How do we address individuals who obviously have a psychological "problem?"

1. 0

   jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years ago

   How do we address individuals who obviously have a psychological "problem?"
   
   Religious fervour can often cloud a deeper psychological condition, I suggest.  Are we Hubbers sufficiently aware of this potential? 
   In our fun/enjoyment of the argument, our desire to present our opinions and have them heard at least, but better if they are agreed with..... the person at the other end of the Internet web can be struggling with a personal need which is not being met.
   We can be unwittingly feeding a depressive state, but we have the luxury of being able to walk away oblivious of the part we have played in it. 
   Would anyone with professional qualifications like to comment?

   replyreport
2. 71

   manatita44posted 8 years ago

   Well Alan, you are a good man, to me at least. Your point is very valid here. Frankly, my way is one of service. Indeed I serve in such a way, that I can even seem not to be answering the question. But yes, Love is the meaning of the Law; the yearning of the One for the One; the very pulse of Being, and as such the servant bears this in mind.
   
   There are those who would delete our answers, or simply ignore them. But our purpose should simply be to inspire; to elevate, to motivate; to reach the Heart. Aspiring seekers see this, but some others don't. The results should always be in the hands of Something Higher. My purpose is to serve.
   
   Sometimes yes, there can be mass confusion, but beneath this is the Soul which will most definitely nudge at God's choice Hour. The inner workings of the psyche is for Him really, I feel that our purpose is to reach out, to offer a kind of wisdom, if you like.
   
   Again, we are all different and at different stages of the journey, and even this changes from day to day. Finally, we can sometimes do better after a couple of comments, by retreating into 'silent love.' This is one of the tools used by the God-lover. Much Peace.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Tusitala Tomposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I am always pleased - an ego reaction no doubt - to the profundity which (not always, but fairly frequently) appears in both the questions and answers on Hub Pages.  May it continue to help so many, for I'[m pretty sure it does.

      replyreport
3. 81

   Jewelsposted 8 years ago

   Any fervour can cloud a deeper psychological condition, 'religious' is just a chapter.  I have had many interactions with people who I am now aware have Bipolar.  Initially the discussions start out like any other.
   
   Hopefully with any discussions or arguments, be they intellectual or otherwise, the need to be agreed with can eventually be seen and held by the person who has the need.  Furthermore, those that need to be right, or win an argument also need to see their own psychological condition.
   
   With social media there are pitfalls where you think you understand the person on the other end of the wire, but we need to remember we are not seeing body language, nor feeling fully the flavors being sent to you and visa versa from that body language.  Words can be confused by our perception of how we think they are being written and that may not actually be reality.  And of course this places the interaction in the category of fuelling an existing psychological state.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Tusitala Tomposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Very few of us 'see our psychological condition' Jewels.  Indeed, we are it at the self-image level.  The good advice I read somewhere is "Do not cherish opinions."

      replyreport
4. 46

   Ericdierkerposted 8 years ago

   Really interesting concept. A question obviously phrased to provoke deeper thought. The statistics are pretty amazing when it comes to extreme religiosity. I found this article to be thoughtful: http://bipolar.about.com/od/psychoticfe … orders.htm
   There is a space and a place that some with issues frequently find themselves in this area. Delusions are a part of it but I think that is a little over emphasized. I think just an uncommon religious fervor is more the norm in this abnormal behavior. This notion of being a "chosen one" to lead the fight seems to be the most significant indicator of an imbalance. It kind of combines a grandiosity with a persecution complex (paranoid) and fits in nicely into a mild delusional perspective.
   But the twist comes when some people are really chosen to lead and the fact that you are paranoid does not mean you do not have a reason to be.
   Our basis for conclusion in this area is foggy at best. The mixing of the medical with the spiritual does not always offer up the best reality.
   X acts like a crazy person. X acts like a very religious person. Spirituality is not based in logic. Illogical can appear as crazy.
   Here is a fun question. Does our inclination in the social order cloud our spiritual vision or does our spiritual vision cloud our existence in this social order?
   On the compassionate side we want to stay away from feeding a delusional mind. On the same side we need to be careful of labeling without a full understanding. And then we have the burden of dealing with the certifiable nutcases.
   I guess the advice to myself is to treat folk with dignity and respect, including being brutally honest with them, and let the chips fall where they may.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Eric and Vlad (from the post following this).
      I think you will have noticed my concern arising in a Question which stopped receiving Answers 2 days ago.  (Not mentioning any names.  Let's keep it sensitive and respectful.)

      replyreport
5. 0

   ValKarasposted 8 years ago

   I think we are overestimating the seriousness of our views exchanges, with a special accent on those pertaining to religion. I hope I am not the only one here taking it on a light side.
   When I want to "learn" something about those "deeper" topics, I go to library and get a few books written by some renowned, brilliant minds. In that process of learning I have no need to interact with the author.
   
   On the other hand, here we have these thought exchanges that are on a level of friends of different opinions discussing about different matters  -  no one pretending to be "smarter". WE ARE EXPRESSING OUR OPINIONS, SOMETIMES SUPPORTED BY SOME FACTS  -  NOT PREACHING TO OTHERS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
   
   At this particular point some of us may use, or abuse, this form of socializing to vent out our inner conflicts, and project our inner intellectual insecurities onto others, pushing our point of view ad nauseam.
   I, for one, like teasing folks like that, often providing a mirror to their intellectual agony, that strange need to make others wrong WITHOUT ACTUALLY OFFERING  WHAT IS RIGHT.
   
   I don't know if we are really dealing with a full blown psychoses  -  except possibly in a couple of cases. In one of current religious questions, Austinstar, Jeremy, and myself have had a very respectful and nice exchange of opinions. I like that -  not for a moment it became personal, no one is calling anybody names, alluding to their "bad reasoning", or along these lines. Nothing of a sort that I know from exchanges with some other hubbers whose mission was to discredit me, not my ideas, to debunk me, not my ideas. In other words, pathetic crap pointing at an ego wallowing in  some suspicious emotional turmoils.
   
   However, we are not here to analyze anybody. This is the basic point I am trying to make  -  in our discussions, which are, AGAIN not of an academic significance, we should focus on WHAT is said, not WHO said it. So, if we disagree with an opinion, let's provide counter-evidence, rather than pathetically blasting the person. This way our individual differences won't matter, and our possible dysfunctional emotionalism won't get a chance to take a part in discussion.
   
   No one is "smarter" or a "better person" here. we are all here to express ourselves, not to teach, preach, or to boost our ego by patronizing others.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I cannot speak from any professional basis here, just a humanity concern that transcends religious concepts.  Thank you for this thoughtful response.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ValKarasposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Alan - Just like you, I don't claim any professional skills of interpreting the mentioned issues. Since you asked for a professional opinion, I am sorry if I unintentionally pretended to provide such answer. Just sharing my thoughts as always.

      replyreport
6. 69

   Sandi Kroegerposted 8 years ago

   Alan, I appreciate you asking this question! Over the years I have seen many deeply disturbed individuals (up close and personal as a registered nurse) who feel they must give "voice" to their emotional and psychological upheavals. It isn't always appropriate but they lack the control to make it any different at that particular time.. But there are also those who need to vent about subjects and perhaps no one else will listen so they write here on the Hub pages. They may feel this is a "safer" environment to express their opinions...radical or not!
   
   I would only make 2 points about writing on the Hub pages.
   
   1. I tend to sweep aside any opinions and never click on links from people who do not post their picture and their real name. In that case those people can write anything they want.. angry, malicious, hateful, demeaning, etc...and never have to answer for their message. I don't mean everyone who doesn't use a picture and real name have nothing to offer but arguing with them is pointless.
   2. I also believe that people need a place to express their ideas and opinions without getting into personal attacks and WHEN I see that happening I think "isn't it great to have forums where we can share thoughts and ideas about everything from how to keep toddlers from putting crayons in their ears to quantum theory?".
   **I have not been on Hub pages very long so these "radical" thoughts of mine may change over time :-)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Very valid Sandi. Thanks.

      replyreport