Is gambling around personality traits in psychology not the exact same thing as being trigger happy in law enforcement
If I have to recall highs - such as the one in poker when your cards are unbeatable - I imagine the same high for both. They are the same. If I had to trace back this high to it's origins and name it something I would name it 'leverage high'. It's gaining power or leverage over others. If my memories can be trusted it's the same high as delivering a compliment that was well received.
I want to question if professionals in the mental health field or more precisely: are psychologists aware of this sensation and it's effects on their own consciousness? When analysing my own behavior I came to the conclusion that I internalised the pursuit of this emotional gain by being an introvert and producing ideas or code that became viable once they materialised. Extroverts seem to pursue the same feeling by being around others and gaining their attention through social interactions and the amusement of others. I also acted in the same fashion when I socialised with strangers.
There could be healthy and unhealthy ways to chase leverage highs. One example would be pretending to be dumb to fish for attention. In some situations this would force others to act in ways that they do not wish to act. If somebody calls the firefighter repeatedly to get their cat down from the tree outside the house or asks someone to turn their PCs on while knowing exactly how to do it are motivated by this in most if not all cases, I believe.
If we had to reverse engineer human nature then leverage high could be pointed at and shown as one of those basic interactions in everyday life that are invisible yet so common. Some years after I've had akathisia I realised that it's the exact same feeling as hate or aggression. Akathisia is thought of as an iatrogenic condition caused by pharmaceuticals but if we wanted to find a natural origin it would be those 2 things.
I was hoping that neuroscience would formulate these sensations and eventually explain why and how they occur.
In my worldview, the field of psychology could have made the following mistakes. When somebody doing maths is faced with this equation: x + y = 20 They would just simply state that x can be 15 if y is 5, but it could also be 10 if y is 10. The mental health profession on the other hand started guessing games around these two variables and could have ended up in a competation about who guesses rights more often than those who guess it wrong. Asking an individual: are you gay? - and then dealing with a binary answer would result in almost 0 errors compared to speculating about observations. I just know that there could have been clients at clinics who would have waxed their bodies or acted feminine and psychologists may have had this drive of trying to guess and identify these behaviors right driven by wanting to understand human nature. If traditional psychology wanted to become a field of science in my view they would have needed to not venture into the reals of these unknowns that were supported by multiple theories and belief systems, rather, human nature should have been broken down into fundamental blocks and answering questions should have stopped once the error margins became too unacceptable to call the guesswork scientific.
I really liked JPP's comparison of human social cues to crabs because it highlighted how other animals socialise solething we could have inherited via the continous evolution of the nervous system through species. If I had to come up with my own framework to build on I would outline the following fundamentals: Everything living things do revolve around survival, reproduction and death. Then there could be roles that build on these fundamentals such as: predators, preys, parasites and symbionts. There is another fundamental truth which is conscious organisms altering the consciousness' of other organisms. Another truth can be built upon this truth which is repeating actions to alter the state of consciousness' of other organisms. For example, dogs barking or birds chirping. Knowing these a more accurate framework could have been developed that intentionally stopped being wrong by trying too hard to be right. This would require ditching a whole bunch of rabbithole theories that may or may not have any real substance and are just observations that apply to others in a probabilistic manner.
A useful study to carry out would be measuring each individuals capability of defying their own will to perform. There must be a strong correlation between earning potential and the ability to carry out acts and tasks even if the mind is telling the individual to relax. I am convinced that certain traits would result in social gains and if everything could be mapped around this framework with clear conscious patterns then it would be possible to identify the reason why individuals rank the way they do on the social ladder. Apparently, this is called behavioral economics. If this is the case then I wonder what psychiatry's role in society is. Judging by the effects of certain medication it is to render some individuals in society completely non-functional and to push them down in the hierarchy. I would've thought that they promote the opposite and would cure individuals of depression and not be a cause. **Another notable trait in a certain circle of high earners is thinking it's 'earned' no matter what. There could be a split between earners who foresaw, worked or researched and those who just had and can't really pinpoint out why other than having a routine.