<div class="text-justify">

I've had a theory for many years already, that artistic personalities are prone to psychological issues, like depression and addiction. I have no evidence to back this up, it is just observational, nor do I say that it means that it is a certain outcome, but I do think there might be something to it. 

Me reasoning is that creative people might be more sensitive to experience in some way, which improves their creative abilities, but can also support negative outcomes, where there are greater fluctuations in emotional centers, creating a kind of noise and to quieten the noise, they might find ways to dull their senses - like alcohol or drugs. This can also be exacerbated for the more famous of them, because they might have easier access and peer support to take this path. 


![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23wCNEKmL7hY28k4TgfPhMyrx3iDC4GCoNx6VWMf6np7PsjbScanXAqPai2KjZkmvh4TL.jpg)


This means that all of the celebrity suicides and overdoes shouldn't come as much as a surprise. However, rather than being a symptom of the lifestyle, it is actually a symptom of a predisposition, like an allergic reaction to pollen. However, it is also one that goes undiagnosed and once in play, the addiction mechanisms kick in. 

At least in terms of some addictions, there is a strong correlation between addiction and genetics, with as much as [half of the risk](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/genetics-epigenetics-addiction) coming from genetic factors. And, much of our genetic makeup dictates our outcomes in life, including things like our artistic and musical abilities, so it doesn't seem farfetched to me that there is a correlation between mental issues either. This also suggests that there are likely other predispositions that are going to affect our outcomes in life.

For instance, there is a very large drive over the last years to make gender a social topic that needs addressing - something that I disagree with. I don't disagree with the idea of inclusion, but I do disagree with the constant fragmenting of society into an endless spectrum of fractional groupings in the name of inclusion, as it is the polar opposite of it. If people really wanted to make society inclusive, they would stop slicing people into groups and see people at the lowest common denominator that represents the species - we are all human. But, making inclusion about gender by creating clear lines of division, fails to recognize the continuous nature of the spectrum that we are all on. 

>There is no one the same as you, no one the same as me, and the chances of there ever being someone the same in past or future is approaching zero. 

From a biological standpoint, it is useful to split into sex, where there are obvious differences between male and female that are going to affect outcomes, like pregnancy, or testicular cancer. Yes, there are outliers, but they are such edge cases that they can be treated as one-off events. But, organizing ourselves as if we are all completely different just doesn't work, because like it or not, *being human* means that we have far more in common with each other than we have that separates us. And biologically, 

>It doesn't matter about our social norms.

For most of general healthcare for example, it doesn't matter if we are male or female, the treatment is the same. As we get more specific, it does matter, because for example, if we are pregnant, some medications will put the unborn child at risk. And, this also affects preventative treatment, where for instance, breast cancer is more predominant (but not exclusive) to women, so testing often makes sense. Since women don't have a prostate, screening would be quite a waste of time, money and the potential to screen for other factors more common to women. Similarly, testing a male for pregnancy, would be a waste of resources too.

> The gender discussion muddies the social waters.

I feel a lot of the social movements and discourse these days are akin to hijacking the narrative of the needs at hand, similar to the environment discussion. For instance, when I was a kid, the conversation for the environment centered around pollution, something that *everyone* agreed was bad, since no one wants to live surrounded by it. However, over time, the discussion has moved to climate change instead, which is something that can be argued endlessly, without actually having to do anything about it. But, if the focus had just stayed on reducing pollution across the board, we would have had the best chance of also affecting human-created climate change. 

Now, we are arguing about slicing up the spectrum of gender and sexual orientation, instead of saying "you be you" and "I will be me" across the spectrum of human experience. That would be inclusion, where people are able to have their personal preferences, but also accept that other people have their personal preferences too. 

It is about taking down barriers across the spectrum, not making more. Yet, more divisions go up because it creates an environment of legislated frameworks, even if law only by social convention. This creates an environment that is impossible to navigate without breaking the law and being open to punishment, which is a mechanism for control. It is literally socially supported and implemented *divide and conquer* policy, where we are beating ourselves, imprisoning ourselves, punishing ourselves.

And, this focus on these edge-case topics (8 billion gender edges) makes us hyper-sensitive to our identity, obsessing over it, *getting addicted* to it, when there should be other things to focus on that are more important, that are better for our health. 

Which raises a potential theory in terms of the gender arguments similar to that of the artists, where because we are constantly setting up a sensitivity to identity and creating confusion around it, we might be more prone to having negative outcomes due to the constant ambiguity. In general, humans look for security and stability, with us all having some degree of risk aversion and struggle with the complexity of the world. But, when we are constantly struggling with who we are at the core, this is going to make dealing with the other factors of the world even more difficult.

Does this mean someone who is transgender for example, is going to have a harder time dealing with the everyday aspects of life, not because of social exclusion, but internal confusion? Do they have that constant noise similar to the artist? I mean we all have that voice going on and we all question who we are to some degree, but is that our singular focus and are we constantly trying to justify a place for ourselves in the world? 

It seems that no matter how much support there is, negative mental health  issues are on the rise across the board, globally, with all kinds of problems arising. I think a lot of this comes down to the polarization of topics across society, where understanding nuance is no longer a common skill and the polarization is happening on an endless array of edge-case topics. 

I feel that the entire social conversation is being leveraged in that divide and conquer world and the more we subscribe to it, the worse our community outcomes and personal wellbeing is going to get. The barriers of division we are putting up, are hurting us as individuals, yet we seem to think that unless we put up a barrier, we have no place in the world. 

We as humans don't deal well with complexity, where we don't even have the sense to predict things like compound interest well, yet we are spending an incomprehensible amount of time and energy on creating more and more social complexity and making the world increasingly difficult to navigate. This results in not only more division, but also social disconnection and disenfranchisement, because we are constantly kicked out of groups for not being the precise flavor of the new, instead of included into the total of unlimited flavors. It is hard work always thinking the worst of everyone.

No wonder so many people are tired, depressed and looking for escape.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>