Psychology

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:43 pm

What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:04 pm

Nothing so long as your motive for doing so is pure.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:08 pm

You think it would always have a positive effect as long as it was totally true?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:19 pm

Hell no. But the effect is somewhat predicated upon the mentality of the person you're telling. But a bad reaction doesn't make the fact of you telling them bad in itself.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:40 pm

You don't think it can harm a person to be too direct with them? Do you think there's any way at all that you could actually damage a person's ability to develop by being honest with them? I mean why worry at all about what we say to people? Is it wise to worry about saying the perfect thing or is it ignorant?

windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Psychology

Post by windhawk » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:53 pm

In my experience, you can do real damage to a neurotic with bald unvarnished truth, a psychotic is just as likely as to agree with you as react badly (badly, as in Not Good. Emphasis added). Are you really making a diagnoses, or a value judgment? I mean, how many truly psychotic people do you know? Other than drug induced psychosis, you almost have to be working with them, or living on the streets to meet one unless they're a family member, and in that case, why not let someone else do it?

Besides that, what Dan said is correct. In and of itself, it depends on the context.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:07 pm

Well, I don't think of insanity as being restricted to the professionally sanctioned type. The phenomenon is a lot broader than that, it's just that nearly everybody is inflicted with it, so most of the insanity seems sane to most people. Insanity to me is just logical inconsistency, like when someone says one thing and then says or does the exact opposite a little later, or when someone makes a judgment with insufficient information or qualifications.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:26 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:You don't think it can harm a person to be too direct with them?
It might do, but that's a judgement you'd have to make before saying anything. There's probably no way to be certain of the outcome though.
Do you think there's any way at all that you could actually damage a person's ability to develop by being honest with them? I mean why worry at all about what we say to people? Is it wise to worry about saying the perfect thing or is it ignorant?
No, it's sensible to be concerned about it. If you don't think a person would take it well there's probably not much point doing it. The question is what you're hoping to achieve and whether the person in question is likely to benefit. I wouldn't advocate saying it to people just for the hell of it. And of course, there are ways of getting the message across that might seem less like gratuitous abuse.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Psychology

Post by Jamesh » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:46 pm

here's my bit of general speculation

A lot of mental stress is caused when someone from the herd says you are mad, particularly if the one saying it is respected by the receiptee of the comment.

My feeling is that most severe mental disease, namely where they become increasing erratic and unpredictable, occurs because they are already nervous about how rational their actions are, and as a result are constantly going over this in their head. This repeated self-analysis in a mind with problems keeps spiralling into more and more irrationality and depression, it turns into self-obsession with same. The irrational actions cause them stress even when they are thinking rationally, and they never get much release from their own mind and cannot feel good even when sane.

When people whom the person knows and respects tells them they are acting insanely, this tends to confirm both the rational and irrational things the person has been fretting about, and it comes to a head - they feel like the whole herd is rejecting them, and this is crushing. At which point they either seek professional help, retreat completely from self-analysis and become born again or something like that, suicide or they just let their mental disease go on and on, eventually making them irreversibly mad. Except for alcoholics and drug addicts, the latter occurs more often in the over 40's. For the younger folk, this is why boot camp type scenarios often tend to work - these sort of activities tend to bring everything to a head like a boil, and then they get the sort of experienced help via discipline [limitation of freedom] that gets their minds off fretting about themsleves. Sure it also makes many of them into placid sheep, but that's the price of self-obesssion.

I would treat anorexics and bulemics using boot camps. Unfortunately though such methods have a bad name because they have traditionally been used by military and religous folk for negative purposes - they break people, then fill ttheir minds with falsities, its a bit like breaking in horses.

The weird Stockholm Syndrome and the cooperation that sometimes results from extended torture probably occurs by similar means - they are akin to boot camps that force people right away from their normal routines.

Sometimes I call people I judge as acting irrationally, insane - but often wish I didn't, mainly because it may enhance their self-obsessional tendencies at an inappropriate time (I have no knowledge of what is really going on in their environment). I think all thinking folks feel a bit mad sometimes (after all they think because they suffer), but normally we get over it, however if the herd rushes in and condemns the person it could lead to unnecessary insanity. I'm probably less careful here because of the discussions this forum has had about the falsities of the ego, the insane people should know this and if they take this into account are less likely to do harmful things to themselves or others. I have a dig at newbies as they will not have formed respect for this herd, so it is water off a ducks back to them.

windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Psychology

Post by windhawk » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:51 am

Well, as newbie trying earn his wings, Jamesh, I'd like to compliment you on your answer: thoughtfull, insightfull and well-put.

Young folks often tend to forget that sometimes it's best to run with the herd, and old-folks such as myself, tend to forget to keep running.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:30 am

This whole issue of what to say and what not to say is really tough because you want to be true to yourself and not suppress the truth as you see it, but at the same time there are all these other concerns that you guys have mentioned that make you just want to not say anything. It's tough. It's kind of like weighing your own development against the development of others.

windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Psychology

Post by windhawk » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:49 am

One point to remember is that there is also the context of "danger" to the person so afflicted. You must act to prevent suicide or harm to others in all cases where you have sufficient authority to act; friendship certainly meets that requirement. However, you cannot live the life of another, this is one of the harder leasson of being a parent.

When I was about 18 or so, I was working with a group of kids who'd been adjudicated in one form or another teaching them to ride 50 cc Honda motorcycles. That was a great summer job, btw. Anyway, I somehow met a woman who was aghast that someone as young as I was allowed this freedom with kids from 12-16, after further discussion, I learned that out of fear of harm of her own child, she had forbidden him from riding a bike. At that point, I was aghast. I guess I explained myself passionately as I described to her just how much it meant to me to ride a bike as a young child, and I conceded the point that yes, her precious child, and I mean precious, could very well die from the experience, and it can happen in so many stupid ways, but to live a life dictated by fear is not really getting the full bang-for-the-buck, so to speak.

To my amazment, she consented to buy the child a bike; to my everlasting relief, he didn't get run over by a car. It would not have been my fault, in any case, but I would have felt regret. Now there's an interesting topic; innocence condemmed by a false sense of responsibility.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:58 am

Matt Gregory wrote:This whole issue of what to say and what not to say is really tough because you want to be true to yourself and not suppress the truth as you see it, but at the same time there are all these other concerns that you guys have mentioned that make you just want to not say anything. It's tough. It's kind of like weighing your own development against the development of others.
The desire to make others understand, is largely born out of a desire to overcome the alienation of being distant from the mainstream of humanity. One is in relationship to both strong and weak individuals. To expose truth to the strong is to arouse anger and amplify disdain. To expose truth to the weak is to amplify their depression and make suicide even more tempting.

The strong, if it doesn't manage to kill you or escape from you, will, if you corner it enough, eventually become weak. And the weak, if it doesn't manage to escape from you, will be freed.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by DHodges » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:26 am

Matt Gregory wrote: It's tough. It's kind of like weighing your own development against the development of others.
Do what you think is best. (Hey that sounds easy enough, right?)

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:52 am

Cory,
Cory Duchesne wrote:The desire to make others understand, is largely born out of a desire to overcome the alienation of being distant from the mainstream of humanity.
It can also be born out of the desire for the survival of wisdom.

One is in relationship to both strong and weak individuals. To expose truth to the strong is to arouse anger and amplify disdain. To expose truth to the weak is to amplify their depression and make suicide even more tempting.

The strong, if it doesn't manage to kill you or escape from you, will, if you corner it enough, eventually become weak. And the weak, if it doesn't manage to escape from you, will be freed.
People are more complicated than that. I think everybody has at least one opportunity for development, some little area of attachment that they would be open to getting rid of if they could be made aware of it. Even if they were to get all angry and defensive, they could repeat what you said to someone else with more potential and spread wisdom indirectly. It's always possible.

fr13d 86c0n

Re: Psychology

Post by fr13d 86c0n » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:26 am

Why would you ever consider hurting another persons' feelings? I mean, if this person really is insane then you should fear for your life or theirs and simply ignore them. On the other hand, if a person is stupid they will not pay attention to what you have to say. If it's both...RUN!

Does this have to do with your live-in, girl-toy?

Poor guy.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:31 am

Hurting someone's feelings is not the point. The point is to help the person reach a higher level of sanity.

I don't have a live-in girl toy.
Last edited by Matt Gregory on Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Dan Rowden » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:33 am

Sure you do! She's there in one of the quiet (or not so quiet) recesses of your mind.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:36 am

Haha Alright, you got me there.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:20 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:Cory,
Cory Duchesne wrote:The desire to make others understand, is largely born out of a desire to overcome the alienation of being distant from the mainstream of humanity.
It can also be born out of the desire for the survival of wisdom.
Ok, I agree, but for arguments sake: if you're functioning on that level, perhaps you no longer desire.

How's that for balls?
One is in relationship to both strong and weak individuals. To expose truth to the strong is to arouse anger and amplify disdain. To expose truth to the weak is to amplify their depression and make suicide even more tempting.

The strong, if it doesn't manage to kill you or escape from you, will, if you corner it enough, eventually become weak. And the weak, if it doesn't manage to escape from you, will be freed.
People are more complicated than that.
Ok, well, I'll admit my last post was me kind of succumbing to what felt like a powerful aphoristic style of writing, the kind that always, at first, gives me the feeling of omnipotence, but then later deflates into a petty and somewhat angry sort mind state - one that might laugh haughtily if it were to witness a child crying after dropping his ice cream, or scrapping his knee...
I think everybody has at least one opportunity for development, some little area of attachment that they would be open to getting rid of if they could be made aware of it.
But maybe I'm right though. Maybe becoming open to getting rid of attachment involves a process of having one's anger yield into depression, with that depression eventually yielding to greater freedom?

Just something to think about. No pressure.
Even if they were to get all angry and defensive, they could repeat what you said to someone else with more potential and spread wisdom indirectly.
I don't think they would repeat what you said unless they liked it, and I don't think they could like it if they didn't allow their anger to yield to depression, and their depression fade away. Anger leads to rebellion, which leads to illusion, which leads to more anger.

fr13d 86c0n

Re: Psychology

Post by fr13d 86c0n » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:20 pm

Hurting someone's feelings is not the point. The point is to help the person reach a higher level of sanity.
Hurting someone's feelings is what inevitably happens, when you state something, this way:
What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?
That doesn't sound very nice. Secondly, who are you to judge others?

You need a plan. Depending on your situation, there are two main strategies you can use: 1) The Quick Satisfaction(TQS) and 2) Psychological Annihilation/Reconstruction(PAR).

I must warn you, "PAR", has a substantially higher murder/suicide rate.
.......................................................................................................................................................

I get what you mean, which is fucked on its own. Which brings to mind: Is this a bait question? If not, you're lucky.

Would you mind elaborating?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Dan Rowden » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:07 pm

King Milind: If you speak honestly to someone about how badly they behave, is this not abuse, which might lead to a breach of the peace?

Nagasena: Do you bow down and show respect to a criminal? Or do you show him the error of his ways? Do you try to cure vigorous diseases with soft drugs?

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:31 am

Cory,
MG: It can also be born out of the desire for the survival of wisdom.

CD: Ok, I agree, but for arguments sake: if you're functioning on that level, perhaps you no longer desire.
Perhaps, but there's nothing saying that you can't desire the survival of wisdom before reaching that level, is there?

MG:
I think everybody has at least one opportunity for development, some little area of attachment that they would be open to getting rid of if they could be made aware of it.

CD: But maybe I'm right though. Maybe becoming open to getting rid of attachment involves a process of having one's anger yield into depression, with that depression eventually yielding to greater freedom?
It could go like this but I don't think it necessarily has to. Anger and depression are signs of rejection of truth. Someone could accept it right off the bat without any hangups.


MG: Even if they were to get all angry and defensive, they could repeat what you said to someone else with more potential and spread wisdom indirectly.

CD: I don't think they would repeat what you said unless they liked it, and I don't think they could like it if they didn't allow their anger to yield to depression, and their depression fade away. Anger leads to rebellion, which leads to illusion, which leads to more anger.
They would repeat it if it disturbed them, although they might not repeat the interaction perfectly word-for-word. But it could still stimulate thought even if it's not perfect.

Thought stimulation is really what we're after here, not necessarily thoughts about specific things. It's just that certain things like cause and effect and the sexes and so forth are more stimulating to think about than most other things.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Psychology

Post by Cory Duchesne » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:11 am

Matt Gregory wrote:Cory,
MG: It can also be born out of the desire for the survival of wisdom.

CD: Ok, I agree, but for arguments sake: if you're functioning on that level, perhaps you no longer desire.
Perhaps, but there's nothing saying that you can't desire the survival of wisdom before reaching that level, is there?
But doesn't functioning on that level imply that one is 'being wise?'

Can you be wise if you are not on that level?

And thus, if you are not on that level, is it even possible to value the survival of wisdom, despite proclaiming to yourself that you do?
It could go like this but I don't think it necessarily has to. Anger and depression are signs of rejection of truth. Someone could accept it right off the bat without any hangups.
Right, but wouldn't such a person appear strong to you, based on his propensity to question you, passionately discuss his views, combined with the nature of his conversation ability overall?

And if that is indeed the case, then there would be no inhibitions about whether or not you are doing harm to them by exposing them to truth. It would be apparent that they were strong enough to handle it, just by their appearance.
MG: Even if they were to get all angry and defensive, they could repeat what you said to someone else with more potential and spread wisdom indirectly.

CD: I don't think they would repeat what you said unless they liked it, and I don't think they could like it if they didn't allow their anger to yield to depression, and their depression fade away. Anger leads to rebellion, which leads to illusion, which leads to more anger.

MG: They would repeat it if it disturbed them, although they might not repeat the interaction perfectly word-for-word. But it could still stimulate thought even if it's not perfect.
I just can't imagine under what circumstances a person would dislike what was said to them, yet go onto preach it to others. I don't think it's wise to conclude that such strange behavior is possible without actually observing it. I can't recall seeing anything like that in my own experience.
Thought stimulation is really what we're after here, not necessarily thoughts about specific things.
I think if thought is to be wise, it does need to be specific. For instance, a young person who was raised in an environment that encouraged atheism, resistance to marijuana use, and sex differences, might encounter someone who gives them all sorts of thought-stimulating reasons for believing in God, equality and drug use - but that doesn't mean the survival of wisdom has been aided in anyway.
It's just that certain things like cause and effect and the sexes and so forth are more stimulating to think about than most other things.
Right. But I think we need to decide whether or not all thought-stimulation supports wisdom, or only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom. The way I see it currently, is that only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom, as there is a great deal of thought stimulation that doesn't support wisdom.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Psychology

Post by Matt Gregory » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:21 am

fr13d 86c0n wrote:MG: Hurting someone's feelings is not the point. The point is to help the person reach a higher level of sanity.

FB: Hurting someone's feelings is what inevitably happens, when you state something, this way:

MG: What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?

FB: That doesn't sound very nice.
Well, if you get the urge to say something like that to someone then you're not in a nice situation.

Secondly, who are you to judge others?
Why shouldn't I judge others? "Judge not and you won't be judged", I always say.

I get what you mean, which is fucked on its own. Which brings to mind: Is this a bait question? If not, you're lucky.

Would you mind elaborating?
It's not a bait question, but it was probably too hastily worded. I don't say things like that to people, but I feel like doing so quite often. People just kill themselves with their own thoughts and it's painful to witness.

Post Reply