🧵 Science once again proves that leftists are mentally ill
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 23:28:00 UTC No. 16106991
Construction and validation of a scale for assessing critical social justice attitudes
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi
>DISCUSSION
>The studies also assessed how having critical social justice attitudes relates to well-being variables. Many authors have previously linked critical social justice attitudes to poorer mental well-being in their work implicitly, but have not studied them directly (e.g., Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). In our samples (Study 1 and Study 2), having high CSJAS (critical social justice attitude scale) scores was linked to anxiety, depression, and a lack of happiness. However, Study 2 indicated that this lower level of mental well-being was mostly associated with being on the political left and not specifically with having a high CSJAS score. The association between lower mental health and supporting the political left is in line with what other studies have found prior to this one (Bernardi, 2021; Gimbrone et al., 2022).
tl;dr science has demonstrated conclusively that picrel is what you look like
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 23:28:32 UTC No. 16106993
furthermore…
>Critical social justice attitudes were somewhat prevalent in women, but not so much in men. Men rejected all but one item in the final CSJA scale, whereas women were cautiously supportive of scale items. Overall, study samples rejected the phenomenon with the 5,030 participants in Study 2, on average, agreeing with 0 items, in-between about three items, and rejecting four items, even though left-wing party supporters were overrepresented in the sample. In addition to CSJAS scores, this is also seen in somewhat low self-reported “wokeness.” People who supported left-wing parties and female university students in social sciences, education, and humanities, as well as people with “other” gender, were the most in support of the scale items. This indicates that, at least in Finland, what Yascha Mounk called “the identity synthesis,”, Tim Urban “social justice fundamentalism” and others “intersectionality” or “wokeness” seems to currently be a gendered phenomenon with little to no support from men and moderate support from women. What accounts for this gender difference can perhaps be investigated in future studies.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 00:13:01 UTC No. 16107052
>lets improve society by elevating the lowest achieving people to positions of importance
>no, wait, we can do even better, lets import all the lowest achieving people from around the world and elevate them to positions of importance
its not a tremendous feat to recognize that people who think that way are mentally unwell, however seeing it quantified is fairly amusing
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:37:16 UTC No. 16108040
>>16107052
Its amusing until you realize that you have to live in the consequences of their actions
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:44:46 UTC No. 16108047
>>16108040
saw a video of a dude offering coffee or something to a homeless and then homeless proceeds to rob the guy
retarded leftists are almost always kids with a very narrow worldview and skewed perception of why things are like they are, and what really drives the bullshit
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 02:54:02 UTC No. 16108720
>>16108047
>i'm being nice to you therefore you should be grateful and be nice to me back because thats what i would do in this situation
dumb idea from someone who never learned to control their childish projection instinct. image is from reddit, song is from the school of hard knocks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHI
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:42:16 UTC No. 16108752
>>16108047
>>16108040
https://editions-hache.com/essais/p
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:49:51 UTC No. 16108756
>>16106991
i mean, after what paulo freire's method's have done to them, even i'd be loony
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:42:00 UTC No. 16108915
>>16108767
Political distinction is not between right and left, its between right and wrong. "Left" is just a polite way of saying "wrong"
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:52:25 UTC No. 16109124
>>16106991
>People who are unsatisfied with society wish to improve it somewhat
wow, world-shattering revelations here
Alternatively
>Conservatives prefer to live in a comforting fantasy world
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:06:10 UTC No. 16109140
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:08:20 UTC No. 16109143
>>16108767
Don't know if I should bother with
>Self reported
And
>Political compass
garbage but the correlation between mental illness and leftism has been thoroughly explained.
1. Conservative taboo on mental illness means fewer people are diagnosed and traits that might otherwise be considered pathological are integrated into the social structure (strong hierarchies heavily favour narcissistic abusers; seeing sociopaths on the right is also no surprise).
2. People in conservative environments who experience mental troubles to such a degree that they cannot mask it are ostracised and shamed
3. This ostracisation pushes people away from their conservative environment and the corresponding views. They start to question how conservatives treat other minorities and perhaps sympathise more with other minorities.
4. Ex-conservatives find a welcoming environment among progressive circles, wherein mental health is freely discussed and no one is made to feel lesser for having trauma from the youth pastor doing things he shouldn't have.
I mean, you're posting this to suggest that people with OCD, PTSD, or social anxiety have impaired judgement and their political opinions should therefore be considered invalid, and you still wonder why they're not on your side? The only mental illness in this sample that could be said to make people unreliable is schizophrenia, which is close to the centre. Depression, which most strongly correlates with progressive views, is actually also heavily correlated with a more accurate assessment of reality.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:10:59 UTC No. 16109147
>>16108767
>>16109143
PS the redditor who made that graph doesn't do statistics for a living, she runs an onlyfans. Don't know if any of that information might influence your assessment of its accuracy.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:03:27 UTC No. 16109338
>>16109143
> Conservative taboo on mental illness means fewer people are diagnosed and traits that might otherwise be considered pathological are integrated into the social structure
Traits being pathological is an arbitrary measure.
>strong hierarchies heavily favour narcissistic abusers; seeing sociopaths on the right is also no surprise
In my experience, this applies equally to leftist places, with a huge overrepresentation of NPD/BPD-phenotype individuals in the far-left.
>who experience mental troubles to such a degree that they cannot mask it
Renders the notion of mental illness infallible and unfalsifiable because anyone could mask his or her mental illness. Mental illness turns into a meaningless metaphor that explains nothing.
>They start to question how conservatives treat other minorities and perhaps sympathise more with other minorities
Most likely, leftists do not actually care about minorities but simply abuse them as a way to get back at a society that "wronged" them. Again would correlate with the NPD/BPD phenotype frequently observed among leftists. Attention seeking behavior causes many of them to fake mental illness and proclaim themselves as homosexual and trans.
>wherein mental health is freely discussed
Courtesy of the pharmaceutical companies that put everyone on drugs. Btw, do you know how much money big pharma funnels to pro-lgbt groups?
>OCD, PTSD, or social anxiety have impaired judgement and their political opinions should therefore be considered invalid
Mental illness by definition involves impairment in cognition/emotional regulation.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:37:38 UTC No. 16109366
>>16109338
>Traits being pathological is an arbitrary measure.
Indeed, case in point: people with social anxiety on the left go and get a diagnosis and professional help, delusional conspiratards on the right are encouraged and told they're doing a great job.
>In my experience
Great to add your anecdote to this already spurious survey
>Renders the notion of mental illness infallible and unfalsifiable because anyone could mask his or her mental illness.
No, the whole point is that they can't. That there are people for whom the symptoms interfere too much with their functioning. But yes, masking is an accepted psychological phenomenon.
>Most likely, leftists do not actually care about minorities but simply abuse them
"Likely" based on what? More assumptions and personal anecdotes?
>Attention seeking behavior causes many of them to fake mental illness and proclaim themselves as homosexual and trans.
So they don't have real mental illnesses? Not even your "fake" ones are considered actual mental illnesses for that matter.
>Courtesy of the pharmaceutical companies that put everyone on drugs.
You think not discussing mental health is conducive to mental health? By all means, maybe we should avoid ALL for-profit healthcare and only trust Karen on facebook who I'm sure isn't earning a penny off those essential oils she's kindly offering as a natural alternative.
>Mental illness by definition involves impairment in cognition/emotional regulation.
Mental illness, by definition, causes distress or impaired functioning in an area of life. Lumping all mental illnesses together without distinguishing between the nature of the illness is foolish, and given the rest of your post, seems to be an intentional, agenda-driven move to disenfranchise a large part of the population. And again, you wonder why they're not with you, politically?
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:56:57 UTC No. 16109376
Arguably, people with a mental health diagnosis showing support for progressive causes demonstrates great judgement in at least one area.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:10:58 UTC No. 16109381
>>16109366
>people with social anxiety on the left go and get a diagnosis and professional help, delusional conspiratards on the right are encouraged and told they're doing a great job.
Which implies that the two groups overall deal differently with problems which results in different solutions and therefore in different degrees of impairment. Ergo, it's very much possible for a rightist to function just fine when a leftist doesn't, given both technically suffering from the same issue.
>Great to add your anecdote to this already spurious survey
Sure, it's anecdotal. But what evidence, other than purely logical deduction and a-priori reasoning, is not anecdotal, e.g. relies on inferring truth from incomplete sampling of data or similarly?
>But yes, masking is an accepted psychological phenomenon.
The problem isn't whether or not masking exists. It does, when we define it as a person attempting at hiding an underlying issue.
The problem is that the notion of "masking a mental illness" relies on the patient's own judgment which, given the assumed presence of a mental illness, by definition cannot be regarded as reliable. This was, until recently, a cornerstone in the way, the mentally ill were supposed to be treated. As unreliable narrators.
Otherwise, what we call mental illness nowadays isn't mental illness but just a very fancy way of saying "functionally impaired in some way".
I had these discussions a couple of times before. The only logically consistent conclusion that can be drawn from the notion of masking is that everyone has some kind of Schroedinger's mental illness because the idea of masking presumes that the presence or absence of an underlying mental illness cannot be properly ascertained in the first place. If we could, then masking would in itself turn into a manifestation of mental illness which clearly makes no sense when we assume that the mental illness isn't actually clearly determinable due to masking in the first place.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:19:10 UTC No. 16109389
>>16109366
>"Likely" based on what? More assumptions and personal anecdotes?
Virtue signalling is an accepted psychological phenomenon.
>So they don't have real mental illnesses?
Define mental illness. If the notion of mental illness solely depends on getting a paper from some certified psychiatrist, then the concept becomes meaningless and just an extension of the pharma-psychiatric industrial complex. Assuming that a capitalist cluster of enterprises operating on a neoliberal market solely do so in order to help the "mentally ill" is 1. remarkably naive and 2. clearly in conflict with your own political believes.
>You think not discussing mental health is conducive to mental health?
If the way we discuss mental health presupposes professional treatment because personal initiative as well as personal responsibility are regarded as trivial variables, then yes. This is very convenient for business that tries to marketize mental illness.
>maybe we should avoid ALL for-profit healthcare and only trust Karen on facebook who I'm sure isn't earning a penny off those essential oils she's kindly offering as a natural alternative
Because I say "not X", doesn't mean I say X. I can very much say that the earth isn't the center of the universe without believing that the sun must be center of it.
>Mental illness, by definition, causes distress or impaired functioning in an area of life
The measure of distress and impaired functioning again aligns with expectations in a neoliberal market. Your ideas in regards to promoting mental health will end up promoting the validity and correctness of the neoliberal market based on medicalizing and pathologizing people who fail to thrive in it.
>Lumping all mental illnesses together without distinguishing between the nature of the illness is foolish
True. That's why labelling people with handy acronyms as opposed to a much more throughout description of what they actually need and want isn't helpful.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:50:06 UTC No. 16109470
>>16109381
>Ergo, it's very much possible for a rightist to function just fine when a leftist doesn't, given both technically suffering from the same issue.
For a given definition of "functioning", yes, that's exactly the point.
>But what evidence, other than purely logical deduction and a-priori reasoning, is not anecdotal, e.g. relies on inferring truth from incomplete sampling of data or similarly?
Cop-out. Anecdotally speaking, based on samples obtained in this conversation, conservatives argue very dishonestly.
>The problem is that the notion of "masking a mental illness" relies on the patient's own judgment which, given the assumed presence of a mental illness, by definition cannot be regarded as reliable.
Circular reasoning. You again assume that "mental illness" means people are just generally irrational in every way, which would kind of defeat the point of distinguishing between them in the first place. Unless they are suffering from delusional disorders, people with mental illnesses tend to be keenly aware of their struggles, and develop coping mechanisms to deal with the resulting shame.
>The only logically consistent conclusion that can be drawn from the notion of masking is that everyone has some kind of Schroedinger's mental illness because the idea of masking presumes that the presence or absence of an underlying mental illness cannot be properly ascertained in the first place.
You can just ask them. Well, in a safe environment where mental health is freely discussed, anyway. Also, masking is rarely if ever perfect.
>If we could, then masking would in itself turn into a manifestation of mental illness which clearly makes no sense when we assume that the mental illness isn't actually clearly determinable due to masking in the first place.
This is pure fucking sophistry.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:55:34 UTC No. 16109477
>>16109389
>Virtue signalling is an accepted psychological phenomenon.
Yes, though not particularly relevant here. I don't think you properly understand the term.
>Define mental illness.
I have, of course.
>If the notion of mental illness solely depends on getting a paper from some certified psychiatrist, then the concept becomes meaningless and just an extension of the pharma-psychiatric industrial complex.
Let me remind you that YOU are the one arguing that people who have received any such label at all are all to be considered cognitively impaired for having that label.
>If the way we discuss mental health presupposes professional treatment because personal initiative as well as personal responsibility are regarded as trivial variables, then yes.
Okay, so in reality no
>Because I say "not X", doesn't mean I say X.
Oh, my mistake, you're only saying that all for-profit healthcare is to be inherently distrusted, I guess you're not offering any alternative at all.
>The measure of distress and impaired functioning again aligns with expectations in a neoliberal market.
To a degree, yes, and that is a problem, although the ability to participate in the neoliberal market is largely also a function of the ability to function in life.
>That's why labelling people with handy acronyms as opposed to a much more throughout description of what they actually need and want isn't helpful.
Good thing psychology is moving away from that.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:08:57 UTC No. 16109567
>>16109470
>You again assume that "mental illness" means people are just generally irrational
It's not so much my assumption rather than the one that psychiatrists and psychologists used to adher to.
>Unless they are suffering from delusional disorders, people with mental illnesses tend to be keenly aware of their struggles, and develop coping mechanisms to deal with the resulting shame
This relates to my point about masking. But it's fairly academic and I mainly use it in regards to ADHD/autism where that argument technically falls flat on etiological grounds. Having this reduced to a "just ask them"-approach invites free-loaders as well as people confused about what's actually going on. It's true that in regards to masking, this probably hardly ever is perfect where it accurately applies to, but then the person in question has underlying cognitive issues that are measurable via tests other than simple questionaires. Someone who can't pay attention, read books or interpret faces can't mask that if accurately prompted.
>This is pure fucking sophistry.
No, it shows that normalizing the idea of "masking" without making the notion of mental illness depend on anything other than behavior renders it meaningless and unfalsifiable.
>you're only saying that all for-profit healthcare is to be inherently distrusted
For-profit healthcare necessarily invites marketization which ends up with mental health issues turning into commodities. It's not that hard to understand. This causes overdiagnosis as well as profit-oriented treatment.
>To a degree, yes, and that is a problem, although the ability to participate in the neoliberal market is largely also a function of the ability to function in life.
I disagree.
>Good thing psychology is moving away from that.
Is it? I see more and more ABC diagnoses.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:31:42 UTC No. 16109589
>>16108758
basically ego protection cope in graph form. "only reason i'm a miserable loser is because of factors outside of my control, absolutely nothing to do with my personal choices at all."
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:07:04 UTC No. 16109625
>>16106991
Obviously, but they are too stupid to come up with all that. So I would assume someone else is behind the whole thing, someone who really doesn't care the way they do, but wants certain outcome out of it. So that person/group is sane and that's why this ilness is not yet completely removed from the face of Earth. Well that and how comforming people/companies can be.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:38:42 UTC No. 16109669
>>16109589
I think you'll find that the cope is
>I worked to get where I am today, no one handed me anything, and if anyone else is less well off than I am that is their own fault!