Intelligent People More Likely To Suffer From Mental Illness

[Travis]

Some of these cases could be exhibiting neuroticism of the Caulfield-type that is caused more by societies' indiscretions that of any personal shortcoming. It is quite natural for a person raised on Charles Dickens, J.D. Salinger, George Orwell, Ken Kesey—yet not the television—to be appalled by the behavior of most ruling classes and dominator cultures. I think being literate and introspective may be a prerequisite for this type of neuroticism, and also being honest and fair. Some people are simply 'better actors' than others, a form of 'behaviour deception,' and even the craziest people not feeling constrained to such—i.e. Ted Bundy, Richard Nixon—can appear perfectly normal on all counts. So in modern society, that type of 'mental illness' can be seen almost as badge of honor; it implies that you are honest, literate, and not entirely without moral standards.

Activities, trends, belief systems, memes, and even behaviours are pathologized by the same ruling classes that are threatened by them. Before actual physical force is used: those highly critical of ruling classes often accusing of lying, confabulation, and labeled as 'crazy' with intent of lowering the apparent veracity of their statements—a form of sociological gaslighting. Yet even before it's necessary to go that far: intelligent people who aren't exactly 'team players'—i.e. strong candidates for cultural change—are slapped with the neurotic label, a sort of preëminent strike against nascent threats to the power structure. This is not only punitive to the offender while also lowering their credulity, but also has the function of deterring other from such behavior.

I assume that J.D. Salinger, Ken Kesey, and Joseph Heller had all known this. All three authors had written a book in which the 'crazy' person by popular standards—Holden Caulfield, R.P. McMurphy, and Capt. Yossarian—had truly been the sane one.

 

[Regina]

Some of these cases could be exhibiting neuroticism of the Caulfield-type that is caused more by societies' indiscretions that of any personal shortcoming. It is quite natural for a person raised on Charles Dickens, J.D. Salinger, George Orwell, Ken Kesey—yet not the television—to be appalled by the behavior of most ruling classes and dominator cultures. I think being literate and introspective may be a prerequisite for this type of neuroticism, and also being honest and fair. Some people are simply 'better actors' than others, a form of 'behaviour deception,' and even the craziest people not feeling constrained to such—i.e. Ted Bundy, Richard Nixon—can appear perfectly normal on all counts. So in modern society, that type of 'mental illness' can be seen almost as badge of honor; it implies that you are honest, literate, and not entirely without moral standards.

Activities, trends, belief systems, memes, and even behaviours are pathologized by the same ruling classes that are threatened by them. Before actual physical force is used: those highly critical of ruling classes often accusing of lying, confabulation, and labeled as 'crazy' with intent of lowering the apparent veracity of their statements—a form of sociological gaslighting. Yet even before it's necessary to go that far: intelligent people who aren't exactly 'team players'—i.e. strong candidates for cultural change—are slapped with the neurotic label, a sort of preëminent strike against nascent threats to the power structure. This is not only punitive to the offender while also lowering their credulity, but also has the function of deterring other from such behavior.

I assume that J.D. Salinger, Ken Kesey, and Joseph Heller had all known this. All three authors had written a book in which the 'crazy' person by popular standards—Holden Caulfield, R.P. McMurphy, and Capt. Yossarian—had truly been the sane one.

Great post Travis.
(I named my first car (VW hatchback) when I was 16 "Holden". Holden Caulfield had so resonated with me).

 

[Amazoniac]

good mental health is characterized by a mild to moderate delusion

The Hopelessness Theory of Depression: A Quarter Century in Review

"[..]individuals form causal attributions along three different dimensions, from internal to external, stable to unstable, and from global to specific. According to this reformulated theory, those who attribute a negative event to internal, stable, and global causes were at greater likelihood of developing depression. This theory would predict, for example, that an individual who has an argument with an acquaintance is more likely to become depressed if they interpret this event as a product of their poor interpersonal ability (internal), which they believe will never change (stable) and will negatively influence all their other social interactions (global). In contrast, the individual is at lower risk for depression if they attribute the same event to the acquaintance’s irritability (external), brought about by having a bad day (unstable), and believes this is uncharacteristic of their other social interactions (specific)."

"Also featured in Abramson and colleagues’ (1989) presentation of the hopelessness theory is a model of recovery from hopelessness depression (also see Needles & Abramson, 1990). According to this model, just as individuals with a tendency to form negative inferences are vulnerable to becoming hopeless and depressed when experiencing a negative life event, individuals with a tendency to form positive inferences about the cause (i.e., global and stable), consequences, and self-characteristics associated with a positive life event are likely to become more hopeful and recover from depression. In this manner, a positive inferential style may function as a resilience factor that interacts with positive life events to produce an ameliorative effect on the individual’s sense of hope and mood.

Panzarella, Alloy, and Whitehouse (2006) also provided an elaboration of the hopelessness theory to include adaptive inferential feedback, a subtype of social support that involves having a member of one’s social network correcting a negative inference with a more adaptive one. According to this expansion, adaptive inferential feedback serves to both temper the development of negative inferential styles and correct existing negative event-specific inferences. When adaptive inferential feedback is successful in correcting a negative inference, the effect of the interaction between negative inferential styles and negative events in predicting hopelessness should be disrupted, with negative inferential styles being gradually replaced with more positive inferential styles."​

It's quite common for parents to overwhelm their children with harsh criticism with the excuse that they're priming them to the tough world outside.

@DaveFoster @Xisca

 

[Amazoniac]

More intelligent people are easier to manipulate for being more sensitive, capable of reflecting on suggestions and understanding what's being imposed:
How Can People Be Healthy Even When They Don't Eat A Healthy Diet?

I remember a Youtube video in which two dogs were limited by cans forming a maze, all in a playful way. The "dumb" (according to them) dog remained obedient and respected the course, the "smart" dog just jumped out of it, stumbling like a savage.

Pick-up artists often claim in videos that the dumber the woman is, the more difficult it is to be manipulative on her. It's an immunity.

 

[DaveFoster]

The Hopelessness Theory of Depression: A Quarter Century in Review

"[..]individuals form causal attributions along three different dimensions, from internal to external, stable to unstable, and from global to specific. According to this reformulated theory, those who attribute a negative event to internal, stable, and global causes were at greater likelihood of developing depression. This theory would predict, for example, that an individual who has an argument with an acquaintance is more likely to become depressed if they interpret this event as a product of their poor interpersonal ability (internal), which they believe will never change (stable) and will negatively influence all their other social interactions (global). In contrast, the individual is at lower risk for depression if they attribute the same event to the acquaintance’s irritability (external), brought about by having a bad day (unstable), and believes this is uncharacteristic of their other social interactions (specific)."

"Also featured in Abramson and colleagues’ (1989) presentation of the hopelessness theory is a model of recovery from hopelessness depression (also see Needles & Abramson, 1990). According to this model, just as individuals with a tendency to form negative inferences are vulnerable to becoming hopeless and depressed when experiencing a negative life event, individuals with a tendency to form positive inferences about the cause (i.e., global and stable), consequences, and self-characteristics associated with a positive life event are likely to become more hopeful and recover from depression. In this manner, a positive inferential style may function as a resilience factor that interacts with positive life events to produce an ameliorative effect on the individual’s sense of hope and mood.

Panzarella, Alloy, and Whitehouse (2006) also provided an elaboration of the hopelessness theory to include adaptive inferential feedback, a subtype of social support that involves having a member of one’s social network correcting a negative inference with a more adaptive one. According to this expansion, adaptive inferential feedback serves to both temper the development of negative inferential styles and correct existing negative event-specific inferences. When adaptive inferential feedback is successful in correcting a negative inference, the effect of the interaction between negative inferential styles and negative events in predicting hopelessness should be disrupted, with negative inferential styles being gradually replaced with more positive inferential styles."​

It's quite common for parents to overwhelm their children with harsh criticism with the excuse that they're priming them to the tough world outside.

@DaveFoster @Xisca

I used to have a positive outlook, but that quickly went away in the face of actual experience.

Certainly, narcissism from my "parental figures" contributed, but publicly, a general sociopathy pervades, and maybe a family should provide some shield or comfort from that, but mine never did. I don't think my "family" serves as an outlier, either.

Similarly, I once had libertarian leanings, but I realized the inevitability of authoritarianism, again influenced in part by the intrusive authority in my own life.

Kindness for the sake of some goal brings an inevitable outcome: an individual defeated and dejected. Pursue your own purpose with no regard to those around you, as social norms inevitably warp and change, which derails your own life path. If altruism brings you pleasure, then let it be, but expect nothing, as life always returns less than given.

Those who believe in grand conspiracies targeted against them, personally, have such shallow delusions. Truthfully, life cares nothing for you, and people care marginally more. Those who preach "love" often idolize platitudes, where they only occasionally express appreciation toward other individuals; even then, most disregard compliments anyway.

 

[Amazoniac]

I used to have a positive outlook, but that quickly went away in the face of actual experience.

Certainly, narcissism from my "parental figures" contributed, but publicly, a general sociopathy pervades, and maybe a family should provide some shield or comfort from that, but mine never did. I don't think my "family" serves as an outlier, either.

Similarly, I once had libertarian leanings, but I realized the inevitability of authoritarianism, again influenced in part by the intrusive authority in my own life.

Kindness for the sake of some goal brings an inevitable outcome: an individual defeated and dejected. Pursue your own purpose with no regard to those around you, as social norms inevitably warp and change, which derails your own life path. If altruism brings you pleasure, then let it be, but expect nothing, as life always returns less than given.

Those who believe in grand conspiracies targeted against them, personally, have such shallow delusions. Truthfully, life cares nothing for you, and people care marginally more. Those who preach "love" often idolize platitudes, where they only occasionally express appreciation toward other individuals; even then, most disregard compliments anyway.

I think I'll pay a psycologist to say that my feelings are valid and a coach to repeat that I'm capable. These should suffice until I can produce a dependent and defenseless fetus that has no choice but to function as a lightning rod for my frustrations, with the brain being the final destination.

When I was reading about sickness behavior, there are many interesting theories that try to explain part of it. An example is one that suggests that having high expectations but a negative outlook predisposes people to perceive experiences as brutal and hopeless failures, which in turn makes the body react by launching the hibernating program to wait for better conditions and opportunities.

You must've read happiness being directly related to expectations. There's nothing wrong with being ambitious, I guess it's healthy, but it has to be followed by the positive framing for it to work, otherwise mental suffering is very likely.

Speaking of pick-up artists, they also comment that being too nice expecting something in return is quite dishonest, manipulative and weak. Your 'kindness with a goal' comment.

 

[Amazoniac]

Depression as a disease of modernity: explanations for increasing prevalence

"Human bodies have been shaped by natural selection to engage in much higher rates of physical activity than current levels in modern society. The estimated average daily energy expenditure of hunter-gatherers is about 3,000 kcal (Eaton et al., 1997). The reduction in energy expenditure in the US adult population during the past century is calculated to have mainly occurred between 1910 and 1970, and had leveled off by about 1980 (Cutler et al., 2003). Surveys in the US reveal that less than half of adults engage in the recommended amount of physical activity with 37.6% considered “completely inactive” (CDC, 2010). Physical activity has unequivocal health benefits for the prevention and treatment of chronic disease (Warburton et al., 2006). In the general population, exercise correlates with a reduced risk of depression and sedentary behavior with a higher risk (Teychenne et al., 2010). Exercise appears to reduce depressive symptoms (Dunn and Dishman, 1991) and does so in a dose-dependent manner (Dunn et al., 2005). Aerobic exercise has shown to be as effective a treatment as a standard antidepressant (sertraline) for MDD (Blumenthal et al., 2007), with those in the aerobic exercise arm of the study exhibiting a lower rate of relapse (Babyak et al., 2000)."

"Accumulating evidence indicates that the social environment in modern-industrialized countries, especially in the United States, has become increasingly competitive, threatening, and socially isolating. Increased competition is most obvious in college admissions (Bound et al., 2009) and economically, as workers now compete for jobs on a global scale (Friedman, 2007). Contemporary populations may now be more susceptible to depression because of greater inequality, low social support, intense individual competitiveness, and increased social failure (Gilbert, 2006). Onset of a major depressive episode often coincides with stressful life events (Kendler et al., 1999; Nesse, 2000). The modern social milieu could contribute to rising rates of depression via higher frequency and/or severity of adversity. Many have posited that capitalist values have directly contributed to a decline in social well-being and an increase in psychopathology throughout the western world (Kasser et al., 2007; Putnam, 1995; Walsh, 2011). The high degree of self-determination, at least perceived or expected, in current western societies might affect depression rates; freedom is certainly laudable, but it appears to be a double-edged sword, as excessive choice can lead to paralytic indecision, greater expectations, stress, and eventual dissatisfaction, blame, and regret (Schwartz, 2000)."

"religious activity is correlated with lower risk of depression and more social support (Koenig and Larson, 2001)"

​

"Internet use has been correlated with less family communication, smaller social circles, more depressive symptoms and greater feelings of loneliness (Kraut et al., 1998). Social support confers protection against depression, whereas weak social support exacerbates one’s vulnerability (Egeland and Hostetter, 1983; Prince et al., 1998; Prudo et al., 1984). Interpersonal therapy, which focuses on improving social connectedness with family and friends, is an effective treatment for depression and reduces the risk of relapse (de Mello et al., 2005)."

 

[Constatine]

Traditionally intelligent people tend to create their own stimulus. Instead of being present in the senses and immediate environment they exist within their own head, building upon their own thoughts. This is a reason certain people can be intelligent despite poor physiology. In order for thoughts to be had and to be had efficiently (less cost of energy) structure must be built within the brain. And where the consciousness exists further neuronal structure will be made. Habits are simply structures that have been thoroughly established and thus require less energy, therefore we tend to resort to them (especially when we are low in energy). A problem arises when people exist primarily in their own heads. They do tend to increase in intelligence (though not necessarily any intelligence that is based in reality as they don't often crosscheck with the real world, at least not as much as those who rely on the senses), but they also are commonly overstimulated. Stimulation breads a desire for more stimulation and when one is in absolute control of such stimulation they tend to overwork the CNS, leading to increased serotonin and eventually depressive symptoms. Just giving your brain a rest and relying on the senses and immediate environment can help.

 

[DaveFoster]

Speaking of pick-up artists, they also comment that being too nice expecting something in return is quite dishonest, manipulative and weak. Your 'kindness with a goal' comment.

Manipulation encompasses any act with intention, but psychological manipulation implies a lack of straightforwardness; rather, it implies a crookedness, or a redirection of force, an action that influences an object's direction, rather than confronting and overpowering it.

Pickup artists defer to others' expectations. "What makes me attractive to a woman?" "What should I say to embody 'social value?'" "What's the appropriate way to respond?" They disparage the "blue-pilled betas," but they themselves lack resolve and live in a similar state of, not to overuse the word, delusion, where they conform their own life goals to a broken social framework, rather than reject the model outright. Worse than "the blue pill," pickup artistry steals the potential awakening of a man and submerges him in a perpetual dream, whereas someone soundly asleep, dreamless, holds a more receptive disposition toward wakefulness.

 

[Regina]

Manipulation encompasses any act with intention, but psychological manipulation implies a lack of straightforwardness; rather, it implies a crookedness, or a redirection of force, an action that influences an object's direction, rather than confronting and overpowering it.

Pickup artists defer to others' expectations. "What makes me attractive to a woman?" "What should I say to embody 'social value?'" "What's the appropriate way to respond?" They disparage the "blue-pilled betas," but they themselves lack resolve and live in a similar state of, not to overuse the word, delusion, where they conform their own life goals to a broken social framework, rather than reject the model outright. Worse than "the blue pill," pickup artistry steals the potential awakening of a man and submerges him in a perpetual dream, whereas someone soundly asleep, dreamless, holds a more receptive disposition toward wakefulness.

They are still not practicing being human.

 

[Constatine]

Pickup artists defer to others' expectations. "What makes me attractive to a woman?" "What should I say to embody 'social value?'" "What's the appropriate way to respond?" They disparage the "blue-pilled betas," but they themselves lack resolve and live in a similar state of, not to overuse the word, delusion, where they conform their own life goals to a broken social framework, rather than reject the model outright. Worse than "the blue pill," pickup artistry steals the potential awakening of a man and submerges him in a perpetual dream, whereas someone soundly asleep, dreamless, holds a more receptive disposition toward wakefulness.

Pickup artistry, especially when done poorly, can also signify a lack of value. Conforming to another's perceptive is inherently not a masculine trait and communicates a weak frame. Though being influenced by other's expectations is an innate human behavior and can even benefit our lives. I don't think the majority of pick-up artists are doing anything wrong, they are striving for 'masculine success'. Though perhaps they misunderstand masculinity. It is the fault of the culture for not teaching them proper masculinity (as in behaviors that become evident with increased brain androgen expression). But the goal itself is biological and only slightly warped by culture. There exists two large dogmas among the internet now the "blue pill" and "red pill" that like to claim certain ideals and associate them with others (as is the case with politics as well). Delusion is present in both, rejecting the social framework altogether would be ideal but only generalized notions become movements, partially because you can assign a word to such a notion.

 

[DaveFoster]

rejecting the social framework altogether would be ideal but only generalized notions become movements, partially because you can assign a word to such a notion.

True, and an effective political movement relies on discontent. Starvations, whether of food, sex, social connection or meaningful purpose all signal danger to the organism. In concert, sexual frustration and loneliness results in self-destructive behavior, as appears in a severe form with modern school shooters. Pornography and video games fill many of the voids adequately, but they sequester any hope for real change.

Many in the "manosphere" reject masturbation in favor of casual sexual engagements, viewed as more fulfilling. Removed from sexual connection, chronic masturbation brings about numbness and eventual self-loathing; it has an explicit social stigma. The modern public has neutral or even positive perceptions of one-night stands, particularly for men but also more recently for women. After such shallow engagements, neither men nor women find any rationale for their emptiness, a hollowness accentuated in severity and duration compared to that brought about after repeated masturbation. An idolized reality: a sexual encounter with a woman, the pinnacle of manhood, reduced to disappointment in its lackluster.

Sexual frustration angers men, which leads to change. In place of abstinence, endorsement of casual sexual relations legitimizes imbecilic worldviews, such as a practice of "game" and "scoring," the hedonistic "living for the moment," or worse still, as some protest against society or one's parents. Not to say that men should lash out in a violent manner, complacency robs men of righteous indignation and a ruthless and calculated dedication to a just cause.

Ironically, neglect of anger amplifies the emotion. Devoid of any outlet for its expression, anger turns into depression and suicide, which we see with the escalating suicide rate and opioid abuse in both sexes, particularly men, and widespread antidepressant usage for both, although moreso for women. For those who reject suicide, their depression turns to rage: even further, to fury.

Fortunately, recent events have released some tension through open dialogue, and we will likely see no expression of anger anyway, but rather censorship followed by a slow decline and continued melancholy. More will take antidepressants, read their social media feed, men will check their fantasy football picks, women will watch make-up tutorials and so on.

 

[BestSinceDAYONE]

No I'm just saying you get most of the bad sides with none of the good sides that they get.

Low IQ comment.

 

[BestSinceDAYONE]

As for your optimism towards people with high IQ, beyond a certain point it becomes relatively easy to grow completely disillusioned with not only the surrounding society, but the reality itself. The more intelligent you are, the harder it is to care about the things most of the general public cares about. The harder it is to relate to other people. The harder it is to find activities that appear purposeful and worth the effort. What you refer to as "seeing the world as it is" tends to translate to a series of existential conclusions and value judgements that result in either pessimistic nihilism or self-centered zen, not a desire to make millions. Since high self-awareness leads to high capability for self-validation, for most highly intelligent individuals simple personal pursuits become more meaningful than anything else, and these interests rarely align with what is commonly defined as success. The only societally impactful outcome can occur when the high IQ individual decides to embrace the society by dedicating their life to helping it in any way they can. Yet that seems to be rare.

Me and one of my friends consistently test between 130-135 on various IQ tests and both of us are classical losers from the perspective of any western society. We are unemployed, poorly educated loners. Neither of us cares about our reputation in the eyes of the society. It's simply meaningless. Would you care how a middle schooler perceives you? As pretentious as it sounds, that is close to how it feels. We have our own simple pursuits that make us happy. Reading, arts, simply existing, what more do you need? Most pursuits are based on delusion in one form or another.

@Prosper
Yes they are creative, my point was most "experts" don’t agree, they are from the mind of another human relative to how they create meaning,you believe in them yet go on to explain how society is meaningless,most pursuits are deluions for you except IQ tests,you don’t care about reputation in the eyes of society yet keep doing IQ tests
The idea in your case is to be financially secure and then go back to nihilism and delusion,I’m not a psycho so I do care how a middle schooler perceives me,if I scare a middle schooler with my nihilist rantings it will hurt them and possibly hurt me in the future,child now an adult is traumatized and raging against humanity etc,this is self centered zen but then the experts say we all evolve form the same scource and the gurus say we are one,according to IQ experts you should be naturally seeking out higher intelligent drives,the simple pursuits you mention is just you showing humility as usual.

The rest is your definition,the majority of "experts" in IQ testing think otherwise,successful life outcomes as they define them involve high incomes etc ,it was their definitions I was speaking of,they push social agendas off this,your lifestyle you describe sounds similar to the bushmen in Africa,a place the "experts" see as low intelligent.
A meaningless society is still a society with meaning,your also dying which has meaning,we have tortured souls everywhere these days.[/QUOTE]

So stupid. Perhaps he took it because he wanted to understand more about himself and why he is in the situation that he's in?

Although, unless you are just a complete sociopath -- you will at least care somewhat how you are viewed by others -- there are far worse things in this regard, than being curious about one's IQ...

 

[Such_Saturation]

Low IQ comment.

I'm relieved to see this. You usually grossly overestimate them.

 

[Mauritio]

Just giving your brain a rest and relying on the senses and immediate environment can help.

Easier said than done. How would you approach such a situation?

 

[Broken man]

This could be true for alot of reasons but If I can share my experience, its not true.

 

[Androsclerosis]

Bright people have an increased energy requirement and a more efficient brain compared to the general population, that can be the reason why they live longer. At the same time they are more predisposed to stress. Following a high carb diet would be essential for individuals in this context to avoid unnecessary suffering.

 

[DoctorBackwards]

Bright people have an increased energy requirement and a more efficient brain compared to the general population, that can be the reason why they live longer. At the same time they are more predisposed to stress. Following a high carb diet would be essential for individuals in this context to avoid unnecessary suffering.

I've seen children get quiet and seemingly disassociate into a state of shock immediately after being told theyre smart or good at something by a respected adult. If they're told the same thing by another child, they react differently, like try to embody silent leadership for the rest of the game, or casually tell their parents later while trying to hide a smile.

This could set into action a course of events that lead to the title of the thread, in which case well meaning adults may be sabotaging kids to some degree.

The bar for being an intelligent person isn't too crazy high, most people belonging in that group could be predictable in life trajectory, or at least in behaviors and the innate side of the attitudecoin. i dont think someone is immune to cultural funneling because of a 99th percentile IQ, so i agree your post describes the norm that allows this adjacent idea.