Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

I like where this article is going a lot, but let's be clear on terms.

"Anti-authoritarians" are people who question and/or reject authority aggressively.

"Assholes" are people who have emotional and/or maturity issues that cause them to irritate others.

Neither of these are diseases, and you can be both, but don't confuse one with the other. I'm a fairly asocial person, but I've learned to be more diplomatic at times. On the other hand, the world is full of angry immature people who just want to "tear it all down!" without actually at heart being for or against anything. They're just a bundle of emotions looking for a place to vent.

But the underlying thesis here, that the professionals diagnosing people as mentally ill carry lot of bias with them that even themselves are unaware of? Spot on. Psychiatry has always been about introducing conformity (both in a good way and in a bad way) to society. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of really mentally ill people who need help, just that when you have a hammer, the world is your nail. :)

ADD: I would just be very careful about working this problem backwards, from effect to cause. That is, simply because somebody or another supports a cause you believe in doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't emotionally ill. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of emotionally-struggling people who choose politics as a socially acceptable way to vent on the world.

I propose that many of the "assholes" and "tear it all down" types are anti-authoritarians who fell through the cracks in the authoritarian system. They have all the anger, anxiety, and hate for the authority that surrounds them but they never found a way to obtain the higher knowledge about what is really going on. Maybe the "smart ones" just have a higher capacity to modify their world to fit them, maybe they had a better environment, or maybe they weren't as anti-authoritarian.

More likely they are better at avoiding the authorities. That is what I usually try to do.

Here I think you are getting at a distinguishable difference between those who are pushing against authorities and those who are hacking the system and flying under the radar. I think that anti-authoritarianism is more a directed attitude of questioning, while avoiding them/it is something different entirely; less trying to change the system, more accepting or ignoring it altogether. That is not to say that one cant do both things; in fact it might be a necessary way to live outside of the norm of blind obedience.

I think that //avoiding// could be considered by the authority as a disruptive disorder.

Authority want you to follow instructions, to do the things in their way. "They are the guardias of the truth" but if you found a way to do your best where authority isn't an obstacle, it also show new ways to improve the world you live in.

Open new ways of doing the things to others.

I agree with you that the mental health profession has this authoritarian bent, and I'd also say that academia in general seems to have this bent, and like his Einstein example, the modern university isn't very conducive for disruptive people. The emphasis on grades, and yes, "compliance" seems to bias them all the same.

I took a class once regarding Irish-American, African-American, and Mexican-American history. For my final paper I wrote it about how race is a social construct and how ethnic groups become "white" in the eyes of society through socio-economic gains. My Mexican-American teacher, realizing that I had used his lectures the reading, and my own research on this, did not criticize my data, or my case. He simply attacked my conclusion, calling it the "Book of Mormon Thesis."

I am not a Mormon. But where others might have been upset, I took it as a great compliment. If you have to resort to denigrating the conclusion rather than attacking the case, that's a pretty good indication it has value!

Some people just want to watch the world burn, but worse yet, some people want to watch the world burn while they merrily sing campfire songs and gleefully roast marshmallows.

The toughest thing to admit is the seemingly insane desires of both of these groups of people exist in everyone.

The reason why link-bait works -- even here on HN -- is simply the human propensity for an emotional response involving pitchforks and torches, either metaphorical or entirely real.

If you think back to the last time you were fired up about something, can you admit to being one of those people in the first paragraph above?

Whether you can admit it or not, you were one those "Burn it," folks. Sure, maybe you were slightly more diplomatic in your choice of words, such as saying "Stop it," or "Please stop," or even "Please consider the alternatives," or "Please be reasonable," but mincing words is just masking your opposition with pleasantries.

At one time or another, and to some degree absolutely everyone is one of the "burn it" folks. The world is full of annoying "flaws" to wear down your patience and tolerance until you oppose them in more actively.

Rather than derailing the conversation by picking an technical flame-bait example of a well contested hotspot known to evoke nerd-rage of the highest order, I'm going to play it safe, and reference the Dr. Seuss story, "Horton Heads a Who." Absolutely everyone has been one of the folks chanting "Boil That Dust Spec!"

Every programmer here can think of a "Spec" that they want to boil. ;)

Since everyone is guilty of being the opposition of something and wanting to tear down, disrupt, or change the status quo or situation in some way, you should be able to see how everyone is vying for the same prize, control. To put it more succinctly, everyone wants to be the authority in control.

In other words, many authorities are anti-authoritarians. Their refusals to cede control is their method to gain and retain control. Similarly, those who abide by existing authorities are merely employing a more deceptive method to gain and retain control. The hoop-jumpers and ladder-climbers are no different than their rebellious "anti-authoritarian" counterparts, save for the fact that the two groups are in constant competition due to the fact that the success of one is always detrimental to the goals of the other.

The most interesting exercise is to think about what things would be like if the situation was reversed; "Since you got a four year degree from a university, you obviously need to be chemically lobotomized with medications to treat your hoop-jumping disorder." Additionally, your diagnosis and prescription were written by a self-educated rebel, and ironically, being cured occurs when you refuse to take your meds.

So, you're a psychologist, than?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com