The Sanctuary
Ego => Head Shrinkers => Topic started by: Hex535 on June 12, 2014, 01:46:05 pm
-
To start this off, to get to the point, I am not depressed, I don't hate myself, and bias detected is subsequently present due to the fact that the subject is based off emotion/empathy and what happens when two persons Collide empathetically. This is mainly for point of observation and conjecture.
It's interesting, to me, so see what happens when we are thrown in close quarters and told to work together to make things happen. Whether be it for profit or for comfort, I specifically notice two types of persons when it comes down to what needs to be done.
We can call them A and B to keep it simple.
A can be best described like its letter. Alpha, something or someone with a force more-so prominent than B, less accepting and quicker to push against odds, precautions, and pressures to put themselves ahead constantly and consistently. This recklessness causes a greater chance of success regardless of emotional and personal values, but the risk factor is increased.
B is much more reserved. Things need order before execution, or at least need to be simple and clean. Outside thinking is there, but not on the fly always. Self perseverance of well being and comfort is usually a priority. Less likely to push at something with a low success rate, or something with a higher risk factor. May sit for long periods of time dwelling on a decision before acting, but B would never do something not worth the time.
For the record, there are all sorts more persona types that can be identified, but in mos cases, are a diverse amalgamation of the two above.
Now both types have a very specific Ego, like we all do, and what I tend to notice when one or any from type A (or subcategories) is forced into situations with B, there are unique conflicts based on specific empathy and ideology.
A is more likely to try and push B into a position that will make A more comfortable through persuasions or bribes or even fear. This doesn't always mean A is corrupt, and disregarding core moral standpoint, A is just doing what comes naturally to be ahead.
B, in a reflex, is going to push back, but in a matter of disobedience, or sloth, or even outward anger. The instinct in B is to avoid anything that is a waste of time or resource, and to only do what B considers efficient. Again, Disregarding moral standpoint. This reaction is nothing more than a reflex in response to being pushed.
But trying to disregard moral standpoint all we want, the matter spirals off endlessly due to the variables presented by personal perception and, well, moral bias/standpoint. This is why the above can only be categorized as a conflict of Ego vs. our personal empathy and perception.
The main reason I take notice and try to understand such personal and interpersonal interactions, is so that I may better learn how to control these scenarios in a peaceful manner that will keep me and everyone who I meet comfortable, personable, and pleasant, and my idea for sharing these observations is that so hopefully you might all notice something or learn for personal gain as well.
Thanks for reading
-
Nice post!
-
Good.
So how can we apply this knowledge? Give an example.
-
We can apply this knowledge by first identifying persona via these genotypes and then using their predicted reactions and tells to better and more properly 'handle' them in a peaceable fashion.
TL;DR
We can use this to learn how to 'get along'.
-
this sounds like another deranged excerpt from the DSM.
attempts to quantify something that isnt quantifiable
-
While seemingly random and unpredictable, I think it's possible to quantify human empathy into predictable variables and statistics. We are as finite as our numbers are, and past that means nothing.
-
... and past that means nothing.
correct
as does the DSM
-
what is the DSM? pardon my ignorance.
-
what is the DSM? pardon my ignorance.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders)
It provides a set of guidelines to classify mental disorders. It's not by any means without flaws, but it's the best we have at the moment.
-
Why do we have to describe and diagnose emotions as 'disorders'? I don't understand that.
-
Where did you see that? There are disorders that involve emotional issues such as depression, but emotions themselves aren't disorders.
-
Where did you see that? There are disorders that involve emotional issues such as depression, but emotions themselves aren't disorders.
I think he's talking about the more questionable disorders such as ADD/ADHD.
-
I can't see how that connects with what he asked.
-
I can't see how that connects with what he asked.
I don't know. Hex posts while high as a kite.
-
I just feel like a lot of mental disorders are just misinterpreted emotions.
The definition of a mental disorder is a chemical variance in the mind.
No two minds are chemically equal (with the exception of true genetic twins).
We all have a chemical variance, so therefore, by definition, we all harbor some kind of mental disorder.
This has to do with what I'm talking about in the original post because I don't think me analyzing the way people interact means I need to figure out what is wrong with them, it just means I need to figure out how to adjust my own scope in handling these said genotypes.
And I'm not always high Arnox just 75% of the time. Like right now I'm as straight as an arrow.
-
The definition of a mental disorder is a chemical variance in the mind.
No it isn't.
I'll quote the DSM for a proper definition:
"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."
Basically, it's any pattern of behaviour or thinking that impairs functioning in daily life. Medically speaking, a mental disorder may be caused by a chemical variance in the mind, but that in itself is not a definition. So no, just because there is a chemical variance doesn't mean we all harbor some kind of mental disorder. It is when these reach an abnormal level and cause problems that someone can be said to have a disorder.
There are mental disorders that deal with emotions, namely those classified as mood disorders. And no, these are not misinterpreted emotions. Emotions exist on a gradient, and let's look at the happy-sad one since that's the simplest. I'm sure most would agree that being happy or sad is perfectly normal. It's when these are taken to extremes that they become abnormal. Being so excessively sad that you want to kill yourself would likely be a disorder (depression). On the other hand, being so excessively happy that you decide to try your luck at gambling every last dollar you have would also likely be a disorder (mania). This is a trend found in basically every mental disorder. We all have quirks or tendencies that may be characteristic of certain disorders, but unless these reach extreme levels that disrupt our daily lives, they are not mental disorders. Rather, they are the variations that make each of us unique.
-
Wouldn't abnormal happiness also classify as a delusion?
-
No, delusions are defined as abnormal and irrational thoughts. It could be a positive thought such as believing that you are the Queen of England, but it could also be a negative thought such as believing that there is an assassin hunting you down.