Good article. In Colorado, âmagic mushroomsâ were legalized for medical use in 2022. The state passed legislation allowing for the regulated use of psilocybin for therapeutic purposes under the supervision of licensed facilitators. Ish. The plan is still in the process of being rolled out.
Somehow it conjures up a Monty Python moment in The Meaning of Lifeâwhen the head master is teaching sex education.
Nice. The cultural-ecosocial perspective might not gain traction in the West until after psych professionals learn how to capitalize on it as effectively as they do with the bio-medical model. Making money is the point, after all. They surely havenât missed that point, have they?
Kevin, Iâm thinking we agree that not all behavior thatâs treated or considered as nonconforming should be treated or considered as problematic or even nonconforming in the first place.
Does this seem better?: Although behavior or syndrome X may be regarded as nonconforming by the general public, the general public may not have experienced A, B, and Câwhich are known by a few to underly or cause syndrome X. So whatâs regarded as abnormal by the general public is in reality normal for one who has experienced A, B, and C.
A guy I saw on a video here on MIA might have touched on the idea when he said to his audience, âSymptoms are reactions.â To ensure his point was at least heard, he told the audience to repeat those words with him: âSymptoms are reactions.â
Psych professionals think in terms of symptoms to be treated instead of reactions to be understood. The question of what is being reacted TO is never asked if treating the symptoms (or the illness) is the objective.
While I agree that “Choices are choices,” I think much more often we make decisions (according to our programming) that we often regard as being made by independent free choice. I just think real choice is uncommon, and maybe limited to a certain circumstance, yet they have a lot of impact on future experiences (and decisions).
I have similar thoughts to yours about the utility of voting for a broken system. And about our collective complicity in much of the turmoil we endure. I have more ideas about both. Hit me up if interested. As you might have guessed, I’ve written a bit about each.
We’ve all had to deal with challenges of some kind, but no two set of life challenges are identical. Some of us have more to deal with than others and it’s common for others not to appreciate that. And we can bet whatever it is that hits the fan won’t be equally distributed. Hang in there, you’re not alone.
The idea that our choices are limited to loveless ones might be called “selective determinism”? By that idea, we’re naturally programmed (“determined”) to be loving (cooperative, empathetic, and friendly) but we’re free (to choose) to override our natural programming by being loveless (selfish, oppressive, greedy, etc.).
Our systems promote and to a degree demand lovelessness (e.g., look-out-for-number-one selfishness and greed and obedience to crappy imposed norms). So lovelessness is so ubiquitous to seem “normal.” But maybe it’s not natural.
By this view, people are responsible for their choice to act lovelessly. On the other hand, acting in a loving way is merely following a disposition that’s been favored by evolution (and perhaps driving it?).
So a person doesn’t properly take credit for acting according to natural programming–they’re acting according to the predisposition of nature–but a person IS responsible for loveless choices and the results of their lovelessness (for overriding and acting contrary to nature).
Thanks Tree and Fruit. I hope you like the essay. I mentioned Chomsky and Farrow because they never appear to struggle to express anything, even when discussing complex, intricate topics. I wish I could be so lucid and articulate.
I appreciate your insights. I had to ponder about your comment, because at first I was wondering if the suggestion is that my view on determinism, or my expression of it, comes across as being egocentric, fueled by narcissism, and perhaps in danger of becoming delusional. I’m hoping that’s not the case and I proceed under that assumption. đ
If the point is that self-assuredness can close us off to other viewpoints, I agree.
In that spirit, as I’ve mentioned, I’m merely a firm determinist. But I’m not rigid about it. I have no extra-informed position or inside knowledge on the matter. So intellectual humility keeps me from being too self-assured about it.
At the same time, I think our free will agency is much more limited than I used to think. More than just unknown external influences impacting our reality as a counterpoint to hard determinism, I also see some room for free will’s agency. Though largely determined, I can see where in certain (uncommon) cases or circumstances, a person might make real choices.
Maybe it’s kind of like Colossus’ explanation of “being a hero” in the movie Deadpool: “Four or five moments, thatâs all it takes. To be a hero. Everyone thinks itâs a full-time job. Wake up a hero. Brush your teeth a hero. Go to work a hero. Not true. Over a lifetime, there are only 4 or 5 moments that really matter. Moments when youâre offered a choice. To make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend⌠spare an enemy. In these moments, everything else falls away.â
Once in a while, life might offer certain unique circumstances in which our programming isn’t adequate, circumstances demanding real choice. It’s possible, too, that some people never encounter these circumstances during their lifetimes.
Also, I LIKE to think that we’re naturally programmed to be loving. When we defy that natural programming, we are responsible for those choices. By that idea, we are free to do what we “shouldn’t.”
Although this idea may seem far-fetched, there’s a book out there that’s not far off from it. In âSurvival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering our Common Humanity,â Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods argue that our evolutionary success is largely due to our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and friendliness. This at least loosely aligns with my idea that our natural programming is one of love and connection.
Maybe itâs only when we act in a “loveless” wayâby judging, gossiping, attacking, or oppressing othersâthat we deviate from that innate predisposition. And that’s on us. Yet here we are, governed by loveless systems, wondering what could be wrong. Again, just a few loose thoughts.
Hereâs an article that explores the connection between high ACE scores and substance use. I point it out because I believe the authorâs use of the phrase âsubstance useâ instead of âsubstance abuseâ or âsubstance-use disorderâ is admirable and represents a step in the right direction:
Itâs a social construct produced by imposing expectations of uniformity upon masses of disparate individuals whose only connection is the fabricated, vacuous identity that was imposed upon them, misdefining them as a homogeneous group?
âThe Industrial Revolution made survival possible for people.â This isnât clear to me. How do you know that?
Populations surviving to this day had no part in the Industrial Revolutions, and drew no benefit from them. These people donât participate in the economy, either. So apparently neither does money âmake it possibleâ to survive.
Really good. âOf course, therapy alone isnât enough. Economic and political changes are also crucial.â Crucial. These are huge, pervasive systems in need of fundamental change (or replacement), but itâs nevertheless crucial that they fundamentally change (or get replaced). Otherwise, we can expect more of the same.
Birdsong, Iâm not sure youâre open to my idea of natural behavior. But Iâll share it anyway:
To me, natural human behavior refers to the ways humans lived for most of historyâsmall-groups, self-sufficiency, and rhythms aligned with nature. The Industrial Revolutions disrupted this, replacing organic social and survival patterns with mechanized labor, rigid schedules, and systemic dependence, forcing people into unnatural ways of living.
It seems to me people were living more naturally in America before colonialism, for example. Colonists escaping an undesirable way of life resulting from the Eurasian history of concentrated political and economic power of conquerors and kings brought that way of life with them. That way of life wasnât natural to the indigenous people of the Americas. Itâs like they brought with them a virus that infected the Americas.
People all over the world behaved differently (and more naturally) before their lives became monetized and ruled by imposed authority. Progress would have been made over the last couple of hundred years without moneyâmaybe progress at a more responsible pace and with more respect for nature (instead of according to the accelerated pace and disregard for nature fostered by industrial competition and codified greed).
Nature does produce âfreaksâ like Nic Tesla, who did wonderful things to advance humanity for the sake of helping humanity and not really to make money from, or get rich from, his contributions. Having said that, the world sure could have treated him better considering what he did for our understanding of electricity. But others were too busy capitalizing on his ideas.
Children in many developing countries are forced to work in landfills and garbage dumps to survive, searching for recyclable materials or items of value.
Children and families scavenged Manilaâs infamous landfill for decades, sorting through toxic waste for plastic, glass, and metal to sell. Despite official closure, scavenging continues in other dump sites like Payatas.
In Nicaragua, children in Managuaâs La Chureca worked daily in hazardous conditions, exposed to toxic fumes and disease, collecting recyclables for pennies.
In Bangladeshâs capital, thousands of children work in garbage dumps, sifting through medical waste, rotting food, and industrial scraps for saleable items. They face extreme health risks, including infections and respiratory issues.
In Mumbai, IndiaâDharavi, one of Asiaâs largest slumsâhas an informal recycling economy where children collect, clean, and sort waste materials from the cityâs garbage, often inhaling harmful chemicals and working without safety measures.
There are of course more examples.
These children often work in extreme heat, without protective gear, and face physical dangers, exploitation, and health hazards. Many organizations attempt to intervene, but poverty and systemic inequality keep the cycle going.
Though commonly externalized, is this a natural environment encouraging natural behavior and development?
I happen to be a conscientious smoker. I donât like smelling like smoke or making others breathe it. Lately, Iâve taken to smoking tobacco through one-hit pipes or water pipes. Cigarettes got to be too much tobacco for me, to where I could only smoke half of one anyway. So Iâm slowing down on smoking (tobacco), too. Except when Iâm driving, it seems.
When it comes to cannabis, though, I donât smoke it any more. I donât smoke it any LESS, but I donât smoke it any MORE.
I wouldnât need to either smoke in your presence.
I have an idea of how change starting quietly, on a small scale, from sound foundations, could expand to change the world in a larger sense. Itâs just an idea, but a pretty well developed one.
Hereâs a link to an essay about the idea if youâre interested:
Agreed. That might be like telling people to get off the drugs/substances that work for them until psychiatry can confirm the root cause of their distress and provide effective solutions eliminating those root causes.
Wow. Iâm sorry! Amazing, the power of bald accusations and those who act like each one must be true.
In Colorado, a young black manâElijah McClainâwas walking down the street carrying a plastic bag containing bottles of iced tea or something like that. He was wearing a hoody and a mask.
Apparently his appearance was threatening to a neighbor. The threatened party called police. First responders responded like yours did. They assumed the validity of the complaint and apprehended Elijah like he was a criminal.
They ended up injecting him with a lethal dose of Ketamine because he dared to resist authorities apprehending him for walking down the street, minding his own business, causing no harm.
God DAMN it.
Of course, they conducted investigations and held trials and doled out âjustice.â Oddly enough, with all of the finger-pointing and accusations of guilt and cause, the person who instigated the whole incidentâthe person who alerted the authorities to a threat, to which they responded as a threatâwas never considered culpable.
Iâm hopeful that the threatened party learned something, despite not being part of the response team that faced âjusticeâ for what happened. Sounds like your oppressor escaped culpability, too.
Can we blame people for wanting to change an unjust world? Although itâs common to just get by satisfied with the little freedoms we are left with, and kicking our bigger, inherited problems down the road, isnât MIAâs mission to change the world via social justice?
I guess the world will never be changed by people who see nothing wrong with it, or for whom it isnât wrong enough to change, or who think it canât be changed.
It could be that the world will be unjust until our dysfunctional, unsustainable status quo eliminates us from natureâbecause we couldnât change our ways.
Someone who expends energy working changes something about the world. On the other hand, when done working out, the weights are put back where they were found.
While both could be viewed as being productive from an exercise viewpoint, the former accomplishes something (âproductiveâ) that the latter doesnât.
Although I agree that if using a drug (or withdrawing from it) is demonstrated to cause violent episodes, itâs problematic and should be addressed. But I donât think we are getting to any root causes in doing so.
Point taken. However, I didnât mention depression. So okay, mass shooters are likely not depressed. It could be some other issues, or a combination of them, and not depression that drives their behavior.
That some mass shooters are on psych meds shouldnât be surprising. That some on psych drugs engage in mass shootings, then the root cause must be the drugs? Or a poor reaction to the drugs?
If some hadnât endured frequent or severe ACEs, they wouldnât have been on psych drugs in the first place. And they wouldnât have been prone to violence.
So it could be that some people with high ACEs donât react well to certain psych meds. It could be that these drugs arenât effective in providing relief.
How does the correlation responsibly imply causation?
Nice. â When the subject matter is human mental life, it might be better to live with conceptual confusion than obtaining consensus on a misguided foundation.â
This seems true for several social sciences that apply the apparatus of natural science to human constructs, portraying the results as being scientific or objective, despite (in my view) arising from misguided foundations.
Economics, for instance, doesnât explain natural human behaviorâit explains how people act within a monetary system, rationalizing economic control. Political science does the same, describing how people behave under governance but treating power structures as inevitable rather than artificial. Before colonization, many societies functioned without money or centralized authority, yet these disciplines frame such systems as fundamental.
Economics rests on the value of moneyâa human invention whose worth is not derived from natural laws but from social convention. Money has value because people collectively believe it does; it is taught and internalized alongside natural phenomena, yet it is treated as though it holds intrinsic worth.
Economics doesnât explain how humans naturally behaveâit explains how people conditioned to function within a monetary system behave. It describes the predictable ways in which those who accept the premise of money act, but it does not account for human life beyond that construct.
Uncontacted tribes in the Amazon, for instance, do not mint currency, yet they continue to survive just as effectively without it. Similarly, before European colonization, the indigenous peoples of North America operated without money in the way the âcivilizedâ world understands it. In this sense, economics does not merely describe financial behaviorâit arguably serves to rationalize systems of economic control.
Political science follows a similar pattern. It does not reveal how humans naturally behave but rather how they act within systems of governance, power, and lawâsystems created and enforced by other humans. Political science describes how individuals rise to power, how laws are structured, and how people behave under these conditions. Yet like economics, it frames these artificial structures as though they are fundamental aspects of human existence. In reality, they are traditions inherited from monarchs and conquerors.
Before the arrival of European colonists, many indigenous societies in North America operated without centralized authority in the form of kings, rulers, or states. Political science doesnât describe human natureâit describes how âgovernedâ people behave within hierarchical power structures. And, like economics, it arguably serves to rationalize oppression by portraying these structures as necessary or inevitable rather than contingent.
By treating these constructs as scientific realities, we risk mistaking social conditioning for what some assert is human nature.
Could the same adverse childhood experiences and conditions under which mass shooters grow up, eventually leading to distress and SSRI prescriptions, be what drives their behavior (and thus the correlation)?
Many mass shooters share common childhood experiences that suggest early adversity plays a significant role in their later violence. Some of the most frequently observed childhood conditions include:
Family Instability â Many mass shooters come from homes affected by divorce, separation, domestic violence, or neglect. Frequent upheavals and inconsistent parenting can contribute to emotional dysregulation.
Social Rejection & Bullying â Many perpetrators report being bullied, ostracized, or socially isolated during childhood and adolescence. Some were physically bullied, while others experienced chronic rejection or humiliation, leading to deep-seated resentment.
Frequent Moves & Disruptions â Some shooters had unstable living situations, including frequent relocations due to parental divorce, economic struggles, or military family dynamics. This can disrupt a child’s ability to form stable friendships and deepen social isolation.
Exposure to Abuse or Neglect â A history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse is common among some perpetrators, leading to long-term psychological scars, distrust, and anger.
Lack of Meaningful Social Bonds â Many mass shooters lacked close friendships, mentorship, or strong community support, leading to a growing sense of alienation and grievance.
Mental Health Struggles & Psychiatric Medication â Many shooters had diagnosed mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, schizophrenia) and were often prescribed SSRIs or other psychiatric medications. However, rather than the medications themselves causing violence, it could be that the underlying conditions requiring medicationâsuch as trauma, neglect, or social alienationâare potent drivers of distress.
In short, while SSRIs may be present in these cases, the deeper issue could be the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that led to mental distress in the first place.
These early hardships can distort brain development, foster resentment, and set the stage for later depression, anxiety, and violenceâespecially when combined with social isolation, humiliation, and access to weapons.
Nicely said. âFixingâ those distressed by this toxic world is like fitting canaries in a coal mine with oxygen masks. We might be better off vacating the toxic hole weâre in.
I see your point about money simplifying exchange in a complex world but I think that very simplification is part of the problem. And yes, Iâm familiar with what money is and what itâs used for.
Despite that, and all the âgoodâ it does, its negative impacts quietly outweigh its benefits. Money reduces all value to an artificial common denominator, often prioritizing profit over human and ecological well-being. It commodifies everything including human life.
The complexity of our interconnected systems might make it seem like money is necessary, but that doesn’t mean it was the right foundation to begin with. Itâs led to quite a complicated mess. What if we restructured society around direct contribution and shared resources rather than wealth and transactional exchange?
I also question the assumption that individual self-interest naturally leads to collective good. At the personal level, it often leads to short-term profit-seeking at the expense of others. But if we applied this idea at the community levelâwhere people share resources, responsibilities, and long-term interestsâthen looking out for oneâs own group might actually result in broader benefits.
Money isnât just a tool for simplifying exchangeâitâs an instrument of control. Not control designed for fairness or stability, but control that benefits the most self-interested. Those who accumulate the most wealth donât do so by contributing the most but by leveraging moneyâs ability to create dependency and inequality. If bartering seems unrealistic today, itâs because weâve built a system that ensures nothing can function without moneyâwhich only strengthens the grip of those at the top.
Had fair trade not been upended by the Industrial Revolution, money and profit, other effective, sophisticated methods of trade likely would have evolved.
In a world where money buys groceries and pays rent, and people are looking out for number one competing in a rat race to make money, having no money can underly feelings of personal inadequacy.
Maybe a guy who has trouble finding or holding a job (a common outcome for those with high ACE scores), would be better offâmore satisfied in lifeâhomesteading (by himself or with some loved ones). But the opportunity to homestead is reserved for those with enough money to buy land.
Maybe for some who live on the streets itâs the poverty, homelessness, and poor diet at the cause of the feelings of personal inadequacyâor itâs the drugsâbut that would ignore these results as being produced by a system empowering and codifying selfishness as the way it is, a system that produces these very results.
To say they cause their own povertyâitâs the result of their poor personal choicesâis to ignore the system(s) producing these results. Itâs classic: blame the individual for systemic results. Sure, poverty exists under all of todayâs political and economic systems all over the world. But notice all of these are systems of concentrated power relying on money to operate.
As an old saying goes (Cree?): When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is poisoned, only then will we realize we canât eat money.
Nice. Incidentally, I donât think you will find many creatures in nature that canât swim. Humans appear to be unique in their ability to become panicked and drown. Our capacity to freak ourselves out is unparalleled.
Thanks. I agree with you that âultimately each of us can only be responsible for our *own* choices,â but we live in a reality where our so many choices have already been systematically made for us.
Then, after a day devoid of healthful exercise working, itâs off to the gym to work out to get exercise, the results of whichâother than the personal health benefit and social experience âis unproductive. The results of âworking outâ arenât beneficial to the community or the world. The results are left there in the gym, while no evidence of work being done is left behind. The world is unchanged by this work and so in a sense it was work wasted.
Some people who have never done a dayâs work in their lives complain that others who do the physical, exercise-imbuing work needed for their cushy survivalâthe very work they have been systematically insulated from, the work they have spent a lifetime avoidingâjust donât want to work anymore, or enough, or hard enough to produce their necessities or to make them money. Is that âironyâ?
Our systems rewarding âhard workâ to earn money reward lots of people with sedentary, sometimes high-paid jobs. Work requiring exerciseâwork that results in food to eat and homes to live inâthatâs for someone else.
Those someone elses work so hard and long doing the physical labor left to them, they develop occupational illnesses and disabilities and injuries.
So some get flabby and depressed from getting too little exercise, while others get unfairly overworked while often being underpaid. Systematically. What could be wrong? Smells oppressive.
And some who do sedentary âworkâ wonder why others who bust their asses every day at work just donât want to work any more.
Or, while mommy and daddy are busy making enough money to make ends meet, outsourcing the raising of their children to day care providersâmissing out on life while earning a livingâtheyâre enduring a daily grind where they have little agency. When they get home, they might not be the same people they would be had they spent the day doing work that was self-directed, more fulfilling, meaningful work directly benefitting them and their community.
Consider any hierarchical system of concentrated power. The US political system of representative democracy, for example. While there is nothing wrong with democracy, itâs a matter of scale. The representative aspect of our representative democracy still elevates a few who vote on the rules for others, dictating how it is and will be for others, for people they have never met let alone understand well enough to represent them.
In a gymnasium democracy, those voting on the rules know each other and are making rules they themselves debate, rules made for themselvesâthe same people who will experience the consequences of their rules.
Here, the individual has agency in making the rules governing them. In a representative arrangement, their voice is reduced to filling out an oval on a ballot. They are represented merely to the degree that their world view and life experience aligns with one of the two parties who will make the rules.
Does that work for you?
Thanks, Maureen. There was a time when what made a potential mate attractive were abilities and skills to provide in a more natural environment. The ability to grow crops, make clothes, build shelter, etc.
What is attractive in todayâs world is the ability to make money. Itâs not uncommon for people to marry for money. Does that impact natural selection and evolution?
There may come a day, after the high-tech world comes crashing down, that this variety of skills will again be the important ones.
There are countless ways money and economic pressures shape our relationships, often in ways we donât even realize. Friendships and family bonds can be strained when financial disparities create unspoken tensionsâlike when one person canât afford to join in on expensive outings or vacations, and others interpret their absence as disinterest.
Romantic relationships, too, are often influenced by financial concerns, whether it’s the stress of shared debt, differences in spending habits, or the pressure to âprovideâ in a way that aligns with traditional economic roles. Can you afford to date?
Even the simple act of choosing a career can mean sacrificing time with loved ones because our worth is so often tied to productivity rather than connection.
Beyond the personal level, social interactions are shaped by economic status in subtle but powerful ways. People tend to form relationships within their economic class, and those outside of it may feel like they donât belong.
Have you ever noticed how conversations change depending on who can afford what? Or how financial security can mean the difference between being seen as âresponsibleâ or âstruggling,â even when work ethic and effort are the same.
If human nature would consist of a trait/feature/something that is common to all human beings, it would be hard to identify. But is it true that everyone who lives wants to be satisfied in life?
But to be fair, honest, and serious for a moment, I believe “diagnoses” should be focused on (if not limited to) the systems and systemic dysfunction. BAD systems. A person afflicted with BAD isn’t a valid target, for example. It’s not that person’s fault for being afflicted with BAD (even if fictitious). Whoever it is you may not like, or consider BAD, it’s not that person’s “fault” for being that person.
Our systems put a few people in power. That concentrated power doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it came from somewhere–namely, the individuals from which it is usurped in order to concentrate it.
Politically, when someone we disagree with wins an election and wields the force of concentrated power, it causes distress in some more than others. The power taken from us is not being used as we would like.
But we must accept that our systems produce the results they produce. Every system is perfectly designed for its outputs. Our systems are designed so a single person is given great power over hundreds of millions. Any person who can win an election.
Yet at the same time we know every person makes mistakes. Empowered by the machinery of our political system a single person’s mistakes can have not only industrial and national impact, but global consequences–some impacting the future in indelible ways. Classic design mistake. Miserable, but classic.
Youâre quite right, Fukitol has been around for a while, but it failed to gain FDA approval back in the 80s. It, too, caused anal leaking. Arguments that postmortem anal leaking is irrelevant were overridden. It was considered undignified.
So it couldnât be marketed in the US. Everyone knows that only good, safe, effective drugs gain FDA approval.
But now, given recent political events and realities, Fukitol has been slightly reformulated and theyâre taking it through trials under its new name: Myendall. But itâs basically Fukitol (without the postmortem anal leaking).
If only they had a drug to treat the oral anal leaking so commonly observed when those afflicted with BAD find themselves in positions of power. âJustshutthefukupitall?â
Oh no–not BAD! That’s serious! I’m unaware of any cure for it. I’m not not sure there’s even a treatment beyond basic humility immersion therapy, which isn’t currently approved for use in the US.
The good news is that FDA trials are now underway to test a new medication for the rest of us to deal with the potential of a BAD/CAD convergence crisis. I think it’s called Fukitol. It’s on a fast track and with any luck, there will be 330 million doses available by year’s end.
While I agree with your focus on those in a person’s orbit, especially those at home, and especially those at home during childhood development, I don’t think the ROOT cause is found there. It’s more of an immediate cause because this cause didn’t arise in a vacuum. This cause itself is not without a cause.
To say that the cause begins and ends with those in a person’s orbit is to now treat the person’s orbit as the root cause. But the people in a person’s orbit have lives and values and beliefs impacted by their own orbits and by the communities they live in.
But to assert that the community is the root cause is to now treat the community in a vacuum. The community’s way of life and social norms and values and beliefs are greatly impacted by local, state, national, and now global governing systems and social norms (political, economic, social, and religious).
It may be inconvenient or uncomfortable to accept where the causal chain leads, but it appears to firmly terminate in the very systems we rely upon to provide order and protection. What caused the systems? The arrogant ignorance, selfishness, greed, and egos of the men who established them, perhaps?
Although these men are long gone, their systems codifying selfishness and greed as our drivers of ambition remain. The people these systems control are often better than the systems controlling them. That can cause duress.
These systems are dysfunctional and poorly designed. Individual distress is often a reaction to, at some level, these systemic dysfunctions. Although the cascading dysfunction may arrive in the behavior of those in a distressed person’s orbit, those in his orbit are not the root cause of the dysfunction. These are systemic results. Our systems are to blame.
I wonder if this topic could serve as fodder for a fun podcast for MIA (or a segment of the existing weekly podcast?). Call it “Diagnosing Disorder.” But here’s the twist: it’s dedicated to the “disorder of diagnosing,” as opposed to the “diagnosing of disorder.” Endless possibilities of “disorders” to humorously “diagnose.” So long as systemic causes are ignored, it could be fun for a long time–just like in real life (snark).
I concur with your diagnosis, Doctor, it very well could be the progressive stage of advanced “primitive accumulation disorder,” which if left undiagnosed and untreated for hundreds of years can easily advance to the end-stage “Capital accumulation disorder” we see today. Sadly, the outlook is poor. It’s ever so difficult to come back from end-stage CAD. I’m not sure they have the right drugs for that yet. But we can sure try lots of solutions.
However, my esteemed colleague suggests perhaps it’s a distant cousin to “Industrial Disease” (Dire Straights):
“He wrote me a prescription, he said, ‘You are depressed
But I’m glad you came to see me to get this off your chest
Come back and see me later, next patient, please
Send in another victim of industrial disease'”
Personally, I suspect “Selfish Ego Syndrome” may also be an underlying cause, empowered by the related “Selfish System Disorder” coupled with a touch of “Loveless System Confusion.” All of these manifest as a maniacal lust for concentrated power, so delineating precisely which it is will take decades of research. Certainly more studies are needed.
You’re absolutely right that war over revenge, resources, and land has existed for as long as humanity has. Is that to say it must always be that way? The industrial revolutionâand more importantly, the rise of modern financial systemsâsupercharged these conflicts. Take, for example, the Dutch East India Company and the birth of the modern stock market. Before its creation, a merchant who lost a ship to storms or piracy could be financially ruined. The stock market solved this “problem” by allowing investors to spread their risk across multiple ships, ensuring profits even if some ships were lost.
But what about the sailors who went down with those ships? What about the people in colonized lands who suffered at the hands of these ventures? The system didn’t care. Collateral damage. They were paid in money, and that was supposed to be enough. This shift in thinkingâwhere human lives became mere line items in a ledgerâwas a defining moment in the evolution of capitalism. It wasnât just about securing resources anymore; it wasn’t about fair trade; it was about optimizing profit, no matter the human cost.
I agree that our systems leave us politicizing too much. But thatâs a (dys)function of our political systemâs impact on personal decisions and lives.
Iâm not suggesting that I can change human nature. But the environment we create can and has âchangedâ or impacted the course of, human development. Humanity could be smarter about how to develop systems that work with nature, including human nature, instead of harnessing the worst parts of human nature, thereby trashing the natural environment of the world, as well as the environment in which humans develop and live.
Or are we thinking that our systems of exploitation and oppression are good for nature?
Is it human nature to leave a campsite trashed? Wouldnât an affirmative answer suggest then that, being part of human nature, all humans trash campsitesâwhich isnât true?
We need to take control away from the campsite trashers, or trashed campsites will become (have become?) the norm under which we live and develop.
It seems to me human-imposed systems of control and motivation have upended natureâs systems of control and motivation. A person now works to accumulate human tokensâmoneyâas opposed to natural rewards we really needâfood, shelter, community, etc. one could claim that this unnatural development is what nature somehow âintendedâ but I would disagree. Money doesnât grow on trees.
If this was destined to happen by natureâs design, then it seems equally determined that humanity will either learn better from it and change or else perish as a species because they didnât.
Our human-made systems are unsustainable. To survive, we need to learn sustainability from nature, not from the economy we created. Itâs natural sustainability that we need, not economic âsustainability.â
By our current systems, when half of the population wants x and the other half wants not x (a binary solution nobody might really want, incidentally), the âbestâ solution is to compromise. Itâs led to another sense of âcompromised realityâ (aside from the idea in the blog).
For the sake of unity, we get middle-of-the-road solutions. Nobody learns the result from taking either tine of the fork in the road, so we donât know the consequences we may have learned from. We learn only the results of a compromise, the results of nobody getting their way.
A brilliant man named David Michehl once likened the accumulated result of this arrangement to smearing a thick layer of Velveeta cheese across the whole country and calling it national freedom. A really good analogy.
Rather than compromising, we might be better off breaking into smaller cooperative units, each living as they see fit. This might be preferable to fighting with our next door neighbors about how it should be for all of us, knowing full well that reasonable people can disagree about how it should be.
By allowing autonomy to flocks of a feather, we can learn something from our diversity, grow, and allow evolution to get a foothold.
Forgive me if I seem overexcited about this (and related) topics. Given whatâs at stake, I feel like people are too often underexcited about it. If I go too far, I apologize.
Is there something wrong with hundreds of millions of people–even if tasked with national unity–who are unable to agree on something (or anything)? Or, might there be something wrong with governing systems asserting or expecting that hundreds of millions of individuals could be or should be (or are) unified in agreement about something (or anything)?
Knowing that all humans make mistakes, it seems forms of government elevating single human beings to positions of concentrated power allows individual human mistakes to have national, even global impact. Maybe itâs time for these types of government to go so something better can come?
When we hear politicians speak of what the âAmerican peopleâ want (or what the people of âthe great state of xâ want), for example, doesnât this terminology itself imply that the individuals composing their constituencies want the same thing (and should, to some degree, think the same way and share the same values)? Are the assumptions underlying this concept of unity and the resulting constructs and terminology valid?
I think people who think alike should live together and suffer or celebrate the consequences. Birds of a feather naturally flock together. Iâm not trying to tell anyone what to think beyond encouraging the means by which they can think for themselves. And allow evolution to resume its natural course.
I think a cognitive dissonance arises anytime a person struggles between doing what’s right according to their internal sensibilities and doing what’s right according to expectations or dictates imposed by dysfunctional systems. Instead of doing what one would naturally decide to do, we end up doing whatever makes or saves the most money. Or whatever gets us ahead in a rat race. Or we’re left “just following orders.” Some are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the dysfunction that they perceive no conflict at all.
It’s painful for one aware of a moral conflict between what’s really right on one hand, and what’s considered right according to our dysfunctional systems on the other, to abandon what’s really right in favor of doing whatever the dysfunction demands. “It’s just the way it is.” By succumbing to the dysfunction, we might think we’re doing what we should for conformity’s sake, accepting the mental anguish of being forced to do what we otherwise wouldn’t.
But in the long run, I think we’d do better to avoid that anguish (individually and societally) by addressing the dysfunction under which the conflict arises. Wouldn’t it be great if doing the right thing was the common expectation, and always the right thing to do?
If so, George Carlin seems correct in saying that humanity is merely an evolutionary âcul-de-sac.â As he said it: âWeâre going away. Pack your shit, folks. Weâre going away.â
Maybe if the better parts of human nature arenât strong enough to stand up against the machinery of todayâs governing systemsâsystems none of us here today envisioned or establishedâweâre destined to perish as a race of selfish, loveless brats helplessly following a tradition of selfishness.
Maybe itâs by natureâs design that a race of selfish, loveless brats extinguishes itself? Maybe the universe has a way of cleansing itself of âbad actorsâ?
As Deming said, âLearning isnât compulsory, neither is survival.â
It seems to me human nature is /has been being âremadeâ by the environment weâve established for ourselvesâan increasingly loveless environment driven by the pursuit of profit. This loveless, profit-driven environment of human creation now represent the conditions under which humanity evolves, the conditions to which humans adapt, the conditions shaping individual and societal behavior and development.
Is profit a natural motivation or a natural evolutionary force? Selfishness might be part of human nature, but our systems reward it and encourage it to where the profit motive is our collective driver. A different driver could have been chosen, one recognizing and harnessing a better part of human nature.
We are evolving to adapt to a world in which the profit motive is a shaper and influencer of human behavior and development. Would we be different if systemically motivated by something other than the selfishness of the profit motif? Are we sure this is somehow destined to be our evolutionary path?
Thanks for the comment. Iâm pretty sure âleadersâ who establish systems of governance to order the massesâbe they political, economic, social, religious, or whateverâgreatly overestimate their ability to do so, while their will to do so should be challenged and explored. If their intent is to elevate themselves, then theyâve done wonderfully. If their intent was to elevate others/everyone else, theyâve failed miserably.
Itâs now too late to ask them: âWhere do you get this idea that individuals should be controlled as masses?â âAnd how do you arrive at the conclusion that you know best how the masses should be governed?â âDoes the idea of governing others make you feel important and powerful?â
Absent any challenges and empowered by the complicity of those similarly bitten, they succeed in establishing the machinery of control while never fully grasping the dehumanizing consequences.
Once established, these systems persist because who wants to change the rules of a game they perceive themselves to be winning? By design, a few will rise to the top and see nothing wrong, of course, with the system that delivered them to their âwell-deservedâ artificially elevated positions. Some might then give to the poorâpeople who are systemically reduced to poverty by the same system that systemically elevates a few; using their power and influence to actually change the system by which so many are needy doesnât even occur to them. From their perspective, the system is working perfectly.
Mmm . . . concentrated powerâjust add ego.
Anyway,I havenât read those books. Maybe someday, thanks.
An odd thing about suicide: after a loved one is gone, somebody will cry, âI would have done ANYTHING!â Yet all the while the person was alive, given the chance, they didnâtâat least not enough âanythingâ to be useful to the person who checked out. If they had been willing to do âanythingâ while their loved one was alive, their loved one might be alive.
âAnythingâ might have entailed abandoning the status quo by which the person was so hurt and mistreated that life was no longer worth living (as opposed to embodying that status quo and effectively siding with the oppressors). It might have meant giving the person shelter from the storm instead of being another clap of thunder.
âAnythingâ might have entailed understanding how things happen in order, even if the order of events so distressing their loved one to suicide werenât clear to anyone other than the distressed person (which might have been part of the problem). It might have meant active listening and empathizing, as opposed to listening for signs of mental illness and considering how best to respond to that illness.
âAnythingâ might have entailed treating the person like a human being instead of like collateral damage resulting from a loveless, dysfunctional way of life.
âAnythingâ might have entailed showing the person some good love instead of tough love or love that ends in distant best wishes, thoughts, prayers, or apologies. Or pleas to get professional âhelp.â
The best help would have arrived in the form of good love from those in the personâs orbit. But the best they might have mustered was a reserved, theory-laden, superficial love while awaiting the person to be âhealedâ by modern psych professionals.
I donât disagree with you, but Iâm glad MIA is here to give a voice to those whose voices are often dismissed. MIA arose in response to a misguided psychiatric industry, which itself arose in support of a dysfunctional way of life. So, MIAâs existence could be viewed as a reaction to a mad status quo. Iâm grateful for and supportive of this response. It was bound to happen.
While I agree with MIAâs anti-pharmaceutical stance and the rejection of the current biomedical view of âmental illnessâ held by the psychiatric professions, I still get the sense that the drug war is being fought here.
I donât think drugs are the ultimate answerâliving right is (something our governing systems effectively prohibit). What some call substance use disorder, however, I donât believe is a disorder. Itâs a result, a reaction, a response.
Until better societal circumstances arise, I see nothing wrong with a natural reaction to finding comfort and satisfaction in natureâs medicine cabinet. ACE research suggests that this is a natural response in those with significant ACE scores. Those seeking remedy from nature shouldnât be punished for it. Some of us with significant ACE scores donât need scientific studies explicating precisely how marijuana reacts with the brain to produce relief and comfort to knowâfirst handâthat it does just that. For some perhaps more than others (perhaps due to differing brain structures and functionalities we donât understand). At the same time, I donât see anything wrong with people dabbling in natureâs medicine cabinet for recreational purposes, either. Many of natureâs creatures like to get high. Is nature wrong for not conforming to human ideas of how nature should be?
I believe there are good reasons for this reaction, and itâs not something to be pathologized or criminalized by those who donât understand it. That itâs a problem due to our way of life isnât the fault of those seeking relief and comfort in life. Pathologizing and criminalizing marijuana use, for example, is essentially ignorantly and self-righteously condemning nature. Passing judgment without knowing seems like evidence of a taste for judging what is not understood. I wish people would stop doing that. To me, marijuana is as much a gift from nature to those who benefit from it as is saw palmetto.
âSituational Suicide Prevention is an approach that acknowledges the predominant association of situational distress* rather than mental illness, with suicide (though in some cases the two are linked), and is principally informed by and responds to risk factors of a broad spectrum of difficult human experiences across the life span. This approach is also mindful of and wherever possible seeks to address: contextual, systemic, and socio-cultural risk and protective factors and determinantsâthe real world of individuals lived experience.â This seems useful, recognizing a situational cause born from external influences that results in distress rather than saddling a distressed person with a label.
âWatch your languageâ isnât merely an admonition for using profanity.
About being unemployed or underemployed driving distress, obviously so–worthless to the world.
I recently had a psychiatry group reach out after reading one of my published blogs, dangling the possibility of paid work. Not having two nickels to rub together, I was really hopeful. I sent them several essays. When they finally responded, their “offer” was for me to write about how their patient-centric approach to suicide is 76% effectiveâessentially a promotional piece. It was like decoding an ad just to realize it said, “Drink more Ovaltine.”
Unemployment isnât just about money in this monetary world. Itâs about dignity, purpose, and feeling like you matter. When you’re already struggling, being led on like thisâhaving your skills and contributions acknowledged but not valuedâjust adds another straw to the camelâs back. Is it any wonder that unemployment fuels distress and suicidal ideation?
Really good. “Structural competency (SC) points to systemic issues as the causes of illnesses and health disparities.” I hope this way of thinking gains more traction, because it’s important. Our systems of governance (political, economic, social, and religious) are dangerously dysfunctional on each their own; their combination is a recipe for disaster and we’re cooking up quite a storm.
It seems the parasitic part isnât unique to this transactional relationship, where a service is performed (or work is done) for monetary compensation.
Under capitalism, weâre left deciding HOW we are going to be parasitic, not IF. Ride othersâ backs to âsuccessâ? Capitalize on their illnesses, needs, beliefs, or legal troubles? Itâs âjust the way it is.â
Although those working in the trenches may not be as motivated by profit, they often work for someone who is (âsomeone who might view them as parasites).
While Iâm not disagreeing with you, why pick on therapists?
Really good. The links to other blogs made for more good reading, too. Thanks very much!
â. . . national surveys often reveal lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders among Black populations.â And later, â Black men were disproportionately affected by substance-use disorders . . .â
If a population with lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders is the same population using substances, might it be appropriate to consider if their substance use is something other than a âdisorderâ? Is it despite the substance use that they have lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders? Or might substance use be part of why some have lower rates? Should we know these kinds of things before incarcerating people for substance use?
Sorry, Hope. Our way life has disempowered what should be most powerful: community. Communities are often reduced to being collections of people looking out for number one living in close proximity. Or, community is increasingly becoming a group aligned by some commonality even if separated by distance, e.g., the LGBTQ community.
Wouldnât it be nice if those living in close proximity were aligned in a commonality beyond looking out for number one?
â. . . that they need a âprofessionalâ to sort out their life . . .â
So true: outsource everything to the experts, specialists in providing the care those in a distressed personâs orbit canât (due in no small part to their convictions in a concept of âmental illnessâ they keep chasing, promoted byâwho elseâspecialists in treating mental illness).
The âlistening cureââI like that. Might adding âactiveâ to it help?
Nice. I really like this one: âSeeing racism as primarily rooted in individuals points us toward solutions that only focus on individuals rather than addressing the broader structural changes that are needed.â This seems so true, and not just in the context of racism. Not to diminish racial struggle, but it seems to me that if the word âracismâ were replaced with âdepressionâ or âanxietyâ or a host of other âmental disorders,â the sentence still carries truth
Ryan, a Google search yielded some results: âResearch studies indicate that gossip can have both negative and positive impacts, with the key factor being the nature of the information shared.â
Further poking around would probably yield some formal research.
Maybe these studies make the impacts more tangible or real to some by the application of scientific apparatus?
âCapitalism thus continues to gain ground at the expense of humanity and nature, while individuals are trained to adapt to it rather than to transform it.â âReally good.
Before colonization in North America and the British Enclosure Movement, people often lived in small villages and tribes. While some tribes and societies were violent, many were not. These communities developed complex alliances and social structures that balanced individual needs with collective well-being. Itâs impossible to know exactly what these systems might have evolved into without the disruptions of industrial revolutions, colonization, and the commodification of land and labor.
The idea isnât to ignore humanityâs capacity for conflict or ambition but to explore whether decentralized, cooperative systems might provide a better foundation for addressing our challenges today. Modern history shows us that centralized systems often create the very inequalities and conflicts they claim to solve.
Iâm not advocating for a naive return to an idealized past. Instead, I suggest we ask what lessons can be learned from how humans lived before industrialization, especially in terms of sustainability, community cohesion, and interdependence. Itâs about blending the best of our past with innovative solutions for the future.
There is research suggesting that living closer to the Earth is good for us, even therapeutic. Iâve seen blogs here on MIA that make that point.
I understand the skepticism, and I share it when solutions are oversimplified. However, the idea of smaller, cooperative communities isnât about suppressing individuality or denying history. Itâs about reimagining systems that align better with human nature and our planetâs limits.
Whatâs really idealistic, it seems to me, is to think the systems that produce the unacceptable results we observe today will somehow produce better or different results than they do.
â . . .because they wouldnt recognise or believe the trauma id been through.â
In thinking about your comment, I donât know which is worse: when impactful lived experience is dismissed as irrelevant by someone who âknows betterâ (expert and arm-chair psychologists alike), or dismissed as being part of the âdiagnosed condition or illnessâ (and therefore seen as a perception/hallucination problem) or when itâs dismissed as being an âexcuse.â
Yikes! Sorry for that. Sibling dynamics can be very impactful for sure. As more focus becomes placed on the social and systemic origins of mental distress, more awareness of how those in a troubled personâs orbit regard, treat, and talk about that person may become more relevant to understanding a personâs distress.
Even factors like birth order and the associated power dynamics could take on new relevance.
âAs it is now psychiatrists easily destroy a personâs reputation and/or life with lies and defamation but are never held to account because the patient is deemed to âlack insightâ and to have no credibility.â
Well said. The same phenomenon happens with people in a personâs orbit, which can be devastating. Gossips and arm-chair psychologists can ruin a personâs life, too, with lies, over-simplified half-truths, and defamation. And theyâre never held to account either. The target of gossip doesnât know who said what behind their back and doesnât get the chance to offer another perspective before the gossips are already behaving as if the gossip they heard through the grapevine carries the whole truth.
By the time the target can find someone to understand more of the story, itâs too late. Minds are made up.
As life is a social experience, when a personâs orbit consists entirely of people who treat them like someone they are not, it can really drive some powerful mental distress.
Then itâs off to see âprofessional helpâ which might be basically more of the same, coming from the same mindset.
Iâm glad you found something in it, thanks for commenting. Sabrinaâs comment seems to align with yours when she said: â Forget about being taken seriously if they see you as being overly emotional or youâre diagnosed with a personality disorder.â
Thanks for your kind words. I agree with you about how real world pressures impact how kids are parented (which just might impact their ACE scores). After a day of earning a living in an unnatural, high-stress world, mom and dad might not be the caring, nurturing parents they would be if working under natural conditions for natural rewards. When they get home from work, they might need to focus on their own self-care and stress relief.
Parents are pressured to earn a specialized living in the real world to pay for food, clothing, and shelter. And now child care, since both parents need to work to make ends meet. The variety of natural work of producing food, clothing and shelter is done by paid strangers.
Instead of working cooperatively to produce what they need, people spend their lives earning money to purchase these necessities, often at the expense of genuine human connection. How many people pay professionals to raise their children in day care while they are busy earning money to pay for food, housing, clothing, healthcare, and of course, day care? Are they effectively paying someone else to live their lives for them while they earn a living? Isnât raising children kind of an important part of the childâs and parentâs natural lives, a part so important that society at large depends upon them doing a good job?
Good article. In Colorado, âmagic mushroomsâ were legalized for medical use in 2022. The state passed legislation allowing for the regulated use of psilocybin for therapeutic purposes under the supervision of licensed facilitators. Ish. The plan is still in the process of being rolled out.
Somehow it conjures up a Monty Python moment in The Meaning of Lifeâwhen the head master is teaching sex education.
Report comment
Nice. The cultural-ecosocial perspective might not gain traction in the West until after psych professionals learn how to capitalize on it as effectively as they do with the bio-medical model. Making money is the point, after all. They surely havenât missed that point, have they?
Report comment
âInstitutional Anosognosiaâânice
Report comment
Kevin, Iâm thinking we agree that not all behavior thatâs treated or considered as nonconforming should be treated or considered as problematic or even nonconforming in the first place.
Does this seem better?: Although behavior or syndrome X may be regarded as nonconforming by the general public, the general public may not have experienced A, B, and Câwhich are known by a few to underly or cause syndrome X. So whatâs regarded as abnormal by the general public is in reality normal for one who has experienced A, B, and C.
A guy I saw on a video here on MIA might have touched on the idea when he said to his audience, âSymptoms are reactions.â To ensure his point was at least heard, he told the audience to repeat those words with him: âSymptoms are reactions.â
Psych professionals think in terms of symptoms to be treated instead of reactions to be understood. The question of what is being reacted TO is never asked if treating the symptoms (or the illness) is the objective.
Does that clarify anything?
Report comment
While I agree that “Choices are choices,” I think much more often we make decisions (according to our programming) that we often regard as being made by independent free choice. I just think real choice is uncommon, and maybe limited to a certain circumstance, yet they have a lot of impact on future experiences (and decisions).
I have similar thoughts to yours about the utility of voting for a broken system. And about our collective complicity in much of the turmoil we endure. I have more ideas about both. Hit me up if interested. As you might have guessed, I’ve written a bit about each.
We’ve all had to deal with challenges of some kind, but no two set of life challenges are identical. Some of us have more to deal with than others and it’s common for others not to appreciate that. And we can bet whatever it is that hits the fan won’t be equally distributed. Hang in there, you’re not alone.
Report comment
The idea that our choices are limited to loveless ones might be called “selective determinism”? By that idea, we’re naturally programmed (“determined”) to be loving (cooperative, empathetic, and friendly) but we’re free (to choose) to override our natural programming by being loveless (selfish, oppressive, greedy, etc.).
Our systems promote and to a degree demand lovelessness (e.g., look-out-for-number-one selfishness and greed and obedience to crappy imposed norms). So lovelessness is so ubiquitous to seem “normal.” But maybe it’s not natural.
By this view, people are responsible for their choice to act lovelessly. On the other hand, acting in a loving way is merely following a disposition that’s been favored by evolution (and perhaps driving it?).
So a person doesn’t properly take credit for acting according to natural programming–they’re acting according to the predisposition of nature–but a person IS responsible for loveless choices and the results of their lovelessness (for overriding and acting contrary to nature).
Does that make sense?
Report comment
Thanks Tree and Fruit. I hope you like the essay. I mentioned Chomsky and Farrow because they never appear to struggle to express anything, even when discussing complex, intricate topics. I wish I could be so lucid and articulate.
I appreciate your insights. I had to ponder about your comment, because at first I was wondering if the suggestion is that my view on determinism, or my expression of it, comes across as being egocentric, fueled by narcissism, and perhaps in danger of becoming delusional. I’m hoping that’s not the case and I proceed under that assumption. đ
If the point is that self-assuredness can close us off to other viewpoints, I agree.
In that spirit, as I’ve mentioned, I’m merely a firm determinist. But I’m not rigid about it. I have no extra-informed position or inside knowledge on the matter. So intellectual humility keeps me from being too self-assured about it.
At the same time, I think our free will agency is much more limited than I used to think. More than just unknown external influences impacting our reality as a counterpoint to hard determinism, I also see some room for free will’s agency. Though largely determined, I can see where in certain (uncommon) cases or circumstances, a person might make real choices.
Maybe it’s kind of like Colossus’ explanation of “being a hero” in the movie Deadpool: “Four or five moments, thatâs all it takes. To be a hero. Everyone thinks itâs a full-time job. Wake up a hero. Brush your teeth a hero. Go to work a hero. Not true. Over a lifetime, there are only 4 or 5 moments that really matter. Moments when youâre offered a choice. To make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend⌠spare an enemy. In these moments, everything else falls away.â
Once in a while, life might offer certain unique circumstances in which our programming isn’t adequate, circumstances demanding real choice. It’s possible, too, that some people never encounter these circumstances during their lifetimes.
Also, I LIKE to think that we’re naturally programmed to be loving. When we defy that natural programming, we are responsible for those choices. By that idea, we are free to do what we “shouldn’t.”
Although this idea may seem far-fetched, there’s a book out there that’s not far off from it. In âSurvival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering our Common Humanity,â Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods argue that our evolutionary success is largely due to our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and friendliness. This at least loosely aligns with my idea that our natural programming is one of love and connection.
Maybe itâs only when we act in a “loveless” wayâby judging, gossiping, attacking, or oppressing othersâthat we deviate from that innate predisposition. And that’s on us. Yet here we are, governed by loveless systems, wondering what could be wrong. Again, just a few loose thoughts.
Report comment
Hereâs an article that explores the connection between high ACE scores and substance use. I point it out because I believe the authorâs use of the phrase âsubstance useâ instead of âsubstance abuseâ or âsubstance-use disorderâ is admirable and represents a step in the right direction:
https://neurosciencenews.com/neurodevelopment-adversity-mental-health-28437/
Report comment
And so people who donât conform to the various norms established by a confused, group-think identity crisis are considered mentally ill?
Report comment
Itâs a social construct produced by imposing expectations of uniformity upon masses of disparate individuals whose only connection is the fabricated, vacuous identity that was imposed upon them, misdefining them as a homogeneous group?
Report comment
âThe Industrial Revolution made survival possible for people.â This isnât clear to me. How do you know that?
Populations surviving to this day had no part in the Industrial Revolutions, and drew no benefit from them. These people donât participate in the economy, either. So apparently neither does money âmake it possibleâ to survive.
Report comment
Really good. âOf course, therapy alone isnât enough. Economic and political changes are also crucial.â Crucial. These are huge, pervasive systems in need of fundamental change (or replacement), but itâs nevertheless crucial that they fundamentally change (or get replaced). Otherwise, we can expect more of the same.
Report comment
Birdsong, Iâm not sure youâre open to my idea of natural behavior. But Iâll share it anyway:
To me, natural human behavior refers to the ways humans lived for most of historyâsmall-groups, self-sufficiency, and rhythms aligned with nature. The Industrial Revolutions disrupted this, replacing organic social and survival patterns with mechanized labor, rigid schedules, and systemic dependence, forcing people into unnatural ways of living.
It seems to me people were living more naturally in America before colonialism, for example. Colonists escaping an undesirable way of life resulting from the Eurasian history of concentrated political and economic power of conquerors and kings brought that way of life with them. That way of life wasnât natural to the indigenous people of the Americas. Itâs like they brought with them a virus that infected the Americas.
Report comment
People all over the world behaved differently (and more naturally) before their lives became monetized and ruled by imposed authority. Progress would have been made over the last couple of hundred years without moneyâmaybe progress at a more responsible pace and with more respect for nature (instead of according to the accelerated pace and disregard for nature fostered by industrial competition and codified greed).
Nature does produce âfreaksâ like Nic Tesla, who did wonderful things to advance humanity for the sake of helping humanity and not really to make money from, or get rich from, his contributions. Having said that, the world sure could have treated him better considering what he did for our understanding of electricity. But others were too busy capitalizing on his ideas.
Children in many developing countries are forced to work in landfills and garbage dumps to survive, searching for recyclable materials or items of value.
Children and families scavenged Manilaâs infamous landfill for decades, sorting through toxic waste for plastic, glass, and metal to sell. Despite official closure, scavenging continues in other dump sites like Payatas.
In Nicaragua, children in Managuaâs La Chureca worked daily in hazardous conditions, exposed to toxic fumes and disease, collecting recyclables for pennies.
In Bangladeshâs capital, thousands of children work in garbage dumps, sifting through medical waste, rotting food, and industrial scraps for saleable items. They face extreme health risks, including infections and respiratory issues.
In Mumbai, IndiaâDharavi, one of Asiaâs largest slumsâhas an informal recycling economy where children collect, clean, and sort waste materials from the cityâs garbage, often inhaling harmful chemicals and working without safety measures.
There are of course more examples.
These children often work in extreme heat, without protective gear, and face physical dangers, exploitation, and health hazards. Many organizations attempt to intervene, but poverty and systemic inequality keep the cycle going.
Though commonly externalized, is this a natural environment encouraging natural behavior and development?
Report comment
I happen to be a conscientious smoker. I donât like smelling like smoke or making others breathe it. Lately, Iâve taken to smoking tobacco through one-hit pipes or water pipes. Cigarettes got to be too much tobacco for me, to where I could only smoke half of one anyway. So Iâm slowing down on smoking (tobacco), too. Except when Iâm driving, it seems.
When it comes to cannabis, though, I donât smoke it any more. I donât smoke it any LESS, but I donât smoke it any MORE.
I wouldnât need to either smoke in your presence.
Report comment
I have an idea of how change starting quietly, on a small scale, from sound foundations, could expand to change the world in a larger sense. Itâs just an idea, but a pretty well developed one.
Hereâs a link to an essay about the idea if youâre interested:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EvHVvfT2f57pBh9XV-4YYs3jZDDBEbHA/view?usp=drivesdk
Report comment
Agreed. That might be like telling people to get off the drugs/substances that work for them until psychiatry can confirm the root cause of their distress and provide effective solutions eliminating those root causes.
Report comment
Wow. Iâm sorry! Amazing, the power of bald accusations and those who act like each one must be true.
In Colorado, a young black manâElijah McClainâwas walking down the street carrying a plastic bag containing bottles of iced tea or something like that. He was wearing a hoody and a mask.
Apparently his appearance was threatening to a neighbor. The threatened party called police. First responders responded like yours did. They assumed the validity of the complaint and apprehended Elijah like he was a criminal.
They ended up injecting him with a lethal dose of Ketamine because he dared to resist authorities apprehending him for walking down the street, minding his own business, causing no harm.
God DAMN it.
Of course, they conducted investigations and held trials and doled out âjustice.â Oddly enough, with all of the finger-pointing and accusations of guilt and cause, the person who instigated the whole incidentâthe person who alerted the authorities to a threat, to which they responded as a threatâwas never considered culpable.
Iâm hopeful that the threatened party learned something, despite not being part of the response team that faced âjusticeâ for what happened. Sounds like your oppressor escaped culpability, too.
Report comment
I agree, too. âWhatever gets you through the night, itâs all right, itâs all right . . .ââUncle John
Report comment
Can we blame people for wanting to change an unjust world? Although itâs common to just get by satisfied with the little freedoms we are left with, and kicking our bigger, inherited problems down the road, isnât MIAâs mission to change the world via social justice?
I guess the world will never be changed by people who see nothing wrong with it, or for whom it isnât wrong enough to change, or who think it canât be changed.
It could be that the world will be unjust until our dysfunctional, unsustainable status quo eliminates us from natureâbecause we couldnât change our ways.
Report comment
Someone who expends energy working changes something about the world. On the other hand, when done working out, the weights are put back where they were found.
While both could be viewed as being productive from an exercise viewpoint, the former accomplishes something (âproductiveâ) that the latter doesnât.
Report comment
Although I agree that if using a drug (or withdrawing from it) is demonstrated to cause violent episodes, itâs problematic and should be addressed. But I donât think we are getting to any root causes in doing so.
Report comment
Point taken. However, I didnât mention depression. So okay, mass shooters are likely not depressed. It could be some other issues, or a combination of them, and not depression that drives their behavior.
That some mass shooters are on psych meds shouldnât be surprising. That some on psych drugs engage in mass shootings, then the root cause must be the drugs? Or a poor reaction to the drugs?
If some hadnât endured frequent or severe ACEs, they wouldnât have been on psych drugs in the first place. And they wouldnât have been prone to violence.
So it could be that some people with high ACEs donât react well to certain psych meds. It could be that these drugs arenât effective in providing relief.
How does the correlation responsibly imply causation?
Report comment
Nice. â When the subject matter is human mental life, it might be better to live with conceptual confusion than obtaining consensus on a misguided foundation.â
This seems true for several social sciences that apply the apparatus of natural science to human constructs, portraying the results as being scientific or objective, despite (in my view) arising from misguided foundations.
Economics, for instance, doesnât explain natural human behaviorâit explains how people act within a monetary system, rationalizing economic control. Political science does the same, describing how people behave under governance but treating power structures as inevitable rather than artificial. Before colonization, many societies functioned without money or centralized authority, yet these disciplines frame such systems as fundamental.
Economics rests on the value of moneyâa human invention whose worth is not derived from natural laws but from social convention. Money has value because people collectively believe it does; it is taught and internalized alongside natural phenomena, yet it is treated as though it holds intrinsic worth.
Economics doesnât explain how humans naturally behaveâit explains how people conditioned to function within a monetary system behave. It describes the predictable ways in which those who accept the premise of money act, but it does not account for human life beyond that construct.
Uncontacted tribes in the Amazon, for instance, do not mint currency, yet they continue to survive just as effectively without it. Similarly, before European colonization, the indigenous peoples of North America operated without money in the way the âcivilizedâ world understands it. In this sense, economics does not merely describe financial behaviorâit arguably serves to rationalize systems of economic control.
Political science follows a similar pattern. It does not reveal how humans naturally behave but rather how they act within systems of governance, power, and lawâsystems created and enforced by other humans. Political science describes how individuals rise to power, how laws are structured, and how people behave under these conditions. Yet like economics, it frames these artificial structures as though they are fundamental aspects of human existence. In reality, they are traditions inherited from monarchs and conquerors.
Before the arrival of European colonists, many indigenous societies in North America operated without centralized authority in the form of kings, rulers, or states. Political science doesnât describe human natureâit describes how âgovernedâ people behave within hierarchical power structures. And, like economics, it arguably serves to rationalize oppression by portraying these structures as necessary or inevitable rather than contingent.
By treating these constructs as scientific realities, we risk mistaking social conditioning for what some assert is human nature.
Report comment
Claire might be onto something here.
Could the same adverse childhood experiences and conditions under which mass shooters grow up, eventually leading to distress and SSRI prescriptions, be what drives their behavior (and thus the correlation)?
Many mass shooters share common childhood experiences that suggest early adversity plays a significant role in their later violence. Some of the most frequently observed childhood conditions include:
Family Instability â Many mass shooters come from homes affected by divorce, separation, domestic violence, or neglect. Frequent upheavals and inconsistent parenting can contribute to emotional dysregulation.
Social Rejection & Bullying â Many perpetrators report being bullied, ostracized, or socially isolated during childhood and adolescence. Some were physically bullied, while others experienced chronic rejection or humiliation, leading to deep-seated resentment.
Frequent Moves & Disruptions â Some shooters had unstable living situations, including frequent relocations due to parental divorce, economic struggles, or military family dynamics. This can disrupt a child’s ability to form stable friendships and deepen social isolation.
Exposure to Abuse or Neglect â A history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse is common among some perpetrators, leading to long-term psychological scars, distrust, and anger.
Lack of Meaningful Social Bonds â Many mass shooters lacked close friendships, mentorship, or strong community support, leading to a growing sense of alienation and grievance.
Mental Health Struggles & Psychiatric Medication â Many shooters had diagnosed mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, schizophrenia) and were often prescribed SSRIs or other psychiatric medications. However, rather than the medications themselves causing violence, it could be that the underlying conditions requiring medicationâsuch as trauma, neglect, or social alienationâare potent drivers of distress.
In short, while SSRIs may be present in these cases, the deeper issue could be the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that led to mental distress in the first place.
These early hardships can distort brain development, foster resentment, and set the stage for later depression, anxiety, and violenceâespecially when combined with social isolation, humiliation, and access to weapons.
Report comment
Thanks Shane. Great comment!
Report comment
Nicely said. âFixingâ those distressed by this toxic world is like fitting canaries in a coal mine with oxygen masks. We might be better off vacating the toxic hole weâre in.
Report comment
Nice. The first paragraph sums up a mouthful. So very well said. Sadly, itâs a bit too long for a bumper sticker or a tee-shirt.
Report comment
I see your point about money simplifying exchange in a complex world but I think that very simplification is part of the problem. And yes, Iâm familiar with what money is and what itâs used for.
Despite that, and all the âgoodâ it does, its negative impacts quietly outweigh its benefits. Money reduces all value to an artificial common denominator, often prioritizing profit over human and ecological well-being. It commodifies everything including human life.
The complexity of our interconnected systems might make it seem like money is necessary, but that doesn’t mean it was the right foundation to begin with. Itâs led to quite a complicated mess. What if we restructured society around direct contribution and shared resources rather than wealth and transactional exchange?
I also question the assumption that individual self-interest naturally leads to collective good. At the personal level, it often leads to short-term profit-seeking at the expense of others. But if we applied this idea at the community levelâwhere people share resources, responsibilities, and long-term interestsâthen looking out for oneâs own group might actually result in broader benefits.
Money isnât just a tool for simplifying exchangeâitâs an instrument of control. Not control designed for fairness or stability, but control that benefits the most self-interested. Those who accumulate the most wealth donât do so by contributing the most but by leveraging moneyâs ability to create dependency and inequality. If bartering seems unrealistic today, itâs because weâve built a system that ensures nothing can function without moneyâwhich only strengthens the grip of those at the top.
Had fair trade not been upended by the Industrial Revolution, money and profit, other effective, sophisticated methods of trade likely would have evolved.
Report comment
While money isnât the cause of selfishness and greed, it effectively empowers greed beyond whatâs good for us and the planet. Just my view.
Report comment
Thanks for bringing up the rat park study. It was news to me and it offers some good insight.
Report comment
In a world where money buys groceries and pays rent, and people are looking out for number one competing in a rat race to make money, having no money can underly feelings of personal inadequacy.
Maybe a guy who has trouble finding or holding a job (a common outcome for those with high ACE scores), would be better offâmore satisfied in lifeâhomesteading (by himself or with some loved ones). But the opportunity to homestead is reserved for those with enough money to buy land.
Maybe for some who live on the streets itâs the poverty, homelessness, and poor diet at the cause of the feelings of personal inadequacyâor itâs the drugsâbut that would ignore these results as being produced by a system empowering and codifying selfishness as the way it is, a system that produces these very results.
To say they cause their own povertyâitâs the result of their poor personal choicesâis to ignore the system(s) producing these results. Itâs classic: blame the individual for systemic results. Sure, poverty exists under all of todayâs political and economic systems all over the world. But notice all of these are systems of concentrated power relying on money to operate.
As an old saying goes (Cree?): When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is poisoned, only then will we realize we canât eat money.
Report comment
And the man uses new technologies to shave while shining his shoes and junior is making himself presentable, unaware of whatâs coming
Report comment
Nice. Incidentally, I donât think you will find many creatures in nature that canât swim. Humans appear to be unique in their ability to become panicked and drown. Our capacity to freak ourselves out is unparalleled.
Report comment
Thanks. I agree with you that âultimately each of us can only be responsible for our *own* choices,â but we live in a reality where our so many choices have already been systematically made for us.
Report comment
Could money be an instrument of greed?
Report comment
Especially when the punishment is viewed as being âhelp.â
Report comment
Then, after a day devoid of healthful exercise working, itâs off to the gym to work out to get exercise, the results of whichâother than the personal health benefit and social experience âis unproductive. The results of âworking outâ arenât beneficial to the community or the world. The results are left there in the gym, while no evidence of work being done is left behind. The world is unchanged by this work and so in a sense it was work wasted.
Report comment
Some people who have never done a dayâs work in their lives complain that others who do the physical, exercise-imbuing work needed for their cushy survivalâthe very work they have been systematically insulated from, the work they have spent a lifetime avoidingâjust donât want to work anymore, or enough, or hard enough to produce their necessities or to make them money. Is that âironyâ?
Report comment
Our systems rewarding âhard workâ to earn money reward lots of people with sedentary, sometimes high-paid jobs. Work requiring exerciseâwork that results in food to eat and homes to live inâthatâs for someone else.
Those someone elses work so hard and long doing the physical labor left to them, they develop occupational illnesses and disabilities and injuries.
So some get flabby and depressed from getting too little exercise, while others get unfairly overworked while often being underpaid. Systematically. What could be wrong? Smells oppressive.
And some who do sedentary âworkâ wonder why others who bust their asses every day at work just donât want to work any more.
Report comment
Or, while mommy and daddy are busy making enough money to make ends meet, outsourcing the raising of their children to day care providersâmissing out on life while earning a livingâtheyâre enduring a daily grind where they have little agency. When they get home, they might not be the same people they would be had they spent the day doing work that was self-directed, more fulfilling, meaningful work directly benefitting them and their community.
Report comment
Consider any hierarchical system of concentrated power. The US political system of representative democracy, for example. While there is nothing wrong with democracy, itâs a matter of scale. The representative aspect of our representative democracy still elevates a few who vote on the rules for others, dictating how it is and will be for others, for people they have never met let alone understand well enough to represent them.
In a gymnasium democracy, those voting on the rules know each other and are making rules they themselves debate, rules made for themselvesâthe same people who will experience the consequences of their rules.
Here, the individual has agency in making the rules governing them. In a representative arrangement, their voice is reduced to filling out an oval on a ballot. They are represented merely to the degree that their world view and life experience aligns with one of the two parties who will make the rules.
Does that work for you?
Report comment
Good article. As she puts it, âIf you donât piss some people off, then what are you doing?â Go Dhar!
Report comment
Thanks, Maureen. There was a time when what made a potential mate attractive were abilities and skills to provide in a more natural environment. The ability to grow crops, make clothes, build shelter, etc.
What is attractive in todayâs world is the ability to make money. Itâs not uncommon for people to marry for money. Does that impact natural selection and evolution?
There may come a day, after the high-tech world comes crashing down, that this variety of skills will again be the important ones.
There are countless ways money and economic pressures shape our relationships, often in ways we donât even realize. Friendships and family bonds can be strained when financial disparities create unspoken tensionsâlike when one person canât afford to join in on expensive outings or vacations, and others interpret their absence as disinterest.
Romantic relationships, too, are often influenced by financial concerns, whether it’s the stress of shared debt, differences in spending habits, or the pressure to âprovideâ in a way that aligns with traditional economic roles. Can you afford to date?
Even the simple act of choosing a career can mean sacrificing time with loved ones because our worth is so often tied to productivity rather than connection.
Beyond the personal level, social interactions are shaped by economic status in subtle but powerful ways. People tend to form relationships within their economic class, and those outside of it may feel like they donât belong.
Have you ever noticed how conversations change depending on who can afford what? Or how financial security can mean the difference between being seen as âresponsibleâ or âstruggling,â even when work ethic and effort are the same.
Are these examples adequate?
Report comment
If human nature would consist of a trait/feature/something that is common to all human beings, it would be hard to identify. But is it true that everyone who lives wants to be satisfied in life?
Report comment
But to be fair, honest, and serious for a moment, I believe “diagnoses” should be focused on (if not limited to) the systems and systemic dysfunction. BAD systems. A person afflicted with BAD isn’t a valid target, for example. It’s not that person’s fault for being afflicted with BAD (even if fictitious). Whoever it is you may not like, or consider BAD, it’s not that person’s “fault” for being that person.
Our systems put a few people in power. That concentrated power doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it came from somewhere–namely, the individuals from which it is usurped in order to concentrate it.
Politically, when someone we disagree with wins an election and wields the force of concentrated power, it causes distress in some more than others. The power taken from us is not being used as we would like.
But we must accept that our systems produce the results they produce. Every system is perfectly designed for its outputs. Our systems are designed so a single person is given great power over hundreds of millions. Any person who can win an election.
Yet at the same time we know every person makes mistakes. Empowered by the machinery of our political system a single person’s mistakes can have not only industrial and national impact, but global consequences–some impacting the future in indelible ways. Classic design mistake. Miserable, but classic.
Report comment
Youâre quite right, Fukitol has been around for a while, but it failed to gain FDA approval back in the 80s. It, too, caused anal leaking. Arguments that postmortem anal leaking is irrelevant were overridden. It was considered undignified.
So it couldnât be marketed in the US. Everyone knows that only good, safe, effective drugs gain FDA approval.
But now, given recent political events and realities, Fukitol has been slightly reformulated and theyâre taking it through trials under its new name: Myendall. But itâs basically Fukitol (without the postmortem anal leaking).
If only they had a drug to treat the oral anal leaking so commonly observed when those afflicted with BAD find themselves in positions of power. âJustshutthefukupitall?â
Report comment
Oh no–not BAD! That’s serious! I’m unaware of any cure for it. I’m not not sure there’s even a treatment beyond basic humility immersion therapy, which isn’t currently approved for use in the US.
The good news is that FDA trials are now underway to test a new medication for the rest of us to deal with the potential of a BAD/CAD convergence crisis. I think it’s called Fukitol. It’s on a fast track and with any luck, there will be 330 million doses available by year’s end.
Report comment
While I agree with your focus on those in a person’s orbit, especially those at home, and especially those at home during childhood development, I don’t think the ROOT cause is found there. It’s more of an immediate cause because this cause didn’t arise in a vacuum. This cause itself is not without a cause.
To say that the cause begins and ends with those in a person’s orbit is to now treat the person’s orbit as the root cause. But the people in a person’s orbit have lives and values and beliefs impacted by their own orbits and by the communities they live in.
But to assert that the community is the root cause is to now treat the community in a vacuum. The community’s way of life and social norms and values and beliefs are greatly impacted by local, state, national, and now global governing systems and social norms (political, economic, social, and religious).
It may be inconvenient or uncomfortable to accept where the causal chain leads, but it appears to firmly terminate in the very systems we rely upon to provide order and protection. What caused the systems? The arrogant ignorance, selfishness, greed, and egos of the men who established them, perhaps?
Although these men are long gone, their systems codifying selfishness and greed as our drivers of ambition remain. The people these systems control are often better than the systems controlling them. That can cause duress.
These systems are dysfunctional and poorly designed. Individual distress is often a reaction to, at some level, these systemic dysfunctions. Although the cascading dysfunction may arrive in the behavior of those in a distressed person’s orbit, those in his orbit are not the root cause of the dysfunction. These are systemic results. Our systems are to blame.
Report comment
I wonder if this topic could serve as fodder for a fun podcast for MIA (or a segment of the existing weekly podcast?). Call it “Diagnosing Disorder.” But here’s the twist: it’s dedicated to the “disorder of diagnosing,” as opposed to the “diagnosing of disorder.” Endless possibilities of “disorders” to humorously “diagnose.” So long as systemic causes are ignored, it could be fun for a long time–just like in real life (snark).
Report comment
I concur with your diagnosis, Doctor, it very well could be the progressive stage of advanced “primitive accumulation disorder,” which if left undiagnosed and untreated for hundreds of years can easily advance to the end-stage “Capital accumulation disorder” we see today. Sadly, the outlook is poor. It’s ever so difficult to come back from end-stage CAD. I’m not sure they have the right drugs for that yet. But we can sure try lots of solutions.
However, my esteemed colleague suggests perhaps it’s a distant cousin to “Industrial Disease” (Dire Straights):
“He wrote me a prescription, he said, ‘You are depressed
But I’m glad you came to see me to get this off your chest
Come back and see me later, next patient, please
Send in another victim of industrial disease'”
Personally, I suspect “Selfish Ego Syndrome” may also be an underlying cause, empowered by the related “Selfish System Disorder” coupled with a touch of “Loveless System Confusion.” All of these manifest as a maniacal lust for concentrated power, so delineating precisely which it is will take decades of research. Certainly more studies are needed.
Report comment
Thanks Tom.
Report comment
You’re absolutely right that war over revenge, resources, and land has existed for as long as humanity has. Is that to say it must always be that way? The industrial revolutionâand more importantly, the rise of modern financial systemsâsupercharged these conflicts. Take, for example, the Dutch East India Company and the birth of the modern stock market. Before its creation, a merchant who lost a ship to storms or piracy could be financially ruined. The stock market solved this “problem” by allowing investors to spread their risk across multiple ships, ensuring profits even if some ships were lost.
But what about the sailors who went down with those ships? What about the people in colonized lands who suffered at the hands of these ventures? The system didn’t care. Collateral damage. They were paid in money, and that was supposed to be enough. This shift in thinkingâwhere human lives became mere line items in a ledgerâwas a defining moment in the evolution of capitalism. It wasnât just about securing resources anymore; it wasn’t about fair trade; it was about optimizing profit, no matter the human cost.
Report comment
Wow, thank you, thank you. Really Good. Love the idea of applying diagnostic tools against dysfunctional systems.
Report comment
I agree that our systems leave us politicizing too much. But thatâs a (dys)function of our political systemâs impact on personal decisions and lives.
Report comment
Iâm not suggesting that I can change human nature. But the environment we create can and has âchangedâ or impacted the course of, human development. Humanity could be smarter about how to develop systems that work with nature, including human nature, instead of harnessing the worst parts of human nature, thereby trashing the natural environment of the world, as well as the environment in which humans develop and live.
Or are we thinking that our systems of exploitation and oppression are good for nature?
Is it human nature to leave a campsite trashed? Wouldnât an affirmative answer suggest then that, being part of human nature, all humans trash campsitesâwhich isnât true?
We need to take control away from the campsite trashers, or trashed campsites will become (have become?) the norm under which we live and develop.
Report comment
It seems to me human-imposed systems of control and motivation have upended natureâs systems of control and motivation. A person now works to accumulate human tokensâmoneyâas opposed to natural rewards we really needâfood, shelter, community, etc. one could claim that this unnatural development is what nature somehow âintendedâ but I would disagree. Money doesnât grow on trees.
If this was destined to happen by natureâs design, then it seems equally determined that humanity will either learn better from it and change or else perish as a species because they didnât.
Our human-made systems are unsustainable. To survive, we need to learn sustainability from nature, not from the economy we created. Itâs natural sustainability that we need, not economic âsustainability.â
Report comment
By our current systems, when half of the population wants x and the other half wants not x (a binary solution nobody might really want, incidentally), the âbestâ solution is to compromise. Itâs led to another sense of âcompromised realityâ (aside from the idea in the blog).
For the sake of unity, we get middle-of-the-road solutions. Nobody learns the result from taking either tine of the fork in the road, so we donât know the consequences we may have learned from. We learn only the results of a compromise, the results of nobody getting their way.
A brilliant man named David Michehl once likened the accumulated result of this arrangement to smearing a thick layer of Velveeta cheese across the whole country and calling it national freedom. A really good analogy.
Rather than compromising, we might be better off breaking into smaller cooperative units, each living as they see fit. This might be preferable to fighting with our next door neighbors about how it should be for all of us, knowing full well that reasonable people can disagree about how it should be.
By allowing autonomy to flocks of a feather, we can learn something from our diversity, grow, and allow evolution to get a foothold.
Forgive me if I seem overexcited about this (and related) topics. Given whatâs at stake, I feel like people are too often underexcited about it. If I go too far, I apologize.
Report comment
Is there something wrong with hundreds of millions of people–even if tasked with national unity–who are unable to agree on something (or anything)? Or, might there be something wrong with governing systems asserting or expecting that hundreds of millions of individuals could be or should be (or are) unified in agreement about something (or anything)?
Report comment
Knowing that all humans make mistakes, it seems forms of government elevating single human beings to positions of concentrated power allows individual human mistakes to have national, even global impact. Maybe itâs time for these types of government to go so something better can come?
When we hear politicians speak of what the âAmerican peopleâ want (or what the people of âthe great state of xâ want), for example, doesnât this terminology itself imply that the individuals composing their constituencies want the same thing (and should, to some degree, think the same way and share the same values)? Are the assumptions underlying this concept of unity and the resulting constructs and terminology valid?
Report comment
I think people who think alike should live together and suffer or celebrate the consequences. Birds of a feather naturally flock together. Iâm not trying to tell anyone what to think beyond encouraging the means by which they can think for themselves. And allow evolution to resume its natural course.
Report comment
I think a cognitive dissonance arises anytime a person struggles between doing what’s right according to their internal sensibilities and doing what’s right according to expectations or dictates imposed by dysfunctional systems. Instead of doing what one would naturally decide to do, we end up doing whatever makes or saves the most money. Or whatever gets us ahead in a rat race. Or we’re left “just following orders.” Some are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the dysfunction that they perceive no conflict at all.
It’s painful for one aware of a moral conflict between what’s really right on one hand, and what’s considered right according to our dysfunctional systems on the other, to abandon what’s really right in favor of doing whatever the dysfunction demands. “It’s just the way it is.” By succumbing to the dysfunction, we might think we’re doing what we should for conformity’s sake, accepting the mental anguish of being forced to do what we otherwise wouldn’t.
But in the long run, I think we’d do better to avoid that anguish (individually and societally) by addressing the dysfunction under which the conflict arises. Wouldn’t it be great if doing the right thing was the common expectation, and always the right thing to do?
Report comment
If so, George Carlin seems correct in saying that humanity is merely an evolutionary âcul-de-sac.â As he said it: âWeâre going away. Pack your shit, folks. Weâre going away.â
Maybe if the better parts of human nature arenât strong enough to stand up against the machinery of todayâs governing systemsâsystems none of us here today envisioned or establishedâweâre destined to perish as a race of selfish, loveless brats helplessly following a tradition of selfishness.
Maybe itâs by natureâs design that a race of selfish, loveless brats extinguishes itself? Maybe the universe has a way of cleansing itself of âbad actorsâ?
As Deming said, âLearning isnât compulsory, neither is survival.â
Report comment
It seems to me human nature is /has been being âremadeâ by the environment weâve established for ourselvesâan increasingly loveless environment driven by the pursuit of profit. This loveless, profit-driven environment of human creation now represent the conditions under which humanity evolves, the conditions to which humans adapt, the conditions shaping individual and societal behavior and development.
Is profit a natural motivation or a natural evolutionary force? Selfishness might be part of human nature, but our systems reward it and encourage it to where the profit motive is our collective driver. A different driver could have been chosen, one recognizing and harnessing a better part of human nature.
We are evolving to adapt to a world in which the profit motive is a shaper and influencer of human behavior and development. Would we be different if systemically motivated by something other than the selfishness of the profit motif? Are we sure this is somehow destined to be our evolutionary path?
Report comment
I like your ideas about commonwealth. And group think. And again, I find myself in general agreement with much of your comment. Thanks, No-One.
Report comment
Thanks, Someone Else. It seems collective insanity is hard to “self-diagnose”? đ
Report comment
Thanks for the comment. Iâm pretty sure âleadersâ who establish systems of governance to order the massesâbe they political, economic, social, religious, or whateverâgreatly overestimate their ability to do so, while their will to do so should be challenged and explored. If their intent is to elevate themselves, then theyâve done wonderfully. If their intent was to elevate others/everyone else, theyâve failed miserably.
Itâs now too late to ask them: âWhere do you get this idea that individuals should be controlled as masses?â âAnd how do you arrive at the conclusion that you know best how the masses should be governed?â âDoes the idea of governing others make you feel important and powerful?â
Absent any challenges and empowered by the complicity of those similarly bitten, they succeed in establishing the machinery of control while never fully grasping the dehumanizing consequences.
Once established, these systems persist because who wants to change the rules of a game they perceive themselves to be winning? By design, a few will rise to the top and see nothing wrong, of course, with the system that delivered them to their âwell-deservedâ artificially elevated positions. Some might then give to the poorâpeople who are systemically reduced to poverty by the same system that systemically elevates a few; using their power and influence to actually change the system by which so many are needy doesnât even occur to them. From their perspective, the system is working perfectly.
Mmm . . . concentrated powerâjust add ego.
Anyway,I havenât read those books. Maybe someday, thanks.
Report comment
Thanks Cat. Well said.
Report comment
An odd thing about suicide: after a loved one is gone, somebody will cry, âI would have done ANYTHING!â Yet all the while the person was alive, given the chance, they didnâtâat least not enough âanythingâ to be useful to the person who checked out. If they had been willing to do âanythingâ while their loved one was alive, their loved one might be alive.
âAnythingâ might have entailed abandoning the status quo by which the person was so hurt and mistreated that life was no longer worth living (as opposed to embodying that status quo and effectively siding with the oppressors). It might have meant giving the person shelter from the storm instead of being another clap of thunder.
âAnythingâ might have entailed understanding how things happen in order, even if the order of events so distressing their loved one to suicide werenât clear to anyone other than the distressed person (which might have been part of the problem). It might have meant active listening and empathizing, as opposed to listening for signs of mental illness and considering how best to respond to that illness.
âAnythingâ might have entailed treating the person like a human being instead of like collateral damage resulting from a loveless, dysfunctional way of life.
âAnythingâ might have entailed showing the person some good love instead of tough love or love that ends in distant best wishes, thoughts, prayers, or apologies. Or pleas to get professional âhelp.â
The best help would have arrived in the form of good love from those in the personâs orbit. But the best they might have mustered was a reserved, theory-laden, superficial love while awaiting the person to be âhealedâ by modern psych professionals.
Report comment
Oh. Got it. Pretty obvious now that I look at it. Sorry about that!
Report comment
I donât disagree with you, but Iâm glad MIA is here to give a voice to those whose voices are often dismissed. MIA arose in response to a misguided psychiatric industry, which itself arose in support of a dysfunctional way of life. So, MIAâs existence could be viewed as a reaction to a mad status quo. Iâm grateful for and supportive of this response. It was bound to happen.
While I agree with MIAâs anti-pharmaceutical stance and the rejection of the current biomedical view of âmental illnessâ held by the psychiatric professions, I still get the sense that the drug war is being fought here.
I donât think drugs are the ultimate answerâliving right is (something our governing systems effectively prohibit). What some call substance use disorder, however, I donât believe is a disorder. Itâs a result, a reaction, a response.
Until better societal circumstances arise, I see nothing wrong with a natural reaction to finding comfort and satisfaction in natureâs medicine cabinet. ACE research suggests that this is a natural response in those with significant ACE scores. Those seeking remedy from nature shouldnât be punished for it. Some of us with significant ACE scores donât need scientific studies explicating precisely how marijuana reacts with the brain to produce relief and comfort to knowâfirst handâthat it does just that. For some perhaps more than others (perhaps due to differing brain structures and functionalities we donât understand). At the same time, I donât see anything wrong with people dabbling in natureâs medicine cabinet for recreational purposes, either. Many of natureâs creatures like to get high. Is nature wrong for not conforming to human ideas of how nature should be?
I believe there are good reasons for this reaction, and itâs not something to be pathologized or criminalized by those who donât understand it. That itâs a problem due to our way of life isnât the fault of those seeking relief and comfort in life. Pathologizing and criminalizing marijuana use, for example, is essentially ignorantly and self-righteously condemning nature. Passing judgment without knowing seems like evidence of a taste for judging what is not understood. I wish people would stop doing that. To me, marijuana is as much a gift from nature to those who benefit from it as is saw palmetto.
Report comment
âSituational Suicide Prevention is an approach that acknowledges the predominant association of situational distress* rather than mental illness, with suicide (though in some cases the two are linked), and is principally informed by and responds to risk factors of a broad spectrum of difficult human experiences across the life span. This approach is also mindful of and wherever possible seeks to address: contextual, systemic, and socio-cultural risk and protective factors and determinantsâthe real world of individuals lived experience.â This seems useful, recognizing a situational cause born from external influences that results in distress rather than saddling a distressed person with a label.
Report comment
Check this outâan idea to criminalize the distressed: send âem to jail. Commit them to âcorrectionsâ.
https://mcalesterradio.com/2025/01/31/oklahoma-bill-proposes-abolishing-mental-health-department-shifting-duties-to-corrections/
Report comment
âWatch your languageâ isnât merely an admonition for using profanity.
About being unemployed or underemployed driving distress, obviously so–worthless to the world.
I recently had a psychiatry group reach out after reading one of my published blogs, dangling the possibility of paid work. Not having two nickels to rub together, I was really hopeful. I sent them several essays. When they finally responded, their “offer” was for me to write about how their patient-centric approach to suicide is 76% effectiveâessentially a promotional piece. It was like decoding an ad just to realize it said, “Drink more Ovaltine.”
Unemployment isnât just about money in this monetary world. Itâs about dignity, purpose, and feeling like you matter. When you’re already struggling, being led on like thisâhaving your skills and contributions acknowledged but not valuedâjust adds another straw to the camelâs back. Is it any wonder that unemployment fuels distress and suicidal ideation?
Report comment
Nicely said, No-one.
Report comment
Really good. “Structural competency (SC) points to systemic issues as the causes of illnesses and health disparities.” I hope this way of thinking gains more traction, because it’s important. Our systems of governance (political, economic, social, and religious) are dangerously dysfunctional on each their own; their combination is a recipe for disaster and we’re cooking up quite a storm.
Report comment
It seems the parasitic part isnât unique to this transactional relationship, where a service is performed (or work is done) for monetary compensation.
Under capitalism, weâre left deciding HOW we are going to be parasitic, not IF. Ride othersâ backs to âsuccessâ? Capitalize on their illnesses, needs, beliefs, or legal troubles? Itâs âjust the way it is.â
Although those working in the trenches may not be as motivated by profit, they often work for someone who is (âsomeone who might view them as parasites).
While Iâm not disagreeing with you, why pick on therapists?
Report comment
InterestingâI never looked at it that way. A co-dependency?
Report comment
Jennifer, Iâm sorry to hear youâve been through the wringer, too. Itâs tough when they wonât hear you, convinced they already know better.
Report comment
Sheâs someone I could really trust and thatâs one important way sheâs special. I could only be so happy around people I couldnât trust.
Report comment
Really good. The links to other blogs made for more good reading, too. Thanks very much!
â. . . national surveys often reveal lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders among Black populations.â And later, â Black men were disproportionately affected by substance-use disorders . . .â
If a population with lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders is the same population using substances, might it be appropriate to consider if their substance use is something other than a âdisorderâ? Is it despite the substance use that they have lower rates of mood and anxiety disorders? Or might substance use be part of why some have lower rates? Should we know these kinds of things before incarcerating people for substance use?
Report comment
I saw this one for the first time today. Really good and thanks
Report comment
Well said. Thanks for saying it
Report comment
Sorry, Hope. Our way life has disempowered what should be most powerful: community. Communities are often reduced to being collections of people looking out for number one living in close proximity. Or, community is increasingly becoming a group aligned by some commonality even if separated by distance, e.g., the LGBTQ community.
Wouldnât it be nice if those living in close proximity were aligned in a commonality beyond looking out for number one?
Report comment
Just love the brass solo in that song.
Until that friend shows up , itâs Exile on Main Street?
Report comment
Thanks Birdsong, for your comments.
â. . . that they need a âprofessionalâ to sort out their life . . .â
So true: outsource everything to the experts, specialists in providing the care those in a distressed personâs orbit canât (due in no small part to their convictions in a concept of âmental illnessâ they keep chasing, promoted byâwho elseâspecialists in treating mental illness).
The âlistening cureââI like that. Might adding âactiveâ to it help?
Report comment
Nice. I really like this one: âSeeing racism as primarily rooted in individuals points us toward solutions that only focus on individuals rather than addressing the broader structural changes that are needed.â This seems so true, and not just in the context of racism. Not to diminish racial struggle, but it seems to me that if the word âracismâ were replaced with âdepressionâ or âanxietyâ or a host of other âmental disorders,â the sentence still carries truth
Report comment
Ryan, a Google search yielded some results: âResearch studies indicate that gossip can have both negative and positive impacts, with the key factor being the nature of the information shared.â
Further poking around would probably yield some formal research.
Maybe these studies make the impacts more tangible or real to some by the application of scientific apparatus?
Report comment
Wow. Super informative. Thanks for this.
Report comment
âCapitalism thus continues to gain ground at the expense of humanity and nature, while individuals are trained to adapt to it rather than to transform it.â âReally good.
Report comment
Before colonization in North America and the British Enclosure Movement, people often lived in small villages and tribes. While some tribes and societies were violent, many were not. These communities developed complex alliances and social structures that balanced individual needs with collective well-being. Itâs impossible to know exactly what these systems might have evolved into without the disruptions of industrial revolutions, colonization, and the commodification of land and labor.
The idea isnât to ignore humanityâs capacity for conflict or ambition but to explore whether decentralized, cooperative systems might provide a better foundation for addressing our challenges today. Modern history shows us that centralized systems often create the very inequalities and conflicts they claim to solve.
Iâm not advocating for a naive return to an idealized past. Instead, I suggest we ask what lessons can be learned from how humans lived before industrialization, especially in terms of sustainability, community cohesion, and interdependence. Itâs about blending the best of our past with innovative solutions for the future.
There is research suggesting that living closer to the Earth is good for us, even therapeutic. Iâve seen blogs here on MIA that make that point.
I understand the skepticism, and I share it when solutions are oversimplified. However, the idea of smaller, cooperative communities isnât about suppressing individuality or denying history. Itâs about reimagining systems that align better with human nature and our planetâs limits.
Whatâs really idealistic, it seems to me, is to think the systems that produce the unacceptable results we observe today will somehow produce better or different results than they do.
Report comment
Thank you, thank you for this. Not just a great article, but an important idea. Really good.
Report comment
â . . .because they wouldnt recognise or believe the trauma id been through.â
In thinking about your comment, I donât know which is worse: when impactful lived experience is dismissed as irrelevant by someone who âknows betterâ (expert and arm-chair psychologists alike), or dismissed as being part of the âdiagnosed condition or illnessâ (and therefore seen as a perception/hallucination problem) or when itâs dismissed as being an âexcuse.â
Report comment
Thanks, Rosalee
Report comment
Yikes! Sorry for that. Sibling dynamics can be very impactful for sure. As more focus becomes placed on the social and systemic origins of mental distress, more awareness of how those in a troubled personâs orbit regard, treat, and talk about that person may become more relevant to understanding a personâs distress.
Even factors like birth order and the associated power dynamics could take on new relevance.
Report comment
Thanks! If you’d like to see the expanded view of it, you can find it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1edxj1VdCgOzZlhvj6X54NRayiDeFhLkK/view?usp=sharing
Report comment
âAs it is now psychiatrists easily destroy a personâs reputation and/or life with lies and defamation but are never held to account because the patient is deemed to âlack insightâ and to have no credibility.â
Well said. The same phenomenon happens with people in a personâs orbit, which can be devastating. Gossips and arm-chair psychologists can ruin a personâs life, too, with lies, over-simplified half-truths, and defamation. And theyâre never held to account either. The target of gossip doesnât know who said what behind their back and doesnât get the chance to offer another perspective before the gossips are already behaving as if the gossip they heard through the grapevine carries the whole truth.
By the time the target can find someone to understand more of the story, itâs too late. Minds are made up.
As life is a social experience, when a personâs orbit consists entirely of people who treat them like someone they are not, it can really drive some powerful mental distress.
Then itâs off to see âprofessional helpâ which might be basically more of the same, coming from the same mindset.
Report comment
Iâm glad you found something in it, thanks for commenting. Sabrinaâs comment seems to align with yours when she said: â Forget about being taken seriously if they see you as being overly emotional or youâre diagnosed with a personality disorder.â
Report comment
Thanks for your kind words. I agree with you about how real world pressures impact how kids are parented (which just might impact their ACE scores). After a day of earning a living in an unnatural, high-stress world, mom and dad might not be the caring, nurturing parents they would be if working under natural conditions for natural rewards. When they get home from work, they might need to focus on their own self-care and stress relief.
Parents are pressured to earn a specialized living in the real world to pay for food, clothing, and shelter. And now child care, since both parents need to work to make ends meet. The variety of natural work of producing food, clothing and shelter is done by paid strangers.
Instead of working cooperatively to produce what they need, people spend their lives earning money to purchase these necessities, often at the expense of genuine human connection. How many people pay professionals to raise their children in day care while they are busy earning money to pay for food, housing, clothing, healthcare, and of course, day care? Are they effectively paying someone else to live their lives for them while they earn a living? Isnât raising children kind of an important part of the childâs and parentâs natural lives, a part so important that society at large depends upon them doing a good job?
Report comment
Really good. Thanks for this.
Report comment