives with one's direct experience and fashion them into some a coherent view of the world is exhausting work; it occupies a great deal of a person's time and attention, and consumes a great deal of his life energy. So he either becomes acquiescent and quiescent, or he explodes in some manifestation of protest: political action, criminal action or madness. (However I dislike it, It's the simplest, least apt but most accessible word to describe this kind of emotional break.)
Four-dimensional, I wonder how so? Please explain.
They exist in direct perception, familial (or intimate) interaction, social context and life-time. They are also based in instinct, emotion, thought and projection. There may be other ways to describe the multi-faceted nature of mental illness. But you shouldn't take my image of four dimensions literally; all i really meant to illustrate was that they are more complex and varied than expectation > betrayal > disillusionment > breakdown. Yes, that sequence plays a part, but only a part.
I think sane people are more cunning than you give them credit for. It seems they only pretend to "blindly comply or consent to the mistreatment of themselves and others"; they only pretend to be "tranquil of unjust societies and at peace with being controlled by severely corrupt, if not absolutely evil, governance". They have a vibrant inner life and they choose their battles wisely. They know how to "hide in plain sight".
That's a good way of putting it. Some psyches are (innately ?) more fragile than others; and some are subjected to a more intense barrage of crazy-making fiction in the formative years, while others are given an opportunity to verify and validate their subjective experience.
But, beyond that, we all make compromises; draw our personal lines of compliance, forbearance and hypocrisy. It's not an easy balance to maintain, but most people manage to function and keep their societies functioning - more or less.
Collectively, though, we're a completely bonkers species.
Lots of people have made similar arguments over the years. I think it was Orwell who said that the norms of one culture might look insane next to the norms of another. Ditto for people. Moving away form the idea of what is insane and what is normal we might be better served by asking what behaviors help or harm the community? We then get into morality and politics and debate reigns supreme. There's no correlation between sanity/normality and being nice.
The requirement or the belief that people need to hide in plain sight is a sign we live life wishing for better and merits the past-proven concept that achieving life improvements through personal actions is hazardous to us. It is an example of us fearing what our rulers, those who claim they do what's best for people, are directly capable of causing us. Perhaps individuals speaking up against injustice and stating ways to make life better for most of us will result in even worse life for certain people. Maybe life will stay the same. If enough people speak up in peaceful protest, rulers will listen and adjust to meet our standards. I see no other way for life to get better. Failure to do so will result in the gradual worsening of life until reaching a point of irreparable damage and rapid deterioration of our quality of life.
To me, normality is synonymous with sanity when really, they are antonyms. What's normal by today's standards is far from what's nice. Likewise, my belief is negation between the terms "normal" and "nice." All people perform both kind and unkind acts. The most unkind tend to be the excuses they make to not fight back against an obviously present evil, denying people relief from unnecessary suffering.
I'm under the impression the functions of all societies fall under the "less" category. Far less for some.
Can you give an example of normal today being far from nice? I would have thought it's a nicer world today in many places, except in some countries where it is still like the 1500's.
Quoting Bug Biro
The suffering of people, typically those who are poor, is the biggest injustice.
Quoting Tom Storm
I compared our capacity for niceness with today's output and what the future could hold. Life for humans could be near-perfect through changes easier than we think. It involves the most ineffective and detrimental aspects of societies, removing them or reversing their means to achieve the desired results.
For example, justice systems expect crimes to occur to prevent crimes. Highly inefficient. The documentary Where to Invade Next? by Michael Moore taught me that less freedom taken from incarcerated criminals leads to lower crime rates. Proven by a country after trading traditional jails with lodgings and practices far more similar to rehabilitation centres. Respect given is respect earned.
I did not notice this said before. Yes, friendship over animosity reduces the risk of harm. Grudges that develop into violence are avoidable exaggerations. Self-preservation should always be upheld, except for extreme situations typically reserved for hypothetical. While selflessness is impossible, I hope the trait turns into one we all strive for. Doing so should provide the utmost happiness for those we encounter and ourselves. Being selfish will still exist because at no point will everyone always think the same or lie to make others believe we do. It is sometimes the better option to be selfish. Perhaps we reach a point where being selfish only happens if it is the best option for all parties, even if it takes time for those involved to realize it is. So, technically, in that case, selfishness won't exist.
There should be nothing forcing the group to interact with such folk, folk I doubt exist. Who's to say parasites owe providers anything? What if people no longer rely on face-to-face interactions with others to get what they want or require? Would that make non-parasites less inconsiderate of a parasite? Self-loathing people, most likely those considered parasites by others, those who lack friendship, might go into total seclusion. I feel sad for those types of people. Those who neglected them should feel sad for imposing self-hatred on another. I want a world where people no one wants to associate with have people they consider friends. Where selfless people are willing to suffer if it might preserve the life of another. Where people exist who would rather die than not attempt to provide everyone with love.
My guess is that it's not the best idea to at least simply blame psychosis on society.
I do think people are not reacting, all the time. They have been trained to not react, to take certain things as given if not also good, to hide their reactions even from themselves, to get along and not rock the boat and for those who can't or don't want to do these things there is tremendous emotional stress.
I think it might be better to focus on what seems mentally healthy - being ok with things as they are - and say there may well be a widespread mental illness in that, than to say psychosis comes from the problems in society. I think that there are people who see and feel the things you dislike but who are never in psychosis. I think people who are psychosis are not always for the reasons you say/imply.
A narrower focus I think is better and then also focus on the crazyiness of the general shrug and blindness.
I don't know how the system actually works, but there's a price to pay for everything - some are willing to, others no, still others are, as we speak, turning their options over in their heads. Hope for the best, prepare for the best, oui monsieur?
The socioeconomic climate, inter alia, and "the prevalent mentality", is the radix of our problems. Is it right to fault a man who's already off-balance for being knocked down by gale-force winds?
How many - or rather, what percent of the population - is enough?
How Quoting Agent Smith
Two things about that.
100 doesn't provide a big enough gene pool or work force for self preservation. It needs to be at least 1000 - but, IMO, not more than 10,000 for sustainable population and governance.
And the crime rate in modern industrial urban settings is a product of economic and organizational factors more than simple numbers.
Quoting Agent Smith
Ye-e-e-s... but so is altruistic and sociable.
All vertical social organizations impose some degree and form of thought-control on the populace: having a single, unified world-view (which posits the necessity of hierarchy and assumes the legitimacy of the present rulers) makes the lower classes compliant. Any deviation from that world-view poses a threat to the power-structure and must be suppressed.
A small, more egalitarian society is able to withstand differences of opinion, because these are discussed openly, face to face. If the dissonance causes a rift, it has to be resolved through compromise or social change - has to be, because it puts the whole group, everyone's children and loved ones - at risk. Horizontal social arrangements are far more flexible, responsive and adaptable than large, stratified ones. Think flock of starlings vs pyramid.
Agreed! My analysis leaves much to be desired.
The answer to this depends on various factors, the most determining being what people ask of rulers. Civilian demands that decrease benefits, short-term or long-term, for wealthy and influential people, the response from the government will most definitely be to resist what is asked of them. Who allies with protesters is likely to reveal causes deemed valid or invalid by the opposition in power. Celebrities whose opinions hold gravitas (or so it appears) who claim approval of urged acclimation indicate the wants of commoners will soon be met. The fewer the riches or less manipulation anticipated for decision-makers by enact of change, the greater the sum of humans mandatory for a victorious end to their protest and imperative is the maximal time spent by rebels declaring the value of their stance to bolster its fulfillment.
I suspect it's more a question of what kind of leaders they're asking. Not every government will order running over a protester with a tank, but some will. Not every government dares to gun down a crowd from atop buildings, but some do. A government might back down on punitive taxation or ease up on civil liberties, but they will never, ever make a move against the rich. Who is on the protesters' side matters, if it's top army brass or top level clergy - otherwise, not.
That truly is the most impactful factor. I failed to consider that. Good that you did.
Have you read The Sane Society by Erich Fromm? Pretty good book.
There are people who are crazy without reference to society--people experiencing the severe depression and mania which is often manifested in bipolar disease are an example. Schizophrenia is another, as is OCD and a few other mental illnesses.
Then, as you say, there are a lot of people who have been driven crazy by the crazy society they live in.
However people arrived at 'crazy', living in a nuthouse society makes things worse.
The interesting cases are the very decent, imminently sane people who manage to live in crazy societies without suffering.
I don't think they escape suffering. They just cope with it privately, and express it only in prose, teaching and art.
A thought arose that expands on my above statement and relates to another long-time belief of mine: Certain conspiracy theories. This theory combines collusion with philosophy:
Any ask of civilians that will improve their lives will undoubtedly cause affluent people to lose immense amounts of money or weaken their abilities to control what matters. Every society operates under the same overarching objective: An optimized increase in riches and influence of people who already possess far more than most. Certain countries are nearly at capacity for this goal. Sovereign people are supplied with insurmountable fortunes from a small group with staggering wealth, those who possess the most currency from all over the world across history. So much money given requires the provided to obey the whims of their benefactors. The sum entails committing any action without repercussions. The richest in the world inherited what was secured by their ancestors, control over nearly every facet of life. For entertainment and pleasure, the supremely wealthy puppeteer governance regulations with slow incremental rise, difficult to discern, of misery and discomfort for most humans or stage horrifying conditions to bestow on individuals. The more an amendment benefits the masses, the more sizeable a reduction of earnings for the stockpilers of wealth. Changes that worsen the lives of civilians accumulate fortune and leverage for the collective of heirs and subsidiaries. Splendour existence leads to allotment of wealth comparable to the early ages of currency circulation. After a far spread of even funds, the next logical step is to render money worthless around the globe. The success of this concept relies on balancing resources to build camaraderie between all nations. Fair distribution of necessities followed by sporadic dispersal. All countries convert to First World countries. Removal of currency proves a potent suppressant of human suffering. The initiative of no cash, no cost will be considered the remedy for wasted human potential, the spark for rapid progress toward a near-perfect existence for all of us.
In the other hand, I am somehow agree with you arguments on conspiracy but I object that it looks like all societies work as you described and that's a fallacy.
We don't have perfect countries, communities, organisations, etc... it is true, but we have to consider some examples which work with efficiency: I guess Nordic countries such Denmark, Norway, Finland or Sweden can fit on what you are looking for. Their population is relatively small, public administrations work good, politicians are not so corrupted, there are a lot of civic people, etc... so, in my view, I doubt that conspiracy has a clue in Nordic countries at all.
The richest - as you targeted - only operate with evil practices in the countries they are allowed to do so. It is not the same being a monopoly in Mexico where the justice doesn't even existence, that in European Union where is the markets are controlled.
Note: I am not pretending to say that European Union is perfect compared to Mexico (for example). My point is the fact that conspiracies have more deep impacts in some countries than others.
The unproven vastness of riches the supremely wealthy possess, I don't doubt they have bribed every single politician there is right now and most of how many there ever were. Cash flow siphons to them daily. I would guess hundreds of millions or more each day. Perhaps you are right, but I have a hard time believing that the wealthiest people could have jurisdiction in only certain parts of the world. I think the lives of every person on the planet and the future of all of us are a part of a carefully laid out plan of prolonged power and to keep the massive corruption going on in secrecy for the most part.
On second thought, corruption may take more time than my previous surmise suggests. A relatively short list of suggestible who qualify for social conditioning to be subjugated to evil s not unthinkable. The choice to conserve their typical life or surrender to bottomless funds and unprecedented freedom to do anything, good or bad, perchance, most people would vote to safeguard their moral beliefs. Consideration solely of retailed servility or a tormented demise brings to mind many purchases.
Fortunately, most of the people is in the first group. Otherwise, the world would never had progressed in centuries.
I think you underestimate the wits and resolve of the wealthiest to continue having total freedom and never face punishment for their frightful actions. To secure the same ritual for their future bloodline.
Sooner or later they face punishment. Most of the politicians who were corrupt or made illegal activity, ended up condemned by judges. The scandals of the richest were uncovered and they suffered a big punishment by both society and courts. Some examples:
1. Impeachment of Bill Clinton: Bill Clinton, was impeached by the United States House of Representatives of the 105th United States Congress on December 19, 1998, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Charges: Perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power. Despite Clinton remained in power, his personal image was depleted in the next elections.
2. Jeffrey Epstein's child prostitution: Epstein was arrested again on July 6, 2019, on federal charges for the sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York. Epstein's lawyers have disputed the ruling, and there has been significant public skepticism about the true cause of his death, resulting in numerous conspiracy theories.
My impression was that child sex rings are geared toward people who receive lavish pay for what their job might be. The wealthiest people on the planet have no need for those places. By my speculation, ones who exceed riches have myriads of sex slaves of all ages in stockades on standby for delivery by a single gesture to where they are or will be stationed. I'm convinced that child prostitution occurs daily at numerous locations by multiple perpetrators. An unsurprising discovery would be criminals liable for child trafficking are free because they provide accessibility for people of authority and considerable net worth to commit crimes so heinous they are meticulously hidden from the public. Police officers aware of these "hideouts" and where they operate in their cities is woefully proven. These are severe issues with nothing being done about them. They need to be addressed by the media and ended by the police. Strategies need to be in place to disallow their reestablishing. The day of preventive actions said to be happening will be a tremendous relief for me, and hopefully, it symbolizes better days ahead.