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

91–100 of 211 posts

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

#91

Post by brandoncapecci »

madaxe wrote: post #70
jmillikin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, sure. But would be ever prescribe prescription > drugs for this? If there was a drug shown to improve self-esteem in children, it would likely become one of the most profitable drugs of all time. > Everything you're describing is characterized as a > personality trait, whereas the OP (who I hardly fully > agree with) is claiming that anti-authoritarian > sentiments are labeled a disease. ADHD and ODD aren't d…

> If there was a drug shown to improve self-esteem in children, it would likely become one of the most profitable drugs of all time. It's called alcohol. It's wildly profitable.

When's the last time you give your child alcohol?

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

#92

Post by CapitalistCartr »

madaxe wrote: post #70
jmillikin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, sure. But would be ever prescribe prescription > drugs for this? If there was a drug shown to improve self-esteem in children, it would likely become one of the most profitable drugs of all time. > Everything you're describing is characterized as a > personality trait, whereas the OP (who I hardly fully > agree with) is claiming that anti-authoritarian > sentiments are labeled a disease. ADHD and ODD aren't d…

> If there was a drug shown to improve self-esteem in children, it would likely become one of the most profitable drugs of all time. It's called alcohol. It's wildly profitable.

I think Tequila is what you are looking for. Here are the medical details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EldQzTxSKMM

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

#93

Post by csense »

drharris wrote: post #20
zdw wrote: post #14

The TL:DR of this article, in D&D terms: Chaotic aligned people are being diagnosed as mentally ill by Lawful aligned people. Unfortunately, it's frequently Lawful-{Neutral|Evil} judging Chaotic-Good, which is a travesty.

Not only that, but the trend is cemented by the fact that only Lawful people are allowed to diagnose in the first place, so there is no checks or balances. In D&D, a few rolls could take care of that, but in the real world you'll get some hefty jail time... and a diagnosis.

Real life would be a lot more fun if it had a better DM.

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

#94

Post by jorleif »

neilk wrote: post #3

I sometimes ask mental health professionals what the converse of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is. At what point do we recognize a disorder in a child who is unnaturally compliant and obedient? No answer so far. I ask because I think I had this. When I was a young prodigy I had the mentality of a performing seal. It's true that some people have difficulty controlling themselves, and they do need help. But the lack of…

Since we there is no exact definition of what a mentally healthy human being is, in the same way that those specifications would be available for a machine for example, the definitions of mental problems have obviously been developed mostly in other ways.

Conditions where a person causea problems for himself or his surroundings are then labeled as mental health problems. Naturally, the opposite conditions may be benign. The person may be overly obedient, or overly trusting (opposite of paranoia), irrationally peaceful (opposite of depression) and so on, and this may indeed be caused by the same mechanism that causes the opposite condition, but as it does not cause problems, it is not considered a disease.

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

#95

Post by dkuntz2 »

chris_mahan wrote: post #81
dkuntz2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Royalist! Traitor! You defy the very premise of the United States of America's existence: The God-given right to live free from the oppression of a Draconian Regime! (I kid, I kid, I like to hear people's opinions) But it's got to strike you as interesting that I have taken many history classes, along with reading many historical books, and still evidently lack the profound knowledge of the 1770s that you have. I won…

It's partially that I spend a great deal of time with history buffs, and partially that I took a Modern British History class (1485 onwards, starting with Henry VII).

I also had the same teachers, teaching from the American view, but my college (Carthage College) has a Western Heritage requirement, where second semester freshmen year some of our readings were Locke, Marx and Engles, and two drafts and the final version of the Declaration of Independence.

Plus, political systems intrigue me.

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

#96

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

thecoffman wrote: post #82
6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think you would find that there are a subset of people, myself included, that don't find that notion so insane. If you accept the idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to overthrow their government then having the government restrict what citizens can and cannot purchase is somewhat nonsensical. Historically speaking, government restriction on firearm ownership is a relatively new thi…

To make sure I understand, you're saying we should have a constitutional right to own attack helicopters, armed UAVs, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

(And since the SCOTUS has opted to interpret that corporations are people, too, presumably they would have this right as well?)

Although tyranny would be unquestionably bad, the proposed prophylactic for that hypothetical scenario is worse.

Possibly I'm biased because I live in Boston and recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.

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

#97

Post by dkuntz2 »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #80
dkuntz2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

19th century proletariats?

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

#98

Post by samweinberg »

fianchetto wrote: post #51
ceejayoz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No new Einsteins, Maxwells, and Plancks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Phys...

A Nobel doth not a genius make.

But a Nobel is granted to a genius already made.

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

#99

Post by jlgreco »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #89
bjhoops1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me you don't actually want these folks armed.

EDIT: to clarify, by "these folks" I mean people who are both mentally ill and anti-authoritarian.

What sort of mental illness are we talking about?

Do they think that the queen is a lizard and the government is putting chemicals in contrails? I really don't care if they have a gun. Lizard and chemtrail people are clearly loony, but they seem perfectly harmless.

Instead are they a psychopath fascinated with violence? In that case yeah, I am not comfortable with them having a gun... but if we know who they are then why the hell are they not institutionalized already, rendering the issue moot?

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

#100

Post by throwaway1980 »

neilk wrote: post #3

I sometimes ask mental health professionals what the converse of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is. At what point do we recognize a disorder in a child who is unnaturally compliant and obedient? No answer so far. I ask because I think I had this. When I was a young prodigy I had the mentality of a performing seal. It's true that some people have difficulty controlling themselves, and they do need help. But the lack of…

Excessive obedience often means you had overly needy parents who couldn't tolerate you acting out. So, you take care of their needs by not causing problems. This probably isn't recognized in the DSM as a disorder, since on the surface it appears good for a structured, smoothly operating society, but one term that you will probably identify with if you search a little is "parentified child". There are quite a lot of books written about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parentification

Post reply on HN