Collective Psychosis

Everybody in psychology likes to talk about the many different behaviors of individual psychosis.

What about a collective socialized psychosis?

How would we go about giving a prognosis to defining a collective psychosis when it concerns societies or entire civilizations?

Thats honestly a brilliant question that I have never heard of before.

You should seriously consider finding the answer to that.

The world is psychotic when you consider what’s happening around us

Why thank-you sir. :slight_smile:

It’s something that I mentally ponder on often.

I’m still intrigued by your question, and would like to help you answer it

I’m assuming that if we do not understand the personal psychosis, it will be more difficult to understand social psychosis.

The personal psychosis evolves from genetics and environment

We know that society’s genetics is flawed, so we have to understand the environment in which society exists.

I guess the trust social psychosis would exist in a cruel cult, and i think that is where you should start your investigation.

if it is true in a cult, then we have to assume that a social psychosis exists in weaker levels throughout any form of social organization

Thanks for the question, and please allow me to be part of this investigation

This also brings up the concept of the ‘psychotic nation’

I’m quite sure if we find the factors to determine how a nation becomes psychotic, we can also list in order the most psychotic nation to the least psychotic nation

What do u think?

I would love to help you write a book on this, because honestly, i think its worth a whole book

off-topic but:

are there any other ways to ponder something?
any non-mental ways?
do you sometimes anally ponder things?


the reasons for psychosis in an individual are genetics and environment.

We have to assume that genetics is evenly spread out among all nations, so we can safely say that genetics should not be the factor in understanding the psychosis of nations.

However, the environment is important, and by environment, i mean stress factors that create the psychosis

so we can safely say that nations that place stress on their citizens will be more psychotic than the nations that are stress free for their citizens

if this is true, (and i’m conceptualizing without proof) that perhaps the more stressful nations like the united states would be more psychotic than less stressful nations like china.

however, poverty brings its own stress, so i could be wrong, and we cannot tell unless there is a self assessment done on these people of different nations o not how stressed they are with their lives.

also, religions of those nations can also provide stress and relieve stress

so what causes stress? what are the factors?

then again it has nothing to do with the happiness of a nation,

since the psychotic can be very happy, and perhaps even happier in their psychotic state, so a survey of happiness in different nations would not amount to much

the definition of psychotic is anyone who does not reason, but who is to say that saudi arabia, which i personally consider a backward form of government, does not reason? it may very well be that saudi arabians can reason better than americans

psychotic would also be anyone who does not have a hold on reality, so would north koreans be psychotic since they have no freedom of media to inform them of the world?

these are the questions we have to answer

Another concept i’d like to add is that communication with the psychotic is extremely difficult. They are not accessible to others,

so would this accessibility factor work on nations as well

in which case north korea and cuba and any form of closed dictatorship would be extremely psychotic since there is no communication

In a context of collective social psychosis, wouldn’t that become the norm? Meaning an individual who lacked symptoms of said psychosis would be considered mentally ill.

But I think you’re also trivializing psychosis by equating it to cultural differences or beliefs foreign to us. We aren’t addressing public policy here, but some indication of an impaired interaction with reality.

The only real measure we have is other cultural/societal groups. We can hold one relative to the other. But without some overt indications, how do you even begin to theorize which group is “impaired” and which can be used as a normative measure?

I assume, I may be wrong, that when I eat a thing, my digestive system alone is responsible for the product.
I assume, I may be wrong, that when I see a thing, my ocular system alone is responsible for the product.
I assume, I may be wrong, that when I move a thing, my motor system alone is responsible for the product.

What I am getting at, is if I have a unit with particular characteristics, or ten million of them with all the same characteristics, why on earth would I think of a characteristic as a "collective’ characteristic, when by fact, the characteristic is the result of one, and only one definition? HuH?

However, I do have a fondness for the collective unconscious. It sounds so, mystical!


I’m not an american. I’m from India, so I can assure you American culture is foreign to me and i will not be biased towards to the US system.

I believe we needs factors of measurement to determine psychosis in a nation.

these factors include

  1. accesibility to its citizenry (to determine the ability to communicate with the patient)
  2. freedom of expression which is the basis of all reason
  3. freedom of media, which allows for a better hold on reality
  4. stress on the citizenry

btw, I don’t consider america to much of a freedom of media (though better than others) since most media in the US is corporate owned with its own agendas

Also, to a post given earlier.

If a person can be considered psychotic, then any sentient being can be considered psychotic. Rats have been made psychotic in experiments.

on the other hand, can a collective be psychotic?

Yes it can, because the collective has a collective memory (classic movies, classic music, shared history, etc) and as such, we can consider the collective to be a being in its own right

Another factor I’d like to suggest are the trauma’s of a nations history as well as its jubilations which can affect its mental state

A couple days ago, I think it was Plato, to be exact, demonstrated that what we have is not what we are. Althought a book is a memory device, it is not memory. And, although we can group items, the definition of the group is the only thing that the members have in common, i.e. can be called by that name by that convention by which they were named. So, I can group a rock, a potato, and a jello, but I cannot call them a collective as jello.

:Your reasoning is the same as say, a group of people who all share the same range in skin color, yet you believe that this changes what they are as men, the same with sex, etc. Too bad we do not learn class mechanics a great deal better in school.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a shared experience, that creates a shared culture, that influences the individual people of that culture?

There is no such thing as the american experience, the african american experience?

I agree that individuals within that culture can choose their own way, but what bonds them also exist, and that is the collective i talk about

Great crowd tonight. You guys are too kind.

When I share in a steak dinner, I share that which is eaten, no one shares what is in my stomach. Experience is particular, it is the environment that is universal.

These word constructs you use, constructed by those who do not know the difference between the contained and the container, is only indicative of dysfunctional minds. The collective psychosis. Oh dear! The collective psychosis is only a collection of psychotics.

Plato could have been wrong and Jung right.

The shared collective has a specific meaning according to Jung. It is that shared concept that influences you as a person.

So your determination to be a philosopher has more to do with western culture than it has to do with who you are.

If you lived in a group where you were not exposed to philosophical concepts, i am sure you would still be a philosopher due to your genetics, but would you be able to have all the philosophical concepts you have now?

Even Newton agreed that everything he saw, he was able to see because he sat on the shoulders of giants.

In this case the giants of our lives are that concept called the collective experience.

Now, it can help us be more balanced, but without a doubt, our collective can also be instrumental in giving us our mental state.

If you don’t believe me, then ask any social group that has been oppressed, and ask about the mental state of the person within that group