It's not just you, the world has gone crazy

We live in a civilization that is a society based on cooperation under the premise the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - this is why human society is organized as a cooperative collective and not a separate and isolated nomads or small nomadic groups, in fact our definition of civilization is the story of the development fro that to our modern society

But has this cooperation turned into control? Has something gone awry with that idea; has the idea of cooperation given way to control by some and if if it has is it being designed and run by madmen? The assumption we can recognize such insanity and treat it if it occurs maybe flawed, what if madmen are in charge of that too?

Two events recently brought this idea to a light: the crash of a train near Philadelphia that was going 100 mph instead of the 50 mph required to negotiate a well known dangerous curve in the tacks and the death of the famous Nobel prize winning mathematician John "A Beautiful mind" Nash.

Our inability to recognize insanity is well documented, to this day with the NIH wholesale rejection of DSM IV, the the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry which is not the third leading cause of death while actively suppressing more modern but less profitable treatments are at fault here.

David Horrobin a noted schizophrenia researchers has one sentence in one book that should terrify to the very core anybody looking at this problem: "Thus those individuals with schizoid genes (who tended to form the ruling classes)".

Horrobin book makes the assertion that schizophrenia is responsible for the rise on humanity but what if it is no less prevalent today and what if these same deluded minds are in control of the identification and treatment of the very mind-crippling disease that has changed the promise of cooperation in society to one of despotic control.

This paper explores that idea.

hundreds of thousand of years ago the human species exists as small groups of families all geographically isolates for each other. During the receding ice age in the UK approximately 700 families occupied all of Britain for example, and not all grouped together, they were distributed all over the the British Isles.

In time society and civilization grew first as tribes then a larger collectives we see as towns villages and cities, based on the idea if we cooperate the circumstances are better for the whole and for the individuals that make up that whole if we all cooperate together. We deplore the idea of despotism and dictatorial governance were control rests with a few and our notions of freedom and democracy run contrary to this.

But he arrogance of science got in the way and promises to do that good an the death of John Nash at a tie of literal train wrecks and unending war suggests that not only are our fundamental premise so how society should operate are in sane but worse we can scarcely tell who is sane and worse yet from an institutional standpoint we can only make this worse while suppressing any good science tells us we can do: on top of control inte of competition we ad the elements of greed and institutional corruption.

Who watches the watchers?

Game theory promised that we could use the cold logic of mathematics to contuc t a owity where freedom would be the reult f hti idea modeling. But, enter the risenrs diemsaa, what happens if somebdy doens't cooperte an dis suspicous and ats out of pute self interst, much inthe ay a paranoid schizophrenic wold.

The answer came form a paranoid schizophrenic John Nash, who refined an aspect of game theory so mo mater how bad one player acts the outcome oris fairness to all but the fault here is it relied on all players ot be inherent suscoust, the RAND corporations experiments hsod the prisoners dilemma had an answer in Nash equilibrium where all players were parandon wbu then they repeat th tst with secrstirs who coopested t nahes' solution was shown to be irrelevant where they all cooperated.

refined gm etheory.

The pHe shos th potimal soliution tothe prinons dilmms ia dhter one acts out of self interrsts, inthe worst cae you keeo th ediamind inthebest case you haveot the dimain dand th mey.

If each human had a light ove their head that was off i ftye wer n ena don when they wer craxy it w dbe easy but bedaue thi sis not true we hveti use sothe rcitria.

Aninfec kedny hso up ina bloody tets an dx-ray, a bad hear is evidence by spdc digniis criters byt the test fo rcrazy/not caxy is so diffuclut it's pos possobl eo tearn a nbe lprice fo inandyt

Control or cooperation manifests everywhere, look at the cooperation of the UUCP network, larger than the TCP/IP network until 1996 compared to the control of the tcp/ip world where ICANN (the only sole point of failure in a network designed to be n-way redundant and withstand nuclear attack) can throw a roadblock to development for a decades because of control not cooperation.

A train that was supposed to be going 50 mph through a dangerous curve that was actually going 100 mp doesn't need advance theory to point out something was wrong.

Either they didn't know where they were or the brakes failed, if the latter were true they'd have done things such as radio that information back, it's not possible all cell phones didn't work.

In fact all those phones did work and worked because of Nash's theorem at the expense of the life-critical command and control network that was not in place as a derivative of his deluded thinking.