• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is Leftism a Mental Illness?

There's so much that bears on that graphic. Gender and age do affect how you're treated by healthcare professionals. Women are more likely to express their fears and symptoms than men, and that goes for physical as well as mental health. Older people are from generations whose societies held attitudes and norms that suppressed talking about mental health problems and so they're often just not as open to seeking help or doing anything that would include them on that graph. It's also no secret or even controversy to say that right wing mentality is averse to admission of fear or weakness, and mental illness is considered weakness to them. Black people are also less likely to talk about their mental health problems or seek help from a healthcare system that they often do not trust.

The graph can't possibly show the cases of mental illness among people who don't seek help or talk about their mental health issues.
 
Abstracting from the basic issues that
1) a mental illness may not inhibit reasoning capabilities, and
2) correlation is not causation,

the OP titles requires the following conditions to hold:
1) a respondent must be aware of a mental health issue, go to a health care provider, listen to the health care provider, and admit to hearing such a diagnosis, and
2) respondents understand the term “mental health condition” in the same way.

There is no evidence that those conditions hold, and there is no reason to expect them to hold, I conclude the answer to the trolling OP question is NO.
 
The missing piece in the American education system: communication, impulse control, teamwork, thoughtful decision making: emotional intelligence.

That's a lot of "pieces", but yeah. If I were to try to identify one "missing piece" from which all the above pieces arise, it would be the ability to learn. Kids are generally (and especially within right wing areas) taught that learning consists of following authoritarian instruction; do what I say and believe what I tell you. It comes from parents (religious ones most of all) and then from schools. It stunts kids' ability to think freely, solve problems, and figure things out that require not only logic but emotional intelligence. It makes them vulnerable to charlatans, under whose power and spell they inevitably fall.
 
The reason that the left is so much more afflicted by the loss of mental health, is simply that they have so much more to lose.

I would say *appears* to be more afflicted. The more you lean right, the less you are likely to admit fears and problems, while the more you lean left, the more likely it is that you will talk about your mental illness.

Absolutely, IMHO. Well corrected.
Don't need a weatherman to tell you if it's a duck. :)
 
The missing piece in the American education system: communication, impulse control, teamwork, thoughtful decision making: emotional intelligence.


Particularly since the 90s and the onset of the "educational reform" movement, when state governments absolutely overruled local school systems and installed complete curricula. I was in mid-career when it hit Ohio, and the curriculum strands were committee-generated and ultra, ultra boring. With those curricula -- which were long, boringly-worded documents, came the standardized tests. As a consequence, a lot of the personal touch went out of teaching. It hit me hardest on the subject I had worked the longest to make interesting, American history. The Ohio curriculum had an even worse name than the traditional "social studies": it was now called citizenship. History, when taught by someone who really loves it, can open a child's mind and make them eager to contemplate the past. When done with a committee-generated uber-curriculum, it's like throwing a bucket of dust on the subject. You will never in your life hear an adult go into a library and say to the reference librarian, "My passion is social studies (or citizenship)! Can you recommend any good recent books in that field?" And the poor students, with everything geared toward the high stakes test -- as opposed to learning for the joy of engaging with a subject or an author. If what you learn is always going to be pegged to mastering the subskills in a master list for the spring test week, you will get out of school and, if you're like most of your classmates, you won't want to open a book again. (Or a "text", as the criteria read.) Book? Those things that penalize you when you open them, because you know that the end result is going to be a testing situation.
As for those memorable, life-changing teachers, the ones you always remember, who may have made you sit up and think some startling thought or may have introduced you to a mind-blowing author, composer, or painter -- yes, they're still around, but they have far less latitude to shape the class and bring their individual expertise into the game.

(P.S. My apology to Elixir, as what I just wrote was supposed to build on the comment you added to the TV and credit card snippet. When I tried to submit, the message kept telling me that the quotation notes weren't properly assigned, and after a few tries I simply reduced the imported message to what you see above. But I really meant to harmonize with your insights.)
 
1) Citing the percent of liberals that have been diagnosed with a mental health condition says nothing about how many conservatives have been and thus is a meaningless thing.

2) Unless you're bonkers a mental health diagnosis requires that you be willing to talk to the doctor about it. Thus you have a highly biased sample, it means nothing.

3) Happiness also turns out to be a very bad yardstick as we can't actually measure it. What you really end up measuring is how people are doing compared to expectations--a "happy" population is actually one with low expectations, not one where people are doing better.

4) Your second thing is about marriage--but once again you have a flawed yardstick. Conservatives value marriage per se far more than liberals do. I have no moral or religious attachment to marriage, it was a necessary step to have something of great value to me but of no value itself. More conservatives have a certain piece of paper than liberals, so what?

4a) You're using marriage as a proxy for a stable family--but just because a couple stays together doesn't mean it's a good family unit. Conservative "values" often mean a couple that should split up stays together and fights--which harms the kids. My wife used to be horrified at the divorce rate here as she comes from a culture/generation where divorce is very rare--but she's come to see that here a failed relationship splits up and they can try to find happiness with others, but amongst her peers there are no divorces--but few who are even friendly with their spouse. Which is better?
 
This is as dumb as the following syllogism

1. You would have to be mentally ill to go to a Trump rally

2. Only conservatives go to Trump rallies

3. Therefor all conservatives are mentally ill


Just like the OP, it doesn't make any sense on any level
 
This is as dumb as the following syllogism

1. You would have to be mentally ill to go to a Trump rally

2. Only conservatives go to Trump rallies

3. Therefor all conservatives are mentally ill


Just like the OP, it doesn't make any sense on any level

Excellent point. You don't have to be mentally ill to attend a Trump rally - just fucking stupid.
 
Maybe something positive could come from this thread?

For example, how can we get other groups to be as self-aware and accepting of their mental health issues as liberal women? ...and communicating about it?
 
covid....
still observing the neurological damage it does.
Trump got it.
but his supporters?
is it mental illness or covid?
 
This is as dumb as the following syllogism

1. You would have to be mentally ill to go to a Trump rally

2. Only conservatives go to Trump rallies

3. Therefor all conservatives are mentally ill

Just like the OP, it doesn't make any sense on any level

Republicans in the Congress are reprimanding other Republicans for telling the truth about the last election.

To be a Republican in Congress means you are likely to be a pathological liar about the last election.
 
This is as dumb as the following syllogism

1. You would have to be mentally ill to go to a Trump rally

2. Only conservatives go to Trump rallies

3. Therefor all conservatives are mentally ill

Just like the OP, it doesn't make any sense on any level

Republicans in the Congress are reprimanding other Republicans for telling the truth about the last election.

To be a Republican in Congress means you are likely to be a pathological liar about the last election.
that's not entirely true..
see post #30
covid....
still observing the neurological damage it does.
Trump got it.
but his supporters?
is it mental illness or covid?
 
The support of Trump in the Republican electorate is what is driving the Republican Congressional lies.

The electorate is the catalyst of the pathological lies.
 
maybe this is a "safe place" for the OP? lol
 
Covid delusion would qualify as a pathology.

Yeah. I've half-heartedly suggested that people who deny Covid to the end but die of it should be listed as dying of "hoax".

At this point I'm also wondering if we should have a cause of death of "stupidity"--in which I would include dying of Covid due to Covidiot behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom