A measure of precarious mental health is the distance between the
person you really are and the person you present. I think it was Erik
Fromm who said that.<p>My sense is that the hyper-normative "correct" credo presented by mass
media and social media is an equal and opposite response to something.<p>The paradigmatic selfie-taking "successful professional" who says and
does all the right things has never seemed more a neurotic wreck
underneath. The soul must pay for the energy it takes to maintain that
appearance.<p>But also on a societal level, governments mobilising against hate
speech and fake news, and the power of niche outrage groups, is
proportional to the explosion of diversification and difference under
the surface of "post-modern" society.<p>In other words, people <i>act</i> more normal than ever, but underneath
feel more deviant and alienated than ever. That's somehow connected
with the real roots of "imposter syndrome". No doubt it's a well
recognised phenomenon amongst sociologists and probably has a name I'm
ignorant of.
I can guarantee you that neither Einstein nor Steve Jobs ever worried about why so many other people have conventional thinking. Just be curious if you want. Daydream if you want. You are an adult, that means you can continue playing even if it is dinner time if that’s what you want. You might of course have goals that work better with specific actions, but goalless play is surely something you, as an adult, can make time for.<p>And most thoughts are not thought not because of crushing conventionality but because the space of possible thoughts is so large and complex and not all thoughts are useful. Having some dreamers around to generate less constrained ideas is fine, but having a few practical folks around to make the ideas more conventional is also useful.<p>In general, if you see a segment of society doing something that makes no sense to you, it is your understanding that is lacking; it is usually not that their apparent irrational thoughts serve no function in society.
There's roughly one thing you actually shouldn't think.<p><i>If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."<p>There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come.</i>
A deeper dive into this is "The Righteous Mind" by Haidt.<p>In brief, the brain seems to have affinity for different types of morality. The actual content of that morality is filled in by people you have respect for.<p>The flavors of morality he uses are<p>The Care/Harm Foundation<p>The Fairness/Cheating Foundation<p>The Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation<p>The Authority/Subversion Foundation<p>The Sanctity/Degradation Foundation<p>The Liberty/Oppression Foundation<p>These should not be used as absolutes. Humans have always formed tribes. It took me a month to finish the book and that wasn't because the words were hard, the concepts take a lot of emotional bandwidth.
I don't have the source, but I remember reading a study that noticed we are more open to strangers than we are to immediate friends and family. Like, the things people say on a first encounter with a stranger are truly honest and reveal a lot about our character. You would think it's the opposite (keep your head down, don't divulge too much) but it's not.