What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

I don't get the correlation between prevalent mentality and "inequality" that ends up with psychosis. I just see all your arguments very twisted.

Most "sane" people blindly comply or consent to the mistreatment of themselves and others. Most people deemed "insane" placed faith in friends, family, and authorities undeserving of trust and were devastated by betrayal. — Bug Biro

These are very general arguments. Not all the persons act with the same pattern. There is not an absolute truth towards of how the individuals or authorities should act.

People are tranquil of unjust societies and at peace with being controlled by severely corrupt, if not absolutely evil, governance — Bug Biro

I think not. Look at the revolutions of Iran or Peru.

Most of the governments are corrupt anyway... so it is very difficult to make a comparative with those who live under a government with zero corruption.

I did not consider Iran or Peru, I will now. Thanks for your advice there. These gatherings by me are based on personal experience and discussions I've had with others who experienced psychotic symptoms, typically while being held inside the same psychiatric ward together. With the information given in your retort, I suppose my findings would mostly be applicable to present First World nations.

What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

I think that summary inaccurately reduces all mental illness to two dimensions, whereas I believe the large group of emotional and cognitive malfunctions to be four-dimensional. It can, however, be subdivided into smaller groups for ease of comprehension and discussion.

OTOH, I very much agree that one major cause of mental illness, emotional breakdown and conceptual dissonance is the gap between experienced reality and received wisdom. That is, the lies we tell children from the moment they are born. It isn't just the organs of corrupt governments that lie: parents, teachers, employers, news outlets, pastors, movies, salesmen, barristers - all kinds of people lie about all kinds of things, everywhere, all the time. Entire mythologies are constructed out of untruths to define a nation's self-image, just like an institution's or individual person's.
Attempting to reconcile these disparate narratives with one's direct experience and fashion them into some a coherent view of the world is exhausting work; it occupies a great deal of a person's time and attention, and consumes a great deal of his life energy. So he either becomes acquiescent and quiescent, or he explodes in some manifestation of protest: political action, criminal action or madness. (However I dislike it, It's the simplest, least apt but most accessible word to describe this kind of emotional break.)

I believe the large group of emotional and cognitive malfunctions to be four-dimensional — Vera Mont

Four-dimensional, I wonder how so? Please explain.

Four-dimensional, I wonder how so? Please explain. — Bug Biro

They exist in direct perception, familial (or intimate) interaction, social context and life-time. They are also based in instinct, emotion, thought and projection. There may be other ways to describe the multi-faceted nature of mental illness. But you shouldn't take my image of four dimensions literally; all i really meant to illustrate was that they are more complex and varied than expectation > betrayal > disillusionment > breakdown. Yes, that sequence plays a part, but only a part.

The antithesis of psychosis is the prevalent mentality, the prime driver of inequality: People are tranquil of unjust societies and at peace with being controlled by severely corrupt, if not absolutely evil, governance. Most "sane" people blindly comply or consent to the mistreatment of themselves and others. Most people deemed "insane" placed faith in friends, family, and authorities undeserving of trust and were devastated by betrayal. — Bug Biro

I think sane people are more cunning than you give them credit for. It seems they only pretend to "blindly comply or consent to the mistreatment of themselves and others"; they only pretend to be "tranquil of unjust societies and at peace with being controlled by severely corrupt, if not absolutely evil, governance". They have a vibrant inner life and they choose their battles wisely. They know how to "hide in plain sight".

I think sane people are more cunning than you give them credit for. — baker

That's a good way of putting it. Some psyches are (innately ?) more fragile than others; and some are subjected to a more intense barrage of crazy-making fiction in the formative years, while others are given an opportunity to verify and validate their subjective experience.
But, beyond that, we all make compromises; draw our personal lines of compliance, forbearance and hypocrisy. It's not an easy balance to maintain, but most people manage to function and keep their societies functioning - more or less.
Collectively, though, we're a completely bonkers species.

What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

Lots of people have made similar arguments over the years. I think it was Orwell who said that the norms of one culture might look insane next to the norms of another. Ditto for people. Moving away form the idea of what is insane and what is normal we might be better served by asking what behaviors help or harm the community? We then get into morality and politics and debate reigns supreme. There's no correlation between sanity/normality and being nice.

They know how to "hide in plain sight". — baker

The requirement or the belief that people need to hide in plain sight is a sign we live life wishing for better and merits the past-proven concept that achieving life improvements through personal actions is hazardous to us. It is an example of us fearing what our rulers, those who claim they do what's best for people, are directly capable of causing us. Perhaps individuals speaking up against injustice and stating ways to make life better for most of us will result in even worse life for certain people. Maybe life will stay the same. If enough people speak up in peaceful protest, rulers will listen and adjust to meet our standards. I see no other way for life to get better. Failure to do so will result in the gradual worsening of life until reaching a point of irreparable damage and rapid deterioration of our quality of life.

There's no correlation between sanity/normality and being nice. — Tom Storm

To me, normality is synonymous with sanity when really, they are antonyms. What's normal by today's standards is far from what's nice. Likewise, my belief is negation between the terms "normal" and "nice." All people perform both kind and unkind acts. The most unkind tend to be the excuses they make to not fight back against an obviously present evil, denying people relief from unnecessary suffering.

It's not an easy balance to maintain, but most people manage to function and keep their societies functioning - more or less. — Vera Mont

I'm under the impression the functions of all societies fall under the "less" category. Far less for some.

What's normal by today's standards is far from what's nice. — Bug Biro

Can you give an example of normal today being far from nice? I would have thought it's a nicer world today in many places, except in some countries where it is still like the 1500's.

Can you give an example of normal today being far from nice? — Tom Storm

All people perform both kind and unkind acts. The most unkind tend to be the excuses they make to not fight back against an obviously present evil, denying people relief from unnecessary suffering. — Bug Biro

The suffering of people, typically those who are poor, is the biggest injustice.

I would have thought it's a nicer world today in many places, except in some countries where it is still like the 1500's. — Tom Storm

I compared our capacity for niceness with today's output and what the future could hold. Life for humans could be near-perfect through changes easier than we think. It involves the most ineffective and detrimental aspects of societies, removing them or reversing their means to achieve the desired results.

For example, justice systems expect crimes to occur to prevent crimes. Highly inefficient. The documentary Where to Invade Next? by Michael Moore taught me that less freedom taken from incarcerated criminals leads to lower crime rates. Proven by a country after trading traditional jails with lodgings and practices far more similar to rehabilitation centres. Respect given is respect earned.

I blame all our problems on the wiseguy who, 10,000 BC, went "hey guys, why not grow our own food?" My personal opinion is that human individualism though toned down over innumerable generations by natural selection is too strong for social existence; groups larger than 50 - 100 are, I think, unstable and it shows - large cities tend to have high crime rates. As our astute OP seems to have noticed, a person only wants a friend so that the probability of ending up as a lion's lunch goes down from 100% to 50%. Selfish is us and of course the same goes for all life.

As our astute OP seems to have noticed, a person only wants a friend so that the probability of ending up as a lion's lunch goes down from 100% to 50%. Selfish is us and of course the same goes for all life. — Agent Smith

I did not notice this said before. Yes, friendship over animosity reduces the risk of harm. Grudges that develop into violence are avoidable exaggerations. Self-preservation should always be upheld, except for extreme situations typically reserved for hypothetical. While selflessness is impossible, I hope the trait turns into one we all strive for. Doing so should provide the utmost happiness for those we encounter and ourselves. Being selfish will still exist because at no point will everyone always think the same or lie to make others believe we do. It is sometimes the better option to be selfish. Perhaps we reach a point where being selfish only happens if it is the best option for all parties, even if it takes time for those involved to realize it is. So, technically, in that case, selfishness won't exist.

I believe you're close to the truth. From an evolutionary standpoint, it (selfishness) seems critical to survival, but from ethics, it's a prime evil/cardinal sin. Perhaps it violates the basic principle of quid pro quo. An individual enjoys the protection the group offers, but gives nothing back in return. There's another word for such folks - parasite.

An individual enjoys the protection the group offers, but gives nothing back in return. There's another word for such folks - parasite. — Agent Smith

There should be nothing forcing the group to interact with such folk, folk I doubt exist. Who's to say parasites owe providers anything? What if people no longer rely on face-to-face interactions with others to get what they want or require? Would that make non-parasites less inconsiderate of a parasite? Self-loathing people, most likely those considered parasites by others, those who lack friendship, might go into total seclusion. I feel sad for those types of people. Those who neglected them should feel sad for imposing self-hatred on another. I want a world where people no one wants to associate with have people they consider friends. Where selfless people are willing to suffer if it might preserve the life of another. Where people exist who would rather die than not attempt to provide everyone with love.

I think perhaps some people who are in psychosis are reacting to or their state came into being because of facets of society: but also their families and contacts or lack thereof. But I think other things can be at play: trauma, lack of sleep and stress (not necessarily caused by societal problems) drug and alcohol use, medication, long term social isolation (chicken and egg issues here) and likely other things that don't come to me off the top of my head.

My guess is that it's not the best idea to at least simply blame psychosis on society.

I do think people are not reacting, all the time. They have been trained to not react, to take certain things as given if not also good, to hide their reactions even from themselves, to get along and not rock the boat and for those who can't or don't want to do these things there is tremendous emotional stress.

I think it might be better to focus on what seems mentally healthy - being ok with things as they are - and say there may well be a widespread mental illness in that, than to say psychosis comes from the problems in society. I think that there are people who see and feel the things you dislike but who are never in psychosis. I think people who are psychosis are not always for the reasons you say/imply.

A narrower focus I think is better and then also focus on the crazyiness of the general shrug and blindness.

God is merciful mon ami! :death: :flower:

I don't know how the system actually works, but there's a price to pay for everything - some are willing to, others no, still others are, as we speak, turning their options over in their heads. Hope for the best, prepare for the best, oui monsieur?

The socioeconomic climate, inter alia, and "the prevalent mentality", is the radix of our problems. Is it right to fault a man who's already off-balance for being knocked down by gale-force winds?

If enough people speak up in peaceful protest, rulers will listen and adjust to meet our standards. — Bug Biro

How many - or rather, what percent of the population - is enough?

How

groups larger than 50 - 100 are, I think, unstable and it shows - large cities tend to have high crime rates. — Agent Smith

Two things about that.
100 doesn't provide a big enough gene pool or work force for self preservation. It needs to be at least 1000 - but, IMO, not more than 10,000 for sustainable population and governance.
And the crime rate in modern industrial urban settings is a product of economic and organizational factors more than simple numbers.

Selfish is us and of course the same goes for all life. — Agent Smith

Ye-e-e-s... but so is altruistic and sociable.

All vertical social organizations impose some degree and form of thought-control on the populace: having a single, unified world-view (which posits the necessity of hierarchy and assumes the legitimacy of the present rulers) makes the lower classes compliant. Any deviation from that world-view poses a threat to the power-structure and must be suppressed.
A small, more egalitarian society is able to withstand differences of opinion, because these are discussed openly, face to face. If the dissonance causes a rift, it has to be resolved through compromise or social change - has to be, because it puts the whole group, everyone's children and loved ones - at risk. Horizontal social arrangements are far more flexible, responsive and adaptable than large, stratified ones. Think flock of starlings vs pyramid.

groups larger than 50 - 100 are, I think, unstable and it shows - large cities tend to have high crime rates.
— Agent Smith
Two things about that.
100 doesn't provide a big enough gene pool or work force for self preservation. It needs to be at least 1000 - but, IMO, not more than 10,000 for sustainable population and governance.
And the crime rate in modern industrial urban settings is a product of economic and organizational factors more than simple numbers. — Vera Mont

Agreed! My analysis leaves much to be desired.

I just watched an interesting documentary about Paleolithic people, which, among other things, dealt with a meeting place where a number of many small bands came together from time to time, so the young men and women could meet. There was dancing and stone art and presumably feasting. Either the man or the woman could then join the people of their chosen mate. It seems they were aware of the need for genetic diversity.

How many - or rather, what percent of the population - is enough? — Vera Mont

The answer to this depends on various factors, the most determining being what people ask of rulers. Civilian demands that decrease benefits, short-term or long-term, for wealthy and influential people, the response from the government will most definitely be to resist what is asked of them. Who allies with protesters is likely to reveal causes deemed valid or invalid by the opposition in power. Celebrities whose opinions hold gravitas (or so it appears) who claim approval of urged acclimation indicate the wants of commoners will soon be met. The fewer the riches or less manipulation anticipated for decision-makers by enact of change, the greater the sum of humans mandatory for a victorious end to their protest and imperative is the maximal time spent by rebels declaring the value of their stance to bolster its fulfillment.

The answer to this depends on various factors, what it is people ask of rulers the most determining of which. — Bug Biro

I suspect it's more a question of what kind of leaders they're asking. Not every government will order running over a protester with a tank, but some will. Not every government dares to gun down a crowd from atop buildings, but some do. A government might back down on punitive taxation or ease up on civil liberties, but they will never, ever make a move against the rich. Who is on the protesters' side matters, if it's top army brass or top level clergy - otherwise, not.

I suspect it's more a question of what kind of leaders they're asking. — Vera Mont

That truly is the most impactful factor. I failed to consider that. Good that you did.

Our world is a very sick puppy. It's no surprise so many of us are, too.

What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

Have you read The Sane Society by Erich Fromm? Pretty good book.

There are people who are crazy without reference to society--people experiencing the severe depression and mania which is often manifested in bipolar disease are an example. Schizophrenia is another, as is OCD and a few other mental illnesses.

Then, as you say, there are a lot of people who have been driven crazy by the crazy society they live in.

However people arrived at 'crazy', living in a nuthouse society makes things worse.

The interesting cases are the very decent, imminently sane people who manage to live in crazy societies without suffering.

The interesting cases are the very decent, imminently sane people who manage to live in crazy societies without suffering. — BC

I don't think they escape suffering. They just cope with it privately, and express it only in prose, teaching and art.

Civilian demands that decrease benefits, short-term or long-term, for wealthy and influential people, the response from the government will most definitely be to resist what is asked of them. — Bug Biro

A thought arose that expands on my above statement and relates to another long-time belief of mine: Certain conspiracy theories. This theory combines collusion with philosophy:

Any ask of civilians that will improve their lives will undoubtedly cause affluent people to lose immense amounts of money or weaken their abilities to control what matters. Every society operates under the same overarching objective: An optimized increase in riches and influence of people who already possess far more than most. Certain countries are nearly at capacity for this goal. Sovereign people are supplied with insurmountable fortunes from a small group with staggering wealth, those who possess the most currency from all over the world across history. So much money given requires the provided to obey the whims of their benefactors. The sum entails committing any action without repercussions. The richest in the world inherited what was secured by their ancestors, control over nearly every facet of life. For entertainment and pleasure, the supremely wealthy puppeteer governance regulations with slow incremental rise, difficult to discern, of misery and discomfort for most humans or stage horrifying conditions to bestow on individuals. The more an amendment benefits the masses, the more sizeable a reduction of earnings for the stockpilers of wealth. Changes that worsen the lives of civilians accumulate fortune and leverage for the collective of heirs and subsidiaries. Splendour existence leads to allotment of wealth comparable to the early ages of currency circulation. After a far spread of even funds, the next logical step is to render money worthless around the globe. The success of this concept relies on balancing resources to build camaraderie between all nations. Fair distribution of necessities followed by sporadic dispersal. All countries convert to First World countries. Removal of currency proves a potent suppressant of human suffering. The initiative of no cash, no cost will be considered the remedy for wasted human potential, the spark for rapid progress toward a near-perfect existence for all of us.

First of all, this is impossible to reach out:

The initiative of no cash and no cost is considered the most helpful remedy gifted to humans by humans and sparks rapid progress in the accomplishment of a near-perfect existence for all of us. — Bug Biro

In the other hand, I am somehow agree with you arguments on conspiracy but I object that it looks like all societies work as you described and that's a fallacy.
We don't have perfect countries, communities, organisations, etc... it is true, but we have to consider some examples which work with efficiency: I guess Nordic countries such Denmark, Norway, Finland or Sweden can fit on what you are looking for. Their population is relatively small, public administrations work good, politicians are not so corrupted, there are a lot of civic people, etc... so, in my view, I doubt that conspiracy has a clue in Nordic countries at all.
The richest - as you targeted - only operate with evil practices in the countries they are allowed to do so. It is not the same being a monopoly in Mexico where the justice doesn't even existence, that in European Union where is the markets are controlled.

Note: I am not pretending to say that European Union is perfect compared to Mexico (for example). My point is the fact that conspiracies have more deep impacts in some countries than others.