A Brief Rant about the Behavioral Health Model

I'm one of those caught up in the system, one of the crazies looking for support and relief from the madness from time to time.

In an attempt to combat my agoraphobia I've been looking for public places I can go where my madness will be accommodated and I can leave any time without it getting awkward for everyone.

There are community programs for the crazies like myself where I can go and find a supportive environment to just get out and not overburden myself with feeling like I have to try to be too normal. And they have yoga.

However, in recent years in an attempt to expand these programs it seems, they've rolled them in with drug counseling programs and such.


That's okay, or so I thought, except in practice I've been uncomfortable with it and I had to reflect on why.

Well, drugs come up in conversation among people in recovery, and my flavor of crazy tends to drive its host toward drug use, so being around a lot of people, a plurality of whom have been in a recent state of relapse or will relapse again is not necessarily the greatest place for me to be in. Recidivism is so high among this group.

I appreciate the extra community programs that wouldn't otherwise be there. Schizoaffective disorder only impacts about .3% of the population, so without the addicts there would be no community programs for those like me at all.

I mean, the official line is that treatment for both groups is largely the same, and maybe there's truth to that but I can't help but feel like this is a band aid over a larger issue, and that is that our society doesn't take mental illness seriously enough in general. It's a public health issue**, not an issue for prisons, where the bulk of us go. I'm fortunate I'm not one of them.

** It is for drug abuse too, and yet that's a different topic, which is rather the point of this topic.

How Anger Spreads Online

This discussion is an adaptation of a part of an excellent discussion, The Story of Us, written and posted by Kristen Solindas on Snowflake’s Forum. The 6-minute video makes a clear, understandable analogy between how and why emotions spread online, including anger, and how a virus spreads. This analogy would probably resonate with most people. The video refers to the virus as bypassing the mental immune system. The mental immune system is conscious reason. Conscious reason can easily be tricked into switching off in favor of letting unconscious emotional reactions run free and wild.

This issue, the spread of reason-killing emotions online, exemplifies why the phrase “unwarranted emotional manipulation”[1] has appeared on this blog dozens or maybe hundreds of times. It is why I criticize unwarranted emotional manipulation (UEM) as a possible existential threat to various things including liberal democracy, the rule of law, civilization and maybe even the survival of the human species.





The data the video is based on is from a 2012 research paper by Jonah Berger and Katherine L Milkman at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. The data summary is shown below. According to this research, anger is the most contagious online emotion and sadness is the least contagious.

Berger and Milkman write in their paper:

“Why are certain pieces of online content more viral than others? This article takes a psychological approach to understanding diffusion. Using a unique dataset of all the New York Times articles published over a three month period, the authors examine how emotion shapes virality. Results indicate that positive content is more viral than negative content, but that the relationship between emotion and social transmission is more complex than valence alone. Virality is driven, in part, by physiological arousal. Content that evokes high-arousal positive (awe) or negative (anger or anxiety) emotions is more viral. Content that evokes low arousal, or deactivating emotions (e.g., sadness) is less viral. These results hold even controlling for how surprising, interesting, or practically useful content is (all of which are positively linked to virality), as well as external drivers of attention (e.g., how prominently content was featured).”

For me, the surprising thing here is the researcher’s data showing that positive emotions tend to be more viral than negative emotion, apparently other than anger. The caveat here is that Berger and Milkman are marketers looking for ways to make online advertising more effective. It isn’t clear if other researchers looking for politically effective online content would see the same results. From what I can tell, fear, anger and disgust are among the most effectively manipulated emotions in online partisan political content.

Regardless, the main point of this research is clear: Political partisans who rely on dark free speech that foments anger as an UEM tool are trying to build an irrational tribalism by exploiting an innate human weakness. Anger tends to suppress or completely block conscious reasoning or logic, which is precisely what emotional manipulators want. Humans evolved this way. To at least try to mount a defense against UEM, people need to be aware of this human trait in themselves.


Footnote:
1. Unwarranted emotional manipulation usually appears as part of my conception of dark free speech, which I define as follows: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)

Thoughts on the President’s Impeachment

The acquittal of the president in the Senate was obvious at least from the time that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said he had no interest in being neutral. All that was left was for the GOP to figure a way to acquit the president while still holding up a fig leaf to cover their obviously political decision.

The broken law argument

Even without paying attention to the proceedings in the Senate, a couple of interesting points filtered through. One is that GOP senators raised the bar on the political process of impeachment to require broken law(s). That is not required by the constitution, which is silent on the point. Of course, that requires them to ignore or downplay the fact that the GAO found the president did break a law in the course of attempting to extort Ukraine.

But on the point of lawbreaking, the president’s attorney argued that a broken law is nonetheless required to impeach. The broken law defense first surfaced in 1868, when a lawyer defending president Andrew Johnson argued the president could not be removed from office because he was not guilty of a crime. The current situation again proves that impeachment can be fundamentally political if the people in congress choose to make it political. In this case, the GOP is making it partisan political, nothing more. It’s leader and/or party before country for the modern GOP. That mindset is a key trait of authoritarian regimes throughout history.

Idle speculation

Although this is obvious, it bears mention: If the facts were all the same except that president was Hillary Clinton and the House was also controlled by the GOP, the GOP would be calling and voting for impeachment. Again, impeachment is political. An interesting question asks how many, if any, congressional democrats would vote to impeach a president Clinton under the otherwise same circumstances. I bet it would not be zero as it has been and probably will be with the GOP. But that is just idle speculation.

The heads on pikes comment

House impeachment manager Adam Schiff commented that GOP senators had to vote to acquit the president or their heads would be on a pike. That rings true of the modern authoritarian GOP. Discussions here have pointed out that the modern GOP leadership is rigidly intolerant of internal dissent. For GOP congress people, they either tow the line or they will be primaried by a well-funded opponent in the next election cycle. As we all know, re-election comes before country and that is a bipartisan moral value.

It may be the case that no one explicitly made the head on a pike threat. Schiff acknowledged that. Nonetheless, it is obvious the threat is there and real. Schiff just stated what everyone knows: tow the line or we’ll have your head on a pike. Schiff’s comment arguably was a tactical error because it enraged GOP senators. They want to maintain a facade of plausible independence. Regardless, it makes no difference what Schiff says or what the evidence against the president is. The GOP is authoritarian and it politicians will acquit the president mostly or due to authoritarian tribe loyalty, pure terror or some combination of the two.

Why migrating to another planet is a stupid and implausible idea

Swiss astrophysicist Michel Mayor, whose work detecting exoplanets recently earned him a share in the Nobel prize for physics, says humans will never migrate beyond our own solar system. Maybe it’s time we started taking this whole “climate change” thing seriously.

The first exoplanet with the potential to host life as we know it, meaning it was orbiting a star similar to the one we call ‘the sun,’ was discovered by Mayor and fellow Nobel winner Didier Queloz in 1995. In the time since, researchers have confirmed the existence of more than 4,000 exoplanets. But we won’t be making the trip to any of them, says Mayor.

He told Agence France-Press:

If we are talking about exoplanets, things should be clear: we will not migrate there. These planets are much, much too far away. Even in the very optimistic case of a livable planet that is not too far, say a few dozen light years, which is not a lot, it’s in the neighborhood, the time to go there is considerable. We are talking about hundreds of millions of days using the means we have available today.

Rather than concern ourselves with dreams of colonizing planets throughout our galaxy and beyond, Mayor says “We must take care of our planet.” He told AFP that he wanted to dissuade people from thinking of migration as a viable solution to existential threats, telling reporters he felt the need to “kill all the statements that say ‘OK, we will go to a livable planet if one day life is not possible on earth.” He went on to call such sentiments “completely crazy.”

And he’s right. The current space race may not be a direct response to climate crisis science, but it’s turning out to be a fantastic distraction from the actual, scientifically proven catastrophe unfolding here on Earth.

We shouldn’t be online picking out curtains for some future mansion we hope to live in one day while our studio apartment is burning down around us.

Because, if exoplanets are off the table (barring some far-future tech like quantum warping), then we don’t really have any other options. The Moon? It’s not big enough. Mars? Let’s examine that one briefly.

The red planet is uninhabitable. Despite Elon Musk’s assertion that ‘nuking’ it would kick-start the atmosphere, there’s no current technology capable of “terraforming” it to make it livable. There’s a reason why people haven’t fled the crowded streets of New York, Paris, and Bangladesh to stretch their legs in the wide-open expanses of Antarctica. Because uninhabitable means you can’t survive without accommodations that don’t occur naturally. The challenge of surviving on Mars is almost infinitely more difficult than living on Earth‘s south pole.

When we imagine these ventures, the ones where we send brave explorers off to carve out a new home for humanity (Battlestar Galactica anyone?), we’re not thinking about the billions of ‘regular people‘ who don’t have ‘the right stuff,’ to survive in the harsher-than-anything-on-our-planet reality of space.

There’s no doubt we’ll eventually set up small colonies on the Moon and Mars, but feeding and housing billions of people?

If we’re trying to preserve the species, we need to fight the climate crisis head-on. Building cosmic arks won’t save us. 

https://thenextweb.com/insider/2019/10/11/why-migrating-to-another-planet-is-a-stupid-and-implausible-idea/