Well put. I think the 5% is a combo of "low IQ psychopaths", narcissist and just assholes ("bad people"). The word insane IMO points perhaps to much to inability for rational judgment, while a certain % of 5% is very much aware of their impact. The most dangerous among the bunch are obviously high IQ psychopaths...
Anyone who has worked a retail job, sat on a condo board, worked in a medical office, etc .. dealt with general public, basically understands this principle.
Someone will inevitable nitpick my particular choice of word, but "insane" is the general non-clinical description of the category.
Points to high value in making your kids work a bad retail job in high school to build some character & experience this first hand early.
Indeed. This [0] compilation from Parks & Rec is obviously an exaggaration, but if you've ever spent any time with the public as a representative of something, you'll recognise most of these people.
I'd met an old friend who runs a high street business, walking into their shop and chatting briefly before a random walked in off the street and said random stuff, then walked out.
My friend shrugged, turned to me, and said, "Welcome to retail".
I've related that to a few people over the years. It's a useful lesson to keep in mind. Much better to recognise this for what it is than attempt to fix, fight, or rationalise it.
With an ever increasing amount of cameras and AI, I would expect that fighting it will start to look like facial identification blocking people from entering businesses for their past transgressions, online or off.
What I'd meant was attempting intervention in the one-on-one case. It's simply not productive, you're better off generally either letting the wave roll over you, or making a quiet exit.
The mass-surveillance / access denial approach is a different tactic. One that has some advantages, but also very clear disadvantages and inequities.
Points to high value in making your kids work a bad retail job in high school to build some character & experience this first hand early.
It also points that banning access to social networks is a right call until kids get to a (mental/educational) stage where they can judge these things in a similar manner.
For reasons, I had to learn about actual insanity. 5% is spot on (filed under believe but cannot prove). The kicker is when someone is high functioning, as in can pass for sane, in most contexts. But then unpredictably acts totally out of bounds, sometimes in very scary ways.
Start thinking about insanity and you'll get pulled down the sinkhole of "what is sane?", "am I insane?", "would I know if I wasn't?"
IMHO, the takeaway point isn't "insane" or "sane". It's more like "Do I have a theory of mind for the person(s) I'm interacing with?" and "How do I have compassion for people who are suffering in ways that I don't understand?"
