This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Perhaps they would've lead happier lives as priests!
And why would Cluster-B not fall into this? Also you're saying hypermobility and chronic stomach pain are cluster B as well?
People with Autism and people with "Autism" are very different. There is a large community of people in the US who have a number of the conditions on this list by their own understanding but are really just someone with BPD.
"Yes I have depression, anxiety, PTSD, EDS, mast cell blah blah and 5 allergies as well as a non-typical gender presentation." That person is a borderline who refuses diagnosis or is not diagnosed.
This is so wildly off base.
Additionally most of these people are women. Women aren't really priests in the abrahamic tradition and the emotional instability associated with these people is not a good fit for priestliness.
Most of the listed disorders are incompatible with leadership and gravitas.
Idk man, I am one of these, and I'm a man. Perhaps I'm extremely rare. But the article matches my personal experience extremely well.
Again, what is the point of labeling it "borderline?" How does that solve anything? You're still agreeing that this is a real phenomena just putting it into a different box.
No there is a specific pattern of issues in emotional response and personality construction with associated genetic markers known as borderline personality disorder. Many people with this condition incorrectly label themselves with a bunch of other stuff that may or may not be real but generally doesn't apply to them.
True allergies have an at least partially known mechanism.
Depression doesn't quite march clearly with the others listed and likely represents multiple syndromes.
Some of the big names in medical research have tried to genetically localize schizophrenia and firmly failed to do so, even if it is strongly suspected to be genetic and cause.
Emotional instability is poorly correlated with abrahamic tradition priests.
And so on and so forth. This model really doesn't make sense and ignores quite a bit of known medical knowledge.
Just chiming in to note that I've personally heard mental health professionals admit to incorrectly diagnosing borderlines as well, ostensibly so that they could receive mental health services that explicitly excluded borderlines from eligibility in their guidelines. I strongly suspect that several percentage points of bipolars are misdiagnosed borderlines.
More options
Context Copy link
A perfectly fair accusation. I do indeed ignore quite a bit of 'known' knowledge of psychology and psychiatry. I find this perfectly reasonable given the replication crisis, the obvious corruption in the field, and my own personal experiences.
ETA: For the record I still love you @self_made_human!
Alright I've repeatedly tried to be a bit soft here but to be blunt this is absolutely horseshit that seems to not match genetic studies, general research, or the gross consensus of individuals working in the field.
Some additional examples:
Gifted people have good life outcomes and contra to expectations are more attractive than average.
The "major psychiatric diagnosis" is just not true by any stretch of the imagination. It does not capture definitions of serious mental illness, inpatient populations, or most the most likely diagnosis (anxiety disorders are more common).
EDS has several known genetic markers and the one that all of the psych patients has is mysteriously the one that doesn't have genetic markers. Also women are more flexible than men and many women who are normal will claim they have EDS.
Additionally googling this person appears to show all the usual signs of questionableness and medical inaccuracy.
You are falling for pure ascientific bullshit quackery.
Look, I don't doubt that some people get convinced they have diagnoses that, from your perspective or the broader medical perspective, they don't actually have. You seem to be really upset about that. I don't particularly care one way or another, because I have experienced first hand how ruinous it can be to your life to get debilitating, chronic conditions repeatedly misdiagnosed by the traditional medical system and spend a boatload of money for the pleasure.
The argument that the original article is making refers to a certain subtype of the population, often with some sort of serious chronic illness, that has a propensity to shift narrative frames more easily than others. I find that to be a reasonable argument that matches my experience in life.
From my perspective, instead of talking about this claim, you seem to be ignoring the original claim and zeroing in on complaining about cluster B women? Which is kind of confusing.
I think this may be one of those things where you are looking into it from outside the medical community and going "huh that's interesting."
But what you are stumbling into is an appeal to the work of an alternative medicine practitioner whose work seems to be heavily cited by the "cluster-b but in denial of it" community to flatter their understanding of their own pathology despite clear instruction to the contrary by legitimate medical resources.
At the same time the reference seems to completely misunderstand the wide body of clinical and genetic research as well as basic understandings in terms as well effectively universal clinical consensus.
Attempting to fit some bullshit 2+2=5 stuff into an explanation of priestliness is a fools errand since what its looking to use is total crap.
Nothing about it makes any sense and ive rattled off several significant examples (that's not how mental illness categorization works, thats not how EDS works, thats not how allergies work....).
Additional people who work in the priestly cast do not have the personality attributes you associate with most of these line items.
Again none of this make any sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I love you too my dude, even if you love Jesus more :(
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, the point of doing that is because people who say they have it are usually using it as an excuse to be destructive, and the cost of making a Type I error here is nothing compared to what you'll spend if you make a Type II error here instead and give a bunch of wicked people carte blanche to just make up self-serving nonsense at everyone else's expense (otherwise known as "sufferers of Cluster B disorders").
Naturally, this has a huge selection bias, where people who are just making shit up are overwhelmingly more likely to talk about it, especially if society is currently biased towards making Type II errors in their direction. The word "religious sacrifice" was generally used to refer to this when society contextualized its desires using that lens, which is why people with an inkling of this tend to class atheism and woke as religions (because of the way they justify the benefits of intentionally making those particular Type II errors).
And even then, there are people who can use this 'condition' productively, and there are those who can not. Again, in conditions of societal oversupply [which people without the condition are relatively adept at noticing, at least on a group level] it can be a reasonable strategy to over-reject people on the grounds that they're destructive with that power, or that they don't have enough of the power to actually be worth fully utilizing them.
Much like with words related to gender identity and sexuality, and potentially for the exact same reason, the terms the wise (or more precisely, those who have this condition, or at least those who are fully capable of understanding what it is and how it works) use to talk to each other are dangerous to everyone else when they inevitably fall into the wrong hands.
A big part of having this condition is knowing when, when not, and how to talk about advanced topics to co-sufferers.
Idk man, I have experienced the opposite where I am genuinely hypermobile (source: my joints pop around!) and if anything it was less of an excuse to be destructive. I think that you and mister throwaway are being far too negative towards this subset of the population, though I'm sure he at least has fair reason having to deal with many more of them than I do.
All this being said, I'm not sure how this line of argumentation applies to the original point that some people with these health issues have shamanic abilities/tendencies. Can you tie it back for me?
You misunderstand.
We know that they misuse these tools/words/concepts that could have (and perhaps were originally intended to) helped us, in an intentionally destructive way. It's not
Complete Asshole DiseaseCluster B disorder, it's My Anxiety (and everything else I've Munchausen'd my way into today).The article very clearly describes us, who are describing actual problems (and I can attest that the statements made in the article are indeed very accurate), and not just using them as a license to be selfish pricks.
It's difficult for the normies to tell the difference and depending on the situation sometimes there legitimately isn't one. They just have to trust us. And that is difficult, even for others like us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link