TLDR: I propose specific facilities for plausible delusions for the purposes of addressing three questions.
- The curing of genuinely sick patients.
- The study of these potential events.
- The study of fact and evidence resistance, the study of delusion itself.
The reason I think this would be superior is because it would provide a clear criteria for sanity, it would allow humanity itself to prove it has an open mind, and it would give patients, fixated individuals, and interested third parties a dignified place to interact.
The two biggest categories are religious delusions and conspiracy delusions.
Imagine a place where we could substantively start untangling the line between belief and illness. And imagine what we could learn from leveraging all the currently wasted intellect of fixated individuals.
Instead of a “cure” we would be offering people the chance to truly prove their thesis. As they work to do so they would no doubt teach us things, one way or the other. By creating a facility with the express multi-purpose of mental healthcare facility and event research facility we would be making a place that is objectively the right place for these people regardless of what the truth actually is.
Instead of trying to cure people, we could unleash them as scientists. There would be no antagonism between the groups. If they are mentally ill then we could show them exactly why we think so and their counter arguments would teach us more and more about the mind.
These places would in essence be science training camps, or theology schools. We would finally leverage the intensity and creativity of insanity for the benefit of humanity’s collective rational mind.
And imagine the benefits from a therapeutic standpoint. You could actually leverage psychoses against each other. If the doctors can’t break Through the barrier of a delusions maybe the effort to prove it could. As the patient works to prove their delusions real they convince themselves and each other what isn’t real.
And then there’s the research benefits. Firstly a whole crowd of new help with the science, who knows they might leave the system with PHDs. Secondly we’d be given them the tools to scientifically describe what they are experiencing in a language the whole species can understand.
We start with the basic and totally fair statement that hey, you could be right, We think that’s unlikely, but we’re gonna give you the chance to prove your assertions with a clear non subjective set of criteria. The scientific method. Even if we don’t convince you and you don’t convince us we’ll both be better off. If they start to panic from the conflict of their delusion with reality we remind them that it’s possible to be both. We say to them in word and deed that you may genuinely have a point and be a little bit mentally ill at the same time. The efforts aren’t mutually exclusive and we don’t ever have to have a final say because science never stops. We’re not trying to cure you so much as create a way for us to work together. Either way you’re an expert in this context and experts are always valuable in the right context.
Society has to handle mental illness, and we have a couple basic options. I think this approach combines all the best elements of each one.
When confronted with a person we call crazy society has to either cure them, sequester them, listen to them, or put them to use. Instead of trying to figure out who goes where and which is which, why not create a process and place that can do any blend of the three?
Prisons and homeless shelters have totally attempted to fill the asylum gap, and that is ethically repugnant. Our society has pretty clearly criminalized and monetized both mental illness and poverty.
I think it really would be wise and therapeutic to break down the walls between “sick” and healthy people. After all, if we’re so healthy where’s the harm in hearing them out? Giving them a chance to provewhat they believe?
To me, it’s pretty clear that insanity of some degree is pandemic anyway. Maybe that’s the real problem. That we’re collectively afraid to subject sanity to the same critical examination as insanity.
One can argue that subjectivity itself is insane to some degree. It by definition is irrational after all.