Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Is this a trick question?
Surely - Republicans are generally less pessimistic and more optimistic. Insert snarky comments concerning Republican happiness with oppressing various peoples / animals / the environment below:
There was a fun thread over on DU, where the Dems shared info on all their prescription drugs they were taking. I was shocked out how medicated they were. Most the meds were anti-depressants.
Can I moan about language?The differences are quite significant, as can be seen. Why quite? And why add as can be seen? I used to edit sentences like this all the time, and mealy-mouthed wordings like this just drive me batty.Thank you, I feel much more mentally healthy now.
There you go, then: I must be a moderate.Neither supremely confident of my mental health, nor on meds.
Mental problems make it more likely that a person will find themselves in a demographic group that Democrats focus on appealing to -- the poor, the unemployed, the unmarried, the homeless, etc. So it would be surprising if people who considered themselves Democrats weren't less mentally healthy, on average. Simply put, mental illness makes it more likely that you'll wind up poor and downtrodden, and the Democrats focus on appealing to the poor and downtrodden.
Mental problems make it more likely that a person will find themselves in a demographic group that Democrats focus on appealing to - Oh no you didn't! ;)
GOP. sane...in selfperception. oxymoronic
Just wait until Dems are back in power - the data will reverse.
The voices in my head are Democrats, I can tell. They say the craziest shit.
The Dems have more power than they have for several years...yet they aren't any mentally healthier, apparently.
Call me crazy but get a Clinton back in the big house and more Repubs will become mental.
Referring to the medical condition of mental illness as "nuts" is really ignorant. Mental illness is usually organic and related to a brain disorder. If some other bodily organ in a person is not functioning well, do you insult the person suffering? Assholes.
With the exception of the true nutzos, what is called mental illness today is simply someone going through the blues. The blues come and then they lift. All people who haven't been brainwashed by the age of therapy know this. And since conservatives are, for the mostpart, more resistant to the current ethos of victumtude than liberals, fewer conservatives see themselves as sick and in DESPERATE NEED OF HELP!!!
"And since conservatives are, for the mostpart, more resistant to the current ethos of victumtude than liberals"Give me a friggin' break. Would that include the conservatives who......see Christianity as threatened in the US? ...say that the liberal media is out to get them? ...Politicians like Rudy Giuliani who, when criticized, say they're just a victim of an attack? Republicans are the best whiners and victim actors going. If they don't recognize mental illness in themselves, a part of the reason may be that they don't see mental illness as a legitimate issue, or see it as a weakness. Probably due to the lower IQ's documented among conservatives than liberals.
Ain't nobody gonna tell me I ain't smaht...cause I am!...oh yeah.
"Probably due to the lower IQ's documented among conservatives than liberals."What about humorlessness, alpha? Got documentation on why it is so many liberals are so unfunny?
I mean, like, certifiably unfunny.
Republicans believe that they are in control of their lives and can make it in the world without govenment help. This is the reason for both optimism (good sense of their own mental heath) and a feeling that much of what the government does is not worth while.
Meade, there is plenty of evidence of liberal humor. Liberals have The Onion, Steven Colbert, Chris Rock, The DailyShow, Chad Vader, Robin Williams, etc, etc. I guess you count mocking people with afflictions as conservative humor. Or maybe Mallard Fillmore (ugh)You're right, that's not my brand of humor.
Liberalism is an affliction? I thought it was just a high IQ ideology.
To answer the actual question:"So who's more likely to think they're mentally healthy — sane people or nuts"?I think it is self-evident that sane people should judge themselves to be mentally healthy. The tricky part is the distribution of "nuts" who think they are fine, v. those who realize they are not fine. For instance, people with depression mostly do notice that they are sad a lot while people with narcissistic personality disorder mostly think they are fine (or rather perfect).It is entirely possible that the levels of mental health between Republicans and Democrats are the same. Just the kinds of mental illness differ between the groups and this leads to differences in the self-reporting.
What's with the second etcetera, Alph? Good Chris Rock vid. I like this one too. (Language warning) (Like you don't already know)
Alpha: Probably due to the lower IQ's documented among conservatives than liberals.[snicker] If you guys truly thought you were more intelligent, you wouldn't need to assert it all the time.Its like the virgin punk in high school always boasting about how many women he's been with. Real men don't need to boast, they let the women speak for them instead.
No kidding!Charles Krauthammer first diagnosed the Dems in his now famous 2003 Washington Post article, "The Delusional Dean."See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37125-2003Dec4
So Alpha, to be more specific. What's the reason for your complete lack of sense of humor?
"Alpha: Probably due to the lower IQ's documented among conservatives than liberals."So why do we keep getting the left side of the curve here?
Oh no you didn't! ;)What? I'm not saying that Democratic ideals appeal to crazy people. I'm saying that Democratic ideals appeal to classes of people -- the poor, the unemployed, etc -- that have a disproportionate share of the mentally ill. Untreated depression, for example, makes it hard to hold a job. Unemployed people are more likely to vote for Democrats, because Democrats directly target them. So, presto -- Democrats end up with a larger share of the clinically depressed.
To me this just seems corollary to the apparent zero-tolerance for any kind of self doubt (or at least the appearance thereof) among today's Republicans, perhaps best exemplified by our President.
Nah Rev, I agree with you. Just the way you presented it was a bit harsh for some ears.
Alpha said,Referring to the medical condition of mental illness as "nuts" is really ignorant.Does this mean the term "nuts" is now politically incorrect? How about crazy? I guess psycho is right out as is bonkers, wacko, and lunatic.
To me this just seems corollary to the apparent zero-tolerance for any kind of self doubt (or at least the appearance thereof) among today's Republicans,Yeah, 'cause DU, Kos, and college liberals and other Democrats are really open to new ideas. /sarc
Positive mental health grows on Republicans like a colony of E.Coli on room temperature Canadian beef after being touched by the teenage waiter who just used the toilet but didn't wash his hands even though the sign clearly says to.
E. coli, please.
AlphaLiberal said..."Referring to the medical condition of mental illness as "nuts" is really ignorant."So I guess you don't call anyone a wingnut then. And maybe you could explain all the lefty websites that call me a nut ... and call anyone conservative a wingnut. Is "nut" an impermissible expression or not? Are we allowed to say "I'm going nuts trying to get this done" and similar colloquialisms? You want to say "nut" and "nuts" are new n-words? You'd better be consistent then. Never say it again. I think it's a standard colloquialism that is no more insulting than saying crazy, though obviously "crazy" and "nuts" are not medical terms.
McMurphy: Jesus Christ! D'you nuts wanna play cards or do ya wanna fuckin' jerk off? (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1975)
"Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls."This is clearly a lie, as EVERYONE knows Gallup is just a shill for the wingnuts.
The real news--even Democrats know they're not well. At least that's a start. It's rather obvious that the wing of politics that romanticizes and empowers victimhood will attract those who feel victimized or are otherwise unhappy about themselves and the world.The right, on the other hand, which emphasizes personal responsibility and and actual individual freedom, naturally appeals to people who are not threatened by that message. Those struggling with mental illness, depression, paranoia and narcissism are not exactly ready to embrace ideas which, by their very nature, promote concepts that require confidence, self-esteem, and and expectation of personal success.Now the question for 2008 becomes, which group of people know who's best to run this country--those who personally identify as mentally ill, or those who do not?
Oh, c'mon. There are plenty of Democrats who are not threatened by personal responsibility or individual freedom. And there are plenty of Republicans who suffer from mental illness.This poll--to whatever degree its valid and replicable, and I haven't researched that--appears to mostly be addressing self-identification and self-rating.I don't see how that necessarily has anything to do with actual incidence of mental ill-health in the respective populations.Those struggling with mental illness, depression, paranoia and narcissism are not exactly ready to embrace ideas which, by their very nature, promote concepts that require confidence, self-esteem, and and expectation of personal success.I just don't see how someone can make that broad-brush, categorical of a statement. I mean, based on what?
As which self-identification would be better, speaking hypothetically, you must know there is yet another category, and arguably the most dangerous.
"There are plenty of Democrats who are not threatened by personal responsibility or individual freedom."I am willing to accept that, as a statistical certainty, in a nation of 300 million + "plenty" could be impressive as a raw number. But as a percentage of the whole, I think it not so plenty at all, else their political party would in fact run more candidates who are not threatened by personal responsibility or individual freedom, or pander to those who are. All the leading Democrat candidates for president position themselves as victims, defenders of victims, or as advocates or defenders of policies which shift personal responsibility to the collective, thereby eroding individual freedom.Unless you want to abort your unborn child, in which you're as free as the all-to-constraining law will allow.
revenant: Mental problems make it more likely that a person will find themselves in a demographic group that Democrats focus on appealing to -- the poor, the unemployed, the unmarried, the homeless, etc.You left out: the over-educated :-)
Anyone wanna know what music, for example, I dialed up tonight?No?Well, I'll tell you anyway. "Madness." (The group, of course.)
Hm. No stab at that "yet another" category.I--truly--thought that was so obvious that it would be identified within just minutes. I was just curious as to who would get their first.It's hours later.What the--????
That should be: "there" first.Yeah, originally I wrote "'theirs in' first."So shoot me. In this case, there's a certain intertwining, there amongst, anyway, as it happens.(Whew!)
I--truly--thought that was so obvious that it would be identified within just minutesI assumed you were referring to those who repress? Do I win a cookie?And don't get wrapped around the axle re spelling/gramatical errors. This is an informal venue. The only ones who care are the anals that would quote you with (sic) after every error.
I thought the phrase "you have to be either dumb or insane to believe this shit" was chanted when two GOPs shook hands..no? where is my decoder ring?
AlphaLiberal How in the world do you know Chad Vader is a liberal?! And with the (sometimes) exception of The Onion none of the rest of those you listed are very funny. Robin Williams? Man is this 2007 or 1987? I guess Chris Rock is kinda funny as long as you kinda dislike white people.
A overeducated doctor at the asylum decided to take his inmates to a baseball game. For weeks in advance, he coached his patients to respond to his commands. When the day of the game arrived, everything seemed to be going well. As the national anthem started, the doctor yelled, ''Up nuts!'' And the inmates complied by standing up. After the anthem he yelled, ''Down nuts!'' And they all sat. After a home run he yelled, ''Cheer nuts!'' And they all broke into applause and cheers. Thinking things were going very well, he decided to go get a beer and a hot dog, leaving his assistant in charge. When he returned there was a riot in progress. Finding his assistant, he asked what happened. The assistant replied, ''Well...everything was fine until some guy walked by and yelled, ''PEANUTS!''
"To me this just seems corollary to the apparent zero-tolerance for any kind of self doubt (or at least the appearance thereof) among today's Republicans, perhaps best exemplified by our President."This reminds me of the complaints I've heard about the hyper-macho-ness of the Republicans which is supposed to be hiding severe feelings of sexual inadequacy. It seems to be an entirely manufactured thing. But despite that, you may have a point about those on the right not rushing to admit they have problems.The opposite side of which is the fetishism attached to mental illness on the left. A person gets points for it, I think. You start to think that no one wants to be left out. Someone had a bad childhood they still suffer from... well, so do I. And a dysfunctional family... I remember that fad. Both my liberal Aunts complained that they suffered all their lives because their parents *didn't* fight. Or they suffer from depression, who doesn't? Is it healthier to deny problems or to wallow in them?Still, if I feel like I'm mentally healthy that is, in fact, my outlook. People who are monogamous even before marriage report that they have satisfying sex lives more often than those who have had and have multiple partners.Does it *matter* that they don't know better? If they're satisfied then they're satisfied.
I assumed you were referring to those who repress?Assuming that you meant the same thing as "those who judge themselves mentally healthy but in fact are mentally ill, or at least disturbed," yes.
Then there are those who think they're screwed up, but in fact are quite healthy, as measured in quite practical terms.
If self-description is the new standard, then wishin' ought to be equal to gettin". If so, why aren't all the poor beggars of the world being envied for their fine steeds?
Anyone around here King yet?
Post a Comment