~This page is not suggesting any person should abruptly stop taking medication for schizophrenia. It is simply pointing out the obvious origin of that fictional disease in the broader context of human history.  In modern society you cannot simply stop taking fictional cures for fictional diseases until you have done enough research on your own to transition safely from fiction to reality.





Schizophrenia has a pretty obvious cause, which many people instinctively recognize but is rarely discussed.

a) Thousands of years ago there were basically just a lot of isolated groups around the planet. Each of these groups formed a sort of whole 'worldview ecosystem' among its members over thousands of years. Within each group was a 'completeness' within their worldview which was derived from the living individuals, just as, for example, an animal is a collection of random seeming individual cells which form a whole new 'complete' entity.

If you graft part of one animal onto another, or one plant onto another, the same completeness does not exist.

b) Today the vast majority of humanity exists with less than a day's delay of receiving fairly direct input from any other 'member' of that 'vast majority'. A person in any major city in the world will receive direct worldview stimuli, in the form of tv, computer, newspaper or whatever, whose origin is a very distant city within the 'melting pot worldview'. This is the daily seed of schizophrenia distributed widely.

So, between these two points, a) lots of complete isolated worldviews thousands of years ago, and b) one rapidly metastasizing melting pot worldview today but with a few remaining remote still scattered surviving isolated remnants from thousands of years ago, what happened?



One of the most important things to recognize is that when one society consumes another there are incompatible elements. You cannot graft an apple tree onto an orange tree and get both apples and oranges that grow in both cold and warm climates. Melting pot societies are a long process of culling competing sides of various qualities until the 'incompatibilities' are gone. By looking at past consolidations you can see that these incompatibilities persist many thousands of years. The more complex the mix, the more 'melting potted' the society, the longer it takes.

India is one of the best examples of a wide mix of people melting potted for a long time. When they had 'kings' they were far from tribal consolidation, but when the British threw a wrench in they became even much further still.

Any of the pacific peoples from Asia east are examples of rapid consolidation of a small number of mixes within an environment with space to expand.

The lesson is that melting potted people must separate into entities that allow some tribal retreat or there will be a continuing loss of a lot of 'better' attributes because they are associated with 'weaker' groups. The 'dominant' groups are creating future vulnerabilities at the genetic level through colonial force.

Is there some new 'social consciousness' or something that counteracts this? There isn't.


Anybody who takes vacations or has spent time alone in places without input from others will eventually notice cognitive phenomena caused by 'the melting pot'. These phenomena are a local version of schizophrenia, but observable by an individual in group actions or reactions rather than vice versa, though evidently some are much more susceptible. Susceptibility appears to be due to a variety of factors, nutrition, energy use, independence in interpreting stimuli vs the 'group mind' some people, especially youth, are more prone to, genetics, etc.

So basically schizophrenia is simply the lack of synchronization between a specific individual and the broader group which is interpreting the dissynchronization as a disease.

In fact the melting pot is best defined as a collection of dissynchronizations. One very trivial of those, schizophrenia, is magnified, cultivated for various reasons.

The Zipper archetype

This is a melting pot archetype which helps a person understand schizophrenia and some other things.

If you were to take a newborn child and drop that child in a place where no humans exist, allowing some way for the baby to get milk etc, the result would be a person who had no psychological conflicts at the species level whatsoever. The person would have a lot of issues with manners probably, and wouldn't speak a common language, but he or she would be 'extremely psychologically healthy' to a degree that does not exist in any melting pot.

In fact that kind of health is not even visible to the melting pot mind.

One step up, if that newborn were born in a longstanding old indigenous society which was fully consolidated, then all the members of that society died in a volcano, except the direct ancestors and siblings, again an unusually healthy individual psychologically, some volcano trauma perhaps but a person with a complete worldview and a facility for adapting their worldview almost instantly. Just a tiny bit more psychologically frail than the previous.

One more step up. Same kid but no volcano. The child learns within a well developed indigenous society which has thousands of years of isolation with no input from other compatible sub species worldviews, other types of humans. You have now a child that is far healthier psychologically than anybody in any melting pot could ever be, though a little slower than the previous examples.

Now suppose you have two such children, each raised in a separate isolated indigenous society thousands of miles apart.

Each of the two has their own complete, but mutually antagonistic, worldview with the only local contradictions to their respective worldviews coming from generally less dangerous species. So the two are 'kings or queens of their realm', subordinate only to tribal hierarchies like age etc. There is nothing within their realms which can crumble their worldviews, as long as their tribal group remains geographically isolated.

If you know enough about their societies you could draw a developmental map using any developmental standard you like, as per any developmental psychologist you like.

Now suppose a third child like that, a fourth etc. And you put the bunch of these now adult people with complete worldviews in a cage together, a city.

Your developmental map now has no value, except as a vague guide, to the extent development is social i.e., to a large extent.

The children of those people, if you dropped 50% males and 50% females, would have to start the process of tribal consolidation from zero. There would be no generally accepted set of developmental steps aside from those that existed before the various groups diverged, ten thousand years previous or whenever, i.e., genetic commonalities that affected development of their minds.

At this point if you dropped a pharmapsych 'doctor' in the mess he or she would be ecstatic. 50% of the population has severe schizophrenia, the rest mild.

The new consolidation, which is now starting from zero, is the process of each developmental step finding a way to mesh with those of the other inmates of that city.

If you gave each developmental aspect a number, for example, and a range, e.g. quality 1 develops from level 1 to 10, the hodgepodge would sort itself out over thousands of years. But until then you would have utter confusion as you would have descendants of tribal group 'a' which reach maximum level 10 of development in 'quality 2' before they learn to speak, alongside descendants of tribal group 'b' which have no tribal history of passing level 5 in 'quality 2' development because they develop quickly in competing quality '3' or whatever.

The net effect, compared to a consolidated tribal society, is a melting pot mess of gears whose teeth spin at the wrong speed, a zipper that is 10% up on the left side and 30% down on the right side.

The nature of various developmental steps available to a species is always zero sum. If you add 5 points to one quality you take 5 points from another. Ultimately a virus or a mouse has the same balance as a person, and any two groups within a species likewise. It is only worldview that prevents some people from perceiving that.

Medicinal Schizophrenia

Like anything, schizophrenia has a positive aspect and negative aspect, aside from the fantasy 'positive' and 'negative' 'symptoms' used within the popular fictional 'disease' paradigm.

Because schizophrenia popularly is called a disease, a negative thing, you would first look for its balancing aspect in the 'opposite of disease'. In other words the selling of schizophrenia as a disease initially involved a reaction to 'something', and that 'something' would have been the opposite of what it was to be sold as, so you would look for a medicinal or 'counter disease' aspect.

Schizophrenia serves the obvious purpose of bringing together competing worldviews so that 'their teeth mesh', but nature never leads to a complete dead end which sacrifices individuals for a group. Melting pots do that but basic nature does not, so there is obviously a further value to schizophrenia.

Anybody who is familiar with enough people who have been labeled as 'schizophrenic' notices that schizophrenics are sensitive to certain subtleties that others generally are not.

Some years ago I met a woman who had a lot of diagnoses, she was suffering from an endless list of real issues and also fake diseases which doctors added on. I was having a conversation with her when, in the middle of the conversation, she said something that would be a classic 'schizophrenic comment'. But because she said it in the middle of a fast conversation, and I was paying attention to what she was trying to say, I knew what she meant just as quickly as she said it. If she had made her schizophrenic comment in the slightest way out of context of the fast conversation it would have been completely unintelligible, meaningless and 'evidence of a delusion'. As it turns out her 'irrational comment', which involved something she observed in the past, pointed to a sort of 'sense' which is ignored by most people. I only know about it because of her brief 'schizophrenic' or delusional comment, but it is now a valuable sense I can develop because I am aware of it.

The evidence seems to be that while schizophrenia is among the many diseases which are unpleasant from both sides, it does have a more productive aspect than most 'diseases'.




In Progress