Ok, here's the skippie:
Armchair psychologists and technically professional apparatuses of the mental/behavioral health system will disagree in spades with what imma bout to spit. While I understand and respect behavioralism from a scientific perspective, it blows my mind that a trained professional with supposedly the same depth and detail of experience I do (the word "sonder" comes to mind) just shrugs their shoulders at all they have empirically experienced to thus froth over BF Skinner experimenting with how rodents navigate a maze of identical composition to his own rectum and connecting entrails of an apparent Skinner box.
Like, I understand that the truth must be hidden in the occult in the occident and true scientific discourse that acknowledges the actual breadth of Knowledge available to the whole of humanity must be limited to the back corners of devout monasteries and in the handicapped/glory hole stall at the truck stop off the interstate, so I am fully aware that my God-given and state-sponsored mission is to teach you dumbs in the lurking section of this Lemmy shitshow that we do actually know what a Roman Dodecahedron is (Indra's Net), but we intentionally muddy the waters as agents of the decentralized autonomous organization of secret police described in the New Testament at an eighth grade reading level to give my specific life meaning because we are not featherless bipeds on an Earth but rather pockets of consciousness called monads in a monadic nodal communication system, and, well, OBVIOUSLY, this past several lines of text has just been a big ol' word salad - that's why you didn't understand it - and THAT is a clear, abundant sign of "schizophrenia," whatever that fake mental illness is.
No, like, a key part of the human condition is the collective unconscious, so a big part of determining whether someone is "schizophrenic" or not is dependent on how they themselves, as an individual, relate to their specific culture in which they are immersed, to be considered their "environment."
I had this idea once that a person's mind was like a pile of sand, where each grain was an experience, and they would settle into a configuration that was used by our brain to derive our framework/paradigm. The brain is an adaptation machine. It grows to fit the tasks it does. So, I adapted this analogy so each person started as a planatoid with gravity drawing in sand and features on its surface - pips and pits - that determine what early falling sand/experiences play out into, but on a long enough timeline, a person becomes their own adapting planetoid, and whether that is "kosher" with a given culture, well, that's for witch doctors, shamans, and prophets to determine, honestly.
And yet, I've gone further to understand this "sand" metaphor is inherently fallible despite capturing an aspect of self-hood to thus understand it is not the placement of particles but the entanglements of strings that results in the manifold of complexity within this topological matrix that creates the illusion of separation from God. I'm reminded of one of those "house of mirrors" fun houses now, where you can't quite tell where a path is and where a mirror is until you're right up on it; makes infinity from the finite.
Which, undoubtedly, is a major point of contension between normies and schizos: normies are off having a conversation about the new pretzel burger at Burger King while the schizo is attempting to do their big girl CIA job trying to determine if the joke they're composing about using the King's zesty sauce as a lube will land amongst these barely sentient goobers that genuinely think they're hot shit and a direct upgrade to the gene pool because they conned their employer by hooking their mouse up to their vibrator to appear continuously active on Microsoft teams.
Y'know, we're in two completely, wholly, and totally different worlds...
...hard to process the same stimuli the same...
