Hypothetical Scenarios
&
Theoretical Questions and Answers
(we don't want to offend anyone else do we?)

Exercising My Right to Think, Hypothesize and Theorize which the (as yet) Non Psychiatrized  'Others' Now Take for Granted

I have stated that I get treated 'as if' my life, as defined by third parties, were reality. Let's try doing just the opposite here and treat the reality I 'claim' to experience 'as if' it were true as defined by me...Just for fun.



Wipe the Inappropriate Affect off Those Superior Faces

 April 24th 2013



I am at the library listening to a group of people debating and evaluating psychologically/verbally assaultive group behaviour. The most common emotion displayed during this discussion are the group's SMILES and laughter.

One guy says he would not know what it was like to be “ganged up on” as he “pretty much gets along” with “everybody.”

There is an old biblical saying, if “everybody” likes you, then you are doing something wrong.

What always strikes me in these group assessments is the turn around; the turning AWAY from the judging of the aggressors and toward the judgement of the victims. It is like saying you would not be group assaulted if you had been well liked (like the speaker who wants to feel safe and secure) by those performing the assault. It is similar to other excuses for group abuse or crimes against individuals. Like women being told they would not be a rape victim if they were not “sending out signals” indicating they wanted to be assaulted. Or university students “knowing” THEY could not get a psychiatric label because THEY are not sick.1 Or idiots trained to believe they can't be a victim unless they CHOOSE to be and therefore those who don't know that “deserve” to be attacked as an “inferior.” This is the stuff that generates Stockholm Syndrome in victims. "I have to get this criminal holding me hostage with the machine gun to really LIKE me so he won't blow me away. Of course the smiling assessors in groups of objective observation sessions rarely, if ever, see the lack of logic in their own assessments; mainly because they don't really WANT to see it or hear it. When held hostage it's one thing but why the delusional need to feel safe when it's NOT you? Are you smiling too much to get attacked?

Usually what the “popular” people are doing wrong is making sure they stay popular with pretty much EVERYBODY. That of course means not taking an unpopular stand against ANYTHING.

Then the topic turned to “teasing” which is usually defined as cute and “fun” and the smiles and laughter appeared again.

The reason we don't see this problem is because the people discussing it don't see themselves. You consistently miss the point. The point is this:

Your GROUP behaviour is DENIED to exist and is re-framed as the imagination of those on the receiving end of your assessments and evaluations. This creates the SPLIT in reality which you then work very hard to keep from seeing and hearing in order to maintain the group delusion of superiority, normality/abnormality and “difference.” There is no real difference. It is an illusion.

Next the discussion turned to crazy people and the difference between crazy people who are really smart and crazy people who are really quite stupid. The topic they did not cover of course is the one on the crazy people who think they are sane and “normal” and never suspect, for even a minute, that their agreements together about who is crazy and who is not, is a predominant symptom of the craziness in them and the sick society that they routinely support and enable, with all those amused smiles about those crazy people who are just not like them. This is another point of agreement between us.

Here is a new thought for you:

What if you didn't define the people you are discussing in their absence, or worse, from four feet away, as “crazy,” as your starting point for your group discussion? How would your assessments and judgements of what they say and do change, and how might your assessments of yourselves and what YOU are saying and doing change as well?

Change your premise; change your experience. Change the World, one idiot at a time. Pretend, just for the fun of it, that the people you are calling crazy, actually aren't crazy. They are just in a lot of distress from being CALLED crazy ,and then being treated by others “as if” they were crazy.

Then listen to what they tell you about their experiences of you and others, and see if you can make any “sense” of it when attached to your new PREMISE.

1 Ignoring the fact that “claiming” you aren't “sick” is one of the things which gets assessed as a 'symptom” that you ARE sick!

 

Perception/Reaction/Outcome  Problem 1

Here is one of those hypothetical realities about which I am proposing we use as a means of opening ourselves up to possibilities. (I like to use the game boy's jargon now to make my points...now ain't this 'fun'?)

Let's keep this first one short so we can all focus on it and come up with some possible (or probable) outcomes. based on what may, or may not, be reality as we all understand it.

Just suppose that all the people I told you about being involved in this were, in fact, really involved in this going all the way back to 93. Imagine that what I told you all about the nurse 'setting me up' for an attack by a group of his co-workers  was in fact TRUE, (come on...humour me) and that those people you decided were really just a manifestation of my paranoid delusional mental illness, were those same people, who got caught psychologically abusing a worker. So they then decided to conceal the truth about what they did to take care of their own interests. Suppose the hospital administration then told them they were not to admit to anything. 

In theory now, do you think that group of people would be quite happy to go along with that instruction?

Do you think they would tend to go along with what the original protagonist had done because of their “participation” in it?

Do you think they would have any sense of guilt at all, or would they perhaps look for ways to blame their victim for it?

Is blaming the victim for being a victim a fairly common phenomenon?

Do you think that may have something to do with such participants wanting to delude themselves that such things could not happen to THEM because they won't CHOOSE to be a victim?

Does that idea give them a false sense of security?

Does it also help them to excuse themselves in what they do when they help to victimize someone by handing the responsibility for their thinking and behaviour,  to their victim?

Do you suppose that is what that line in the psychiatric nurse's so called 'training' (in my own hypothetical case) means when it states“what you do with problems is hand them to someone else?

Do you think they notice that when they do that, they simultaneously support and enable the aggressor who can then 'hide' in plain sight within the group?

Now if such a hospital administration were to focus on politics and appearances as their first priority, would that end up eventually affecting them negatively as a direct result of such a focus? Could they be blindsided about what was to come?

What if they pulled in a whole lot more people to actually observe the targeted victim? Could that end up being a real problem for them in the end, if all those people were, in fact, the 'strangers' the targeted victim 'claimed' were talking about her, right in front of her, like she was not there?

Would such an administration regret that they had not listened to the victim when she had come to them offering them resolution, with discretion, long before this all went public?

Even if no one took any legal action at all against the aggressor who started it all, would everyone else believe that their own reputations were not harmed by their failure to deal with the problem with all the ethics and integrity they CLAIM is what they are all about?

Is it even possible to keep such an event 'secret' when all these people are involved in it even if you continued indefinitely to tell the victim there were no 'people' in it and that nothing had happened in reality at all?

Do you think that the destruction of the victim’s concrete life as a result would matter to them at all? Or would the victim be considered to be expendable?

Is it possible that the people in control of everyone and everything (or who want to be anyway) could end up destroying their own reputations BECAUSE of the desire to control everything and everyone?

It sounds almost like self destructive, self fulfilling, prophecy doesn't it? Or is that just me reading too much into things again?

I am speaking hypothetically of course but, is it not a good mental exercise for all of us to theorize about possible ultimate outcomes, preferably before they get so bad that any salvaging of the reputations of those involved becomes pretty much impossible?

00058774
 
 
© 2018 CounterPsych Sign in or register