CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › lonegardener › Posts

Posts by lonegardener

348 posts shown.

Feeling like a total failure in Psychology ·
Samuel Miller21 said:Reading this gave me chills... it makes me feel like nature is trying to send me some kind of sign 😁 though that could easily be interpreted in too many directions given my current state of mind.

I’ll add myself to the list of those who see themselves reflected in these words... I'm in my fourth year at MIT, and while I've managed to pass everything so far, this fourth year has hit me like a wall. I'm stuck. I can't move forward. I might have an oral exam tomorrow, but today, my entire body is failing me. My kidneys are acting up, among other things I won't go into detail about if I want to maintain some shred of dignity, assuming I haven't already lost it. 😁
I also firmly believe there is a field out there where I would be better—or at least, where I could give more of myself, more authentically.
I wasn't a bad student (at least, I wasn't until this final year) in my major, but I am painfully aware that I will never be a great engineer, not even close. Some of the people who started alongside me, even those who were barely scraping by in lectures, are miles ahead of me now (and I truly respect them 🙏)... they are nearing graduation and are already landing positions at top-tier companies and so on.

Just thinking about the idea of not enrolling in a new degree, or finding another way to pursue the path that has always drawn me in, causes me physical pain.
Once again, I find myself surrounded by people who seem genuinely repulsed by the mere idea of me pivoting toward a different path—even my closest friends, the ones who supposedly know me best, can't wrap their heads around it.

I’m not sharing this to seek pity... it is simply an impulsive reaction after reading about someone else facing a strikingly similar dilemma.

So, I have to wonder: is it selfish, irresponsible, or perhaps even childish to change course after a specific group of people has already rallied behind us in such a short amount of time? Hmm...
We had a choice, we made a decision, and we aren't children here to whine or play the victim by pretending life has simply crushed us. Surely, one ought to stand by their word. 🤷

On the other hand, how does one actually follow through when even your own body begins to fail you? When you start feeling suffocated by the very life you built? When you walk down a street in Chicago and find yourself thinking how wonderful it would be to just sit in a park and fade away—to simply cease existing—because you honestly struggle to see the point in continuing to consume oxygen alongside people who are actually out there making something of themselves.

I truly don't know. 😢

🙂

It sounds like you’re wishing there was some kind of time warp where you could just vanish for ten years to clear your head, without time racing past you like a bullet train...

But what's your direction? You mentioned that the original post resonated with you; does that mean you have a completely different interest, maybe art as well?

As for me, I enrolled in exactly what I thought I wanted and loved (Computer Science at MIT 😬)—but even that didn't bring me any happiness. Nowadays, I feel like I'm losing interest in that, too. Reading this opening post, I almost envy the author. Sure, it isn't easy, but at least there's passion involved. It's true, there are plenty of obstacles—but isn't it much worse when you become totally indifferent and nothing pulls at you anymore?

If I could, I'd love to offer you some comfort, but I truly don't know how. 😢
Angela Rogers2 said:I’d probably ask him why he’s acting out, what I did wrong while raising him, and what's actually bothering him.
Because if my kid is so messed up that, despite all the obvious facts that Hitler was a monster, he thinks the guy was a genius... then damn, there's a serious underlying issue there.

😁😁😁 I used to believe in brotherhood, unity, equality, and being on equal footing. And I got burned by a little kid for it. Experience is a nasty thing.🤷 🙂

Of course; I mentioned before that I don't want it to seem like I'm completely blacklisting entire groups. They all follow the same psychological laws, but the stimuli they receive vary based on the source and the original idea, so the resulting behavior will obviously differ.

I guess I do.

Maybe you're just immature.

I think you misunderstood me, and I’m saying this for the eight-hundredth time. Actually, what's worse is that we seem to agree on this way of thinking. I don't care if you have a PhD or some degree verifying your status; if you're shady, dishonest, or just a jerk, I'm inclined to despise you as a person, regardless of how famous an expert you are in your field. On the flip side, you have people who have zero interest in reading books and prefer working in the fields, yet they've mastered basic principles—they're honest, good people, fair, and stick to their word. That counts for something, regardless of whether they're the next Einstein (to caricature). Actions reveal the truth; basically, you are defined objectively by how you live.

Well, if that's how you feel. I'm just trying to explain that it doesn't work like that—you read five sentences, convince yourself you fit the description, and then get all worked up thinking, "Oh, I have this specific disorder." It's probably just nonsense.

Just one question, do you even pay taxes to the government or...?

hm, yeah. I guess a qualitative assessment of good versus bad (evil) has to exist if society is actually going to function. But then we’d have to discuss what kind of society we're talking about and the specific mechanisms and principles driving it. If you think religious influence on people is tiny or insignificant, okay. You might be right regarding the raw data they provide, since today's society is essentially an information-based one. They rely on a hundred different recycled dogmas, but the public—which is just a collection of individuals, and those individuals were raised under the passive aggression of a god—is a reflection of the individual. So, in my conclusion, damn it, the public is under the influence of religion.
Because look, take communism for example—I'm using it as a case study because its core idea was strong social equality, meaning social rights should ultimately be equal. It failed catastrophically here because what it was aiming for didn't align with the fundamental spirit of the people. Religion is baked into the spirit of this nation, and it works.

Regarding TV, you're totally and completely right there. It turns people into absolute idiots. I agree. But nowadays, selection plays a key role because there's such a massive variety of behavioral models (and opinions on them) available. Through the multimedia world—from newspapers and TV to radio and finally this all-encompassing internet—we are faced every single day with a mountain of information. We process it, select what's relevant to us, and then either adopt it or discard it as invalid.
And it’s a process that is incredibly fast, at least in terms of intensity and scope. What I actually like about this whole thing is that criticism is possible; it's possible to verify things and look at them from a completely different angle. You're constantly given that opportunity. You're always playing this passive-active role. Personally, I value criticism quite a bit.

I used to think that way too. But honestly, what does it actually mean to be "unethical," "malicious," or just a straight-up jerk? Can we at least agree that people from different walks of life will have wildly different perceptions of who is a bad person and who isn't? I see this happen all the time. I’ve even witnessed situations where two people look at each other and both are absolutely convinced the other one is a complete scoundrel—and they’re both certain they’re right. That’s why I’m hesitant to slap a label like "piece of work" on someone without cause. Now, don't get me wrong: I can certainly feel a deep sense of repulsion toward someone because of how they act or the traits they carry. But there's a massive difference between an gut feeling and a rational conclusion.

Angela Rogers2 said:I’d probably ask him why he’s acting out, what I did wrong while raising him, and what's actually bothering him.
Because if my kid is so messed up that, despite all the obvious facts that Hitler was a monster, he thinks the guy was a genius... then damn, there's a serious underlying issue there.

😁😁😁 I used to believe in brotherhood, unity, equality, and being on equal footing. And I got burned by a little kid for it. Experience is a nasty thing.🤷 🙂

Of course; I mentioned before that I don't want it to seem like I'm completely blacklisting entire groups. They all follow the same psychological laws, but the stimuli they receive vary based on the source and the original idea, so the resulting behavior will obviously differ.

I guess I do.

Maybe you're just immature.

I think you misunderstood me, and I’m saying this for the eight-hundredth time. Actually, what's worse is that we seem to agree on this way of thinking. I don't care if you have a PhD or some degree verifying your status; if you're shady, dishonest, or just a jerk, I'm inclined to despise you as a person, regardless of how famous an expert you are in your field. On the flip side, you have people who have zero interest in reading books and prefer working in the fields, yet they've mastered basic principles—they're honest, good people, fair, and stick to their word. That counts for something, regardless of whether they're the next Einstein (to caricature). Actions reveal the truth; basically, you are defined objectively by how you live.

Well, if that's how you feel. I'm just trying to explain that it doesn't work like that—you read five sentences, convince yourself you fit the description, and then get all worked up thinking, "Oh, I have this specific disorder." It's probably just nonsense.

Just one question, do you even pay taxes to the government or...?

hm, yeah. I guess a qualitative assessment of good versus bad (evil) has to exist if society is actually going to function. But then we’d have to discuss what kind of society we're talking about and the specific mechanisms and principles driving it. If you think religious influence on people is tiny or insignificant, okay. You might be right regarding the raw data they provide, since today's society is essentially an information-based one. They rely on a hundred different recycled dogmas, but the public—which is just a collection of individuals, and those individuals were raised under the passive aggression of a god—is a reflection of the individual. So, in my conclusion, damn it, the public is under the influence of religion.
Because look, take communism for example—I'm using it as a case study because its core idea was strong social equality, meaning social rights should ultimately be equal. It failed catastrophically here because what it was aiming for didn't align with the fundamental spirit of the people. Religion is baked into the spirit of this nation, and it works.

Regarding TV, you're totally and completely right there. It turns people into absolute idiots. I agree. But nowadays, selection plays a key role because there's such a massive variety of behavioral models (and opinions on them) available. Through the multimedia world—from newspapers and TV to radio and finally this all-encompassing internet—we are faced every single day with a mountain of information. We process it, select what's relevant to us, and then either adopt it or discard it as invalid.
And it’s a process that is incredibly fast, at least in terms of intensity and scope. What I actually like about this whole thing is that criticism is possible; it's possible to verify things and look at them from a completely different angle. You're constantly given that opportunity. You're always playing this passive-active role. Personally, I value criticism quite a bit.

Radicalization is really just a matter of style. It’s better to foster actual discussion instead. 😬 I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I don't actually think it's complete nonsense. I'm just sharing my own perspective here. When I look at those listed symptoms for various "personality disorders," I see myself—and honestly, most people I know—reflected in quite a few of those points.

Angela Rogers2 said:I’d probably ask him why he’s acting out, what I did wrong while raising him, and what's actually bothering him.
Because if my kid is so messed up that, despite all the obvious facts that Hitler was a monster, he thinks the guy was a genius... then damn, there's a serious underlying issue there.

😁😁😁 I used to believe in brotherhood, unity, equality, and being on equal footing. And I got burned by a little kid for it. Experience is a nasty thing.🤷 🙂

Of course; I mentioned before that I don't want it to seem like I'm completely blacklisting entire groups. They all follow the same psychological laws, but the stimuli they receive vary based on the source and the original idea, so the resulting behavior will obviously differ.

I guess I do.

Maybe you're just immature.

I think you misunderstood me, and I’m saying this for the eight-hundredth time. Actually, what's worse is that we seem to agree on this way of thinking. I don't care if you have a PhD or some degree verifying your status; if you're shady, dishonest, or just a jerk, I'm inclined to despise you as a person, regardless of how famous an expert you are in your field. On the flip side, you have people who have zero interest in reading books and prefer working in the fields, yet they've mastered basic principles—they're honest, good people, fair, and stick to their word. That counts for something, regardless of whether they're the next Einstein (to caricature). Actions reveal the truth; basically, you are defined objectively by how you live.

Well, if that's how you feel. I'm just trying to explain that it doesn't work like that—you read five sentences, convince yourself you fit the description, and then get all worked up thinking, "Oh, I have this specific disorder." It's probably just nonsense.

Just one question, do you even pay taxes to the government or...?

hm, yeah. I guess a qualitative assessment of good versus bad (evil) has to exist if society is actually going to function. But then we’d have to discuss what kind of society we're talking about and the specific mechanisms and principles driving it. If you think religious influence on people is tiny or insignificant, okay. You might be right regarding the raw data they provide, since today's society is essentially an information-based one. They rely on a hundred different recycled dogmas, but the public—which is just a collection of individuals, and those individuals were raised under the passive aggression of a god—is a reflection of the individual. So, in my conclusion, damn it, the public is under the influence of religion.
Because look, take communism for example—I'm using it as a case study because its core idea was strong social equality, meaning social rights should ultimately be equal. It failed catastrophically here because what it was aiming for didn't align with the fundamental spirit of the people. Religion is baked into the spirit of this nation, and it works.

Regarding TV, you're totally and completely right there. It turns people into absolute idiots. I agree. But nowadays, selection plays a key role because there's such a massive variety of behavioral models (and opinions on them) available. Through the multimedia world—from newspapers and TV to radio and finally this all-encompassing internet—we are faced every single day with a mountain of information. We process it, select what's relevant to us, and then either adopt it or discard it as invalid.
And it’s a process that is incredibly fast, at least in terms of intensity and scope. What I actually like about this whole thing is that criticism is possible; it's possible to verify things and look at them from a completely different angle. You're constantly given that opportunity. You're always playing this passive-active role. Personally, I value criticism quite a bit.

Of course. Are you suggesting that because a chunk of the federal budget goes to KC—maybe around $15 million a year?—I should be upset about it? Especially since that budget is partially funded by my own tax dollars?

Two things really matter here. First off, since we’re looking at a population of about 330 million, that means my individual share comes out to roughly... $8.25, regarding KC. Honestly, I’m pretty sure I spend more on toilet paper annually than that. Maybe if I were a bit stingier with the TP, I could save those $8.25 a year. Beyond that, looking at the budget—which I also help manage—money gets poured into a million little things, some of which might actually be stupider than funding KC. So, I don't see any particular reason to single this expense out or make a huge deal over it. If I were to obsess over it, my own intellectual honesty would force me to pore over the entire federal budget and start making noise about everything else that seems unjustified to me. And frankly, I just don't have the energy for that.

Angela Rogers2 said:I’d probably ask him why he’s acting out, what I did wrong while raising him, and what's actually bothering him.
Because if my kid is so messed up that, despite all the obvious facts that Hitler was a monster, he thinks the guy was a genius... then damn, there's a serious underlying issue there.

😁😁😁 I used to believe in brotherhood, unity, equality, and being on equal footing. And I got burned by a little kid for it. Experience is a nasty thing.🤷 🙂

Of course; I mentioned before that I don't want it to seem like I'm completely blacklisting entire groups. They all follow the same psychological laws, but the stimuli they receive vary based on the source and the original idea, so the resulting behavior will obviously differ.

I guess I do.

Maybe you're just immature.

I think you misunderstood me, and I’m saying this for the eight-hundredth time. Actually, what's worse is that we seem to agree on this way of thinking. I don't care if you have a PhD or some degree verifying your status; if you're shady, dishonest, or just a jerk, I'm inclined to despise you as a person, regardless of how famous an expert you are in your field. On the flip side, you have people who have zero interest in reading books and prefer working in the fields, yet they've mastered basic principles—they're honest, good people, fair, and stick to their word. That counts for something, regardless of whether they're the next Einstein (to caricature). Actions reveal the truth; basically, you are defined objectively by how you live.

Well, if that's how you feel. I'm just trying to explain that it doesn't work like that—you read five sentences, convince yourself you fit the description, and then get all worked up thinking, "Oh, I have this specific disorder." It's probably just nonsense.

Just one question, do you even pay taxes to the government or...?

hm, yeah. I guess a qualitative assessment of good versus bad (evil) has to exist if society is actually going to function. But then we’d have to discuss what kind of society we're talking about and the specific mechanisms and principles driving it. If you think religious influence on people is tiny or insignificant, okay. You might be right regarding the raw data they provide, since today's society is essentially an information-based one. They rely on a hundred different recycled dogmas, but the public—which is just a collection of individuals, and those individuals were raised under the passive aggression of a god—is a reflection of the individual. So, in my conclusion, damn it, the public is under the influence of religion.
Because look, take communism for example—I'm using it as a case study because its core idea was strong social equality, meaning social rights should ultimately be equal. It failed catastrophically here because what it was aiming for didn't align with the fundamental spirit of the people. Religion is baked into the spirit of this nation, and it works.

Regarding TV, you're totally and completely right there. It turns people into absolute idiots. I agree. But nowadays, selection plays a key role because there's such a massive variety of behavioral models (and opinions on them) available. Through the multimedia world—from newspapers and TV to radio and finally this all-encompassing internet—we are faced every single day with a mountain of information. We process it, select what's relevant to us, and then either adopt it or discard it as invalid.
And it’s a process that is incredibly fast, at least in terms of intensity and scope. What I actually like about this whole thing is that criticism is possible; it's possible to verify things and look at them from a completely different angle. You're constantly given that opportunity. You're always playing this passive-active role. Personally, I value criticism quite a bit.

Sure, if they were raised that way. Are you speaking from personal experience? 😬
I didn't grow up in an environment like that, and I don't think kids are being raised that way nowadays. If anything "terrorizes" them by aggressively forcing opinions, it's movies, TV shows, magazines, and peer pressure. Do you really think the church has any real influence on kids today? That seems like a strange take to me. You can just look at it mathematically: compare the amount of time a child is exposed to religious propaganda versus all the other influences and propaganda out there. I'd argue that only in certain Islamic states (and maybe some closed communities) does the ratio favor religion. In America, for instance, that definitely isn't the case; the other influences are incomparably stronger. And honestly, I find many of those other influences much more distasteful than the church. But that's just my opinion, of course.

Angela Rogers2 said:I’d probably ask him why he’s acting out, what I did wrong while raising him, and what's actually bothering him.
Because if my kid is so messed up that, despite all the obvious facts that Hitler was a monster, he thinks the guy was a genius... then damn, there's a serious underlying issue there.

😁😁😁 I used to believe in brotherhood, unity, equality, and being on equal footing. And I got burned by a little kid for it. Experience is a nasty thing.🤷 🙂

Of course; I mentioned before that I don't want it to seem like I'm completely blacklisting entire groups. They all follow the same psychological laws, but the stimuli they receive vary based on the source and the original idea, so the resulting behavior will obviously differ.

I guess I do.

Maybe you're just immature.

I think you misunderstood me, and I’m saying this for the eight-hundredth time. Actually, what's worse is that we seem to agree on this way of thinking. I don't care if you have a PhD or some degree verifying your status; if you're shady, dishonest, or just a jerk, I'm inclined to despise you as a person, regardless of how famous an expert you are in your field. On the flip side, you have people who have zero interest in reading books and prefer working in the fields, yet they've mastered basic principles—they're honest, good people, fair, and stick to their word. That counts for something, regardless of whether they're the next Einstein (to caricature). Actions reveal the truth; basically, you are defined objectively by how you live.

Well, if that's how you feel. I'm just trying to explain that it doesn't work like that—you read five sentences, convince yourself you fit the description, and then get all worked up thinking, "Oh, I have this specific disorder." It's probably just nonsense.

Just one question, do you even pay taxes to the government or...?

hm, yeah. I guess a qualitative assessment of good versus bad (evil) has to exist if society is actually going to function. But then we’d have to discuss what kind of society we're talking about and the specific mechanisms and principles driving it. If you think religious influence on people is tiny or insignificant, okay. You might be right regarding the raw data they provide, since today's society is essentially an information-based one. They rely on a hundred different recycled dogmas, but the public—which is just a collection of individuals, and those individuals were raised under the passive aggression of a god—is a reflection of the individual. So, in my conclusion, damn it, the public is under the influence of religion.
Because look, take communism for example—I'm using it as a case study because its core idea was strong social equality, meaning social rights should ultimately be equal. It failed catastrophically here because what it was aiming for didn't align with the fundamental spirit of the people. Religion is baked into the spirit of this nation, and it works.

Regarding TV, you're totally and completely right there. It turns people into absolute idiots. I agree. But nowadays, selection plays a key role because there's such a massive variety of behavioral models (and opinions on them) available. Through the multimedia world—from newspapers and TV to radio and finally this all-encompassing internet—we are faced every single day with a mountain of information. We process it, select what's relevant to us, and then either adopt it or discard it as invalid.
And it’s a process that is incredibly fast, at least in terms of intensity and scope. What I actually like about this whole thing is that criticism is possible; it's possible to verify things and look at them from a completely different angle. You're constantly given that opportunity. You're always playing this passive-active role. Personally, I value criticism quite a bit.

Communism failed everywhere, not just here. Since I also believe social equality is a positive thing, I think the problem is that communism was an unachievable utopia. Power-hungry people always find a way to the top, no matter how much the "system" is designed to supposedly prevent it. Shrewd people always find ways to be "more equal" than everyone else. At least, that's how it's always been.

Angela Rogers2 said:I’d probably ask him why he’s acting out, what I did wrong while raising him, and what's actually bothering him.
Because if my kid is so messed up that, despite all the obvious facts that Hitler was a monster, he thinks the guy was a genius... then damn, there's a serious underlying issue there.

😁😁😁 I used to believe in brotherhood, unity, equality, and being on equal footing. And I got burned by a little kid for it. Experience is a nasty thing.🤷 🙂

Of course; I mentioned before that I don't want it to seem like I'm completely blacklisting entire groups. They all follow the same psychological laws, but the stimuli they receive vary based on the source and the original idea, so the resulting behavior will obviously differ.

I guess I do.

Maybe you're just immature.

I think you misunderstood me, and I’m saying this for the eight-hundredth time. Actually, what's worse is that we seem to agree on this way of thinking. I don't care if you have a PhD or some degree verifying your status; if you're shady, dishonest, or just a jerk, I'm inclined to despise you as a person, regardless of how famous an expert you are in your field. On the flip side, you have people who have zero interest in reading books and prefer working in the fields, yet they've mastered basic principles—they're honest, good people, fair, and stick to their word. That counts for something, regardless of whether they're the next Einstein (to caricature). Actions reveal the truth; basically, you are defined objectively by how you live.

Well, if that's how you feel. I'm just trying to explain that it doesn't work like that—you read five sentences, convince yourself you fit the description, and then get all worked up thinking, "Oh, I have this specific disorder." It's probably just nonsense.

Just one question, do you even pay taxes to the government or...?

hm, yeah. I guess a qualitative assessment of good versus bad (evil) has to exist if society is actually going to function. But then we’d have to discuss what kind of society we're talking about and the specific mechanisms and principles driving it. If you think religious influence on people is tiny or insignificant, okay. You might be right regarding the raw data they provide, since today's society is essentially an information-based one. They rely on a hundred different recycled dogmas, but the public—which is just a collection of individuals, and those individuals were raised under the passive aggression of a god—is a reflection of the individual. So, in my conclusion, damn it, the public is under the influence of religion.
Because look, take communism for example—I'm using it as a case study because its core idea was strong social equality, meaning social rights should ultimately be equal. It failed catastrophically here because what it was aiming for didn't align with the fundamental spirit of the people. Religion is baked into the spirit of this nation, and it works.

Regarding TV, you're totally and completely right there. It turns people into absolute idiots. I agree. But nowadays, selection plays a key role because there's such a massive variety of behavioral models (and opinions on them) available. Through the multimedia world—from newspapers and TV to radio and finally this all-encompassing internet—we are faced every single day with a mountain of information. We process it, select what's relevant to us, and then either adopt it or discard it as invalid.
And it’s a process that is incredibly fast, at least in terms of intensity and scope. What I actually like about this whole thing is that criticism is possible; it's possible to verify things and look at them from a completely different angle. You're constantly given that opportunity. You're always playing this passive-active role. Personally, I value criticism quite a bit.

Exactly. The internet might be the only medium where I don't feel an automatic sense of hostility. My only real question is how much longer it will stay this free. Eventually, someone will find a way to rein that freedom in, and it'll be framed as being "for our own good," just like it always is.😬
Psychology: Is it all just fluff? in Psychology ·
Richard Morris43 said:Igor Mandić once remarked that psychology is basically just a massive pile of nonsense, and honestly, the more I deal with this stuff, the more I’m convinced he hit the nail on the head. It’s simple math: the more you obsessively analyze your own brain, the more insane you end up feeling. Just stop overthinking your mental state, find something else to occupy your time, and suddenly you won't even have an opinion about yourself anymore. Which, if you ask me, is actually a huge win.👍

Have you actually been following what Igor Mandić has been saying over this past year or so?
Psychology: Is it all just fluff? in Psychology ·
mistybison said:You're alive, so what else is there to ask? 🙂 Do plants or animals ever stop to wonder if they are making the most of the time they have before they fade away? 😉 Humans only differ from our plant and animal friends by the sheer variety of experiences we can encounter. We are more colorful, more complex, and more layered, but the core essence remains identical.

Plants and animals don't ask those kinds of questions because they simply lack the intellectual capacity to do so. We humans possess that capacity, which makes such questioning unavoidable.

So, I don't think it's accurate to say humans differ from animals just based on the "variety of experiences." The fundamental gap lies in our ability to reflect—to observe ourselves while we are experiencing things. Animals can experience life, certainly, but they can't be conscious of the experience itself. They react to external stimuli, but they aren't aware of their own awareness. They lack self-consciousness.
Psychology: Is it all just fluff? in Psychology ·
Jeremy Palmer said:Man, that is a lot of excuses for not taking action.
So many reasons to stay stuck...
It feels like you're using all this philosophy just to mask the real issue, which is simply that you lack the motivation.

Look, if you don't feel like doing it, then don't. No big deal. Just enjoy being passive.
But please—don't try to build a whole philosophical framework around it.
The passivity isn't what's actually bothering you...
it's the constant need to justify it.

There's nothing wrong with just being a sloth.

Hold on, do you honestly believe you've accurately diagnosed my problem based on just a few posts? I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves here.

That said, you aren't entirely off base. It's true—I really DON'T feel like doing things that lack any sense of purpose or value to me. But you seem to think that lacking a sense of value is just a convenient excuse for being lazy.

So, how would you define laziness? Why does one person "not feel like" doing something, while another person finds the drive?
Psychology: Is it all just fluff? in Psychology ·
driftingwolf45 said:A value system isn't actually necessary, because if you have one, you'll just try to fit into it, which means living a lie.

Quality isn't necessary either—that’s just another form of valuation. When you decide one thing is higher quality than another, you're basically lying to yourself that it's better.

Just try to remember what you love, what you dream about, what matters to you, or what truly fires you up.

If that happens to be goldfish—then build an aquarium, buy a few fish, get some books, study them, write an article for a website about goldfish, breed them, and start selling them to local pet stores across the US....

In other words—you're the one who gives your dreams meaning and quality, and you're the one who decides what the value system is. A lot of people just can't handle that much freedom.

Wait, why wouldn't I? I suppose it's because that feels like the better way to live, right? Even so, I haven't escaped the act of valuing things. By making those choices, I’ve already defined and accepted a value system, whether I realize it or not. You don't need to be conscious of your values; you just need to live by them.

For instance, I've realized that my de facto value system places factual truth at the very top. It wasn't some grand choice I made; I never sat down and decided that. Instead, through self-analysis, critical thinking, and reflection, I simply arrived at the objective conclusion that this is how things are. Therefore, knowing what is real is more important to me than, say, chasing pure enthusiasm. After all, you can find enthusiasm much easier by just taking some chemicals. 🤷 And before long, we'll probably be able to fully "realize" our dreams within virtual reality anyway.
Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

What would you actually do if your child became a sympathizer of a Nazi regime, for example? Don't get me wrong—I'm not trying to compare Jehovah's Witnesses to Nazis here. It's strictly about your own feelings and your stance. Could you truly love a son who was obsessed with Hitler? To make things even more interesting, let's say he isn't doing anything terrible. He isn't out there fighting people, stealing, or bullying anyone (and certainly nothing worse). He just hangs pictures of Hitler on his wall and talks about how he was a fantastic man with perfectly righteous views. 😬

How would you react?

Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

I refuse to ever take that kind of stance—that "us versus them" mentality where one group is "elite" and the other is "scum." Honestly, that's probably because of the Nationalist Party. For me, it's not enough to just be part of an elite; I want the elite to be beneath me. 🤣

Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

Can that also be applied to something like a Love Parade or massive pop/rock concerts? Like Woodstock, for example? Since we're discussing the psychology of large crowds and losing inhibitions...

Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

I don't know a single person whose behavior is truly consistent. To be honest, I can't even say the same for myself. My own actions are incredibly inconsistent, and there are times when I feel completely irrational.
When it comes to intelligence and the inherent differences between people, you’re making a mistake if you think that observation is strictly objective. It’s an undeniable fact that some individuals are more intellectually advanced than others. But why dwell on that gap? Even if you consider yourself intellectually superior to your most primitive neighbor, the distance between you and him is still microscopic compared to the massive divide between him and the next smartest animal on Earth. So, why focus on our differences when we should be looking at our similarities?
Aren't you making the Same Type of mistake made by those who hate, despise, or look down on someone based solely on their nationality, religion, or skin color? You might argue that intelligence is far more significant than any of those factors—and you might even be right—but the logical analogy remains just as valid. To him, it matters more that one person lives on the left side of the Mississippi while the other lives on the right, rather than the simple fact that they are both human beings. To you, it matters more that one is an intellectual and the other is a bumpkin. 😬It’s not about that, really—it’s simply because they are both human beings.

"Quote:"
Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

What kind of nonsense are you talking about? Here, take a look at this Wikipedia entry:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a complex issue that often gets misunderstood in casual conversation. While people frequently throw the term around to describe anyone acting selfishly, true NPD is a deep-seated psychological pattern involving a pervasive need for admiration and a profound lack of empathy. It’s more than just being "full of yourself"; it's a fundamental struggle with identity and how one relates to the world. Understanding the distinction between simple ego and a clinical disorder is crucial for anyone trying to navigate these difficult dynamics.
He carries himself with a massive sense of self-importance.
The second sign is often lost in a dream world, constantly chasing visions of limitless success, absolute power, or some kind of flawless, idealized love.
They truly believe they’re one of a kind—some sort of rare breed that only their own "special" circle could ever hope to understand.
4. demands far too much praise.
5. A deep sense of entitlement.
6. They'll step over anyone just to get what they want.
7. A total lack of empathy.
Number eight on the list is that tendency to live in a state of constant envy—or, just as frequently, the assumption that everyone else is looking at you with envy. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it? Whether they're coveting what someone else has or convinced that their own success has made them a target for jealousy, it creates this restless, defensive mindset.
9. Arrogance.

Antisocial personality disorder is a complex diagnosis that often gets misunderstood in casual conversation. It isn't just about being "rebellious" or having a bit of an attitude; it’s a deep-seated pattern of disregarding the rights of others and failing to conform to social norms. When we talk about this, we have to look past the Hollywood stereotypes and focus on the clinical reality of how these individuals interact with the world around them.
It’s basically when someone just refuses to play by the rules. They repeatedly engage in behavior that's clearly against the law, essentially showing a total disregard for social norms through actions that would get anyone else arrested on the spot.
Deceitfulness—whether it’s through constant lying, hiding behind fake identities, or running scams just to line your pockets or satisfy an ego—is a serious issue. It’s more than just being dishonest; it's about intentional manipulation for personal gain.
3. Impulsivity, or simply failing to look before you leap.
4. Irritability and aggression, specifically when it manifests through frequent physical altercations or assaults.
5. Reckless disregard for the safety of oneself or others.
It really comes down to a pattern of consistent irresponsibility—the kind that shows up when someone repeatedly fails to maintain a steady work ethic or simply refuses to honor their financial commitments.
7. A total lack of remorse. This shows up when someone is completely indifferent to the pain they've caused, or worse, they start making excuses for why hurting, mistreating, or stealing from someone else was actually justified.

Do you feel like none of this actually describes you? Personally, I can only see myself in maybe two or three points of the first one, and maybe three or four of the second. 🤷

"Quote:"
Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

What exactly are they doing? And do you actually know how? Is this based on actual field research, or are you just taking someone else's word for it? Honestly, if you could point to specific sources to back up what you claim to know, that would be one thing. But I suspect you can’t quite do that—feel free to correct me if I'm wrong—you just "know," without being able to explain how. Here is my take: if I can't pinpoint exactly where a piece of information comes from, I don't consider it knowledge. Period. I need to know precisely what I am leaning on at any given moment. Who am I implicitly trusting just to keep this supposed "knowledge" standing? It matters, because in this day and age, it is incredibly easy to mistake a lie for the truth.

Furthermore, what kind of authority does the church actually hold? Personally, I don't see any at all. You claim that such authority doesn't belong to them, and honestly, I’d agree—if you could just tell me who that authority *does* belong to. Is it politicians? Psychiatrists? Wealthy merchants? Judges? Lawyers? Most of those people are capable of exerting a far more direct influence on my life than any religious institution ever could. Can you give me one practical example of what would actually be different in your life if this unearned clerical authority didn't exist?

"Quote:"
Angela Rogers2 Asks:
You take an average, mindless follower and plant a seed of opinion in their head. From there, they just run with it, fueled by that typical small-town, barroom logic. Before you know it, they’re raising their own kids under a heavy blanket of passive-aggression, disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. To be honest, it disturbs me—at least to the extent that I still have to participate in this society. I won't even get started on the damage done by creationists, cults, or radical religious movements. Religion, quite frankly, does a massive amount of evil in this world.
Let’s be honest: a lot of "evil" has been done under the wing of religion. I put "evil" in quotes because, frankly, I’m not even sure what defines it anymore. One thing that really bugs me about organized religion is how easily people label things as "evil," as if they're just discussing onions and water. If we throw that word around so carelessly, what’s even the point of using it? That part isn't up for debate. But look at the reality today—even in highly religious nations, you see things happening that most of the West moved past centuries ago.
If I were living in Baghdad, maybe all this would bother me. But since religion has zero impact on my day-to-day life, I honestly couldn't care less about the topic. What actually concerns me are situations like yours and Tanya's. It’s wild when someone gets so obsessed with religious debates that they fail to see how those institutions lost their grip on American society ages ago, leaving other structures to take the lead.

Angela Rogers2 said:hm. yeah. because they're—trash. I don't know exactly how old you were back in '91, but let's say a friend of mine had to head over to D.C. for a few months so he wouldn't get drafted; his parents' neighbors, who were actually pretty decent, high-profile people, treated them like they were some kind of radical insurgents just because the kid "went to the capital and blah blah blah." Another acquaintance started a spiritual career with the Jehovah's Witnesses in the early '90s; his family kicked him out because they were devout Catholics and he was a "cultist"... you can find so many examples where people start acting like animals because of deep-seated feelings like nationalism, religion, or political ideology. And the saddest part is, it has nothing to do with intellect or social class; the people driven by these (in my opinion, low) passions are often doctors and truck drivers alike.
If some super-alien shows up, well, if it's what you suggested, I won't have anything to complain about. Facts are facts. If we're small, pathetic, and miserable to them, then it's perfectly fine for them to treat us that way.

Agree to what, exactly? I don't follow.
It's not a matter of intelligence; it's about common sense, suggestibility, and using the frontal lobe of your brain.

Opinions don't really carry much weight, mostly because people are experts at lying to themselves and rationalizing their own nonsense. Actions are what actually tell the truth, so behavior is the only thing that really matters. It’s the only honest metric for a person's quality and the life they’re actually leading. As for that hypnotic state you see within a mob, I guess there are a few key traits. First, an individual inside a crowd gets this sense of overwhelming power, which basically gives them a free pass to surrender to impulses they’d normally keep under control—you know, the typical "us versus them" mentality, or those sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people being inferior or whatever. You can apply that same logic to religion or political ideologies, too. Second, there’s the contagion factor. Every single action and emotion creates a sort of collective orientation, often leading an individual to sacrifice their own interests just to serve the herd. That goes against basic human nature, or at least how most people act when they aren't being swept up. And then, of course, there's suggestibility. I suppose you could conclude that the majority is almost always intellectually inferior to the individual. I don't want to sound entirely negative, since humans are social creatures and we all belong to some kind of group, but given how these groups orient themselves, their characteristics can be incredibly destructive. No matter how many lofty moral ideals a mob claims to stand for, their actual behavior rarely lives up to the rhetoric.

So, I don't really get why everyone's getting so worked up about this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that anyone could see themselves in something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Borderline? Maybe you just aren't grasping what's being said here, or maybe you're just skimming the surface.

I keep saying this, but it isn't about what you say; it's about what you actually do. For instance, if you claim to be an atheist and don't care what some priest says, fine, I don't either. But the issue here is our country; the church still wields an authority it simply shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be exploiting its 24/7 direct line to God for its own interests, yet that's exactly what's happening.
It isn't even that radical—we aren't living in the 1800s—but it happens through small steps, like subtle sermons and whatnot. They plant an opinion in the head of the average person, who then just repeats it in some casual, bar-room logic. Tomorrow, they'll raise their kid under the guise of passive aggression disguised as God, karma, angels, or demons. And yeah, I guess I could say that disturbs me, to a certain extent, depending on how much I feel like participating in this society. I won't even get into what creationists and cults are up to, or what Islam does... religion definitely causes a lot of harm, but whatever someone cursed two hundred years ago doesn't change the facts today.
We've had two centuries of technological progress to end up sitting in front of computers talking to each other, but when it comes to how the average person actually behaves, very little has really changed.
I think I get what you're getting at with Orwell. And yeah, I've read him; Animal Farm actually stuck with me a bit more, but that's beside the point.
And of course, I'm aware of all that, and it's not a small thing. I used to write about religion—about how it limits the individual, intruding on privacy and freedom through various norms, regulations, and laws. You end up feeling sanctioned from every direction.
But on the flip side, criticism, discussion, and analysis of any social, political, or sociological event are allowed. That's how dogmatic, sweeping opinions and beliefs eventually fade away (slowly, but hopefully in the long run), which is good. In the long term, people shouldn't rely on the prestige of some ideology, religion, or social structure, but rather on what they can actually see happening right in front of them.
That's my somewhat optimistic take, anyway, though the masses remain a problematic bunch.
So, if 1984 actually happens, don't ask why.

And sorry for the long off-topic rant. 🙂

See, I’m not quite that much of an optimist. Based on certain things I've seen, I feel like if today's religious structures were to disappear, new mechanisms would simply emerge to keep the masses in line. Take popular Hollywood teen dramas, for example. If you watch all the trending shows, you quickly learn what you can and cannot say or even think; you learn which behaviors are acceptable and which will push you to the fringes of society. It's a very effective way of socializing people.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded tangent. We totally veered off track. Let me try to get back to the point: no, I don't believe psychology can do all that much to help with men-and-women relationships. 😁 Then again, since I haven't tested that theory personally, who knows? I might be wrong.
Psychology: Is it all just fluff? in Psychology ·
driftingwolf45 said:I guess Nick can't really help me here; maybe it's just my own feeling that things won't get better. I think the best way to look at it is by asking yourself what you'd actually lose if your mental struggles suddenly vanished. Most of the time, people realize they'd end up with a huge amount of free energy that they wouldn't even know how to use.

If you can picture what life would look like without depression—if you can even dream about who you might be without that shadow hanging over your soul—then you can slowly start using that mental energy to chase those dreams. Even just something tiny, like a first step.

That way, your mental energy isn't being turned against you. One cool thing about the mind is that it can't stay focused, productive, or creative while simultaneously spiraling into a dark mood.

👍 Exactly. For instance, I have no idea how to effectively channel my time or energy. The real issue starts with the word "effectively"—to even define what that means, you need a solid value system.

Wherever you look, you run into this fundamental crisis of values. If you ask me, that's where most of the real battles are fought.
Christian Wells6 said:After stumbling upon this while reading—without even being logged in, mind you—I found myself staring at the life story of someone on my ignore list. I didn't click through just to echo what Destiny said, though I find myself in total agreement with them.
Well, perhaps there is one minor point of divergence regarding consciousness, but we have already exhausted that particular avenue of discussion.

It is truly fascinating, if a bit wearying, to witness the reactions people have when one begins to identify certain institutions as fundamentally criminal. Honestly, I have neither the energy nor the inclination to get into a shouting match over who knows whom or who has crossed whom—my apologies to everyone else for the bluntness.

Is this matter settled?

You're likely aiming this at me. You might not even read this, but someone else will. You put me on your ignore list because of maybe two or three harmless posts where I probably didn't address you with "due respect." That was months ago. Do you really cling to first impressions that tightly? Well, that certainly aligns with your signature. 😂
Chloe Barnes8 said:Nice one, lonegardener! Such a great comeback to our little "rebel" here!😁 😁 👍

I was actually thinking the same thing—that kind of intense, passionate way of thinking feels more like something out of the Voltairean era rather than the 21st century, where everything just feels so... twisted and spun around already...

On a personal note, I guess you could say it’s a bit more suited to an adolescent mindset, but hey, let's not get too nitpicky about it...😁

Anyway, these days, blending psychology with spirituality is actually pretty trendy; honestly, entire new movements are popping up all the time... So the whole "thing" has basically just looped back around itself... We went from merging spirituality and psychology before the academic world really took hold, to completely stripping the "soul" out of psychology for this hyper-materialistic approach (which hits its peak with behaviorism, where there's no room for emotions or personality anymore—just behavior, behavior, behavior)... and now we're seeing these modern trends... starting with New York City or even earlier....

But then, what do we even use to measure mental health? How can you actually trust any of it?
How do you know who to believe?

I don't know... maybe it's just that same kind of blind faith you have when you trust your mechanic, your doctor, your pharmacist, or even your local baker (baker-doctor-pharmacist, haha!)... you just trust their products and their services...😁

I feel like I've covered this ground plenty of times, but there's no harm in revisiting it once more.

I trust an auto mechanic BECAUSE I've seen firsthand a million times that they actually know how to fix a car (and by that, I mean the concept of a mechanic, not necessarily any specific individual. Sure, some mechanics are terrible, but I know high-quality ones exist). I trust a baker because I've been eating bread they've made for years and I'm still standing. I trust a doctor, too; I've dealt with various ailments and seen that they can treat them (barring the incurable stuff, of course—but that's the point. You don't go to a doctor expecting them to regrow your arm, precisely because you know they can't).

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, my uncle has struggled with mental illness for twenty years. The best psychiatry could manage was essentially turning him into a zombie by pumping him full of so-called "medication"—which, in reality, act more like toxins that shut down basic brain functions. I look at him today and I don't even recognize the man I used to call "uncle." And he isn't an isolated case; I've seen plenty of situations where neither psychiatry nor psychology has a single answer. When I factor in my own professional experience dealing with complex systems and apply it to a system far more intricate than anything I've ever encountered—the human brain—it all leads to one simple conclusion: you cannot compare a psychiatrist to an auto mechanic. Trusting a mechanic is grounded in reality; trusting a psychiatrist isn't—at least not today. Not yet.
Psychology: Is it all just fluff? in Psychology ·
Angela Morris said:This is not an isolated occurrence. Ever since I began studying psychology as a young girl around age twelve or thirteen, consuming books in an attempt to improve myself... I find myself once again losing the will to live. Besides, life lacks inherent meaning...

Angela Morris said:So, you believe I should continue working on myself even if it only yields a few good months? I am not certain. If that is truly all there is to it, then I suppose I will proceed. However, I was hoping for something more permanent... :-(

Look, I can't offer you a magic fix—if I could, I'd be using it on myself first. Honestly, what you're describing sounds incredibly familiar to me. 😁

Just out of curiosity—when you talk about a "long-term" solution, what does that actually look like to you? If thirty days doesn't feel long enough, why would twenty years be any different? At the end of the day, they're both just the distant future, aren't they? And we both know what a "final solution" truly implies. 😈

So, I'd say you're dealing with a "future" problem. People often lose their grip on the present because they feel like something is missing—though I'm not quite sure what that "something" is. Once that happens, you start obsessing over what lies ahead. It’s hard for any rational person not to feel anxious about the future; after all, the future is unreachable. It isn't just up to us; it's shaped by a million different variables. And, obviously, the ultimate future is the end of life itself.

Usually, people into spirituality will tell you that the cure is focusing on the present. What do I need to do today? What *should* I do right now? Even if you think about the future, it should only be to help you find work for TODAY. You shouldn't spend your time fantasizing about tomorrow, because tomorrow isn't yours to own; you can't control it. You can only control what you do NOW. The advice is simple: don't let your work TODAY suffer because you're too distracted by thoughts of TOMORROW.

That's how it works in theory, at least. In practice? It's a lot harder. Actually, it's so difficult that I haven't been able to pull it off myself. It likely goes back to that "missing piece" I mentioned earlier, whatever that may be.
Angela Rogers2 said:I bet cocaine nights would have plenty to add to this now, but... anyway.
Collective human knowledge is really just the knowledge of the herd. As a herd, people always exist at a lower level of mental capacity, and they need a few shepherds to guide them through life for their own psychological stability. Depending on the historical-cultural spirit of an area and how the herd is grouped, those shepherds will always play a few specific cards:
1. religion
2. nationality
3. some other characteristic that is unquestionable and deeply ingrained in that group, like a political ideology.
A good shepherd has to be a good psychologist too.
And that's just how it is; no matter which part of the world you pick a mass of people from, this works, and it also works for predicting how that herd will behave based on their culture. There are mechanisms in place, and that's just reality.
The factor you have to include in everything is multimedia. The media is one tool for manipulating the herd, and by carefully dosing semi-information, sensationalist gossip, and tragedies, it creates a collective consciousness within the herd directed toward a specific goal.
You seem like an okay guy and not stupid, so you might instinctively reject what I'm writing because society and its mechanisms don't act on you in this described way, but try to understand that most people are below your average—they're hypnotized cattle.

As for what you wrote about the DSM, like personality disorders—a bunch of people react in certain ways, and yeah, I act like that sometimes too, recognizing myself in a few criteria. But the thing is, that isn't your classic behavior; it doesn't threaten your existence and it doesn't show up cyclically and repeatedly under different triggers. Unfortunately, I have personal experience with BPD and antisocial personality disorder, and in the actual lives of these individuals, there is very palpable behavior that stems directly from the disorder and plays out exactly as the textbooks describe. It sounds too fantastic to be true, but that's just how it is.

Oh, and I should probably mention my thoughts on the soul—or rather, the whole God/divine concept. Personally, I find the whole thing totally unfounded, unproven, and frankly, unnecessary. It’s something society should probably just collectively move past. I know, I know, call me a dreamer if you want, but I have no issue saying it, writing it, or standing by it. Generally speaking, I think religion has done more harm than good to our intellectual evolution. It feels useful to just let it go. Modern Americans aren't out there shivering in the mud, naked and starving; our existence is pretty much secured now. There’s really no need to be bossed around or "trained" by some divine authority figure anymore.
I mean, if you have to repeat something twenty-three times before someone actually starts questioning whether it's true... well, why not? I might as well say it a few more times. Besides, this entire collection of beliefs called "God" is basically just something that was forced upon us in the first place.

Do you really think that matters? Is it actually okay to just write people off like that? Just try to imagine if some kind of superior aliens showed up—and I mean truly superior in every sense, from intelligence and logic to ethics and even physical capability. We’re talking about beings that would make us look like monkeys in comparison. Now, how would you feel if those hypothetical aliens decided to dismiss you in the exact same way as what was written above?

I’m never going to sign off on that. Even though I know for a fact that I’m more intelligent than most people out there, that doesn't mean I'm actually smarter—and it certainly doesn't mean I'm wiser. It’s entirely possible that some of those folks who seem totally hypnotized by this stuff grasp things that I simply can't, despite my "superior intelligence." Honestly, I’ve spent years trying to wrap my head around what "spirituality" even means, and I’ve never managed to get it. So, I see only two logical paths: either I accept that I’m fundamentally broken in that department, or I write off everyone preaching about spirituality as frauds, snake oil salesmen, or, at best, just plain naive. To me, the first option feels like the much cheaper logical bet.

Angela Rogers2 said:I bet cocaine nights would have plenty to add to this now, but... anyway.
Collective human knowledge is really just the knowledge of the herd. As a herd, people always exist at a lower level of mental capacity, and they need a few shepherds to guide them through life for their own psychological stability. Depending on the historical-cultural spirit of an area and how the herd is grouped, those shepherds will always play a few specific cards:
1. religion
2. nationality
3. some other characteristic that is unquestionable and deeply ingrained in that group, like a political ideology.
A good shepherd has to be a good psychologist too.
And that's just how it is; no matter which part of the world you pick a mass of people from, this works, and it also works for predicting how that herd will behave based on their culture. There are mechanisms in place, and that's just reality.
The factor you have to include in everything is multimedia. The media is one tool for manipulating the herd, and by carefully dosing semi-information, sensationalist gossip, and tragedies, it creates a collective consciousness within the herd directed toward a specific goal.
You seem like an okay guy and not stupid, so you might instinctively reject what I'm writing because society and its mechanisms don't act on you in this described way, but try to understand that most people are below your average—they're hypnotized cattle.

As for what you wrote about the DSM, like personality disorders—a bunch of people react in certain ways, and yeah, I act like that sometimes too, recognizing myself in a few criteria. But the thing is, that isn't your classic behavior; it doesn't threaten your existence and it doesn't show up cyclically and repeatedly under different triggers. Unfortunately, I have personal experience with BPD and antisocial personality disorder, and in the actual lives of these individuals, there is very palpable behavior that stems directly from the disorder and plays out exactly as the textbooks describe. It sounds too fantastic to be true, but that's just how it is.

Oh, and I should probably mention my thoughts on the soul—or rather, the whole God/divine concept. Personally, I find the whole thing totally unfounded, unproven, and frankly, unnecessary. It’s something society should probably just collectively move past. I know, I know, call me a dreamer if you want, but I have no issue saying it, writing it, or standing by it. Generally speaking, I think religion has done more harm than good to our intellectual evolution. It feels useful to just let it go. Modern Americans aren't out there shivering in the mud, naked and starving; our existence is pretty much secured now. There’s really no need to be bossed around or "trained" by some divine authority figure anymore.
I mean, if you have to repeat something twenty-three times before someone actually starts questioning whether it's true... well, why not? I might as well say it a few more times. Besides, this entire collection of beliefs called "God" is basically just something that was forced upon us in the first place.

Who exactly do you mean when you say "the majority"? Because honestly, it feels like most people my age share that exact same sentiment—that the masses are just mindless sheep. But where is this majority, anyway? I can't seem to find a single exemplary specimen of that crowd. What would you say are the defining traits of this hypnotized mob? What does a typical opinion from one of them actually look like?

Angela Rogers2 said:I bet cocaine nights would have plenty to add to this now, but... anyway.
Collective human knowledge is really just the knowledge of the herd. As a herd, people always exist at a lower level of mental capacity, and they need a few shepherds to guide them through life for their own psychological stability. Depending on the historical-cultural spirit of an area and how the herd is grouped, those shepherds will always play a few specific cards:
1. religion
2. nationality
3. some other characteristic that is unquestionable and deeply ingrained in that group, like a political ideology.
A good shepherd has to be a good psychologist too.
And that's just how it is; no matter which part of the world you pick a mass of people from, this works, and it also works for predicting how that herd will behave based on their culture. There are mechanisms in place, and that's just reality.
The factor you have to include in everything is multimedia. The media is one tool for manipulating the herd, and by carefully dosing semi-information, sensationalist gossip, and tragedies, it creates a collective consciousness within the herd directed toward a specific goal.
You seem like an okay guy and not stupid, so you might instinctively reject what I'm writing because society and its mechanisms don't act on you in this described way, but try to understand that most people are below your average—they're hypnotized cattle.

As for what you wrote about the DSM, like personality disorders—a bunch of people react in certain ways, and yeah, I act like that sometimes too, recognizing myself in a few criteria. But the thing is, that isn't your classic behavior; it doesn't threaten your existence and it doesn't show up cyclically and repeatedly under different triggers. Unfortunately, I have personal experience with BPD and antisocial personality disorder, and in the actual lives of these individuals, there is very palpable behavior that stems directly from the disorder and plays out exactly as the textbooks describe. It sounds too fantastic to be true, but that's just how it is.

Oh, and I should probably mention my thoughts on the soul—or rather, the whole God/divine concept. Personally, I find the whole thing totally unfounded, unproven, and frankly, unnecessary. It’s something society should probably just collectively move past. I know, I know, call me a dreamer if you want, but I have no issue saying it, writing it, or standing by it. Generally speaking, I think religion has done more harm than good to our intellectual evolution. It feels useful to just let it go. Modern Americans aren't out there shivering in the mud, naked and starving; our existence is pretty much secured now. There’s really no need to be bossed around or "trained" by some divine authority figure anymore.
I mean, if you have to repeat something twenty-three times before someone actually starts questioning whether it's true... well, why not? I might as well say it a few more times. Besides, this entire collection of beliefs called "God" is basically just something that was forced upon us in the first place.

Look, my uncle has been dealing with mental illness for twenty years now. My sister had one psychotic episode that landed her in a psychiatric ward in San Francisco for a few days—thankfully just a short stint. And a close family friend (the son of my late godfather) was diagnosed with schizophrenia; he spent nearly a year at a sanitarium in a Small town, USA. That late godfather was actually a psychiatrist himself. My father is a pathologist who frequently pulls shifts in neuropsychiatry, so he spends plenty of time around patients like those. Long story short, I’m more than acquainted with mental illness and various "disorders." You don't need to sell me on it. 😁

Angela Rogers2 said:I bet cocaine nights would have plenty to add to this now, but... anyway.
Collective human knowledge is really just the knowledge of the herd. As a herd, people always exist at a lower level of mental capacity, and they need a few shepherds to guide them through life for their own psychological stability. Depending on the historical-cultural spirit of an area and how the herd is grouped, those shepherds will always play a few specific cards:
1. religion
2. nationality
3. some other characteristic that is unquestionable and deeply ingrained in that group, like a political ideology.
A good shepherd has to be a good psychologist too.
And that's just how it is; no matter which part of the world you pick a mass of people from, this works, and it also works for predicting how that herd will behave based on their culture. There are mechanisms in place, and that's just reality.
The factor you have to include in everything is multimedia. The media is one tool for manipulating the herd, and by carefully dosing semi-information, sensationalist gossip, and tragedies, it creates a collective consciousness within the herd directed toward a specific goal.
You seem like an okay guy and not stupid, so you might instinctively reject what I'm writing because society and its mechanisms don't act on you in this described way, but try to understand that most people are below your average—they're hypnotized cattle.

As for what you wrote about the DSM, like personality disorders—a bunch of people react in certain ways, and yeah, I act like that sometimes too, recognizing myself in a few criteria. But the thing is, that isn't your classic behavior; it doesn't threaten your existence and it doesn't show up cyclically and repeatedly under different triggers. Unfortunately, I have personal experience with BPD and antisocial personality disorder, and in the actual lives of these individuals, there is very palpable behavior that stems directly from the disorder and plays out exactly as the textbooks describe. It sounds too fantastic to be true, but that's just how it is.

Oh, and I should probably mention my thoughts on the soul—or rather, the whole God/divine concept. Personally, I find the whole thing totally unfounded, unproven, and frankly, unnecessary. It’s something society should probably just collectively move past. I know, I know, call me a dreamer if you want, but I have no issue saying it, writing it, or standing by it. Generally speaking, I think religion has done more harm than good to our intellectual evolution. It feels useful to just let it go. Modern Americans aren't out there shivering in the mud, naked and starving; our existence is pretty much secured now. There’s really no need to be bossed around or "trained" by some divine authority figure anymore.
I mean, if you have to repeat something twenty-three times before someone actually starts questioning whether it's true... well, why not? I might as well say it a few more times. Besides, this entire collection of beliefs called "God" is basically just something that was forced upon us in the first place.

Don't you feel like you're a bit behind the times? What you're saying sounds like a progressive opinion from the 1800s. Nowadays, however, there are other sets of beliefs being imposed even more aggressively than religion, defining the parameters within which you're expected to "conform." For instance, I'm an atheist, yet I don't feel any real pressure from religious institutions (except perhaps from the aggressive ones, though they don't bother me—I find Hezbollah just as distasteful as the US Army). When some priest blathers on about what constitutes a sin, it simply doesn't affect me personally. Why should it? At worst, I hear it once every two weeks, if that. Why would that upset me today? If I were living two hundred years ago, maybe. But on the flip side, I feel certain social pressures today quite intensely; saying it happens "daily" would be an understatement. "Constantly" would be much closer to the truth.

Have you read George Orwell's *1984*? If not, read it—and prepare to weep. 😈
Chloe Barnes8 said:yeah... well, unless you decide to give me something better...😁

Look, I don't have a better definition. And honestly, do I even need one? 🤷

Besides, what does the WHO actually represent to you? Why would you take anything they say as absolute truth or fact? For instance, why wouldn't you just trust the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops instead? 🤣

Actually, maybe YOU have a legitimate, grounded reason for trusting the WHO. Perhaps you work in the field or you're deeply familiar with the subject matter, so you can actually see the foundation that makes that trust valid. If that's the case, disregard my question and answer this instead: why would Angela Rogers2 trust the WHO over the USCCB? I'm not asking just to be difficult; I am genuinely curious about how people select which group of self-proclaimed authorities to deem credible—especially when most people don't know the first thing about any of them.

(As for where I stand, I think my position is pretty clear: I don't trust anyone by default. Not until I've seen rock-solid evidence that trusting them is actually logical and makes sense.)
Chloe Barnes8 said:So, we’ve got the World Health Organization's standard on what mental health actually looks like...

Then there are all those descriptions of "healthy personalities" floating around in psychology textbooks, which basically serve as the foundation for defining disorders in the first place. It’s such a massive, sweeping topic, honestly... and a really fair question to ask...

Sigmund Freud once offered this pretty simple, yet surprisingly effective definition: A healthy person is someone who is capable of working and loving....

But, I mean, you could argue that’s still way too broad... because, well... how does one "work" or "love," exactly? It's kind of vague, isn't it?

Still, the criteria for personality disorders are laid out pretty clearly—like in the DSM classifications, for instance. The main rule of thumb there is that a specific disorder has to significantly mess with someone's social or professional life, and it has to be a persistent thing over time...

also....☕

Does that really satisfy you? 😲 😲
Chloe Barnes8 said:you don't really get me (and I don't know this Ayn Rand guy either)...

personality disorders definitely exist... and sure, we can all find bits and pieces of ourselves in any of them... the more varied the mix, the better...😍

It’s just nasty when one or two traits describe us perfectly, and suddenly we're stuck in some psychiatric category...😉

I don't mind people challenging or questioning views—in EVERYTHING, really—but let's do it with arguments, ladies and gentlemen, with actual arguments...🙏

Fair enough. So, what is the actual starting point for someone (regardless of whether they are a psychiatrist or not) to decide that a specific behavior is a reflection of a "personality disorder"?

To claim a personality is "disordered," we first need a concept of what a "healthy" personality looks like. But who, or what, defines the standard for mental health, and on what exact foundation is that standard built?

So far, these aren't really "arguments"—they are just questions. Let's see what everyone's actual premises are.

Edit: regarding Ayn Rand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand
Chloe Barnes8 said:Psychology can be exact enough that if we truly understand someone's early childhood conditions and their social interactions, we could probably predict with decent certainty what kind of personality structure issues they'll develop later on...

And then, well, how to treat them too...

Also, that whole idea of using percentages to map out a profile is just way too naive... that's not how any of this works.

There are all sorts of combinations of personality disorders, you know? Like, one might be the primary issue while others are just secondary symptoms, and so on...

Man, I really love it when people talk down about things they don't actually understand...

And then they go ahead and try to tell us how to fix science, too... 😍

Look, that was sarcasm. It’s mostly triggered by the fact that whenever I read these descriptions of "personality disorders," I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't check multiple boxes from several different categories at once. Honestly, I see myself in at least five or six of them, ranging from mild to intense.

And so what if you're annoyed that I’m pushing back against the whole concept of a personality "disorder"? Whose personality is so perfectly curated that they feel qualified to judge what counts as "normal" versus "disordered"? What does it even mean to have a "healthy personality"? Doesn't that step right into ethical territory—questions of morality, spirituality, and value systems—all things where there isn't even a global consensus today? So, through what ethical lens is psychology making these judgments? I bet an American Christian would view someone's "mental health" completely differently than a follower of Ayn Rand, wouldn't they? Don't you agree?
Chloe Barnes8 said:I mean!

I honestly don't know if it'll be misused, but when you consider that so many mental health struggles involve such massive amounts of suffering, why wouldn't this be a good thing?

And besides... this whole obsession with psychology and its supposed "all-knowingness" has turned into such cheap, watered-down pop psychology lately... like, the whole "you can control everything, you can change anything, the power is within you" vibe (as if! 😁 )...

Anyway, you can see from my earlier posts that I haven't exactly been a cheerleader for that mindset, where people think they can just think their way through every single problem... ha! 😍

But, I guess you still can do a lot! 🙂

I actually disagree; if anything, I mostly enjoy your insights. Don't let my aggressive tone fool you into thinking I'm actually a hostile person. I'm more like a dog that barks a lot but never actually bites.😍
Chloe Barnes8 said:exactly....

but, wouldn't you say that behavioral pathology in certain subjects is actually quite "exact"?
it's no less exact than, say, some theoretical concept of electrical energy...😉

I think we need to be a bit more precise when we define what "exact" actually means.😬

Electrical energy is "exact" because if I run 120 volts through a 100-ohm wire, I can calculate precisely how much that wire will heat up in one minute. It will happen that way every single time, with minimal deviation—and even when deviations occur, we know exactly how and why they happen.

Nothing in the study of behavioral pathology comes anywhere close to being that "exact." To be fair, there are certain chemical imbalances within the brain, as you mentioned, but I wouldn't classify those under psychology in the "strict sense"—that’s more biological. When I read descriptions of various personality disorders, it strikes me that they could actually serve as a decent psychological profile test: seeing what percentage of each disorder a person recognizes in themselves.😬 Based on those percentages, I think you could build a fairly accurate map of someone's psychological makeup.
Chloe Barnes8 said:lonegardener, just because not every bad thing is purely negative, doesn't mean psychology's push toward becoming a "hard" science with all that precision isn't actually paying off in some ways...

Nowadays, we know that certain mental health struggles aren't just "in someone's head"—they're often just neurotransmitter imbalances. And honestly, treating them with medication to try and level things out is how it's done now...
I mean, the brain is such a complex, high-tech organ, right? It’s one of those things where if it decides it doesn't want to cooperate, you can't exactly force it to fix itself—not that we've cracked the perfect formula yet (we really haven't)... so current treatments aren't perfect by any means, but they're still a massive step up from what was available just a few decades ago...

We can sit here and criticize meds, or psychotherapy, or psychiatry all we want, but when things get really heavy, most people are more than happy to reach out for that pharmacological help... and hey, it saves lives, so there's that...

If science keeps moving at this pace, we might eventually get to a point where schizophrenia is managed much like we manage diabetes today—just another biochemical condition to keep in check....☕

Do you really think so? 😁

Or even better: do you think that will actually be a good thing? 😈

What truly unsettles me about all of this is how closely these "psychological phenomena" tie back to deep philosophical—or perhaps even spiritual—questions. It hits on core ethical issues. Doesn't it give you a bit of a chill to wonder where this clinical view of the human psyche is ultimately leading us?

And please, don't just call me paranoid. 🤣
Gerald Rivera60 said:Let’s take a closer look at the "exact" sciences, shall we?
Biology focuses on living organisms, yet we still haven't reached a consensus on what life actually is. For instance, science can't simply manufacture life from scratch.
Physics is often just a collection of hypothetical constructs—string theory, parallel universes, extra dimensions...
There is an immense amount of guesswork involved there too.
To be clear, I have nothing against science itself.

Furthermore, modern research approaches the so-called "soul" through an interdisciplinary lens, such as linking various brain activities to mental processes—take Neuroeconomics, for example. It isn't merely a matter of statistics, though there is plenty of it; statistical models are standard tools used in physics and nearly every other scientific field.
... apologies for going off-topic.

To be honest, I’m really not a fan of where physics has headed over the last two decades. It feels like one wild theory after another. What happened to the elegance of classical mechanics? 😁

Regarding interdisciplinary work, I'm definitely all for it 👍—and again, I have no issue with psychologists or psychiatrists who stay humble and recognize the current limits of their field. My stance might seem a bit intense, but that's only because it feels like there's a massive trend lately toward overestimating everything related to the study of the human psyche. So, this is essentially a knee-jerk reaction on my part; when I run into people who treat psychology like an infallible religion, it acts like a red flag for me.