Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill (2012) • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:01 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #44

ceejayoz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the lack of symmetry says a lot about how diseases are identified; it is about institutional convenience. Is it? I'd chalk it up to the fact that a unnaturally compliant child doesn't tend to cause the parents to seek out treatment, whereas a child who's kicking holes in walls and attacking their siblings does.

What about a child who is not violent, but who would rather spend their time reading advanced math textbooks, hacking, or otherwise learning? What about a child who will stand up to their teachers and say, "This is worthless homework, so I spent my time learning next year's material instead?" The point of the article is that an awful lot of mental disorder diagnoses are being given to children who calmly reject certa…

Do you have any evidence that kids calmly saying "I'd rather learn useful things" are getting widely diagnosed as ODD? Anecdotally, that's exactly what I did in the late 1990s with my biology teacher. No diagnosis.

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

#102

Post by jlgreco » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:05 PM UTC

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #96

thecoffman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bi…

Cannot corporations already own heavy duty weaponry? Aren't these the companies we are "contracting" to fight our wars for us?

Regardless, being in favor of particular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment does not mean that you are automatically in favor of considering corporations people.

> 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.

Weren't those bombs packed with the same stuff that you buy if you want to shoot your musket? There was a lot of misinformation going around at the time and I haven't kept up on that story so I honestly am not sure, but I am pretty sure the word is that they were pressure cookers with gunpowder (which you can buy "loose" to load your own rounds for modern guns, or use to load muskets). I am not sure that it makes sense for you, coming from your perspective, to be pushing something that would make buying loose gunpowder more mainstream.

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

#103

Post by konstruktor » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:06 PM UTC

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?

We depend on cooperation to survive/thrive. Authority is neither necessary nor sufficient for cooperation.

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

#104

Post by saraid216 » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:08 PM UTC

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.

Yeah. I've never heard of Feynman or Hawking or anyone either.

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

#105

Post by dkuntz2 » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:08 PM UTC

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…

I can't help myself on this one, but...

> Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...

We did have a civil war (which is the end bound you placed on your time line). It wasn't a private war, it technically wasn't mass murder, but, it was a war.

Again, sorry, I couldn't help myself on this one.

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

#106

Post by csense » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

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…

> Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America?

Rebellion is a last resort. Things haven't gotten bad enough yet.

> when in the last, say, 100 years

This number is conveniently chosen to be just below the Civil War.

> they'd just find another excuse

Self defense? If we were some European country that's historically always had only a few gun owners and tight control of guns since firearms were invented, then gun control would make some kind of sense, it would be possible to control the small number of firearms that exist. But the US started out as a frontier country where firearms were necessary for survival, and gun ownership has always been part of the American way for a large number of people. So there are millions of guns already out there -- too many to possibly control.

If the massive supermajority necessary to repeal a constitutional amendment and outlaw firearms magically materialized tomorrow, those millions of guns would still be out there. Presumably drug dealers, rapists, bank robbers, stalkers, and other criminals would keep their guns, and there would be enough remaining in underworld circulation to supply future members of those professions. If a person wants a gun badly enough, he'll always be able to get one. Gun control wouldn't significantly reduce the number of bad people who have access to guns, it would just curtail access for responsible, law-abiding citizens.

Guns -- and in particular concealed carry laws -- also act as a deterrent for criminals. If someone's in a desperate situation and contemplating crime, it seems to me that the possibility of a hole in the head from an armed bystander would make them hesitate a lot more than if the worst-case scenario involves getting a roof and three square meals a day at taxpayer expense (even if they get the death penalty it'll be many years before the appeals are exhausted and the sentence is carried out).

At least to me, these considerations don't sound like "excuses," but well-reasoned arguments. Please point out the holes.

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

#107

Post by rayiner » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:11 PM UTC

konstruktor wrote: post #103

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?

We depend on cooperation to survive/thrive. Authority is neither necessary nor sufficient for cooperation.

I used the terms "tribes" and "packs" for a reason, namely because they more appropriate describe the structure of human societies since time immemorial much more accurately than the more abstract concept of "cooperation." Pack and tribal structures do depend on authority.

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

#108

Post by Stratoscope » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:14 PM UTC

csense wrote: post #90

bjhoops1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of a poem my favorite Math professor used to share, about a little boy who was always instructed exactly how to draw a picture of a flower: http://home.bresnan.net/~cabreras/theboy.htm

This "poem" is depressing. Off topic: It's never made sense to me why people call things that don't rhyme "poems." As far as I'm concerned, this is an essay, not a poem.

It's a type of poetry called "free verse".

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

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-free-verse-po...

Here is the classic story of a Real Programmer, written in free verse:

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html

This story was originally written in prose, and it apparently got converted to free verse more or less by accident as it was bounced around mailing lists. Here's the prose version:

http://www.pbm.com//~lindahl/mel.html

HN discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=678999

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

#109

Post by mc-lovin » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:15 PM UTC

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #76

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…

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?

Not necessarily. The power of the government stems not only from it's ability to inflict violence against groups (e.g. bombing a city) but also individuals (e.g. arresting a single person). Against the latter, ordinary weapons are still very effective. When police overstep their legal rights, it is even lawful in some states to use force to defend yourself.

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

#110

Post by ucee054 » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:16 PM UTC

thecoffman wrote: post #77

alan_cx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 resistan…

Note: That is essentially what the Boston Bombers were doing. If Robin Hood were alive in Nottingham today, I'm sure he'd be called a cop-killer.