this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025

-20 points (18.8% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8276 readers

12 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

6. Defend your opinion

This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

lemann@lemmy.world

ptz@dubvee.org

technopagan@lemmy.world

Dremor@lemmy.world

-20

Concentration is the big magic power for every scientist, artist, engineer, lawyer etc. But it makes you insane. And these guys run the world. (lazysoci.al)

submitted 2 days ago by presoak@lazysoci.al to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think the term you're looking for is obsession, rather than concentration. People in the roles you describe (and many others) can become obsessed with their particular object of attention to the exclusion of much else. Obsession can drive you mad if you don't have guardrails, sure. But that's a different thing than just having a strong ability to concentrate.

I don't think 'people insane with obsession run the world' is a sound claim without further analysis. There's an argument to be made, but I've mostly seen it about the political class and/or the very wealthy (people obsessed, in most discussions, with their own benefit and enrichment to the exclusion of the people they are supposed to represent/support/treat fairly/whatever). Then there's getting specific on what we mean when we say insane.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Obsession is just the overt form of the disease.

Concentrate regularly on a thing, physical, mental or emotional, and it will produce the disease as well.

And that second form is hidden because the sufferer is not visibly raving. And they are embedded in a society filled with people that look much the same.

But don't take my word for it. Study attention and its forms (direction, concentration, distraction...). Experiment with it. See for yourself.

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm wondering if you can expand on what the disease is in this context. It seems pretty straightforward in the case of obsession, but less clear to me in the 'lesser' form you discuss here.

Are we just talking about myopia (psychologically speaking)? Missing the forest for the trees, that kind of thing (might actually be what I'm doing here, lol)? If so, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I wouldn't chalk this up to an inherent issue with concentration. Seems more like undue or excessive concentration on a particular thought object - or perhaps more importantly, an active rejection of alternate perspectives relevant to said thought object (without evaluating them appropriately).

IMO concentration itself is simply a tool, neither the cause for 'insanity' in itself nor the ultimate form of attention that needs to be present in 100% of all circumstances. People can and should be able to move between different states of attention as circumstances allow or require. Good example is the impact taking a break and going for a walk has when trying to write a paper or something- the change in attention state can help you approach the task from a fresh, perhaps more useful perspective. But a return to concentration is ultimately what gets it finished.

Just a question asked honestly, no offence intended: where do you see yourself, how you act and behave in the world, in relation to this topic?

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Call it a perceptual tunnelvision that becomes a habit.

Ya, a tool with a sneaky downside.

Shikantaza meditation (it's what the zen buddhists do) has the opposite effect.

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Ok, fair enough. However, I don't think it's fair to say that people in roles that require high degrees of concentration are necessarily insane (the sense you described in your original response, cut off from key elements of themselves outside their primary or most frequent object of attention). There is a risk of becoming too attached to the object of concentration if one isn't careful, sure, but I'd say most folks (even the examples you give) move in and out of that specific attention state, and switch focus quite frequently.

Do people get jammed up sometimes (e.g. a limited set of concentration objects, creating imbalance and suffering negative impacts from that)? Absolutely, and techniques like meditation (among others, including just setting aside time to do other stuff or be present with other people) can help with 'widening the aperture' so to speak. But there are people out there who maintain a balance - I'd say this is true of many high achievers (though not all).

Personal question (you don't have to answer if you don't want to): do you have anyone IRL you discuss this kind of stuff with? Meditation group or zen discussion group or anything? If not I think it might be useful to seek that out, if only to bounce these concepts around.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Nah

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

New users need to be prevented from posting.

What the fuck is this even supposed to mean.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interesting thesis.

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

JFC will you STFU

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 22 hours ago

Will do

[–] kvasir476@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Where do you live that scientists, artists, and engineers run the world, and can I move there?

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not convinced your concept of your concept of concentration sending people insane. There's no evidence of that, unless you'd like to share some?

I think those groups (and the lawyers you mention) are made up of broard cross sections of the population. As with the general population, they include people who have empathy and compassion and people who don't. Those with empathy and compassion try to benefit everyone, those without try to benefit themselves. Sadly engineers, scientists, artists and lawyers who only seek to benefit themselves will consider and act on developing unethical things (weapons, toxic materials, propaganda, defending people doing unethical things).

I think the people who control the world tend to be the people with power, a group also made up of people with/without empathy and compassion. The groups you list who do unethical things might be included in the group of those with power, but they might also just be benefiting themselves by helping those with power but without empathy and compassion. The control remains with those with power.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

When you concentrate on a thing you ignore pretty much everything else. Do it enough and that ignoring becomes blindness. And habitual.

Now your world is just a sliver of what it once was. But you still call this sliver "the world", of course. And upon this sliver is all your reasoning based.

That's what I'm calling insanity.

Those who concentrate best tend to succeed in our society. They achieve the goals, climb the ladder, implement the truth. The rest of us are slackers comparatively.

They are the ones with the greatest power. These alpha concentrators. And they are the most visibly insane.

But even the moderate concentrators have great power. A million software engineers surely have a power equal to a single billionaire businessman.

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Two things

One, I'm guessing English is not your first language so you may not be aware that 'concentrate' has a primary meaning of 'thinking carefully' while what you seem like you are describing is 'specialization,' meaning 'studying narrowly, but deeply.' You seem to be claiming that over-specialization (studying narrowly and deeply, to the exclusion of relevant information) is bad. They are related but subtly different and part of the negative response may be due to a linguistic barrier.

And two,

You still call this sliver "the world"... and on this sliver is all your reasoning based.

By this definition, everyone is insane. It is definitionally impossible for anyone to fully comprehend the totality of the world. Everyone is focused on their tiny slice. Even people who spread their awareness across many areas can't comprehend all of it at once. You, yourself, are limited to the things you have had the chance to learn in your life. Everyone 'concentrates' their attention, or 'specializes' on certain subjects. Sometimes it is on the atomic structure of distant stars. Sometimes it is on the care of their loved ones. The limitation is universal, and not isolated to particular kinds of study.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I am describing the concentration of attention. Which includes a great ignoring. This is simple and obvious.

I am adding to that, habit. Unconscious action that is. Doing a thing while not aware that you're doing it.

Which, when we put them together, gives us a kind of blindness.

If that blindness is unacknowledged then yes, that's a kind if insanity. And it would follow that the more you concentrate the more insane you are.

If everybody does it (habitually concentrates) then yes, everybody is insane.

Is it necessary and unavoidable? I doubt it.

Am I being unclear here or just offensive?

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I think I understand your meaning. However, if everyone is insane because they are blind to reality, does it matter that educated people are too? And if those who study deeply on something don't actually shrink their baseline awareness, (learning mechanical engineering doesn't make you less able to comprehend text, grow a garden, ride a bike, etc.) even if they only reduce their blindness in a narrow area, they are less blind/insane than the average person who is blind to most/all of the same things as the expert but also blind to the things the expert has studied.

Now, there is an effect where someone may see how much more sane the expert is and expect that the experts narrow knowledge will make them also saner in some other area where they are just as blind as anyone else. This is a big problem in our world because you get people who think they know how to run the world because they know how to write a few lines of code. The trick is, this is a blindness shared by almost all people, not just experts. The expert in chemistry isn't more likely to mismanage a school than the average person, but both are more likely to fail than an expert in education.

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ok, I'm having a slow arvo so I'll throw you a bone and try to explain what's going on here.

Everything you've said here, you talk about as if it is a given that it's true. e.g. "When you concentrate on a thing you ignore pretty much everything else. Do it enough and that ignoring becomes blindness. And habitual.". The reason people are laughing at these claims is because its just provably false, at least as an ironclad rule. Most people know people or know of people that this just isn't the case for. I personally know a bunch of scientists, artists and engineers who are highly successful at their job and also very well rounded people with a wide range of interests. Even if there was some general data on tendencies towards the kind of behaviour you claim, you don't provide it.

So, the fact that your "unpopular opinion" is based on a fact that basically only you in the entire world believe to be true, means that everyone thinks your post here is nonsense, crazy, a very young child, or trolling. I assume you've had some experience with the kind of people you're talking about, but even if every single person you ever met had this exact characteristic it would still be a hopelessly small sample size to make any claims about the population at large. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you provide exactly zero proof for this extraordinary claim.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think that you don't notice the insanity because you share the insanity. It is normal to you and therefore not insane.

I think that concentration is inherently deranging but, again, normal in our society. Common and therefore invisible. (I am aware of its effects because it is something I study, unlike you and most others. Think of it as a kind of germ theory and I'm Pasteur)

I think that I am treated! this way because my opinion is offensive to these people. And that offense is a barrier to any further thought.

But I hope that, for some, a little offense isn't such a barrier.

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nobody is taking you seriously enough to get offended.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You insulted me 3 times in your previous reply and once more just now. Most of the other replies have included an insult as well.

When you insult you do so because you are offended. This much is obvious.

So who are you fooling here?

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If people are insulting you its because you're just being pretty obnoxious and childish. It's easy to get annoyed by someone who is convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong, especially when they are so obviously wrong.

I mean, I assume you're a troll? I don't get offended by trolls. But I engaged with you here on the off chance that you're not, hoping that you might see some reason. But instead you've just doubled down on your own crazy ideas. Like, best of luck to you (if you are indeed genuine), you seem relatively harmless. Try and broaden your horizons, it'll do you good.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al -2 points 2 days ago

Right back at you.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think it's true that those that concentrate best tend to succeed. Those with a leg up from their previous generation tend to succeed.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ok. Fair argument. But concentration is key to scientists, engineers etc. And they, as a population, do dictate the form of our culture to a great degree. And this power does not require great success.

How about my first point, the thing about the insanity, got anything to say about that?

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I said I don't think there's any evidence of concentration leading to insanity in my first response. I also asked for evidence. For any great thinker you can point to who you think went insane, you could easily find another who didn't. Anecdotal evidence doesn't really cut it, so got any studies that show that intense study of a topic leads to insanity?

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I have only my own study of the thing. And insanity is a very gooshy term after all. But if you examined concentration yourself you might come to a similar conclusion.

Consider the parts of my explanation. The fact that when you concentrate on one thing you ignore another. And then the habit and so on. Do any of these parts fit your own experience? Do any of them seem absurd?

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It doesn't fit my experience. I'm an engineer, I concentrated regularly in my studies and I concentrate regularly through my work, I don't find its training me to ignore other aspects of the world or my life. I know lots of highly successful people, they tend to be more well rounded than not.

I wonder if maybe you are confusing concentration with hyperfixation?

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's hard to account for what you're blind to. Because you're blind to it. You could be blind to a hundred things and never know it

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's more like there's no actual evidence other than the anecdotal.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

We both know that when you concentrate on one thing you ignore another.

We both know that there is this thing called a habit.

Even without making an examination of the phenomenon we can put these obvious pieces together and reach the obvious implication.

That's 2 paths to my conclusion. To casually disregard both is silly.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So hypothesis not proof, great. Concentration require focus on a task not ignorance of others, so can you form a habit of opposite action to what you are completing? My hypothesis is that you can't and that the habit formed would be to have good concentration and ability to focus your attention. Like the opposite of ADHD. If you have anti-ADHD are you then insane?

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Do you not ignore everything else when you concentrate on a thing?

Do you not collect habits like a bumper collects stickers?

That's my "proof".

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Again, that's not proof, it's hypothesis based on anecdotal observation.

Proof would be a well structured repeatable study verifying the hypothesis. Given the other comments, it doesn't even seem repeatable across other anecdotal observations let alone within a study.

I will note, I do form habits easily, and my work and past times require concentration, but I have never found that forms a habit of ignoring things, it forms a habit of having improved concentration when required. If anything I have found increased study leads to improved awareness of my surrounds and increased desire to learn more in general.

You claim your observations are proof of your hypothesis, but my observations directly disprove your hypothesis, so whose observation is correct? You could claim my observations are clouded because if l've concentrated and then am unaware of my ignorance, but I could claim the same thing of you, or even that you haven't concentrated enough and so are unaware of your surroundings and the true nature of things. This is a never ending cycle of anecdotal nonsense. Hence the need for a well structured repeatable study as proof.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah that's why I put it in quotes, because it's a dumb term for what we're looking for here.

Try just answering those 2 questions.

Or not, this is exhausting.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

I mean I literally did.

But also I agree, this is exhausting, it's like you're being obtuse on purpose. Good luck with your poorly thought out opinion. I'm done.

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but the "concentration" is just a very particular balance of neurodiversities.

You've just enough of everything to be passionate, to look at things from a different perspective, dedicate your life to something etc, or simply to care about something enough to do something about it - but it's not so bad that you struggle with day-to-day life. Alternatively, there are other people to support you with your day-to-day life.

What class/nation/wealth/gender you were born into determines whether you're "eccentric" or "mad".

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 0 points 2 days ago

I'm thinking more of an objective madness, not a socially defined madness.

Specifically, a derangement of perspective and an absence of awareness of it.

Like (to use an absurd example) if you pressed your face up to a beige wall, focusing intensely upon it.

You might be convinced that the whole universe is beige, and all evidence would support you in this conclusion. But you would be wrong of course.

load more comments