The headline + the reporter.
Why do liberal women want to destroy the West?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
Mental health designations rely almost exclusively on self-reported data, which are almost completely unfalsifiable. There’s no reliable method to distinguish between genuinely unwell people and dishonest bad actors.
In cases of criminal offense, the perpetrator has every reason to lie about their mental state in order to secure better treatment and more leniency than they deserve. Even worse, the sort of person who commits a criminal offense in the first place is also more likely to lie. From a game theory perspective, society cannot treat criminals who commit serious offenses with “kid gloves” simply on the basis of their own self-reported and unfalsifiable “mitigating circumstances”. You’re just opening the door for serious criminals to escape justice.
There’s a particularly retarded knock-on effect that results from this “mental health” cop-out, too. In effect, some crimes are so heinous that they the perpetrators are automatically designated as mentally ill. One of the best examples of this is postpartum depression as an excuse for mothers murdering their children. The logic is that no mother would murder her own children without also being mentally ill. It then follows logically that mothers are permitted by society to murder their own children at a reduced punishment. You can find similar “bargains” across the entire demographic spectrum.
It’s all bullshit. A crime is a crime. Is it perhaps a greater tragedy when mental health issues are involved? Sure. But you can’t allow them to impact punishment without undermining the entire system. Because psychology is pseudoscience built on sand.
And let's say that they are genuinely unwell. That doesn't mean that they have no control over their actions. Dogs respond to incentives. Addicts can quit with very limited punishment (the program in Hawaií). Why should a human with an IQ of 68 not? Yet courts call into question the responsibility of such people for their actions.
A crazy person may have a compulsion to pull down his pants. When is he more likely to do that, if he knows he will face severe punishment, or if he knows he will get off?
That is a feature and not a bug to these people. It's not as if they are upset when serious criminals escape justice.
Low IQs in humans are primarily manifested by their impulse control problems. They get random idea in their head, whether its a thought or a desire, and it just jumps the line into them doing it before they even consider any of the broader effects.
This is different than training animals, who are being primarily conditioned into correct responses, and require that conditioning continue indefinitely to not be broken of this trained instinct.
Retarded humans are both far more dangerous/destructive with their impulses and have just enough brain in there to be resiliently able to resist full conditioning like an animal might. They are literally smart enough to be capable of "evil" while being too stupid to overcome it. An Id that dominates the Ego/Superego to a point where they nearly do not exist.
In many cases, what this will look like is they get the impulse for violence/sexual act and immediately act on it, and then the rest of the brain catches up and will try to deal with the consequences somehow. Whether its "cleaning it up" or inventing a story, something that will give the appearance of someone who knows they did wrong despite that understanding coming after the action was already committed.
Its why the common nigger, the level 3 autist and the special ed kid often look so functionally identical, because the Id/lizardbrain/etc is always mostly functional and firing its full cylinders. Its the parts meant to control it that take the brunt of the underdevelopment or decay, and you can't teach something into a part of the brain that doesn't exist. The part that is meant to separate man from beast, yet it still being partially there makes them able to fight off being fully tamed or taught like one.
If you give them a beating every time they stray, they'll learn. The problem is that these sorts of people are being indulged. Hate to bring this up, but the ancestors of American blacks were nice, obedient, polite, somewhat hard-working slaves, because the consequence of not being so was getting whipped. Obviously not saying that slavery should be brought back, only to make the point that this shows it cannot be a congenital problem with blacks.
No, they won't. This is where you are applying things that work on animals on dysfunctional humans.
They are literally lacking the brain functionality to think before they leap, its what makes them so problematic in every avenue of life. Impulse control lacking is one of the most defining traits of lowering IQs, and it gets lower the lower the number gets. They lack the ability to control impulses, the thing that jumps over the learned part of the brain. No matter how much you beat them, they will still often react to stimuli faster than their crippled brain can process the consequences. They might be able to stop before its too late in some cases, but that's more of "this is a long mistake" instead of a learned control.
Animal brains are complete, they are evolved and adapted to being an animal's brain and have all the necessary pieces to help them survive like that. Including learning on the level they can manage. Whereas we are talking about humans without fully capable brains. Multiple pieces existing expecting their balance elsewhere they won't be.
Sure you might be able to wrangle and condition some of the 80-90IQ folks into being somewhat capable with supervision, that's what slavery and a lot of blue collar workers historically showed. But the scale doesn't stop at 80, it keeps dropping and we have heavily incentivized the modern blacks to eugenically breed themselves lower.
They were also in much simpler environments more well suited to their capabilities. Their lives required very little thought and the ones who couldn't be buck broken were generally just killed instead of being put up with. This created a pretty decent selection bias for the most capable of the simpleton.
If you took one of them and dropped them into the modern world, with its wall to wall stressors, freedom and stimuli, they'd probably devolve rather quickly into a puddle of Id induced idiocy. Which is another major issue for the lower IQ among us, modern society and its trappings.
Because humans are pretty decent at adaptation, retarded or not. They are water that will find their level, or die, if given the chance. Unfortunately modern society has raised the minimum for "level" well beyond the capabilities of most lower IQ folks. You need money, and to follow rules, and not break the law, and all sorts of other things that seem easy to us but are mindbreaking to one of them.
Its why the Africans, despite being pretty retarded, still managed to survive this long and likely would have continued indefinitely had Europe not tried to uplift them. Never really improving, but still living.
In addition, so many aspects of the collapsing of modern societies gets redefined as "mental health episode" instead of "leading indicator." They're never properly addressed because it will be socially unacceptable to point out that a screaming naked nigger on the tube is a serious problem, not a minor inconvenience we all must face in life.
There is I suppose one category of mental illness where there "might" be some solid and empirical evidence to bring to the table: If there's some kind of a major drug reaction in a person's system. (IE, drug induced psychosis).
Shouldn't necessarily be a defense or an excuse, just pointing it out as something that could be measured if a blood sample was taken in time.