The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?

[sgreger1]

How many blind children do you know that play piano better than a non-blind child? Sure, their hearing is more acute, but playing piano involves far more than simply hearing. A deaf person could easily become a great piano player...far easier than a blind person. I took piano for like 12 years...

Sorry, I actually was making a reference to Stevie Wonder. Either way the point is that not everything that is seen as "different" is "bad". I seen a video the other day of a guy who was born without any lower torso and only two little nub legs, but he lives a full happy life and provides inspirational talks to people around the country about learning to deal with what life dealt you. This is what I mean, humans are resilient and even someone born with no eyes or ears can go on to contribute GREATLY to society, and in fact one could even argue that the "weird" ones gave us some of our favorite things, from people with Assbergers like Bill Gates to people like the famous scientists and artists and musicians who were all a little wacky or disabled (mentally) in their own right.

A disibility does not have to = a bad thing. Imagine if everyone was born a little more hyper, then we would all have ADD and science would be explaining why ADD is an advantage to us. It's all about perspective, I just hate to see people (young people especially) talk down to those who they feel are not "normal".

[heders]

Sure, having a kid with autism is a huge problem for any individual, but again how would that kid benefit the society, world, nature...you mean it ?!

But... do the so called "healthy" people contribute more to the world? I would say it's the reverse; a "unhealthy" person (for example a person with autism) does less of a negative impact on the nature and earth than a so-called "healthy".

The society is just a play; nothing of significants is really contributed to earth. It's just a matter of doing less of a damage than what already has been done, and fixing the damage that we are doing and have done.

[resnor]

I am in no way trying to say that people born with disabilities can't contribute to society. They most definitely can, and do. I am merely saying that people with trauma in their past (dead loved ones, abuse, etc) often can't come to terms with that trauma. That can manifest in many ways. Some people become depressed, some people become aggressive, some people just kind of shut down, it can be any number of things. Some people are able to accept the trauma, and move on, and live perfectly healthy lives, without the need of any medication whatsoever. However, people that cope with trauma by doing some of the bad coping skills that I listed above, often need medication to stop that bad coping skill, so that they can address the core issue.

[sgreger1]

@sgregre

I partially agree with what you're saying but .....

1) I hope you're not saying that depression is a normal thing, and definitely it doesn't and won't benefit nobody.
2)

How would a gay person be an advantage to anything on this planet? I am not against them, they just like any other human. I don't care they choose to **** ass but .... still how could they be an advantage?

3)

Sure, having a kid with autism is a huge problem for any individual, but again how would that kid benefit the society, world, nature...you mean it ?!

I had prepared my normal wall fo text response but I will just give you the short version. Basically evolution isn't just about survival of the person, it is also about survival of the species. Having kids is a huge suck on resources, and once a family has children a lot of their productivity goes towards servicing and raising said children. Those who do not naturally have to worry about pro-creation are freed to use their available resources for other things that benefit the group as a whole. So one segment handles giving birth to the next generation, and another segment spends thier time building all the huts and shit while mom & dad are busy gathering food for their kids etc.

Same with autistic people, some of the best painters and artists and inventors had some sort of mental condition, or some level of autism or behavioral/psyche deficit. It is these "deficits" that made them such amazing piano players or artists or inventors, because just like the scenario above, it allows them to focus their resources on different things than the "average" person. This results in everyone advancing at a much faster pace because we have different segments of society all working on different things. It's like politics, we need the cut-throat warmongerers who are all about the money because they win wars and keep us paid, whil at the same time we also need the social activists that bring us all the euqality and stuff that makes all of our lives easier. No one group does everything, we all have our own little purpose, and if 1 group ever wins over the other than the balance is lost. Nature is no different.


Nature isn't just about having more babies, if that were the case than there would be very few species around, nature is about diversity and building an ever more complex and interdependant system so that if one of the food sources fails the whole planet doesn't die. This is the same with humans, some are wired to spend their time trying to get laid and raising kids. Others are wired to spend their time inventing shit and advocating for social advancement etc. It's all part of the soup of things that go into our moden society, there is no 1 type of person who built the modern world, and everyone contributed in some way. "Normal" people didn't build the world you see around you, we all did, and every piece of the puzzle counts.


No pyramids would be built without the lowly worker, who's only accomplishment in life may have been his little task in building the pyramid.
There would be no equality and peace without those who demand it at every turn
There would be no survival without the cut-throats of the world
There would be no food without the farmers

etc etc etc. We all play a role, and even those who's role may not be blaringly obviouse are still fullfilling a role. Don't think that humanity has elevated to where it's at because of a couple of really smart guys, all those weirdos did their part as well.


EDIT: Haha, you ended up wtih a wall of text anyways.

[precious007]

I had prepared my normal wall fo text response but I will just give you the short version. Basically evolution isn't just about survival of the person, it is also about survival of the species. Having kids is a huge suck on resources, and once a family has children a lot of their productivity goes towards servicing and raising said children. Those who do not naturally have to worry about pro-creation are freed to use their available resources for other things that benefit the group as a whole. So one segment handles giving birth to the next generation, and another segment spends thier time building all the huts and shit while mom & dad are busy gathering food for their kids etc.

Same with autistic people, some of the best painters and artists and inventors had some sort of mental condition, or some level of autism or behavioral/psyche deficit. It is these "deficits" that made them such amazing piano players or artists or inventors, because just like the scenario above, it allows them to focus their resources on different things than the "average" person. This results in everyone advancing at a much faster pace because we have different segments of society all working on different things. It's like politics, we need the cut-throat warmongerers who are all about the money because they win wars and keep us paid, whil at the same time we also need the social activists that bring us all the euqality and stuff that makes all of our lives easier. No one group does everything, we all have our own little purpose, and if 1 group ever wins over the other than the balance is lost. Nature is no different.


Nature isn't just about having more babies, if that were the case than there would be very few species around, nature is about diversity and building an ever more complex and interdependant system so that if one of the food sources fails the whole planet doesn't die. This is the same with humans, some are wired to spend their time trying to get laid and raising kids. Others are wired to spend their time inventing shit and advocating for social advancement etc. It's all part of the soup of things that go into our moden society, there is no 1 type of person who built the modern world, and everyone contributed in some way. "Normal" people didn't build the world you see around you, we all did, and every piece of the puzzle counts.


No pyramids would be built without the lowly worker, who's only accomplishment in life may have been his little task in building the pyramid.
There would be no equality and peace without those who demand it at every turn
There would be no survival without the cut-throats of the world
There would be no food without the farmers

etc etc etc. We all play a role, and even those who's role may not be blaringly obviouse are still fullfilling a role. Don't think that humanity has elevated to where it's at because of a couple of really smart guys, all those weirdos did their part as well.


EDIT: Haha, you ended up wtih a wall of text anyways.

you've got some good points, I actually never even thought of the whole "mechanism" ...

It's not my area at all :^)

and yeah Van Goth had an eccentric personality and unstable moods, suffered from recurrent psychotic episodes during the last 2 years of his extraordinary life, and committed suicide at the age of 37....

[sgreger1]

Is this a sgreger theory? or do you have any proof that non-parents contribute more to society?

It seems like a feel-good theory, but I think you'll find that you are at least 90% wrong.

Make a list of the top 100 contributors to society in some legitimate measure. Then check to see if they had kids.

Then, for fun, make a list of the top 100 criminals and see about them too.

I didn't mean to imply that they were MORE beneficial to society, merely that they are at least equally beneficial. This is not my theory, I was having this discussion with someone the other day and they explained the whole thing and linked to some studies and to me it at least makes sense, it had legitimate research behind it so it wasn't like the guy linked to soem conspiracy site. The alternative is to believe that nature introduced homosexuality to humans and many animal species for no reason and that doesn't quite cut it for me since they if that were the case than they should have been bred out of the gene pool a long time ago. The fact nature has chosen to retain whatever markers cause homosexuality implies that it has some survival advantage that SUPERCEDES the need to reproduce. All I am saying is that nature turned off the "have sex with women" gene but left on the "you want to have kids" gene, implying that the purpose was not to leave gays as sterile and therefore cut them from the gene pool, but instead, being gay served some kind of advantage which is why it is still around today.

Anyways, I will try to find the links so it doesn't sound like I read this on some conspiracy website.

And at the end of the day I don't think it really matters who contributes "more" to society, as most of the great things came from a generations long work in progress as opposed to the actions of any 1 man. You'd like to think that only the einsteins of the world have contributed to what we have today, but even the guy who drags bricks to the pyramid each morning has his role. That's all I meant to imply.

[Wrath]

It wouldn't be hard to get a script for any sort of pills claiming to treat depression or any other mental health issue. Doctors are so quick to prescribe drugs now. If your doctor asks how you are feeling, never say sad. That's clear diagnosis that you are depressed and in need of some meds.

[LincolnSnuff]

Nobody has linked homosexuality to genetics. Gays who reproduce are not any more likely to produce homosexuals than other people. It cannot be a gene thing.

Its not demonstrable like blue eyes or blond hair when it comes to traits.

[sgreger1]

Nobody has linked homosexuality to genetics. Gays who reproduce are not any more likely to produce homosexuals than other people. It cannot be a gene thing.

Its not demonstrable like blue eyes or blond hair when it comes to traits.

Not yet we havn't. It is clear though that almost every trait is tied to genetics on some level, it won't be long till we find it. If not, than it would imply that becoming gay is either "a choice" or somehow environmental in nature as opposed to something you are born with. If you are born with it than I feel pretty confident in saying that it will soon be tied to genetics, that much I know for sure.


It has to have a basis in nature and genetics. We got gay penguins in the zoo bro, and other animals, there has to be some natural (likely genetic) cause to all of this. It presents itself in the populations of multiple species, it has a purpose, it has to, if it didn't than it wouldn't be consistent with the other 99% of shit we know about the world and how it works. It wouldn't be so widespread if it was a "choice" or "the devil" as some claim. It also isn't something that can be "cured" or gotten rid of once you have it, so it's obviously deeply rooted in the persons genes somewhere at some level. It has to be.


It doesn't matter that gay people aren't more likely to give birth to gay people, it could be an ultra-recessive gene or emerge in unusual patterns throughout the family tree that we've yet to find. The fact is that people are born with it, and if you are born with something than it has to have a genetic basis plain and simple. We see it in too high an instance of the population to keep considering it some rare thing that occurs for no reason, it has to have some genetic cause, and that gene presents itself in multiple species because it is valuable to the species in some way. Nature cuts off what it doesn't need, it doesn't waste resources, it's keeping it around for a reason, what other explanation could there possibly be given what we know about science and the world?

[resnor]

Are people born as bestiality lovers? Or does someone make a choice to have sex with an animal? What about pedophiles? Also, just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it should be done. Some male animals kill he young of the females so that they will mate with them. Doesn't mean that we should.

[JMo]

While the drug companies are a big 'business,' I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a schizophrenic that their risperodol doesn't do any good or that manic depressive people won't benefit from lithium.

I always question when someone comes out saying this is the way it ABSOLUTELY is, that it's all a big corporate cover up for the garnering of huge profits from the millions of gullible sheep that seem to believe whatever they read in the newspaper or see on youtube (ahem!). Drug companies are subjected to the highest standards in scientific testing and government rules and regulations, and if a drug is shown to cause damage, they are NOT ALLOWED TO SELL IT. You need a doctor's prescription to get one (usually) and they all go to school for at least 8 years.

I think we should give some of the smartest people in society a little more credit.

Also, there has been a lot of recent scientific evidence showing that mental illnesses are induced by a number of factors, and electro-chemical distortions in the brain are only a part of the problem. Drugs help some people and not others and some people more than others. Consistent moderate exercise has been shown to be as beneficial as SSRI's for MOST people (read: not everyone) with depression. Yet some people are psychotically depressed, an illness that absolutely requires drug treatment .

While some mental illnesses may be caused or exacerbated by emotional problems, it is certain that it is not the whole problem, nor are all mental illnesses caused by them.

Also, I'm 100% certain it has absolutely nothing to do with a spiritual or soul problem (animals get them too!).

I do agree with your implication that drug companies and doctors have a tendency to push drugs on people and that in some countries it is worse than others (especially the United States), but in most cases like here in Canada it is seen as only part problem-part solution, and for the most part we are better off with them than without them.

As for other illnesses such as psychopathy we are finding more and more that it is again, partial genetic malfunction exacerbated by environmental factors. These people don't respond to drugs or therapy. Some people grow up to be maniacal serial killers and some just non-violent psychopaths. We don't know why yet, but it's a combination of things.

I think to be honest as time goes on we will find the genetic precursors and environmental triggers for every illness, and will eventually cure them with a combination of gene therapy and environmental control. But until then, we can and should continue to use whatever at our disposal to manage these diseases as best we can, including drugs when needed.

P.S.- FWIW I'm a Neuroscience major.

[sgreger1]

Are people born as bestiality lovers? Or does someone make a choice to have sex with an animal? What about pedophiles? Also, just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it should be done. Some male animals kill he young of the females so that they will mate with them. Doesn't mean that we should.

I'll let someone else comment on how offensive that probably is to several of our members here, I mean how could you possibly equate bestiality with being gay? And what if pedophiles are naturally that way, I never said we should condone such behavior, just that we should better understand it. But I take offense that you would equate two gay adults having consensual sex together with an adult who seeks out and molests small children. Jesus christ man, cummon.

[JMo]

Also as RE: to the video there are TONS of scientific studies and TONS of scientific evidence that chemical 'imbalances' are present along with mental illnesses but no true CAUSAL link has been found between the two. The mistake most people make (because they lack education on it) is that drugs are prescribed to cure an illness and make someone 'normal' when in fact the person with the illness often has a degenerative disease (much the same as muscular dystrophy) that is only MANAGED by a drug. They will never be cured or truly get better until we know more. But drugs can and do help, and I'm not gonna be the one to take away anti-psychotics from someone who is hearing evil voices in his head telling him to kill his family. Are you?

[f. bandersnatch]

I don't know why you are all so pissed a Freud for pushing cocaine on depressives. Have you ever taken a headfirst dive in a big pile-o-coke drugs? BAM. Not depressed anymore.

Seriously, drugs are what makes the world go round. We are all here because of our collective love of one particular drug. Don't worry so much about whether or not other people have or don't have legitimate problems and/or addictions. That type of thing sounds exhausting and, quite frankly, depressing.

Edit: I didn't read far enough to see that this conversation had been derailed by an expert on gay people and gay lifestyle and other gay things explaining why it's a choice to be gay, which I can only assume the poster is, based on his apparent familiarity with the intricacies of the homosexual mind. Please. I bet if we brought up abortion he'd turn into a god damned woman too.

[Bigblue1]

Are people born as bestiality lovers? Or does someone make a choice to have sex with an animal? What about pedophiles? Also, just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it should be done. Some male animals kill he young of the females so that they will mate with them. Doesn't mean that we should.

What are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure he is referring to resnor's quote above......