Basically, what I'm hearing when reading both yours and the OP's comments is the old problem of "ignorance vs. happiness". Is it better to be ignorant and happy, or knowledgeable and unhappy? The premise, of course, being that the more you know, the more you know how fucked up everything is and the less happy you are.
(I'm not sure where that trope started. I'd be interested to know if any historians can point to a period of time where this took off, or was first mentioned in philosophy.)
Going back to OP's comment, that seemed to be the main difference: in Trek, for example, we have a civilization which had a lot of knowledge. Both at an individual level (everyone portrayed (with possible exception of Barclay...) was very intelligent) and at a civilization level. However, they somehow manged this while staying happy. Maybe this is because they solved all the problems, but I think it had more to do with the writers choosing to portray the stories in that light. It seemed the federation was not above its political squabbles, after all, and there were times that ship captains ignored direct orders on moral grounds. So it's not like everything was perfect.
Meanwhile, taking a look at a cyberpunk story, you seem to find a setting in which we learned many things, and the more we learned the less happy we became. The decker that hacks into a corporation and discovers just how horrible of an entity they truly are, is an example at an individual level. One could also point to the general state of the world in those stories, and consider how knowledge "corrupted" us.
Looking at your mother's story, I'm guessing this is a similar situation. The more you know about what's going on around you, you more you notice the gilded veneer over everything. Those who didn't realize the propaganda were all lies and exaggerations were probably happier (and of course worked harder).
That explanation looks real enough, but there's still something amiss.
You see, the "fact" that everybody is corrupt, and out to get you so you better trust the people near you, to death if needed is no more true than the "fact" that governments, elite, and any other form of leadership is automatically trustwothy, so comply and be happy, questioning is for radicals.
Both are complete fabrications, collectively created but with some obvious small-group direction and an intent. Knowledge is something else, not to be found here.
(I'm not sure where that trope started. I'd be interested to know if any historians can point to a period of time where this took off, or was first mentioned in philosophy.)
Going back to OP's comment, that seemed to be the main difference: in Trek, for example, we have a civilization which had a lot of knowledge. Both at an individual level (everyone portrayed (with possible exception of Barclay...) was very intelligent) and at a civilization level. However, they somehow manged this while staying happy. Maybe this is because they solved all the problems, but I think it had more to do with the writers choosing to portray the stories in that light. It seemed the federation was not above its political squabbles, after all, and there were times that ship captains ignored direct orders on moral grounds. So it's not like everything was perfect.
Meanwhile, taking a look at a cyberpunk story, you seem to find a setting in which we learned many things, and the more we learned the less happy we became. The decker that hacks into a corporation and discovers just how horrible of an entity they truly are, is an example at an individual level. One could also point to the general state of the world in those stories, and consider how knowledge "corrupted" us.
Looking at your mother's story, I'm guessing this is a similar situation. The more you know about what's going on around you, you more you notice the gilded veneer over everything. Those who didn't realize the propaganda were all lies and exaggerations were probably happier (and of course worked harder).