Not every trophy is worthy of being won. — Arne

Wait and see how much envy and jealousy the deluxe and full trophy case engenders compared to the shabby and nearly empty case.

So, the process of taking drugs themselves has a attained or undergone ritualization, which is a sort of unrealistic idealization of their use? Hence, the false lure that they have attained? — Posty McPostface

I would say that the use of drugs in our time has been de-ritualized, compared to what the Greeks were doing at Eleusis.

The "Mysteries" at Eleusis was celebrated over a few days. We don't know what all they did in their rituals, but one of the things they did was enter a dark underground chamber and stay there for a while. This may have been the place of drug taking. Why? Because Persephone had been kidnapped by the god of the underworld, Hades, and taken to his dark kingdom (Persephone was very attractive, after all). Her mother, Demeter was grief stricken and caused a great drought, which would have eventually devastated the land AND ended the practice of sacrificing food to the gods. Demeter also went into the underworld looking for her daughter. The time periods they were there correspond to the Mediterranean agricultural seasons of 8/4 months.

This was important stuff having to do with agriculture, worship of the gods (who were dependent on humans for sacrificial food) and the underworld. Plus, people returned to Eleusis for second visits (thereby becoming a bit privileged).

In Christianity, people didn't start sharing bread and wine at church as an intermission snack. They ate the food as a commemoration of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death -- so central to the whole Christian structure of meaning. The situation at eleusis was similar.

So, the lady in the lower right is either holding a tray of snacks or a tray of the drugs to be consumed. Some of the well-heeled worshippers are carrying torches.

Not, the same kind of morning ritual of making coffee, taking a shower, and pumping yourself up with positive feedback or thoughts?

Pumping one's self up in the morning with positive sounding non-inferential statements is disgusting.

For some of us making and drinking coffee in the morning is more sacred and sustaining than the Eucharist, and the morning shower is a daily remission of filth and dirt.

Where I mentioned drugs and meaning, I was speaking of drug use in a ritual context where there was more than mere drug-taking going on. The drugs were intended to enhance the ritual at a particular moment.

Otherwise, I totally agree that drugs, alone, do not give meaning any more than Coca Cola gives meaning.

First, to know if a thing is dying, you must identify it. — TogetherTurtle

American democracy was still born, so it's questionable how alive it ever was.

One might like to blame the flaws in American democracy on our current oligarchy but our flaws were built in during the initial design phase.

Take Prohibition as an example. While it was passed by the requisite number of states, rural areas and small towns areas had a disproportionate representational advantage, while urban areas had a proportional disadvantage.

Protestants, with the exception of Lutherans and Anglicans, tended to be anti-alcohol, and they were numerically dominant in the rural and small town districts. Catholics were proportionately under-represented in urban districts. Prior to the reforms in the middle of the 20th century, the one person/one vote rule was not applicable.

Prior to Prohibition, alcohol taxes provided the bulk of income for government. From a taxation POV, the more drinking the better, and prior to the very strong Temperance Movement, Americans drank prodigiously.

The United States has naturally always had a ruling class. Money = political power (everywhere, pretty much). The ruling class has, rhetoric notwithstanding, never had a very high opinion of those without property (the working class), and was not eager to see them get the power their numbers would merit. Our political system, consequently, always advantaged wealth over labor.

Until quite recently, a minority of white people in the southern US states have had a very exaggerated share of power. Before the Civil War, blacks couldn't vote and after the Civil War they were effectively discouraged from voting. The interests of wealthy whites was, therefore, the single interest that was represented in the south. The south's power base in Congress enabled southern congressmen to impose their values on legislation. For instance, most blacks were initially not qualified to receive Social Security. The Federal Housing Program was structured to prevent blacks from owning good quality housing (and the financial benefits that accrue).

Various forms of disempowerment are very much in practice, though they tend to be subtler than an earlier generations rather crude methods.

I have far too little experience with marijuana, and none with the other popular mind-altering drugs to say anything about it. I can say this, however: people have used psychotropic drugs for a very long time. Much of that was use was in ritual settings, meaning people used the drugs as part of a search for meaning. (Granted, they might have enjoyed the drugs as well). The Eleusinian Mystery cult, which held its rituals at Eleusis. was connected with Demeter and Persephone, used hallucinogens as part of the effort to achieve visions of an afterlife.

The principle risks these days are connected with a) impure drugs, b) reckless mixing of drugs and alcohol, and c) over use. If a little LSD is enlightening, acid trips every weekend are not necessarily going to be a good thing.

I take Rx mind altering drugs -- have for years. My chief complaint about them is that even when they are highly effective, they tend not to be enlightening or amusing. I also drink caffeine, have inhaled nicotine, and drink alcohol -- all of which have mind altering properties. Life without coffee would not be worth living. Ditto for alcohol, and maybe ditto for cigarettes, even though I haven't smoked for 20+ years.

Yeah, but what would life look like if nobody ever died? — Posty McPostface

Extremely crowded. There have been maybe 50 to 100 billion people born since we became Homo sapiens.

This just sounds like the same thing to me. I have wants and desires; but, acknowledging them entails that I want to either realize them or limit their appeal to my psyche. So, again either we all become egotistical, and suffer, or in some manner or form limit their reach on our sanity and emotional well-being. — Posty McPostface

It isn't, and you identify the difference.

Why not? Isn't the cessation of suffering which we are all too aware about, the setting of the limits on the desirous and lustful nature that we profess all too much? — Posty McPostface

Well, you know, we set limits on our desires and lusts. That isn't the same as taking the vail and vowing poverty, chastity, and obedience (shudder). We devise a budget of pleasure. A certain amount of desire and lust will be enjoyed, and then we'll not ask for more for a while--15 minutes, at least. Back in my salad days, I almost never stayed up all night every night screwing my brains out. I took a full helping of sex--I just didn't take everything on offer. An outing might not be repeated for 2 or 3 days, or a week, even. I like premium ice cream too, but I don't eat the whole carton at one go. I meter my decadence.

I consider suffering a given in life. It can be more, it can be less. We can make it worse, we can make it better. All our suffering will end in death. Some people don't suffer a lot; they are lucky enough to be so composed that they are not intensely bothered by everything (that would not be me). Some people can calmly endure more pain for a longer period of time; others cannot.

"We" Homo sapiens haven't changed. We're still the same old hunter-gatherers we've been for the last couple hundred thousand years.
— Bitter Crank

Not true. We are incredibly and plastic and malleable. The fact that so much progress has been made since the Industrial Revolution, attests to this fact. — Posty McPostface

We are Individually plastic and malleable. As a species, not so much.

So what? We've been a species for 300,000 thousand years, and then in the last 300 we did all these amazing things. What about the previous 299,700 years? Some significant achievements in the last 300,000 years:

1) we settled the entire planet
2) we domesticated several species
3) we invented a host of technologies (from glue made from bark to boomerangs)
4) we invented language & culture
5) we invented agriculture
6) we invented writing
7) we invented government (much to the sorrow of early libertarians)

And yes, electricity, steel, radios, cameras, guns, pneumatic nail guns, tampons, and the Wonder Bra.

What distinugishes a human from a computer? — TheMadFool

Biology -- and the HUGE everything that biology implies.

Computers are logic machines — TheMadFool

Computers are contraptions that carry out logical operations designed by humans. On their own they are just a pile of metal and plastic.

So we aren't full aware. So what?

I'm just pointing out that psychology has been too ego-centric for a good while now, and that leads to the risk of developing values or beliefs that are detrimental to our shared world. — Posty McPostface

There is a difference between "ego-centric" and egotistical, self-centered, narcissistic, and the like. We must be ego-centric, focused on "I am" because we don't apprehend the world, and other selves, directly (the 5 senses and all that). There is a difference between mature adult ego-centrism and infantile narcissism. It is the latter that is so detrimental to the shared world.

Yeah, there's no eliminating the fear of death and threats, unless one chooses to mindlessly distract themselves into some oblivion. — Posty McPostface

Truth: there is no eliminating the fear of death from various threats. We just don't like thinking about it. Compared to death, just about everything is more interesting and pleasant. (One of the benefits of aging is that we can get to a point where one can realize that roughly 90% of one's life is spent, and a lot of it was actually quite well spent, and it was good. If one is lucky one has forgotten the fine details of the stretches which weren't so good.)

But it isn't DEATH that is the most visible threat for much of one's life. What is more present is the loss of the tangible and intangible goodies we have collected. This is where the infantile narcissist suffers the most. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune could deprive him and her of all their goodies, and then leave them very much alive to suffer from their loss.

Oh, come now. It isn't that bad is it? Sure, we don't face lions or hyenas anymore as our main source of desperation. Which, has been a contributing environmental force to group and social cohesion. So, why is group cohesion disintegrating in the West, nowadays? — Posty McPostface

Hyperbole has its uses. But what makes you think group cohesion is disintegrating in the West (or North, South, and East)? Groups of people are as cohesive as they have to be. It's been 73 years since the World was at war and we were all (allegedly) cohesive. On a much smaller scale, (groups of 100 or less) people are as cohesive as they ever were -- which is to say they are ready, willing, and able to work together for common goals.

Families falling apart? Family cohesion is steady. A percentage of families have always lacked cohesion, particularly when society was loose enough to allow it. A certain percentage of people marry, decide that they made a big mistake, and break up.

Work? People seem to willingly spend a lot of time at work in more or less cohesive groups.

"We" Homo sapiens haven't changed. We're still the same old hunter-gatherers we've been for the last couple hundred thousand years.

Well, yes. Though, I don't think it can be found by looking deeper within the soup of the unconscious. — Posty McPostface

For the most part, I agree. The non-conscious mind isn't all that open to inspection. What is more or less open, though, is our memories of our lives so far, and all that is at least somewhat open. And, let me add, the ways we evade dealing with reality right now are open to inspection--and modification.

How is progress made by appealing to inner values such as selfishness and lust and wants and desires? Are you not a Buddhist? — Posty McPostface

I am not a Buddhist. Whatever gave you that idea?

No -- progress is NOT made by appealing to selfishness, lust, wants, and desires, fears, anxieties, and so on. Progress is made by acknowledging our lusts, needs, desires, fears, anxieties, and fantasies. We can't deal with them if we haven't faced up to their reality. And the end goal isn't to deny, or destroy what we wish for and fear. The goal is to achieve control. So, we will still have lusts, for instance, and if we are mature adults we can decide whether, when, where, and how our desire may be satisfied -- or not. We will still have fears, but we can deal with them more effectively.

One of the more perplexing fantasies is that we can be free of our human-animal nature and be purely rational beings untroubled by disruptive urges. On a good morning one can get by for a few hours feeling purely rational, but then a bowling ball of lust, hunger, rage, or blind ambition will plow into all that dry, cool rationality and we'll be upset for days.

Oh, reality. I suppose. I'd love to talk about reality but you know, it's past 1:00 a.m. and the noetic fluids are coagulating for the night.

The purpose of reality therapy from my short read on the matter is to build a relationship with the world, not the self. — Posty McPostface

So the world is on one end of the relationship bridge; what is on the other end, if not some self? How did the self manage to get to a point where it doesn't have a relationship with the world any more? There is no escaping the world, or reality; it's a lion prowling in the dark savanna, silently slipping through the shadows, about to ambush us, once again. One of these nights will be the last time, and then the ambiguous self will vanish.

You want a relationship with reality? Let me tell you: reality is out to kill you and it will eventually succeed--if not this time, then the next time.

psychologists and psychiatrists have been lured like some angler trap into this idea that deep issues can be brought into the light and then the process of healing can occur. — Posty McPostface

Digging up those old, deep issues is not the most stupid idea in the world. Paleo-psychology is going to be the first step in relieving suffering, not a preliminary step. Of course, not everyone has fossil beds of agonizing trauma that needs to be dug up and sorted out. Most of us just have coprolites (fossilized shit). Get it out and on the table and deal with it, finally.

The critical step in therapy is always accepting reality. We don't have to like it, we can certainly commit ourselves to changing it, but we can not ignore it. So, our reality therapy patient must begin by accepting whatever he or she is. IF what one is is very bad (like, really very badly screwed up) then that's just going to be a tough piece to look at. But then there's acceptance, and absolution. Easy? Nope. Quick? Usually not. Difficult to make progress? Oh, yes -- very much so. But, you know, we keep working at it and at some point in the future we notice... "hey, I can see progress here!" And we keep on.

We keep on, that is, until reality finally succeeds in finishing us off. Then our case is closed.

Are you suggesting that the quality of our leaders has risen because they are well-educated, or are you agreeing that education is not the answer on the grounds that both our leaders and our electorate seem to be increasingly well educated yet still manage to run a country in a manner which is manifestly a shambles. — Pseudonym

"Education" (h.s. diploma, b.a. degree, ma/phd, etc.) is one feature of the electorate and the elected. A given level of educational attainment means something, but that something might not translate into a well run or badly run civil society.

The U.S. is governed in the interest of the "ruling class" (shorthand for those with the most concentrated political power). Their interests are served quite well, and it isn't a recent development. Most governments are servants of their ruling classes.

One can look at our government as a conspiracy for the interests of the ruling class, and still find room for popular measures. After all, "the people" -- that 85 or 90% who are not and never well be in the ruling class -- need to be kept on board. It's much easier to control a few hundred million people if they think they are beneficiaries of 'the system' than if they feel like victims of a racket.

I'm not sure if you're supporting the theory or opposing it. — Pseudonym

I'm not supporting the theory that 'education' is the critical factor. The critical factor is class loyalty, and 99.9% of all politicians display loyalty to the ruling class. A very large share of the electorate also displays loyalty the ruling class too.

We have had a few episodes in our history where progressives trimmed the claws of the ruling class, and their efforts had enduring benefits. We had a long period of economic expansion after WWII and that was a pleasant experience for most people. But IF you want a country governed in the interests of all the people and not just the ruling class, then you are looking for revolutionary change.

The number of college educated people has been consistently rising over the past few decades, I'm not sure the same can be said for the quality of our leaders, so the empirical evidence would seem to contradict this theory. — Pseudonym

The overwhelming majority of Members of Congress have a college education. The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law.

 18 Members of the House have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma;
 eight Members of the House have associate’s degrees as their highest degrees;
 100 Members of the House and 21 Senators earned a master’s degree as their
highest attained degrees;
 167 Members of the House (37.8% of the House) and 55 Senators (55% of the Senate) hold law degrees;
 22 Representatives18 and 2 Senators have doctoral (Ph.D., D.Phil., Ed.D., or D. Min) degrees; and
 18 Members of the House and 3 Senators have medical degrees.19 — Congressional Research Service

It would appear that there is a reasonable amount of education in Congress. Donald Trump has a bachelors degree in economics from Wharton School of Business (U Penn).

darn Neil deGrasse Tyson to heck — T Clark

Those dratted science types!

I was thinking more along the lines of how we might think — tim wood

In a (specific, limited way) we don't know how we think; most of our thinking is carried out by the non-conscious mind. Is it linear? or non-linear? Both at once, I would guess, but the style used is not available for inspection. "Distinguishing linear and non-linear thinking was a popular parlor game a while back -- what... 40 years ago? Or 'left-brain/right brain thinking, or 'visual thinking', and so on. I strongly suspect that the non-conscious brain uses all sorts of strategies to process information and project ideas which we (our conscious minds) become aware of.

Is this the best possible? Or maybe just the best we can manage? — tim wood

I don't know... just a guess -- our brains are probably doing the best they can do. In any event, what we can do for our brains is supply the best information we can get our paws on. We can also arrange our day so that the brain has time to absorb and process the good-quality information we ought to pour in. Go for a long walk, do simple chores (like dishwashing, folding the laundry...) sit down and stare into a corner, whatever method works.

Cephalopoda have tremendous camouflage capabilities which, alone, require a lot of brain. Given a lot of brain, it is perhaps unfortunate that they don't live longer (generally 2 years). There is a case of a deep ocean species that guards her eggs for almost almost 5 years -- very slow development at low temperatures. The mother is in pretty bad shape physically by the end of guard duty.

Our visitors from VZ'X planet might have exactly the same intelligence as we have, but altogether lack a feature which is central to our minds -- emotion. Our emotions are integral to our mental functioning, but ants, bees, and termites -- three highly successful organisms sharing the planet, do not have emotions. Intelligence without emotion might function very effectively without the well-known disruptions (as well as the well known advantages) that emotion drives bring.

If the VS'Xians had to travel a long way in time and space to get here, I would think the absence of emotions would be a damned good thing. Imagine a tank full of humans having to live in very close quarters for a century. Think of the carnage when our inhibited rages were let loose. Our ship would arrive with only a few survivors, or none at all.

"Intrinsic morality" seems to be limited to some very general things like empathy. We seem to be wired to feel (approximately) what other people are feeling. (We are not entirely unique among animals.) Most of our morality is extrinsic, and generally is compatible with whatever intrinsic tendencies toward kindness and cooperation we have.

Over the longer run of our biological evolution (say, last 300,000 years to pick an arbitrary number) we elaborated the capacity to productively live amongst others of our own kind in hunter-gatherer bands. Our primate relatives developed along similar lines.

We have employed language and culture for a long time to transmit across generations that which can not be passed along in genes, but our genes enable us to use culture and language.

Morality -- rules for living together -- have become more elaborate over time (since... what, 10,000 years ago?). The family teaches basic morality, the group teaches more, and the individual internalizes the lessons which last a lifetime.

It's interesting that almost every person will, if comfortable, admit to fantasizing about immoral acts they wouldn't dream of carrying out if others were ever to find out or to observe them. We have to ask ourselves why such behavior is at odds with otherwise lawful and ethical people, and what drives them to value these contrarian acts for sexual or non-sexual reasons. — gloaming

Remarkably, there are a lot of things individuals won't do, even if no one is watching. Internalized moral remote control works pretty well.

Still, people not only fantasize about performing acts they think are wrong, many of us periodically carry these fantasies out. I'm not thinking of mass murder here -- more like petty theft, sexual peccadilloes, minor acts of vandalism, and the like.

Why do we perform these wrongful acts? Maybe it's a pressure release. Lots of us have been imbued with pretty rigorous moral systems that box us in pretty tightly. But we have urges to stake out individual autonomy, and sometimes that seems to mean violating the rules. It might be as petty as deliberately throwing the aluminum can in the garbage rather than the recycling bin, or maybe skimming off a bit of cash or stealing a little company property (at least some nice office supplies). Or, if we are more confident, things that slide into gross misdemeanors for which we are pretty sure we won't be caught (and generally we are not). Office furniture and computers have been known to disappear. Strange! How did that happen?

We might not condemn wrongful acts that other people commit. A few years back I had to admire the panache of the thief who used a backhoe to scoop a cash machine out of an exterior wall and haul it away for dissection. Immoral? Of course. I'd never do that. But still... the frontiers of free enterprise!

If there would be anything in my life that I would want to leave as a mark on human history, it would be to institute some kind of test to prevent people of such undesirable traits from ever taking office. — Posty McPostface

Yeah, well... what IS the secret of keeping people like Donald Trump out of office? I don't think he at all psychopathic; he seems to be quite narcissistic, but Trump is also bull headed about what he thinks he knows. The guy isn't well educated, and isn't very interested in learning. He's a stubborn jackass. Hee Haw, Hee Haw. As Martin Luther said back in the early 1500s, "The people are better off being ruled by a smart Turk (or Moslem) than by a dumb Christian." We've got the dumb Christian and a loose cannon -- very bad combo.

Just a fun fact that because we didn't have TV's back then his voice was heard through the radio instead. Just thought that was kind of a cool thing to consider. — Posty McPostface

People very much liked listening to him. Radio was relatively new in 1932, and hadn't previously been employed for political purposes to any great extent. When Roosevelt appeared in public (which was fairly often) handlers went to considerable efforts to plan his appearances so that the wheelchair and crutches wouldn't be visible. If Roosevelt had to walk a short distance in public, he was usually leaning heavily on the arm of a strong male assistant. He could stand at a podium and speak, but it required a lot of strain on Roosevelt to hold himself up on his crutches. For a major speech, such as at a political convention, more complicated gear was used to get him to the podium in his wheelchair.

It wasn't a secret that he had had polio, and that he couldn't walk, but he felt it was a PR problem.

I'm not ideologically advocating a certain type of personality, just a personality that does not display undesirable traits. — Posty McPostface

ALL personalities (everybody) will display undesirable traits at times.

I don't think there's a big chance of a 'true' psychopath making his or her way into the office. — Posty McPostface

I agree; people who are very psychopathic do not behave normally; they do not display loyalty, stability in projects, long term residence, etc. There psychopathic behaviors make them very poor candidates for public office.

I said a little psychopathy might make someone a more effective executive. The problem comes when there is more than a little psychopathic distortion present, but not enough to be terribly noticeable.

Maybe the next logical step is determining whether there is any truth in the claims that such and such an actual leader is disabled by some quality.

Most people have at least several minor flaws, and many people -- including famous successful ones -- have several major flaws -- and are none-the-less successful. Look at F. D. Roosevelt. Being confined to a wheelchair was a tremendous political liability (in that time, in that place). Roosevelt's methods of dealing with people could be quite opaque and manipulative. His marriage was not good. He broke a long-standing precedent in running for a third (never mind fourth) term. Was FDR altogether on the level?

John F. Kennedy also had some significant flaws in his health and character; Nixon too. Was Kennedy's many affairs while serving as president (2.7 years) unacceptable? What about his shaky physical health? Nixon? A lot of people loathed Richard M. Nixon for good reason before he became president. Tricky Dick had to assert that "I am not a crook!" Most presidents do not NEED to say such a thing.

Donald Trumps main liability seems to be that he had so little formal political experience before winning the election. But then, Eisenhower didn't have any political experience as such before he became president.

What makes it possible to groom generals are formally established ranks and grades through which careerists can climb. Universities (collectively) have a similar system, from bachelor past PhD, and the various steps along the tenure track. The US Senate and US House have a system of promotion too, but the parties themselves don't have a (visible, at least) system of advancement.

Political machines can monitor performance and advance leaders up the system, but without a machine the roster of personnel in politics is too fluid.

We could, certainly, require a psychological evaluation of candidates for high public office -- maybe the two presidential candidates (president and vice-president). We would need to agree on what characteristics were really unacceptable. Megalomania is not desirable, but most leaders have at least a mild case, not matter what the field. Narcissism is undesirable, but again, most leaders have at least a modest degree of self-adoration (you just about have to have it). Insensitivity is undesirable, but a certain amount of insensitivity is a desirable feature when it comes to critical negotiations. Psychopathy is mot all or nothing, and many good executives have a modest dose of psychopathy -- it makes it possible for them to carry out unpopular policies with confidence (like laying off 5,000 surplus workers whose labor is no longer needed).

We need to recognize that leaders are both necessary and dangerous.

So that's not realy a reason for me to avoid having my one son. — NKBJ

I'm not an anti-natalist, even if the world is going to hell.

Some people I used to hang around with painted themselves into a corner of high dudgeon, though with Marxism instead of Schopenhauer. They became really unpleasant to be around because their view of everything was so uniformly negative, sour. They had lost the sort of joie d'vivre revolutionaries really needs must have.

I'm not hot on existential dread either. I'm happily old enough now that death isn't that far away and life seems, therefore, quite pleasant.

some moments of unhappiness don't cancel out all the moments of actual happiness — NKBJ

Truth is told. What is good is good, what is bad is bad. We don't live in an average of the two.

It's also wrong to declare all striving in this world as a struggle — NKBJ

Most of the strivers I know don't seem to be suffering much from the struggle, 'der Kampf'.

People share with us, including you, that they have many serious psychological issues, many of which doubtfully are addressable by talk therapy, but are matters where medication is required. — Hanover

Individuals have to be at least reasonably mentally intact to state here that they have a serious psychological condition for which medication will be required. People in a psychotic state won't be posting here often, and if they do, it will most likely be obvious that the poster is non compos mantis. In any case, they won't be getting the wrong medication here.

Where talk therapy might be beneficial, none of us I believe are qualified to give it, and if any of us were, I really doubt we'd be as reckless to offer it through public postings through the tidbits we gather in these posts.

There are a batch of people here who are insightful enough to give free advice to people with garden variety mental illnesses. I haven't seen anybody say anything downright awful to a troubled person here, though I haven't agreed with some of the advice given.

Actually, the set-up of a moderated board is the equivalent of a walk-in DIY support group. People find such things useful. Look at AA.

Actually, we hand out advice that might be more dangerous than some of our psychological 'text therapy'. Like, "you should go back to college." Sure, go back to college, get a degree and end up hip deep in debt, maybe with poor job prospects.

People who say they are depressed are usually still functional and are perfectly capable of testing reality. Depressed people feel like shit, aren't sleeping well, can't concentrate, and so on -- but they are not incapable of sorting out really bad advice from advice which might be useful, or might not be. Depressed people aren't going to send you all their money, for instance, just because you said that would be nice.

Those with more major mental illnesses (like schizoaffective disorder, bi-polar people in mania, etc.) usually come off as very disturbed people, disturbance evident to just about everybody.

Besides, your average TPF internet psychiatrist usually refers the disturbed to a doctor anyway.

through Scientific American — NKBJ

Through, not IN Scientific American. The 5 quick and dirty tips are clichés, indeed. Such 'tips' are effective for people who are already happy-minded. Lots of people are, and in itself expecting to be happy isn't a fault. Schopenhauer isn't "happy minded" and not being "happy minded" isn't a fault either. But one can not flip a switch and reverse poles.

What Schopenhauer wants is not different than what most of us want when we post a thread or a comment: validation that our views can be taken seriously. I have been guilty of countering Schop's posts with negative responses, or self-help advice. I've probably suggested he should see a psychiatrist. What Schopenhauer1 is saying is not an SOS disguised as philosophy. It's unsettling philosophy because it undermines basic assumptions that are common in our culture: Life is good. Life is worth living. Our desire for children is good. Our children will be glad they were born. The future is full of opportunities. And so on.

One can question thee basic assumptions. In an over-crowded world, one heading for ecological catastrophe in the not-distant future, are you sure adding several more people to a consumption-intense society is a good thing? It's questionable. As your children and grand children live into the economical disaster, are you sure they will be grateful to you for bearing them into a world you knew was falling apart? Are you sure the future is full of great opportunities? Life may be good, but maybe the way we live isn't so good.

As Bob Dylan says,

It's a hard rain that going to fall.

You live in a time of "positive psychology" wherein healthy=happy, wherein negative=sick. The positivity of the times is shallow. People are expected to get with the program and cheer up, or at least, shut up about their darker views.

I have been very unhappy and depressed for years, and during those times felt like a failed outlier. "Negative expressions" are very unpopular. Perhaps I now have a brain tumor which is causing me to feel much happier and contented these days. Tumor or not, I agree that there is good reason to hold that the conditions of life are really quite unsatisfactory. Our hunter-gatherer brains now labor over mostly inconsequential tasks in gray cubicles for long hours, or are chronically unemployed and smoke dope to get through the day, find entertainment through the cable box, and so on.

Your threads have a monochrome leitmotiv, but that is not a great fault. Perhaps your threads would benefit from more novel approaches to the problem of life having no inherent meaning.

If life is absurd (unreasonable, illogical, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, idiotic, stupid, foolish, insane, unreasonable, irrational, illogical, nonsensical, pointless, senseless...--but no joke) then there must be many angles from which to attack the bourgeois delusions about a purposeful universe, meaningful life, potential for happiness, and so on, not to mention other worldly schemes that make this world a processing mill for the hereafter.

Finding fresh approaches won't make your threads popular. The scintillating, positive-minded intelligences here will attack your views just the same, but a novel approach might drive a larger dose of cold rain under their shingles to spoil the faux perfection of their painted ceilings.

I believe reason also informs our emotions. — TheMadFool

It's a reciprocal relationship... feeling thinking feeling thinking experience feeling memory thinking perception thinking feeling... Then "a network and information flows in all directions". It gets complicated fast. And "we" are in that reciprocating engine, trying to make sense of it. We externalize ourselves, observe others, theorize.

So, whence come our preferences?

Emotions (from whence comes preference) are the mainspring of the mind. It isn't that "we think with the limbic system" rather, some thoughts are pleasing, and some are not. Which thoughts will be entertained most enthusiastically? The ones which please us.

I don't want to make it too simple -- the limbic system is shaped by experiences too, and prior thought, just as the cognitive systems are.

By "work" I don't mean formal, or even informal "work". I really mean a personal project that engages you. "Work" sucks -- that's why they have to pay people to do it. I say you don't even have to be "passionate" about it. I haven't been passionate about much in decades.

Do you like animals?
— Lone Wolf

Yes, I do. :_) — Posty McPostface

Are there squirrels around where you live? Gray squirrels are actually fairly eager to become acquainted with people. Humans are a handy source of free food, and it's fairly easy to entice them to eat out of your hand (peanuts work well for this). It's an opportunity to establish relationships with the rodent wing of creation and as members of that group, Sciurus carolinensis are a lot cuter than rats.

When I lived on Prior Avenue, I coaxed several squirrels into eating out of my hand. They'd sit on the porch and look into my kitchen window, waiting for me. I'd go outside, sit on the step and one would sit on my knee while the others waited impatiently for their chance.

Don't expect a deep relationship. Squirrels are pretty shallow creatures -- probably why they get along so well with us. Shallow but persistent. The gray squirrels on the U of M campus feel entitled. They follow people, and if you give them any encouragement they'll crawl right up your pant leg, if you have a McDonald's bag in your hand.

Another nice thing about squirrels is that they tend to die off In the winter or get run over, so you don't have the tedious business of breaking off summer-time relationships. Of course, you probably don't have a Season of Squirrel Death where you live, so let's hope you have lots of traffic.

These sorts of irrelevant asides are how I make it through my day. You?

Hmmm, "maybe a little eccentric". Perhaps, yes, at least a little. Some of us do not have a problem with the word "crazy" -- just to give you a heads up in case the word should appear in responses to your OP. On the other hand, you have been generating more threads on TPF lately -- all to the good. I'm sorry to hear that THIS is your only source of entertainment and intellectual stimulation. Have all the libraries closed? Is there no educational television? No National Public Radio (like the 1A. or Fresh Air?)

Don't let your disability become a second disability. There are good reasons for people to have disability status -- and I'm not knocking it. But it is important for persons who are disabled (or retired, or unemployed, or otherwise not working) to have on-going "work" of some kind which is meaningful. Your involvement in TPF is an example of on-going work.

I'd be a little concerned about being at home all the time, eating and laying in bed (wallowing). I think you should get out a bit more--exercise, social contact of some kind, sunshine (vitamin D), etc.

many people don't like IQ testing because it is used as justification for racial prejudice — T Clark

People do use IQ for that purpose, true enough. Plus
school performance
crime rates
unemployment
drug use
vocabulary
clothing styles (only a moron would wear something like that in public...)
imprisonment rates
absentee fatherhood
riots
school integration and school segregation
racial intermarriage

I mean, it isn't like people who are racially prejudiced are unable to find material which supports their point of view. And none of their evidence needs to be true, either.

So, I knew Clark Kent. Jorel? Who? I wouldn't have been able to say who played Superman if my life had depended on it, though I did see a Batman movie, a while back. I liked the Superman comic books from my childhood.

We had comic books and radio. Later television with 3 fuzzy channels. I think young children are smarter today because they don't have to depend on the drugstore's supply of comic books for stimulation. There are so many other forms of mental stimulation children get these days -- their mothers piping Mozart into their uteruses, gadgets in their cribs, TV without end, IPads, smart phones, electronic games (no Parcheesi for today's little Einstein), day care, pre-school, year round kindergarten, babies blogging before they can walk, etc.

Most people are given paper and pencil IQ tests which are mostly achievement tests. That's the kind of test we all took when I was in school -- not the individually administered Stanford Binet test. For one thing, the subject has to read the test (an achievement in itself). Two, he has to be accustomed to formal test taking -- sit, pay attention to what you are doing for maybe two hours, don't fall asleep, etc. Third, the subject has to figure out abstract questions about drawings in the test -- like which of these "unfolded" pieces of paper makes which folded up solid shape?" and so forth. Subjects who are doing well in school are going to do better on this kind of test than students who are not doing well in school, regardless of actual, innate intelligence.

I am in complete agreement, but I see the ethos of IQ testing as part of supporting and maintaining exactly those aims, and it is those aims and the support system with it that need to be challenged, and that involves challenging piecemeal the individual supporting elements, such as the idea that IQ tests actually measure anything more than an ability to take an IQ test. — MetaphysicsNow

We could all write a 10 volume encyclopedia about what is wrong with the education system, and it would probably all be true.

I don't think there was ever a "golden age of education" -- in the US, Europe, or anywhere else, where the aims of the educational system were altogether benign. Societies made up of layers of increasing assets (bottom to top) are not inclined to operate egalitarian, 'open-ended' asset-sharing school systems. All of us live in that kind of society, and we all have been through school systems which are designed to maintain those layers of assets (or privileges).

The technological changes that took place during the 20th century in communication (commercial radio, television, film, recordings, print, etc.) and the economic changes that gradually eliminated a lot of unskilled factory labor--and even quite a bit of skilled white collar work--has left schools with a new and very difficult problem, which has by no means been solved: What do we do for all these students (millions) who are unlikely to find good jobs with good pay?

Like I said, some people (maybe 15-20% of the students) will need very good education to perform very good jobs, and they will get a good education. The rest... screwed from the get go whether they are as smart as whips or as dumb as oxen.

The kind of school that is designed for maximum benefit for each student, K-16, when described comes off sounding more like Alice in Wonderland, these days, than what is going on behind the brick walls of the little red school house.

I don't think everybody is born with the same intellectual potential, but everybody enjoys learning, growing, making the most of what they have, and being able to do interesting things with whatever talents they have. UNFORTUNATELY society is neither prepared nor interested in arranging its affairs to facilitate that happy outcome.

An aspiring young violinist from Kansas gets off the bus in New York City and asks the first passerby "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" The New Yorker says, "Practice, practice, practice."

And the only thing that IQ tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking IQ tests. — MetaphysicsNow

It should be mentioned somewhere here that the 'best' IQ test, the Stanford Binet, is individually administered. It's not a paper and pencil test. There is some cultural loading in it -- like the question on the adult version, "Who wrote Faust?" Do you get extra points for asking the examiner "Which Faust -- the English one (Marlowe), the French opera (Gounod) or the German one (Goethe)?"

Asking an American "Who was Batman?" or "What was Superman's name when he wasn't Superman?" would be the equivalent of the 1910 French question about Faust.

However, under the current educational systems (the ones I am aware of anyway) those kinds of tests consign the majority of children to mediocrity and the suppression of potential through neglect. — MetaphysicsNow

By 'mediocrity' do you mean 'average'? Most people are 'average'. But it isn't testing that condemns children to mediocrity, it's the aim of education In the present society.

Maybe 20% of students in school need to be very well educated so that they can serve the interests of a technologically complex society under the control of an elite. 20% of the students are getting an excellent education, more or less.

If 80% of students are getting a run of the mill education, it is because more is not deemed necessary. A lot of today's students are not going to be doing complex tasks that require insight and theoretical thinking. This is a long-term trend, observed for the last 50 years, or so.

The emphasis one hears on getting a good education, going to college, does apply to some students. But it's over-reach for many students. Not that they are incapable of benefiting from excellent education; they could benefit if it was offered to them at a price they could afford, and for a long term purpose. It's just that 1/2 of all high school students being urged to go to college will lead to debt, dissatisfaction, and disappointment, because the number of jobs needing college education aren't in fact great enough to employ all those people.

I have been reading the diary of Victor Klemperer, a German (Jewish) professor; it covers about 13 years, up to 1945. He struggles to figure out "what does the average man think about... the war, the Jews, the rationing..." He is unable to come to a conclusion because "the German people" as represented in "the average man" is frustratingly kaleidoscopic. The pattern is constantly changing from person to person.

The same thing applies here: We try to understand what "the 300 million American people" think, as represented in bits and pieces of reportage, conversations with other people, and so forth. The picture we see, like Professor Klemperer, is kaleidoscopic, constantly changing from view to view.

see above.

The problem with research into IQ is that people are mostly interested in using it as justification for drawing conclusions about differences in intelligence between races. Is that where this discussion is going? — T Clark

This comment is the sort that can derail a discussion. White people's assumptions about the stupidity of black people were I'm place a long time before the first intelligence test was created.

Intelligence testing has been around for over a century. The Binet Intelligence Test was developed in France to help sort out children who performed poorly in school, but who didn't seem to be retarded (like, maybe they were just lazy) from students who were actually mentally retarded.

It was a worthwhile project. Some children have potential that can be developed in a classroom, and some children don't.

After racism people are likely to drag in the eugenics movement, which relied on such crude categories of deficiency that IQ tests were beside the point. (Single mothers on welfare with "too many children" were likely to attract the interest of eugenicists.) Eugenics lives on by the way, and quite properly, in the form of genetics counseling for people that bear serious transmissible genetic defects.

Testing is not a useless racist exercise.

IQ tests -- or any other kind of test -- are intended to distinguish between differing characteristics of individuals in a systematic (as opposed to anecdotal) way. The fact is, there are a lot of significant differences between individuals that make a difference in their future. The best intelligence and personality tests (Stanford Binet, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - MMPI) fulfill that discriminating function reasonably well. It's helpful to know which children in school may have more potential, and which may have less. It's also helpful to know which adults may be predisposed to develop (or have) features of mental illnesses.

It isn't the fault of the test if later some people use the results of the test to support unpopular and or dubious positions.

The problem with IQ tests is that people think they measure innate--untaught--intelligence and everything about intelligence. They do not. People also think that the results are valid for the rest of the person's life -- generally they are not. Most people usually get smarter over time, because IQ tests measure learning as well as native ability.

Intelligence does not necessarily cause achievement; it is simply correlated with it.

The relationship between IQ scores and achievement is an imperfect one, with many exceptions to the rule.

IQ scores have a limited “shelf life.” Their predictive value is relatively short range (like, how will a high school senior do in his first year of college -- not how well a high school senior will do in graduate school. — J.E. Ormrod — Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall 2010

Not all tests are created equal. Some tests are not worth the paper they are printed on. This is especially true of quickie personality tests. (The MMPI is not a quickie -- there are hundreds of questions to read.) Achievement tests (like you took in school) are not intelligence tests, though their function overlap.

"Social Work" is not a once-size-fits-all degree. The are bachelor level social work degrees, masters level social work degrees, and masters degrees with post-graduate training. Some masters level social workers have ACSW after their name -- meaning they are "academy of social work certified". Additionally trained masters level social workers can not only screen patients, they can provide the therapy in some clinics.

Should social works screen patients? MA level, sure. Sorting out the merely unhappy from the seriously depressed isn't all that hard--the janitor could probably do that. It's the more complex things like identifying borderline personality disorder, schizoid affective disorder, bipolar, schizophrenic, and such diagnoses that require higher level diagnostic training.

Social workers and doctorate-level therapists can't prescribe medicine, generally, but are qualified to provide therapy and support for mental patients. Psychiatrists normally do not actually provide much therapy--it's a rare practice that does. Mostly they write prescriptions, because medicine is often the main ingredient in effective therapy. All the good counseling in the world won't calm down a psychotic individual.