|
I was talking to a family member who is also a psychiatrist a few days ago. They are center-Liberal and probably biased but he was saying Psychologists should do a study on extreme right wing individuals because, in his experience, they all seem incredibly unhinged, detached from facts and reality, and unstable. He works in a mental hospital and he says almost all of his clients hold extreme right beliefs. He honestly believes conservatism is a mental illness. I think that is going a little far, I do not think conservative beliefs in of themselves are signifiers of mental illness but I cannot deny that Freeps and their ilk seem utterly insane. Nor can I refuse to acknowledge that when a right leaning individual shoots up a school, business, or planned parenthood the media often talks about his (so far it has only been men, it seems) history of mental illness and domestic abuse. Coincidentally it wouldn't be fair to exclude extreme leftists from consideration either. (Disclaimer: I am a very far left, perhaps even radical, liberal. Going so far as to register as a socialist in my voter registration.) From my observation, extreme leftists seem much less likely to go on shooting sprees but they have their own insane beliefs and conspiracy theories. Is there a relationship between extremism and mental illness? Not just a correlation, but an actual cause-and-effect relationship?
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
As a radical left winger, yes to both. An important question that needs to be asked, though, is what does this mean? In a society that may well be mad in itself, what meaning do measures of mental health actually have and should not the mentally ill be as entitled as anyone to participate in the political process?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
I think really hardcore conspiracy theorists tend to actually be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (Prester Jane has a whole thread about it). That said, I think most people with extreme beliefs are just suffering from the same cognitive biases as everybody else; there's no need to pathologize them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
correlation does not equal causation
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Partisans tend to act about the same, with the same justifications for their actions. You just don't see one group in the US that much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there were actual studies about this, and the results were roughly "strongly right-wing and extreme left-wing politics are likely to be caused by pathological levels of fear". You need to wander less into the right-wing for crazytown, because being terrified of people predisposes you to fygm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
I kind of want to say that this is true almost by definition, depending on what views you're determining to be on the extremes of the left and right wing. A lot of extreme right wing ideology is informed by stuff that clearly belongs in the crazy conspiracy theory bucket, and on the left fringe you have a ton of weird pseudo-science bullshit and a different set of conspiracy theories surrounding it. You can't really occupy either space without at least some willingness to ignore reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
What is extreme? I could say I'm for workplace democracy, which is a very extreme far-left position, but I also feel I came across that position via rational thought. Who's the one calling me crazy? Is it my boss?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
I think that one of the intersecting factors is that as far as I can tell, a lot of the extreme right and left as we see them in the media come from high stress, impoverished background. My experience with mental healthcare suggests that the op's uncle probably sees a lot of people with similar economic standing. Any type of chronic stress or ongoing trauma absolutely exacerbates health problems period. In many cases when you're poor, you can't afford to fix something until it breaks all the way, and that can include your body or your mind. From a personal perspective, my anxiety problems have more than once made me feel as though I have no control over myself, my environment, or their outcomes. This feeling of powerlessness absolutely informed my early understanding of left-wing politics as a teenager/young college student, and righteous anger was a pretty good substitute for control. Hopelessness is really fertile ground for conspiratorial thinking. Hitting rock bottom is a great place to pick up new fears and resentments, and search for radical answers you wouldn't have thought of before. Some people convert religions, some change careers, some start listening to Alex Jones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:What is extreme? I could say I'm for workplace democracy, which is a very extreme far-left position, but I also feel I came across that position via rational thought. Who's the one calling me crazy? Is it my boss? I consider the line to be when the views change from something you're for into something that you think will be a panacea. Do people describe you as "that guy who's really into workplace democracy. Like, really into it."? If yes, consider therapy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Political extremism, of any variety, comes from an intense dissatisfaction with the status quo, where 'status quo' is going to be interpreted based on the person's own standing and condition. If they are personally doing well, they're obviously going to interpret things as going well, if not, they won't. But if you have high levels of anxiety or fear, naturally that'll push you to the kinds of thinking most people won't see as reasonable. I wouldn't say it's an absolute cause and effect, but it's got to a tendency. That, and an obsession with politics could act as a kind of surrogate for other personal problems, or act as a kind of hobby in itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
A lot of these beliefs are fear-based and cannot be righted or corrected by talking about them but by making progress in the client's life such as retaining a romantic partner, stable employment, community involvement, social support, etc. With those kinds of developments, these beliefs tend to become more moderate. Unfortunately the beliefs themselves often have a nasty habit of socially isolating the person who believes in them. It's not always indicative of mental illness but I would say there's definitely correlation there. Psychiatrists themselves are some of the most left-wing medical professionals in the field and I think with good reason, as leftist beliefs tend to have a stronger empirical basis for them, but I doubt many psychiatrists would be interested in "revolutionary socialism" or anything stronger than Scandinavian-style liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Once you are comfortable with a clear financial plan to your grave, a lot of moderate politics make loads more sense to you. After all, you aren't on the outside anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Liberalism is a mental disease
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:The op's uncle and the effects of poverty on health. How did you know this vague relative I mentioned but did not define was my racist uncle?!! Are you stalking me? Oh noooooo. Regarding poverty and poo poo life conditions being a factor in think this is a really solid point of consideration. It seems to me that the bulk of people on the extreme left and right come from poor or working class backgrounds. They're often also under educated and many live in lovely cities with little to no job opprotunties. But at the same time, poverty rates and quality of life are the highest for racial minorities yet the crazy extremists seem to be, for the most part, white. Sergg posted:A lot of these beliefs are fear-based and cannot be righted or corrected by talking about them but by making progress in the client's life such as retaining a romantic partner, stable employment, community involvement, social support, etc. With those kinds of developments, these beliefs tend to become more moderate. Unfortunately the beliefs themselves often have a nasty habit of socially isolating the person who believes in them. It's not always indicative of mental illness but I would say there's definitely correlation there. Psychiatrists themselves are some of the most left-wing medical professionals in the field and I think with good reason, as leftist beliefs tend to have a stronger empirical basis for them, but I doubt many psychiatrists would be interested in "revolutionary socialism" or anything stronger than Scandinavian-style liberalism. I bolded the part of your post that I want to focus on. It is that fact alone, that they can't be reasoned with or talked down, that is the most distressing to me. They are immune to facts, logic and reason. Most psychological help comes in the form of counseling and therapy and many therapists are taught and trained to question and challenge absolutist, extreme, or black-and-white thinking. While I was studying Psychology in college we discussed how talking and debating people with different beliefs rarely brings them around but instead actually intensifies their own beliefs. So trying to treat this issue with traditional/conventional mental health care approaches might not work. Can we actually help these people? Short of improving their life situations, as stated in the quoted post, there doesn't seem to be much to do to bring them around. And while social isolation is still a factor/consequence of extreme belief I feel its effect has been significantly mitigated with the onset on the Internet. Now extreme left and right wing people can find many forums full of hundreds to thousands of users who share their beliefs or hold even more extreme ones. This confirms their beliefs and can even drive them to become even more extreme. And there is a whole political campaign in the United States right now that has swept up and incensed this group. I had a friend from college, we never really talked about politics or religion but she was a nice, friendly, and caring person as far as I could tell. We met because she helped me carry a heavy bin of clothes into my dorm room while dozens of other people just walked past me. The whole time I knew her she gave me the impression that she was just a good person. We became Facebook friends and kept kinda sorta in touch after I moved states. For the past few months she has been spamming her Facebook with emphatic pleas to vote Trump and support Trump. Reblogging and sharing news posts from Fox News, Drudge, and such. Going on long diatribes about how illegal immigrants are ruining this country (with lots of racist statements laced throughout,) how all Muslims are terrorists and hate America and railing on about Benghazi and Emails. I was completely broadsided, this poo poo came out of nowhere. Fool that I was in tried engaging her, to talk her down off the building. I sourced my arguments, I linked to Politifact and to news articles from NPR and the New York Times. I made sure not to link to MSNBC, DailyKOS, or Huffington Post (all of them have liberal bias AFAIK) and also did not link to CNN because she had, in previous posts, called it the Clinton News Network (even though CNN has a conservative bias AFAIK.) Her response was to tell me the media was controlled by Hillary Clinton and that not only did my facts not matter but that I didn't have the facts. I quickly blocked her and disengaged. But I'm devastated. I did not see any of this when I knew her. Was she always this crazy and just hid it well or did something snap? I feel like I've lost a friend and there is nothing I can do to bring her back. Most curiously she doesn't really seem to fit the usual group. By her own admission her family life was relatively comfortable and she was middle class. (Though a lot of working class people think themselves middle class when they're not so  ) She has not sunk so far into the madness yet to start believing that Obama is a Muslim or not a real American citizen or that Michele is a trans woman and their children are kidnapped, etc but she is probably heading in that direction.  And data says this is a reaction to fear? What are they afraid of? Can you link to some of these articles and findings for me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Personally, I'm crazy for Karl Marx.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Humans are all sick but thry won't acknowledge it or seek real treatment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I consider the line to be when the views change from something you're for into something that you think will be a panacea. Do people describe you as "that guy who's really into workplace democracy. Like, really into it."? If yes, consider therapy. Are you that guy who is really into abolition? Like really into it? If yes, consider therapy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Is America in 2016 the only true sane center that you can't be left or right of without being mentally ill or is it a sliding thing? Where whatever country and whatever local condition you are in you need to agree with it by a large margin or be a deviant?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
America is switching to a one party system so anyone who gets out of line will be given appropriate treatment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Can we actually help these people? Short of improving their life situations, as stated in the quoted post, there doesn't seem to be much to do to bring them around. In some cases yeah, but it has to be handled very, very carefully or you end up reinforcing their beliefs like you stated. Here's a book that details the process and lists a lot of pitfalls that can make things worse: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Mc Do Well posted:America is switching to a one party system so anyone who gets out of line will be given appropriate treatment. too soon
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Are you that guy who is really into abolition? Like really into it? If yes, consider therapy. Abolition gradually became a mainstream position though (at least in the North). Even then, there were certain proponents that were still far outside of the norm of the time (the "40 acres and a mule" people). That's why Reconstruction failed, because most people in the North didn't agree with it after a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Abolition gradually became a mainstream position though (at least in the North). What's your point? Abolitionism was a radical ideology and didn't became a mainstream position until after the war started.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
I've always said Cuban ex pats taking perilous rafts do Florida says more about the mental stability of reactionary Cubans than of the supposed oppression of the Castro government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What's your point? Abolitionism was a radical ideology and didn't became a mainstream position until after the war started. Two things: 1. Abolition as a nationwide agenda was a radical ideology. Abolition as a states' rights measure was common for the majority of the population in 1860. 2. Even during/after the war, any followup to abolition was still considered extremely radical. The common view at the time was "black people shouldn't be literal property, but helping them to regain economic power? ehhhhh". Even Lincoln agreed with that view. It's really only due to his assassination that we had the political strength to pass the 14th & 15th Amendments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:2. Even during/after the war, any followup to abolition was still considered extremely radical. The common view at the time was "black people shouldn't be literal property, but helping them to regain economic power? ehhhhh". Even Lincoln agreed with that view. That's where Lincoln started, anyway. His views shifted somewhat over time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:That's where Lincoln started, anyway. His views shifted somewhat over time. Nah, even his second Inaugural Address is focused primarily on the ending of slavery, not what comes after: quote:The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." You could argue "Bind up the nation's wounds" could refer to reparations or it could refer to forgiving Confederates. What is known is that his assassination led to a much stronger majority in Congress, and that is what allowed two of the most important amendments passed to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Under Liberal Capitalism no one should have values, just a price. Number Two: I am definitely an optimist. That's why it doesn't matter "who" Number One is. It doesn't matter which "side" runs the Village. Number Six: It's run by one side or the other. Number Two: Oh certainly, but both sides are becoming identical. What in fact has been created is an international community--perfect blueprint for world order. When the sides facing each other suddenly realize that they're looking into a mirror, they will see that "this" is the pattern for the future. Number Six: The whole Earth as the Village? Number Two: That is my hope. What's yours? Number Six: I'd like to be the first man on the moon. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nah, even his second Inaugural Address is focused primarily on the ending of slavery, not what comes after: I mostly meant that he came around to tentative support of black men voting and so forth. See The Fiery Trial by Eric Foner for more on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Jenner posted:(Disclaimer: I am a very far left, perhaps even radical, liberal. Going so far as to register as a socialist in my voter registration.) This is incoherent. How can you be a "far left radical" believer of the milquetoast center right ideology, liberalism? It makes no sense and makes me think you don't know what words mean - liberalism and socialism are opposed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
I have a lot of vivid fantasies centered around doing violence to people in suits however, this is just a normal threat-response, not a psychosis, imho
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Far left seems to believe the civil rights movement never happened, while the far right seems to believe it shouldn't have happened. They're both crazy, although I prefer the crazy left delusions over the crazy right delusions any day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:This is incoherent. How can you be a "far left radical" believer of the milquetoast center right ideology, liberalism? It makes no sense and makes me think you don't know what words mean - liberalism and socialism are opposed. America is really confused about the simple definitions of socialism and liberalism, just forget about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
It isn't really too surprising when you consider decades of Anti-Socialism that has been baked into the culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Two things: So you are saying that the early abolitionists were mentally ill?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So you are saying that the early abolitionists were mentally ill? Early abolitionists worked within the system and got slavery banned in their respective states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I have a lot of vivid fantasies centered around doing violence to people in suits I absolutely think that removing the threat of homelessness, poverty, and hunger would drastically increase quality of life for pretty much everyone. I'd prefer to do this via abolition of capital and some sort of utopian luxury communism, but I'd settle for strengthening the welfare state at this point in my life. I don't have any revolutionary fire anymore. I don't know if it would reduce the incidence of extremism, but I think it's probably more important to just help people anyway. If the tactics quoted upthread work, it wouldn't be a bad place to start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Early abolitionists worked within the system and got slavery banned in their respective states. Abolitionist is a technical term referring to people who wanted slavery abolished immediately at the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Early abolitionists worked within the system and got slavery banned in their respective states. Only in the sense that once the US elected a president who was vaguely sympathetic to Abolition the Southern Aristocracy threw a temper tantrum with a body count.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:04
|
|