I’ve observed a behaviour in people that I find curious. The first part is quite expected; when someone you know is feeling down and not masking it from others (especially if tears are involved), it usually elicits concern from others. They will often try to “cheer up” the person, soothe or comfort them to get them back to a regular or “normal” mood.

The second is not as intuitive. When someone is hyper-excited, overtly cheerful or overly enthusiastic this often gets on people’s nerves leading them to “put the person down” so as to make them feel a little less happy by comparison. Ive seen it a lot. The happiest person in a group is often the target of the most cynical or pessimistic remarks and the saddest person the most encouraging and warm remarks.

What is strange is why do we feel the need to take someone down from a high. Why do we not permit excessive happiness? An extreme case of this would be the suppression of mania/ euphoria in people with bi-polar disorder.

My follow on consequence is; consider a device that can be implanted in everyone which regulates mood just as we do to each other on a daily basis. If you get a little too happy it triggers an increase in negativity and if you get a little to depressed it provokes an increase in positivity. That way no one ever suffers from depression or self harm however can probably never enjoy the most profound of emotions either. Would this be better or worse than total (and possibly destructive) freedom?

Do we need to the two extremes to have meaning/perspective? Is it important to have the full range even though nature repeatedly shows that it likes to establish equilibrium. Would equilibrium of emotions/mood even be good for us and would we still be “human” if we achieved it on a societal level?

If we are always “checking” each other’s attitudes and aligning them with the social norm what would be the difference with a machine that does the same thing?

It’s a little black-mirroesque but an interesting consideration all the same.