I began by saying "a lot of people" are of those kinds. The dynamic doesn't apply to me. :D

Certainly doesn't look as what I imagine by mental illness. — Agustino

I didn't read BC as saying Trump is mentally ill. My diagnosis is that you defend him because you want to be him. His father taught him that there are two kinds of people in the world: losers and killers. After his brother committed suicide, Trump swore to himself that he would never be such a loser.

Devoting oneself to being a "killer" is a sign of imbalance. That's not a judgment anymore than noting that a hermit doesn't have a particularly balanced personality.

to say he's mentally ill seems very strange to me — Agustino

I don't think Donald Trump is mentally ill. The word "Unbalanced" had that connotation. One can have too much ambition without being mentally ill. Nobody has the 'perfect balance' of all traits. Slightly psychopathic administraitors can be very effective, thoroughly and widely hated, but still be "mentally healthy". Indeed, they function all too well.

Trump has a crude streak, he's narcissistic, he's extremely ambitious, he's a successful business operator, he's probably slightly psychopathic, he's no more of a liar, thief, knave, and scoundrel than most other politicians or corporate heads are at the start or become, and most likely would fit into the 'normal' range on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (a psychiatric diagnostic test). He's not mentally ill, as far as I can tell.

He's a loose cannon in a dangerous field of other loose cannons. His reach has exceeded his grasp of statesmanship. As pundits have said, he's restocking the swamp much more than draining it. He's nothing but trouble, and he can be all of these negative things without being mentally ill.

I'm trying to work out what exactly you mean by "value" Gooseone. As I said in my last post, I really don't agree with the concept of "value judgement". I think that our means for evaluating is separate from our means for judging, so to say that a type of judgement is a value judgement doesn't really say anything, because where the values come from within our mind is somewhere other than where the judgements come from.

So this was a case where physiological trauma affected the ability to value but (for example!) a very intelligent mind in a very dumb environment could be affected by a lack of valuing, mainly because the common goals of the environment do not suffice and there is a lack of information in which value could be found. — Gooseone

So here you mention "the ability to value". But I don't think that valuing is really an ability, I think that it is something inherent behind any intentional activity. So valuing occurs whether we like it or not, and it's not really an ability. The problem though, is that we judge the way other people value things, in relation to the way that we value things, and that difference may incline us to say that the other is lacking in the ability to value. The person is still valuing things, so doesn't really lack in an ability to value, but when we judge that person's values with respect to some other values we claim that the person lacks in that ability.

Also, psychopathy could be summarized by a strong thinking process and strong value judgements (mainly extreme egotistical ones) yet a clear lack of value judgements 'shared' by the environment is what makes most of us see psychopathy as a mental illness. — Gooseone

So now you have a "shared" value. I assume that what you mean here is a consistency between numerous individuals as to values. This would enable individuals to make similar judgements. If one is not making similar judgements we might conclude that this individual has different values and is mentally ill. But how would you know whether the different judgements are the result of different values, or the result of a different thinking process?

I have a hunch our value judgements are more important then our thinking processes seeing a sudden trauma which would hamper my thinking process could only be detrimental if I would be keenly aware of a sudden lack and how this lack hampers my ability to achieve my previously cherished values. — Gooseone

Now where do the values really come from? As I explained before, they must be prior to the thinking process, so they can't be produced by thought. We can't really call them value judgements, because they are something which just comes to us, as if by necessity. And as much as you might think, "I don't like this value which I hold, I'll get rid of it", we can't really do that unless something comes along of even more value, allowing us to relegate. But what would cause this new value to be more highly valued than the old value? It must be somehow relate to the thinking process. Does it facilitate the thinking process?

His father taught him that there are two kinds of people in the world: losers and killers. — Mongrel

I thought he just told them there's winners and losers (which by the way is true). Regardless - what else did you expect? Do you expect the advice to be "Yes go ahead and be a weakling"? Strength does not mean lack of virtue as you seem to think. You can be strong - and still be virtuous. The Art of War for example advocates a path which is in accordance with the Dao - Daoism being a widespread religion in the times of the Warring States in China. Of course it advocates that you're sly, intelligent and don't allow yourself to be fooled. What else would you expect? Let me give you a clear example -

If Trump bought property which needed repairs before it could be sold, it's absolutely just and fair that he demands a fair price from his contractors, and uses psychological techniques - if he has to - to obtain that fair price. This can go as far as threatening to not pay, threatening to walk back on a deal, and so forth. That's normal - that's part of the game. If you don't bargain you'll get ripped off - you'll be gone. There's no immorality in bargaining and pushing hard. People all want to make an easy buck off you. Your job is always to make it hard for them to make an easy buck. Afterall, you yourself aren't making easy bucks.

But if you have no strength on the other hand, then you certainly WILL lack virtue too. I've met people for example, who are so weak, they always put their own family down, and allow their own family to be cheated because "they don't wanna have a hard time" - if you ask me, that's fucked up, that's immoral. They should be ashamed of themselves, that they fail to protect and care adequately for their loved ones because they're too scared of a little bit of conflict.

That's not a judgment anymore than noting that a hermit doesn't have a particularly balanced personality. — Mongrel

What's wrong with the hermit?

My diagnosis is that you defend him because you want to be him. — Mongrel

Okay, but if you attacked Da Vinci, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and so on, I'd defend them too. Does that mean I want to be like them? Maybe - but only in the sense that there are things about them that I admire. As I said, I always admire greatness. But I found many other people - including you here it seems - who don't admire greatness. All my life I've admired greatness, wherever I could find it. I've never felt jealous of a successful person - I always admire them.

You have a Trump-complex. I'm just sayin'

I thought he just told them there's winners and losers (which by the way is true) — Agustino

Huh? I was told, you win some, you lose some, and this I think is true. What's with this notion that everything is either black or white? Where is the colour in your life?

>:O It's an expression. Of course you win some and you lose some but that's not all. Even your losses should merely be capital invested such that you will ultimately win the war. When a door closes, another one always opens, so keep your eyes open for it.

Regardless, my point is really that some people are losers - here's what I mean by that. Some people - for whatever reason - will give up on opportunities that come their way, or will throw away important opportunities. Why? Because they're too scared, because they're too lazy, because they're not interested and so forth. They are losers, because they throw away opportunities without playing them to their maximum capacity.

You have a Trump-complex. I'm just sayin' — Mongrel

Thanks for engaging, I would see "valuing" as the bit where our thought / mental abstractions / future projections get an emotional response. I would not know to what degree it facilitates our thought process (where it might be observed that our consciousness enables us to negate our value judgements / emotions to a degree which separates us from other animals) but our thoughts are crucial in coming to terms with the way we 'might' automatically respond to our own value judgements / emotions.

The difficulty lies in being able to articulate (think "rationally") about what's actually governing our behaviour, which appears to rely on a degree of self awareness / consciousness. There are values which are commonly shared (procreation, survival ...usually) and which have a very obvious physical base, yet when abstract thought comes into play, these values can be "hijacked" to some degree, a degree which (in my mind) does not necessarily correlate to easily defined physical or common values (like valuing knowledge to such an extent it might be detrimental to our physicality).

Just as we are having conversation now, if I were to have a goal in mind which I'd value (obtaining knowledge) which is wreaking havoc on my physical well-being and you were to ask me why I was not looking after myself, I could respond with articulating why my individual value judgement made me do so. You could then respond in numerous ways, using both common values and individual values. If you yourself would value common values a lot and would not be able to envision my "ordeal" you'd probably be inclined to say something like: "No exam is worth losing so much sleep over". If you could envision my value judgement yet wouldn't care much about my well-being you could be like: "Whatever floats your boat" (where you would not necessarily see me as mentally ill) and, if you'd care and you'd trust in my own judgement you could be like: "Just make sure that, when this exam is done, you take care of yourself".

The main thing I'm saying is that "valuing" is indeed innate yet it starts to take on more / other functionality as our self / awareness increases. If we negate this (like in asserting there's such a thing as pure rational thought) or don't make an effort to report how our own value judgements influence our rationality to others ("Oh, I was just playing") we actually succumb to being mere pawns of our own value judgements / emotions.

(I feel what I'm addressing is mainly difficult because it's not common knowledge and that the fact it isn't common knowledge is due to people valuing to manipulate others highly and try to prevent becoming too predictable... where a lack of common knowledge in this regard creates an environment where people might be inclined to follow their value judgements blindly while thinking they're behaving rationally... because everyone else seems to be doing it.)

Right. Right. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight :-O

When you declare bankruptcy to ditch your creditors, you're a winner because a new door has opened to you? What about the creditors? The only reason they're losers is because they associated with you.

No when one of your companies declares bankruptcy then both you and your creditors have lost. It means that the company borrowed money, invested it in some assets, and those assets failed to bring in profits. To take credit you also need revenue so presumably a lot has gone bad in the company not just the deal you required money for.

And yes, this is actually the way it should be. Those goddamn bankers like enslaving people and playing a game where they simply can't lose - they very rarely have skin in the game. So this way, the bankers should know that if they FAIL to adequately advise you and try to help you, they will also lose, not just you. They will never get back the borrowed capital and interest

Thanks for engaging, I would see "valuing" as the bit where our thought / mental abstractions / future projections get an emotional response. I would not know to what degree it facilitates our thought process (where it might be observed that our consciousness enables us to negate our value judgements / emotions to a degree which separates us from other animals) but our thoughts are crucial in coming to terms with the way we 'might' automatically respond to our own value judgements / emotions. — Gooseone

Do you recognize two approaches to one's own value judgements? First, we could automatically start acting on the values, we'd be constantly working on how to achieve things. In this way, everything appears as a means to the end, because we never even think about the values (ends) themselves, we are constantly engaged in procuring the means. If it gets to the point where one loses contact with one's own values, just constantly acting to procure the means, without even having a clue as to for the sake of what, this could be mental illness. Second, we could question our values. Is this value reasonable? Should I hold this value? Why do I hold this value? But again, if one takes this to the extreme, being afraid to act for fear of doing the wrong thing, this could also be mental illness.

The difficulty lies in being able to articulate (think "rationally") about what's actually governing our behaviour, which appears to rely on a degree of self awareness / consciousness. There are values which are commonly shared (procreation, survival ...usually) and which have a very obvious physical base, yet when abstract thought comes into play, these values can be "hijacked" to some degree, a degree which (in my mind) does not necessarily correlate to easily defined physical or common values (like valuing knowledge to such an extent it might be detrimental to our physicality). — Gooseone

So the second approach I described, questioning one's values, could lead to this hijacking you refer to. The hijacking itself is not mental illness because it is supported by reason. The question then becomes, is the reason truly logical, or is it more like rationalizing. If the latter, then again we may be facing mental illness.

The main thing I'm saying is that "valuing" is indeed innate yet it starts to take on more / other functionality as our self / awareness increases. If we negate this (like in asserting there's such a thing as pure rational thought) or don't make an effort to report how our own value judgements influence our rationality to others ("Oh, I was just playing") we actually succumb to being mere pawns of our own value judgements / emotions. — Gooseone

This "functionality" you refer to, is I believe, what I call questioning one values. The idea of "pure rational thought", might cause one to suppress all values, under the idea that pure rational thought is the only true value, an other values might need to be suppressed to allow rational thought to be pure. But this might be a mental illness as well. And the opposite extreme is like the first approach mentioned above, when we just continue to act on our values, we concentrate on carrying out the acts themselves, loosing track of what our values actually are.

(I feel what I'm addressing is mainly difficult because it's not common knowledge and that the fact it isn't common knowledge is due to people valuing to manipulate others highly and try to prevent becoming too predictable... where a lack of common knowledge in this regard creates an environment where people might be inclined to follow their value judgements blindly while thinking they're behaving rationally... because everyone else seems to be doing it.) — Gooseone

This as well might be a mental illness, valuing the manipulation of others. If it comes to the point where an individual would have to obscure one's own behaviour, to prevent oneself from becoming too predictable, because what is valued is the capacity to manipulate others, doesn't this seem like mental illness to you?

Do you recognize two approaches to one's own value judgements? First, we could automatically start acting on the values, we'd be constantly working on how to achieve things. In this way, everything appears as a means to the end, because we never even think about the values (ends) themselves, we are constantly engaged in procuring the means. If it gets to the point where one loses contact with one's own values, just constantly acting to procure the means, without even having a clue as to for the sake of what, this could be mental illness. Second, we could question our values. Is this value reasonable? Should I hold this value? Why do I hold this value? But again, if one takes this to the extreme, being afraid to act for fear of doing the wrong thing, this could also be mental illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well it's only in humans we expect people to be able to refrain from automatically acting on their values (where some are still ingrained, like going a long time without food might make one do crazy things). And take for instance a mid-life crisis, isn't that usually where people take stock in what they have achieved thus far with blindly following values and never thinking about those values? And if I envision a person who's been shamed a lot when young for not "acting right" (by parents, peers, etc.) I could easily see them having such low self esteem it could be considered a mental illness.

So the second approach I described, questioning one's values, could lead to this hijacking you refer to. The hijacking itself is not mental illness because it is supported by reason. The question then becomes, is the reason truly logical, or is it more like rationalizing. If the latter, then again we may be facing mental illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

As humans, we are able to use a "logical" reasons to refrain from instantly giving in to our own values / desires, etc, usually with the help of another (or maybe even the same) value, which we then try to reach on a longer term. (Simply not doing what one might want to do right now to save up money to do what they want later). The way rationalisation comes into play here also functions as a means to increase our self esteem or at least refrain from distracting from it. There are al sorts of coping mechanisms / biases which aid in our self image and a healthy self image isn't necessarily a bad thing. Is it a mental illness for a criminal to make up some sort of favourable alibi when accused of committing a crime while he knows he's guilty?

This "functionality" you refer to, is I believe, what I call questioning one values. The idea of "pure rational thought", might cause one to suppress all values, under the idea that pure rational thought is the only true value, an other values might need to be suppressed to allow rational thought to be pure. But this might be a mental illness as well. And the opposite extreme is like the first approach mentioned above, when we just continue to act on our values, we concentrate on carrying out the acts themselves, loosing track of what our values actually are. — Metaphysician Undercover

If a solipsist gets himself into a depression because of solipsist idea's and is thinking about suicide, I would say the embodiment of thought is negated to an extreme extent and it could be deemed a mental illness. The opposite extreme, in my opinion, hangs on people being capable (aware) enough to reflect upon their own values. We can take IQ tests, EQ, tests, etc, yet there seems to be little test for actual wisdom and we also don't always seem to expect a degree of wisdom from each other. Wisdom here would be applying our meta cognition or might be similar to Kahneman's "thinking slow" (haven't read the book but I'm guessing this is what he means).

This as well might be a mental illness, valuing the manipulation of others. If it comes to the point where an individual would have to obscure one's own behaviour, to prevent oneself from becoming too predictable, because what is valued is the capacity to manipulate others, doesn't this seem like mental illness to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, it's beneficial for humans to be able to manipulate their environment to some extent, in our case this includes other humans ...which we depend upon also. I can wonder if, when we learn as children that we can't always get what we want, do we then just become morally upright or do we become more cleverer in getting what we want? Also, in the recent past, it would be highly beneficial to manipulate others into thinking you're a strict religious person because heathens were burned at the stakes. Like certain psychopaths, extreme egotistical behaviour is seen as a mental illness but a lot of what I would call "petty" behaviour isn't. And even though I find it petty, if I'm working with someone who is continuously mentioning what a great job he has and what a wonderful day it is, how good his job going on this specific day, etc. there's a point where it's not just a positive attitude any more but starts to resemble a rationalisation for doing something they might not be very fond of. I wouldn't call this a mental illness ...yet.

@Agustino

Yes the shame idea was indeed quite intriguing and good. However, you never took me up on it afterwards, but my inkling is that in some cases shame does and can lead to mental illness, but in others it may also be a stabilising force which prevents mental illness.

fair enough -

What do you think about people who fail to live up to their own standards? Don't you think they are also more prone to mental illness? And if the answer is "yes", does this suggest, to you, that one should have and maintain no standards for oneself? Would this offer a better approach to life? Or perhaps someone should do something entirely different, and if so, what would that be? — Agustino

It's not standards versus no standards but clear, achievable (even if challenging) standards vs unclear, impossible, perhaps contradictory ones. And it's also how the love or wrath of the standard-setter is entwined with those standards. When things get tooo blurry or impossible (double-bind-y), stuff starts to go haywire. One way of reacting is to recoil from the intense blurriness and/or contradictions and to make one's worldview and self-image super crisp, black and white. Sufferers of NPD, for instance, are especially prone to madonna/whore complexes, identification with saintly or powerful figures (while seeing others as sin-drenched or cowardly) and efforts to control their social interactions in a way that allows them to keep their rigid sense of self intact.

I can wonder if, when we learn as children that we can't always get what we want, do we then just become morally upright or do we become more cleverer in getting what we want? — Gooseone

Let's consider this example for a moment then. Suppose a baby manipulates its mother to get what it wants, food. Next the child starts to see that it can't always get what it wants, simply by crying, the mother actually has some say in that matter. Let's say that proper moral development would have the child recognizing that the mother has wants as well, and even that the mother has authority. Whether or not the child gets fed is actually dependent on the mother. But if the child doesn't develop in this way, and instead of learning to recognize the mother's authority, it just becomes more and more clever at manipulating the mother, developing the idea that it had some sort of authority over the mother, by always finding a way to get what it wants, wouldn't this be a road to mental illness?

Well, following the example you mention I'd guess we'd get some super psychopath or something so yeah, I would call it a road to mental illness.

Yet there can be the contemplation that, let's say, an altruistic person could be doing good for others or could be doing so for feeling good himself when he / she does good for others. I think a strong either / or isn't healthy. Also there's the question if doing certain things is wrong if someone isn't aware why they're doing so (we don't blame babies for crying when they want food yet at some later point we tell kids to stop whining if they don't get what they want).

And, isn't our economy based on the idea that most people act out of self interest where the common ground comes from having a mutual self interest?

I think it becomes a clear mental illness when someone is always consciously manipulating others for their own gain.