Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

madinamerica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#71

Post by clicks »

rayiner wrote: post #56

So in a species that depends on pack/tribe behavior for survival, how is an inability to follow authority not a mental illness?

Okay, so let's go down that line a little bit more.

In a species (alongside a whole host of other species) that depended on rape for survival, how is an inability to rape not a mental illness? [1] In a species that depended on rigidly defined gender roles of women child rearing and men being hunters, how is aberrant behavior not a mental illness?

I think what's happening is you're falling prey to appeal to nature fallacy. Consider here also the results of the loners, the outliers, the dropouts -- a lot of them go on to contribute greater value to society than the ones following the pack/tribe behavior.

[1]: Researchers Thornhill and Palmer say rape is an evolved reproductive strategy and not a crime of violence. See their piece 'A Natural History of Rape: The Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion' for more.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#72

Post by jasallen »

jradakov wrote: post #68

Good. Now I can use the "anti-authoritarian" card when I tell my boss to go crunch a biscuit.

You miss the point entirely. "Playing a card" is usually in reference to having some condition. The author's point is that anti-authoritarian is no condition. So. If you are anti-authoritarian go tell him to "crunch a biscuit". If you are also not an idiot, have a fallback plan.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#73

Post by dxhdr »

alan_cx wrote: post #59
chris_mahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and…

"when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens"

I'll name one -- Japanese internment camps during WWII. Forcibly imprisoned over a hundred thousand citizens against their will, depriving them of their liberty and property.

But I suppose in your world view the government has final say over your life and property, so being able to deter or resist attacks like this is unnecessary.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#74

Post by ctdonath »

jbooth wrote: post #64
ctdonath wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But their political opponents would not hesitate to have them declared pathological, and so proceed to establish "legal" grounds to disarm & incarcerate (ahem, involuntary commitment to treatment). Many authoritarian governments have done so to great effect and great harm; ours is heading that way.

Sort of a non-sequitur here: Someone once called the FOUNDING FATHERS (freedom!) crazy, therefore we shouldn't restrict documented crazy people from buying guns? There is probably a lesson in that disorders that make you inconvenient for the system are more likely to be recognized/categories than those that make you a sheep. Fine. I don't think you can generalize from that to "documented mentally ill should be able t…

The problem is defining "crazy" such that the sane are not labeled as such pursuant to ulterior motives.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#75

Post by codezero »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #18

I have a 13-year-old brother with ODD. And let me tell you, there is more to it than a healthy does of anti-authoritarianism. We adopted my brother when he was 15 months old, and in his first year of life we suspect he was frequently neglected, leading to attachment issues. Basically, when an infant's needs are not met, they get distressed, and the more often this occurs, the more those neurological pathways become i…

I am actually really curious, in what ways is it rewarding outside of loving anyone else?

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#76

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

chris_mahan wrote: post #34
6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we can't have nice firearms. Seriously: I fully support background checks -- extending what we already have, to cover all sales. I also think that if motor vehicles require registration, insurance, and license to operate, then firearms sure as heck should, too. Even so, if I'm being intellectually honest, I also have a twinge of doubt when it comes to "mental health" grounds, and I have some concern about…

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

Well the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and militias. If the spirit/intent were fully what some people say, why don't we each have a 2nd amendment right to an attack helicopter, nukes, chems, bios, and UAVs? (Because assault rifles instead of muskets doesn't add much to the equation.) Since that would be clearly insane, reductio ad absurdum. Right?

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#77

Post by thecoffman »

alan_cx wrote: post #59
chris_mahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and…

It is sad that the sort of bigoted opinions you're espousing here are what us firearms enthusiasts have to endure. It has nothing to do with machismo, nothing to do with Obama, and nothing to do with birther garbage.

The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right.

As for naming incidents in the last 100 years where armed resistance to the United States government would have been productive or useful, I recommend you look up the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2. I also recommend that you read about the Black Panthers standing up to corrupt Oakland police and marching on government buildings, loaded guns in hand.

You don't have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist or a right-winger to realize the thought that "something like that couldn't happen in America" is naive at best.

edit: I omitted an "n"

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#78

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

gdsimoes wrote: post #22
tokenadult wrote: post #6

I don't like this article's groundless speculation about Albert Einstein, who is used as an unwilling poster child for dozens of causes without support in Einstein's actual biography. I have carefully read Einstein's longest autobiographical writing, and cite it on my personal website, http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html and while it is indisputable that Einstein blew off some of his school homework, it…

I read two Einstein's biographies and I have come to the conclusion that if he was born today he would probably be a college drop out. Some people say that geniuses always survives life hardships, but the fact that there are no new Einsteins (or Maxwells, Plancks...) seems to show this isn't true.

There was a Feynman, but not much since then.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#79

Post by smokeyj »

alan_cx wrote: post #59
chris_mahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cau…

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and…

> If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse.

It's interesting you think I need an "excuse" for owning a firearm. As if it's our natural place in this universe to require permission from said "authorities". Here's an excuse -- I want one. You don't want me to? Come and take it.

Re: Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012)

#80

Post by bjhoops1 »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #67
chris_mahan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, weren't the people who fought to make America independent upset with the King's Authority? Would you not say, today, that they were anti-authorianists? Would you not say that an oppressive government would use such a "medical condition" to confiscate guns from people who disagreed with it? Think hard about this, and ask yourself what you would have done in 1774: sided with the Revolutionaries, or sided with the…

That's a poor question. The Revolutionaries were really just opportunists. They could have received the representation they wanted in parliament, however they saw the chance to start their own government, a new one, built by them, however they wanted. I'm not saying it was a bad thing that they decided to focus their efforts on starting a new government instead of working with their current one, but they didn't have…

But what could we base 21st century policy on, if not the divinely inspired actions of 18th century European colonists?
Post reply on HN