Hacker News Reader

This is an interesting perspective. I would add that there may be multiple "healthy" modes of being human that are quite different, and some of these modes may be a small minority. In a small tribe these cognitive differences may have been valued (depending on the tribe of course!), but in our modern, highly systematized society these people are often considered a social "misfit" for being unable or unwilling to play along.

For better or worse, the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority, who are often unable to see that the concept of "normal" is frequently just a fig leaf for the majority consensus. This can get wrapped up in politics through layers of metaphor but is rarely (if ever) engaged with directly in public debate.

> the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority

That's another way of putting it. I'm not sure the majority are neurotypical however.

I think, rather, "neurotypicality" is a background assumption of certain institutions because it's easier to design for an average even if it doesn't exist (no 1 human being is mean in every respect).

However those who experience life-long mental health, and esp. for most of their childhood, I think are overwhelmingly "conservative" in their personalities. And I think these sort do tend to find themselves in more elite/visible positions.

Political systems represent those who hold power. They do not represent a majority (power is the mechanism of representation, not mere existence).

In democracies, there is more "tending towards the majority". But still, it is very much a symptom of who can be elected, who is elected, etc.

> I think conservatism as a personality is a symptom of good mental health: if you arent able to do something, its lazyness. So you must just need some motivation: either a beating or some money. etc.

This is a really cynical view of conservatism and I have a hard time seeing how you don't see half the country as evil if that's what you think.

Another view might be: this stuff is so complicated, and as you pointed out it's so difficult for political leaders to have real empathy for people in these situations, there is a high degree of chance we will screw this up and make it worse while trying to help. Example: homosexuality being in the DSM. Or really much of the history of how state institutions have treated the mentally ill, which has mostly had to do with keeping them away from the non mentally ill and not actually treating them.

I don't see it being cynical. I think it's the opposite of evil. It paints conservatives as entirely reasonable people making entirely reasonable suggestions but simply failing to appreciate difference.

A failure to appreciate difference is not evil, its part of how everyone acts in entirely well-intentioned ways.

Also, I dont think anywhere near half of any country has a conservative personality. Certainly the GOP are not today defined by their conservatism, whatever it is, it is radical.

I would say a fundamentally conservative personality is something most common in the vaguely upper-middle classes. It is present, to a degree, in the more traditional working class environments (eg. mom-and-pop store children, etc.).

It's all about seeing your success follow from your actions in a way that you control. It's about being able to plan, execute, and understand consistently -- for most of your life.

I think that's rarer than half, maybe 1/3? At a guess. And i think its not partisan: there are leftwing and rightwing conservatives.

> The bane of society, I think, is mentally healthy people.

> They run politics

Assumes facts not in evidence.

I dont think any mentally healthy person would want to work in politics.