Can psychology actually help fix relationship issues?

rustymaker5 said:Maybe I’m just having some kind of communication breakdown here, because I can’t for the life of me bridge the gap between what we call the soul and what we call the psyche. 😛
The way I see it, a soul can’t actually get "sick" since it’s non-material and carries this divine origin... whereas the psyche is tied directly to the mind, which is inherently linked to the physical world and therefore subject to all sorts of deviations.
So, in my view, psychology—and psychiatry, for that matter—only really deals with the material, relative side of being human, but the real headache is that this physical aspect is constantly being influenced by the non-material, spiritual side, an existence that so many people simply refuse to acknowledge or accept. Because of that, it feels to me like psychology might be okay at describing the dynamics of men and women, but it lacks the tools to actually provide real, effective healing...

I totally get where you're coming from... maybe the confusion stems from the fact that once we start talking about the soul, we've moved into spiritual territory, and science doesn't really have a seat at that table...

And honestly, I think the soul, or the spirit, or whatever you want to call it, is the very core of who we are. And a core like that just can't be broken or sick... which, if you think about it, aligns perfectly with what psychotherapy is actually trying to do...

The whole goal is to find that healthy core of a person's personality and help reactivate that inner wellness...

Of course, that sounds way easier than actually doing it...

lonegardener said:It’s like that old saying: when everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon, everyone else follows suit just to stay in the loop. 😂

How can it claim to be an exact science when it deals with something that collective human knowledge simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND?

I don't claim to know how the human psyche works either; however, I know just enough to conclude that nobody truly does. At least, not with that level of certainty engineers have when they explain how semiconductors work. Now, semiconductors are incredibly complex, but compared to the human brain, they are practically trivial. Essentially, psychology boils down to an "educated guess." It isn't totally blind, since it relies on data and research—mostly statistical—but we all know how that goes; lies, blatant lies, and if you want to get technical, statistics 😈. But because the system being studied is hopelessly overcomplicated, even that "educated guess" can sometimes yield results worse than a total shot in the dark.

Because of that, I value official psychology only slightly more than highly skilled amateur intuition. An intelligent person with deep empathy and significant life experience can "read" someone just as successfully as a "trained professional." Granted, "reading" someone is much easier than "treating" them—though psychiatrists aren't exactly winning any awards when it comes to treatment, either. For instance, my uncle has been struggling with mental illness for twenty years. All his doctors seem to know how to do is pump him full of pills just enough so he isn't a danger to himself or others. In doing so, they've effectively turned him into a zombie. It reminds me of that old medical adage: the surgery was a success, but the patient died.

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.

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.)

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. 😈

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...😁

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?

Another teenager from the Voltairean school!😁 😁

Welcome to the group, once again!

Do you have anything constructive to add about any part of the topic???😉

Chloe Barnes8 said:Another teenager from the Voltairean school!😁 😁

Welcome to the group, once again!

Do you have anything constructive to add about any part of the topic???😉

Constructive dialogue seems to be quite outside your area of expertise. I’ve been reading through several of your posts lately, and frankly, your assessments of The Ten are incredibly superficial; then, to top it all off, you provide these utterly tedious biographies that seem to lack any clear point or purpose within this discussion.

I am left with the impression that this thread has reached its natural end, devolving instead into nothing more than petty personal bickering. 🤷
It’s becoming rather tiresome and lacks any real substance. If I truly wanted to discuss The Ten, I would simply send a private message.

lonegardener said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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. 😈

You can choose not to define others by their nationality or religion, and you can decide to treat everyone equally, but you cannot stop other people from categorizing you based on those same traits. Your own convictions won't change how they perceive you.

Quentin:

Besides, I’ve spent quite a long time trying to wrap my head around what "spirituality" actually means, and I have yet to succeed.

Perhaps you simply haven't been looking in the right places. 🙂

Quentin:

It seems to me that most people my age feel exactly the same way—that the majority of people are just mindless sheep. But where is this massive group then? I have yet to meet a single exemplary specimen of such a crowd.

An individual, by definition, thinks differently than the masses.

Christian Wells6 said:Constructive dialogue seems to be quite outside your area of expertise. I’ve been reading through several of your posts lately, and frankly, your assessments of The Ten are incredibly superficial; then, to top it all off, you provide these utterly tedious biographies that seem to lack any clear point or purpose within this discussion.

I am left with the impression that this thread has reached its natural end, devolving instead into nothing more than petty personal bickering. 🤷
It’s becoming rather tiresome and lacks any real substance. If I truly wanted to discuss The Ten, I would simply send a private message.

Go ahead, keep going... it's not like I'm trying to get even, but just try seeing things from my side for a second. Your posts and those from The Ten are just dull and predictable to me—not to mention how shallow everything feels...🤷

Chloe Barnes8 said:Go ahead, keep going... it's not like I'm trying to get even, but just try seeing things from my side for a second. Your posts and those from The Ten are just dull and predictable to me—not to mention how shallow everything feels...🤷

I don't doubt that for a second. It seems the moment you found yourself on familiar ground, dissecting who said what to whom, everything suddenly became fascinating to you.

I shall happily continue.

lonegardener said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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. 😈

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.

lonegardener said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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. 😈

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.

lonegardener said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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. 😈

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.

lonegardener said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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. 😈

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.

lonegardener said: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.

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?

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. 😁

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. 😈

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. 🙂

@ Chloe Barnes8, your condescending tone combined with those attempts to smear anyone you disagree with... it just ends up driving people away from the conversation, you know?

Look, I reserve the right to jump back in whenever I feel like it.

edit:
I’m not sure if there’s even any point in saying this, but looking at The Tenth's post 285, I find myself almost entirely in agreement—not because I’m trying to offer some cheap little show of support, God knows neither of us needs that... a mature person can simply say "bravo to XY" to distance themselves without making a scene... I'm just expressing my take on the subject... still haven't even gotten through the post above yet.

How could I have possibly forgotten one of my absolute favorite fairy tales! 🙂 Beauty and the Beast! 😍

Yeah, true. Except in the real world, things never actually wrap up like that... It usually ends up being more like what I was saying about that whole "modern fairy tale" mess... 😛

Sandra Parker3 said:@ Chloe Barnes8, your condescending tone combined with those attempts to smear anyone you disagree with... it just ends up driving people away from the conversation, you know?

Look, I reserve the right to jump back in whenever I feel like it.

edit:
I’m not sure if there’s even any point in saying this, but looking at The Tenth's post 285, I find myself almost entirely in agreement—not because I’m trying to offer some cheap little show of support, God knows neither of us needs that... a mature person can simply say "bravo to XY" to distance themselves without making a scene... I'm just expressing my take on the subject... still haven't even gotten through the post above yet.

Look, this is my thread. Like some blogger would say, "my thread, my rules." I'm kind of stepping into a moderator role here, I guess, just because I want to nudge the discussion in the direction I see fit, rather than letting it go wherever... if people don't like that, well, sorry... but I was just trying to help...

Besides, we aren't all here to agree on whether someone writes beautifully or not. My whole idea is that we should try to figure things out TOGETHER, even if it's just small realizations, just by chatting away...

It feels to me like The Ten and Taylor, even though they definitely have plenty to say, tend to be way too critical about everything, which doesn't really work here... we won't get anywhere that way... don't you think?🤷

There’s just no helping people who aren't actually looking to be helped

Anyway, Jane, while I totally get where you're coming from regarding crowd psychology—especially how people tend to act around here—I feel like you're being a little less than tolerant this time around...

So, I was just sitting here thinking... if someone is an atheist, does that actually make them a better person morally? Or maybe just smarter than someone who believes in God? Just a random thought crossing my mind.

Is it really necessary to assume that someone who just follows the herd like a mindless sheep—you know, those folks who lack any real conviction—is automatically an enlightened intellectual just because they claim to be an atheist? It’s funny how people label things these days... anyway, just a thought.
I mean, I’m just sitting here thinking... maybe we could all try a little more tolerance around here? Like, if nobody is out for blood against the atheists, then let's not go after the folks who actually have faith, either. It just doesn't feel right. It feels a bit unhuman, honestly. And definitely doesn't sit well with democratic values or even just basic American politeness. Just a thought.

Who are we actually to judge someone else's core beliefs? Honestly, I was just sitting here thinking about it... like, who am I to play judge and jury over what makes someone tick? It's kind of wild when you really stop to consider it. Everyone's got their own thing going on, right? Just a random thought that popped into my head while I was grabbing coffee earlier. Anyway, just wondering.

rustymaker5 said:Yeah, true. Except in the real world, things never actually wrap up like that... It usually ends up being more like what I was saying about that whole "modern fairy tale" mess... 😛

To be honest, I actually felt a bit disappointed when he transformed into a prince. I much preferred him as the beast. 😁

Chloe Barnes8 said:Anyway, Jane, while I totally get where you're coming from regarding crowd psychology—especially how people tend to act around here—I feel like you're being a little less than tolerant this time around...

So, I was just sitting here thinking... if someone is an atheist, does that actually make them a better person morally? Or maybe just smarter than someone who believes in God? Just a random thought crossing my mind.

Is it really necessary to assume that someone who just follows the herd like a mindless sheep—you know, those folks who lack any real conviction—is automatically an enlightened intellectual just because they claim to be an atheist? It’s funny how people label things these days... anyway, just a thought.
I mean, I’m just sitting here thinking... maybe we could all try a little more tolerance around here? Like, if nobody is out for blood against the atheists, then let's not go after the folks who actually have faith, either. It just doesn't feel right. It feels a bit unhuman, honestly. And definitely doesn't sit well with democratic values or even just basic American politeness. Just a thought.

Who are we actually to judge someone else's core beliefs? Honestly, I was just sitting here thinking about it... like, who am I to play judge and jury over what makes someone tick? It's kind of wild when you really stop to consider it. Everyone's got their own thing going on, right? Just a random thought that popped into my head while I was grabbing coffee earlier. Anyway, just wondering.

Not judging anyone—honestly, that really should be the bedrock of any decent conversation. I am totally on board with that. 👍 And it needs to be a two-way street, you know? It has to apply to everyone involved in the dialogue, without exception.

But there is this one thing we can't just gloss over, because more often than not (if not always), it’s actually the religious folks who are the ones aggressively defending their dogma and coming after anyone who doesn't fit the mold, sometimes even going as far as practically cursing them out. To me, personally, that seems like a pretty telling pattern...

We have such a massive variety of worldviews and belief systems here in America, and frankly, that doesn't bother me at all, as long as nobody decides they need to force their views on me or insist I'm wrong by sheer willpower (in those cases, I just stop talking to them entirely), or if they start getting insulting or condescending (then I just ignore those posts)... but I still want to feel free to express what's on my mind, because who knows, maybe there is someone out there who finds my perspective interesting and actually wants to have a normal, sane conversation with me. And I really wouldn't want to miss out on that possibility. 🙂