Are society mentally sick?
There is a saying somewhere that when criminals run the country, reporting injustice will not get a response. That can work in other ways as well.
QUOTE: Sick societies normalize the aberrant and abhorrent behavior of their leaders and other elites. This behavior in turn becomes a type of pathology the infects the general public.
QUOTE: Lee is one of many hundreds of prominent mental health experts, historians, attorneys, and other professionals who since 2016 have tried to sound the alarm about the dire threat that Donald Trump and his regime represent to America and the world.
QUOTE: The abundance of public evidence suggests that President Trump is mentally unwell.
QUOTE: Lee and other mental health professionals’ repeated warnings about Trump’s state of mind and behavior should, of course, be of great public concern. But such warnings no longer cause public panic and mass action — and never did. That fact carries ominous implications for the present and future of America.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/our-pr … ch-deeper/
Recently, some research indicated that people who were followers of fundamentalist religion, conspiracy theory, etc. had a part of their pre-frontal cortex damaged. It's the same area that is not functioning in schizophrenia. People cannot determine what is real and what is not.
About four years after I arrived in the states, I met a Brazilian doctor. She was a psychologist. She said that she believed that Americans were mentally ill. I wish I had asked her more about what she meant, but I guess it was such an unusual remark that I didn't.
The thing is that anyone who is supporting Trump and doesn't understand that he is an enormously disturbed human being can only be of the same mindset - and that makes them equally mentally ill..
Your thoughts?Well, that's a new one. Anyone that appreciates what Trump is doing for the country, anyone that supports any of his policies, is mentally ill.
My thought? Anyone that would make such an incredibly stupid claim has to be coming from a very dark place indeed. A place where only ego and hatred of others can exist, a place that should be closed off from the world lest the disease spread to others.There have been numerous papers written internationally on what makes people support the far right or get involved with evangelical Christianity.
I read a lot of research.
For instance, there is a physiological difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives have a larger amygdala while liberals have more grey matter.
There is a strong need to understand why people would support people like Trump, Hitler, Johnson, etc. Clearly those who support these people don't see the kind of leaders these people are - until it is too late.
That is why there is a lot of research going into it.You aren't reading "research" if you're learning that anyone supporting any of Trump's actions or programs is mentally ill - you are reading garbage.
Consider that these people making the claim are the same ones claiming that hundreds of mental health care "professionals" have conspired to convince the world that a highly successful man is insane. And you not only swallowed it whole but see fit to join their conspiracy and repeat it here. What was that bit about the pre-frontal cortex again?Tess, I concur. Research has endlessly confirmed the differences between conservatives & liberals. Conservatives also are more authoritarian than liberals. Authoritarian people want law & order & gravitate towards people who are of the same mindset that they are. Studies further show that authoritarian people have a limited perspective on life. They tend to think one specific way & anyone who doesn't think that way that they do is suspect. They also tend to be more insular, even parochial which explains why they tend to be prejudiced against those who are different.
The interesting thing is if you exchange conservative for liberal and liberal for conservative you've just defined how things look today. Liberals are more authoritarian, less considerate of diversity in thought and much more rigidly attached to narrow ideologies.
You clearly don't read the research. If you did, you wouldn't be making the comments that you are.
Liberals are fully aware of the bs evaluations that conservatives chuck at them. However, scientists repeatedly find that conservatives are the ones that are out of touch with reality - not liberals.
Liberals are not authoritarian.
Here are some research papers for you to read.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43783764?seq=1
https://acpress.amherst.edu/books/riseo … tarianism/
https://psmag.com/news/authoritarianism … p-triggers
I'm not quite sure why you are defending conservatism when it is currently moving towards racial hatred, xenophobia, religious fundamentalism, and every other aspect of the dark ages.
Care to tell?"Liberals are not authoritarian."
That's comical, coming from one that advocates Big Government, with government control over nearly every aspect of our lives. Do you even know what "authoritarian" means?
authoritarian
[əˌTHôrəˈterēən]
ADJECTIVE
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.Deleted
Small governments do not have the resources to enforce their decrees.
But "authoritarian" - you mean like confiscating what others have in order to give it to someone else. You mean like forcing people to accept votes from people that have no right to do so. You mean like forcing people to accept outright murder of innocent infants. You mean like interfering in private contracts to buy and sell, with faceless bureaucrats determining "value" rather than the two involved in the transaction.
Liberals are at least as "authoritarian" as conservatives, just in different pathways. They, and you, don't want to hear it even as you exert your political power to control what others do, but it is most definitely there.
Hey, the democrats are beating their own dead horse. I don't want to see the democratic party killed off. I want to see work done. Real work, in the name of the American citizen.
I see the democrats as global robber barons masquerading as Robin Hood.Yup. And black is white, and white is black.
QUOTE: Financially, Republicans fare better than either Democrats or Independents, and tend to identify themselves as such. Republican candidates gain a significantly higher percentage of votes from individuals with incomes over $50,000 per year, and the advantage increases along with the income level, to a height of 63 percent of individuals earning $200,000 or more a year supporting Republicans.
https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in- … publicans/
QUOTE: Billionaires typically stay quiet about their politics. But don’t mistake their silence for moderation — the uber-rich tend to be extremely politically active and extremely conservative.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/07/billiona … h-politics
You really need to do some more reading and to stop listening to Fox.Does it occur to you, with all your vaunted gray matter and super genius off-the-chart IQ, that rich people are often conservative because liberals want to take what they have earned from them - the liberal elites want what does not belong to them and will use the force of government to take it from those that own it rather than create their own wealth?
Did it occur to you that stupid people (conservatives with low amounts of gray matter) are incapable of building wealth - that those rich conservatives are probably smarter than you are and certainly more effective at supporting themselves (you did say in another thread that you cannot even provide for your own health care and must depend on others to provide it FOR you)?Why are you resorting to a personal attack on Tess? Wilderness, you are BETTER than that. Why are you attacking Tess's circumstances? That is egregiously below the belt.
Sometimes people do fall on hard times. You & I are lucky that we didn't fall on hard times. Remember, there for the grace of God goes I. Count your blessings that you are socioeconomically comfortable. I am SURPRISED at you!Looking at her posts, I thought that was the new norm. A list of ridiculous braggadocio, followed by a long list of insults.
" Most people I associate with have IQs in the region of 160 (Mine is above that) and higher."
"I did a 5 hour test designed at Harvard in 90 minutes and I was told by the doctor that I was off the graph." (From someone that also definitively states there is no god - something which cannot be known).
"I also have full capacity for left and right brain, and was told by another doctor that I had the highest creativity score he had seen in his 30 year practice."
"the alternative right is racist, xenophobic, religious (there is no god), and they are taking us back to the dark ages."
"Consensus is not possible with Nazis and murderers. Nor is it possible with racists and fundamentalists."
"However, the conservative brain, also because it does not adapt well to change, is responsible for things like climate denial, staying in the dark ages, and denying the validity of the scientific method."
"However, scientists repeatedly find that conservatives are the ones that are out of touch with reality"
"I'm not quite sure why you are defending conservatism when it is currently moving towards racial hatred, xenophobia, religious fundamentalism, and every other aspect of the dark ages."
"I think what concerns me most (and others) are the blatantly inaccurate statements made by conservatives. And they believe them. They believe them in face of all scientific data."
"These people are too lazy to actually read entire books, dissertations, thesis, studies, etc. to get all the facts."
"That's what makes you so incredibly ignorant."
"Unlike Americans, people in the rest of the world are highly informed about the politics, geography, history, and economic systems of other people in the world."
"The reason you think that you live in such a great country is precisely because you nothing about other countries."
"You have been brainwashed all your life to think you live in a great country. Take it from me. You don't."
Massive ego driven brags, followed by insults and degradation of anyone that disagrees or holds a different opinion. Am I wrong, do you think, that she wishes to be treated as she treats others?Thank you for your defense.
It's not about hard times. It's that in order to make money, one has to be unethical.
The for-profit system is based on paying labour less than they are worth and charging more for goods than they are worth.
The differnece is profit.
It's legalized theft.
I refuse to partake in it.
Business people have the lowest IQs of all professional university educated people.
There is nothing clever about cheating people.
It's one thing to run a sustainable business in which a fair price is paid for goods and where labour earns what it is worth. Of course, if that were to happen, there would be no profit - just break-even.
When someone measures people by their financial worth, one knows that person is morally bankrupt - I've known many people like that. It's why I left the crowd of rich people I was hanging with in my teens and twenties. I found them all morally bankrupt.
My brother-in-law had much the same perspective - measuring people by their money. Interestingly, after he died, my sister told me he was always concerned that the chemicals he manufactured went into the sea and destroyed the sea. And we had some major arguments about 'sales' techniques. He understood that they were immoral but his claim for using them was that if he didn't sell using them, then someone else would, and he would lose the money.
So here's the difference.
Sure he was very successful - but he was prepared to do something I wasn't prepared to do.
That's nothing to do with intelligence.
It has to do with morality.
For the record, at this point, I'm doing fine financially. I will be spending 15 days in London and Portugal in March, then spending three months in the States with my daughter through to June, then coming back to South Africa for four months, then relocating back to Portugal to live.
And you know what?
I didn't lie, steal, underpay someone else, overcharge anyone, etc. I did it the ethical, moral way.
Ho hum. I don't watch fox news any more than any other outlet. But, typically, you encounter an opposing opinion and attempt to imply it is because someone is listening to the wrong source. You have no opinion. You only regurgitate those of others.
My opinion is based on experience and first hand observation. My job involves dealing with a broad cross section of the population. I also review recorded interactions by others. These interactions encompass multiple subjects, oftentimes involving religion, politics, interpersonal relations, etc. My personal experience and first hand observations do not support your conclusions. Since your conclusions appear to rely solely on your reading about what others think, they aren't either impressive or persuasive.Clearly you have never studied science or attended university and learnt about peer review.
There is a reason why our own personal experience (called anecdotal) is not acceptable as evidence of anything.
Your first hand observation is worthless. It needs to be backed by empirical evidence and then backed up peer review. That is the only evidence that is worth looking at.
Personal opinions are worth nothing.
Reading peer reviewed papers based on empirical evidence has nothing to do with opinion.
This is what peer review is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
This is an academic source.
I very purposely don't provide my opinions because I know how worthless they are. I have no time and no respect for people's opinions. They're worthless. I only respect hard scientific empirical evidence. I have provided plenty. You have no provided any. I suspect that is because you've never heard the terms.
I provide evidence for what I say because empirical evidence is what our modern world is based on.
Here's what empirical evidence is:
https://www.livescience.com/21456-empir … ition.html
This is a graduation speech by Tim Minchin.
It will explain to you exactly how worthless opinions are, and just how arrogant it is to assume that anyone got anywhere by their own efforts.
Of course, I understand if you don't take the time to listen to it. Unlike you, I read and stay informed for approximately 5 hours everyday of my life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1feN26SatEJust an addendum to my response.
I was wondering where you got the idea that an opinion was more important than peer review and empirical evidence.
I remembered when I was in grade school that the teachers used to encourage us to have opinions. That was to force us to think.
As I suspected, you never got beyond that.
When you get to university, you learn that personal opinions can be wrong, and that in order to prove something, your conclusions have to be checked by others (peer review), and if they all arrive at the same conclusion (based on empirical evidence which is then checked by everybody), then your statement becomes accepted as fact.
Opinions are two a penny, and worthless without evidence to back it up.So. It is your contention that your opinion, based on life experience, observation and data gathered is worthless,,,thus you base any statement you make on the opinion of others. You consider these opinions of higher value, causing you to deny any empirical evidence you have gathered,yourself.
If you have such a low opinion of your own intellect, why would you expect me to listen to you?
Tess, I hope my reply is relevant to the meat of your question. I think it is a reaction to overpopulation, and maybe society is sick. The people who say that my country, your country, or anybody else's country has room for many more people don't stop to consider the burden on the environment the extra populace makes with its consumption, the need for products to consume, the effect of waste products, including human waste, and even the psychological burdens.
For example, when I was in elementary school, in health class we were studying the theory of effects of overpopulation, a very heady subject for third graders. In this case, it was an article the teacher found in the magazine Popular Science. We discussed what happened to rats when they were allowed to overpopulate in experiments. After the rat population grew to numbers intolerable to the rats, they started killing and eating each other. Then the teacher asked the class, "What do you think will happen if overpopulation happens among people?" A hand flew up. "OK, J.W., what do you think will happen?"
J.W.'s little mouth opened in his little freckled face and he said simply: "The rats will start eating the rats." The class laughed.
Mrs. H. understood what he meant and laughed, too. She answered that he was correct. She expounded on his answer and said she hoped that day didn't happen. That was the mid-1950s, and fortunately for her, she didn't live to see that day, but J.W. and I did.
I know you will receive better explanations and explanations full of psychobabble and statistics. But I think that humans have exceeded their capacity on earth, and a mentally ill population is the result.
I think that Donald Trump became president because as a desperate attempt by some to try to head off more of the sick society they saw. Those who supported him didn't take into consideration that he was a product of that society and could actually make things worse. As my elders used to say, "You can't fight fire with fire", meaning fire has to be smothered out. The question now is, will there be a candidate who, if elected, can do that?An excellent response.
Well worth reading.
I think overpopulation is definitely a factor. I think it was Desmond Morris who wrote a book called 'The Human Zoo,' and it was about what happened when people lived in certain environments. It's not healthy!
Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist also came up with the fact that humans evolved to live in tribes of about 150 to 200 people, and that's really the sum total of relationships we can cope with. After that, we develop overload, and we become very superficial in our understanding and connections.
You're also correct in that people don't think about the long term effects of current actions. It's my prime argument against business for profit.
It encourages the production of goods we don't need (We've been in a state of over-production since the 60s) as can be seen by our landfills. It uses up resources that cannot be replaced easily in the short to medium term. Some of the metals we use will soon be gone, and the sand is disappearing from the earth as it goes up in concrete buildings.
I'm truly not interested in psychobabble, wealth production, spirituality, etc. Our planet is burning. If we cannot change the economic system within the next one or two years, we are past the point of no return, and, together with some other factors, we will become extinct.
The Pentagon has seen climate change as a threat to our survival and some 7 years ago said that within 10 years, wars will begun to be fought over water and other resources.
I have a healthy respect for the Pentagon.Wasn't Desmond Morris also the author of The Naked Ape? I read it years ago, but I haven't read The Human Zoo. I'll have to check that one out. Thanks!
He wrote both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Zoo_(book)
It's a long time ago since I read it, but I always remember a statement of how the human character changes when confined and there are too many. Your comment made me remember that.
I find the bizarre comment that 'liberals have more grey matter' indicative of the problems we have. 'I'm smarter than you are' means absolutely nothing to day to day life for the average citizen.
The problem I find with liberal ideology is that it assumes if I believe I possess more grey matter your opinions don't matter. Your life desires don't matter. Your pursuit of happiness has no bearing because ' hey, I'm smarter than you. Shut up, do as I say because I'm smarter than you.'
I've meet a lot of, what I consider to be, stupid people. They run their mouths claiming a great intellect. The internet is fraught with those types. Truly intelligent people, with high IQs which could actually affect positive change, are people who are fully aware of the fact that high IQ helps them, but does not negate the value of opinions of those of lesser IQ.
My observation is that many who claim grey matter supremacy are usually idiots educated beyond their level of intelligence. They lack critical thinking skills and possess large egos which stand in the way of developing the ability to look at a problem from many angles and understand the thought process and experience of each individual who possesses a diverse view; and displays respect for those journeys. A skill which helps build consensus and promises to ensure the principles this nation was built on remain alive.I find your comments interesting.
Most people I associate with have IQs in the region of 160 (Mine is above that) and higher. That's 20 points above genius. In my particular case, I did a 5 hour test designed at Harvard in 90 minutes and I was told by the doctor that I was off the graph.
I also have full capacity for left and right brain, and was told by another doctor that I had the highest creativity score he had seen in his 30 year practice.
I'm sorry that you think people like me are stupid. I find people like me highly educated, extremely perceptive, and lacking in arrogance and presumption.
The research has been done (if you've ever read it) because the alternative right is racist, xenophobic, religious (there is no god), and they are taking us back to the dark ages.
There is concern in intellectual and scientific circles as to what is causing this.
That is why the research has been done.
It has nothing to do with been thought superior, and the fact that you are only able to see that, says more about you than it does about people like me.
The results of the neurology research is not an opinion. It is an actual measure of the brain size of the people in the two political parties. So accurate is this that neurologists say that they can tell by the time someone is 16, just from physically looking at the brain whether they will be conservative or liberal.
Please feel free to read the research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
Consensus is not possible with Nazis and murderers. Nor is it possible with racists and fundamentalists. There can be no consensus. That's an idealistic piece of pie in the sky nonsense.
Again, this research is being carried out in order to find solutions.
From an evolutionary basis, neurodiversity is important. We survive because we cooperate with each other, and each of us brings a different ability to the table.
While the conservative brain tends to respond to change as a threat, it is an important survival mechanism for protection and danger. Nobody is denying that.
However, the conservative brain, also because it does not adapt well to change, is responsible for things like climate denial, staying in the dark ages, and denying the validity of the scientific method.
Learn to understand the difference between and opinion (I'm smarter than you are) and a hard core scientific piece of research.Tess, you are beyond highly intelligent. Extensive research have documented the differences between conservatives & liberals. One doesn't even have to research but merely observe. Conservative people are fearful people; liberal people are open to new experiences. I believe that beside of particular mindsets & philosophies, conservative people because of their limited, even parochial scopes are more likely to develop alzheimers than their liberal counterparts.
Tess, there are some people who matter how logic is presented, will refuse to listen to elementary logic. They are the type of people who will use inverse logic which isn't logic at all. To educate them is an exercise in utter futility.I think what concerns me most (and others) are the blatantly inaccurate statements made by conservatives. And they believe them. They believe them in face of all scientific data.
For instance, I presented three links. Live to Learn glances at them and doesn't read them, and then makes a wrong conclusion. She thinks the piece was written in 1950. It was written recently. The piece simply starts with a paragraph stating when the study of authoritarianism begins.
These people are too lazy to actually read entire books, dissertations, thesis, studies, etc. to get all the facts.
It reminds me of something that happened to me a few days ago.
I'm probably relocating to Portugal at the end of next year. I was telling someone that, and she responded with, "Oh, you have to learn to speak Portuguese if you go live in Portugal. My friends have all gone to Portugal and they have to learn to speak Portuguese otherwise they cant' live there."
It was half baked information. When relocating to any country, one goes through an immigration process, and one is initially granted permanent residence, and then after 5 years, one can apply for citizenship. In Portugal, you cannot apply for citizenship unless you speak Portuguese. But you can certainly live there as an EU citizen (I am) or a permanent resident.
Why did she get the information wrong? Because she wasn't listening. She didn't understand. She didn't check it.
And most people operate on that basis.
My daughter also told me something interesting the other day. She spent two years going for counselling. She said that the counsellor said she was learning person, and this was very rare.
Apparently 'learning people' will hear or read something, and then they will go and read 30 books on the topic. Unlearning people hear something and never move beyond it.
"Live to Learn' is a typical example. S/he didn't bother to read the full paper, just the first few lines, and then misinterpreted it.
It worries the hell out of me that there are so many people like this in the world. We have sufficient power to destroy ourselves and we have the wrong people in power.You are wrong. I didn't read any of the opinion piece by a foreign professor on American politics. I don't consider her educated on American politics.
Conversely, when curious about English politics I don't seek out an American opinion. I go to those who are living it and breathing it. Their opinions are what matter most for their present and future.Wow.
That's what makes you so incredibly ignorant. You did, however, have an opinion on something you didn't read.
Unlike Americans, people in the rest of the world are highly informed about the politics, geography, history, and economic systems of other people in the world.
The reason you think that you live in such a great country is precisely because you nothing about other countries.
You have been brainwashed all your life to think you live in a great country. Take it from me. You don't.
As my late father stated-there are some people who are HARD TO LEARN which means that there are people who are set in their ways. No matter how wrong they are in their premises, they aren't about to learn anything that will broaden their horizons. They will remain steadfast in their ways although their ways are toxic.
Grace, I just want to say that I don't need affirmation as to my ability to reason and arrive at accurate answers.
I merely state these things because I'm a little tired of being regarded as stupid by conservatives. The evidence says otherwise.
I didn't do anything to earn my brains. It's a genetic inheritance.
Do you think the liberals have more gray matter because theirs is so inefficient? A failed attempt by evolution to equal the intelligence of conservatives, in other words?
The person arguing that position is killing me with the humor. She points to a book written in 1950 without understanding that today's political climate is nothing like it was then. A liberal from the 1950s would have more in common with an independent today than a liberal. And would certainly be more closely aligned with a moderate Republican or Democrat philosophy.
Oh. And an opinion piece by an English professor.
Methinks,perhaps, the grey matter claim being made in this thread might be a smidge over stated.Tess has substantive proof to what she has posted. Wilderness, where your proof besides opinion? There have been many studies which state the differences between conservatives & liberals. Wilderness, I suggest that you read some books on sociology, psychology & social psychology. It will help you gain a broader perspective on life. The same applies to you, LTL..
Related Discussions
- 73
Are liberals too tolerant for their own good?
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows differences in the brains of liberals vs. conservatives!What do YOU think about Ms....
- 45
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or wit
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
- 125
Are right-wing extremists destroying America?
by Scott S Bateman 6 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...
- 47
Fox News is NOT a news channel
by Scott S Bateman 3 years ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is not a news channel that seeks the truth. It provides reporting and commentary...
- 160
Why Do "Conservatives" Have a Worse Economic Record Than "Liberals"?
by Scott Belford 19 months ago
I was working on a different hub and in the process developed the following statistics about GDP growth throughout American history. Since George Washington, whose economic philosophy somewhat resembled those of today's liberals, there have been:- 10 periods where administrations who favored...
- 64
How can the fittest survive with targets on their back?
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
Liberals do not like the concept of "survival of the fittest."Or do they?Wondering.