My therapist recommended a book to me a few months ago, and reading it honestly changed my life. It's called, "I Don't Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression", by Terrence Real.
The thesis of the book is about how depression often manifests in men in ways society doesn't recognize as depression. Examples would be rage problems, substance abuse, "workaholism", and many others.
I don't know, maybe the book just caught me at exactly the right time in my life, but it has been profoundly transformative for me.
Yeah, that is just pandering to a crowd that loves this trendy self-abasement nonsense, like white guilt, which is just another version of original sin. It's a con as old as time. While I don't think it's the root cause of his depression, the level of negativity in language like that certainly can't help his self-esteem.
Its a shame when someone looks solely at a checklist with nothing to do with environment to determine how difficult someone's life has been. Its even worse when they use it to evaluate their own problems or the problems of others. I often think this is a contributor to our own mental health and causes us to cause pain to others because we are blinded to the condition versus what a checklist says they should be.
It also might explain the absolute vitriol that comes from Mr. Wheaton's twitter feed. I really believe if you rage against other people by calling them subhumans it reflects on your own condition. You cannot stay happy with yourself if you put malice into the world at such high levels. Not everyone you disagree with is automatically evil of the highest order. Too many people stare into an abyss of their own making that prevents proper healing of their own soul.
I suffer from depression and anxiety. I take medication, and it helps big time. There's no doubt it's a physical phenomenon.
However, it seems easy these days to forget that our lifestyle and choices also have a dramatic effect on our mental well-being.
This bit that you've quoted from Mr. Wheaton sets off an alarm in my head: he may be a member of the social constructionism / extreme relativism cult, which is the kind of belief system and lifestyle which could depress anyone given enough time and immersion. The amount of control that the true believers of this ideology attempt to exert over human nature is unsustainable, and almost certainly leads to strained relationships, moral confusion, poor judgment, and so on.
In other words, I think Wil's got problems other than just clinical depression and anxiety. He may benefit from taking a hard look at his beliefs and challenging them a bit.
I wonder how much, if any, of depression or anxiety could be linked to having such a low opinion of what you achieved. Whether or not his assertion is true, I don't understand how that would help anyone's psyche.
> as a white, heterosexual, cisgender man in America, I live life on the lowest difficulty setting
>What a pathetic, and wholly incorrect thing to say.
So what do you guys think: hunter-gatherers, then feudal farmers and then now - how does median/average suffering per capita compare?
We all have better luxuries now than kings had hundreds of years ago. Less famine, life threatening situations and so on. But we do have a way to compare ourselves with best parts of lives of many interesting people around the world. We have antibiotics and painkillers, but we also seem to have way more options and anxiety.
I'd assume there's much less physical pain. But what about suffering that can be caused by things like depression?
Do you think it's about the same, much better, slightly worse?
We have the luxury of operating at much higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs than generations past. I would much rather worry about whether my life truly matters than worry about whether my life will immediately come to an end if I can't kill or grow enough food. Depression was probably always an issue, today we just have the privilege of it being the most pressing problem for many of us.
Many of the most memorable, meaningful, and exhilarating experiences in my life are derived from times that were desperate, physically gruelling and dangerous. I think it's what we're designed for. A ship is safe in harbour but that's not what ships are for.
The periods of depression in my life were quite safe and comfortable, and strongly associated with wondering if my life really matters, and you can't think about that too hard because when you do, you recognize that, no, your life is actually pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Hunter Gatherers didn't have that problem, because their whole world revolved around their one little tribe, and at that scale, yes, their actions and choices really did matter.
> I would much rather worry about whether my life truly matters than worry about whether my life will immediately come to an end if I can't kill or grow enough food.
I cant help but think negotiating those situtations is exaclty what the human needs to avoid depression. Maybe you chances of dying young are much higher, like 30% vs 1%. But die young or die old, those humans really lived.
You can still really live. You don’t need society to change to allow you to live a life of subsistence. But don’t forget those people suffered dearly. Infant mortality, disease, crippling injuries, etc. They would have killed for your luxuries. The grass is always greener on the other side.
> We have the luxury of operating at much higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs than generations past.
IIRC, there's is strong reason to discount Maslow's heirarchy as an explanation of anything across different times and cultures, as the number, identity, and order of groups of needs had been shown to not consistently match his and to vary both culturally and, within a culture, in response to changing circumstances.
There is a cartoon where a scientist travels to the future and finds the world has become an utopia. A friendly host shows the scientist the wonders of his world, and then says something like "no one is poor or hungry anymore, we have everything to cover everyone's needs, even a beautiful house for each". The scientists asks "Why not two houses?". The end panel is the scientist getting back into his machine while a nuclear mushroom looms in the background.
My point is, people doesn't seem to be made to be fully happy. Yes, we enjoy the high of happiness, but soon we come down and take it for granted, then something else we don't have is what will make us happy. I think this an asset, what makes us human and what encourages us to strive for something more. This is also a liability, as we easily lose perspective and purpose.
This is just my personal perspective for the most part, but I think a lot of the anxiety I feel stems from innate, primal survival instincts that have no real need anymore in my life position. For instance even though I could support myself and probably a small family on my current compensation, but I still feel the urge to get a raise. I still worry about my motorcycle getting stolen off the street even though it's a leisure vehicle and is a used, small bike that costs less than what I make in a week. Neither failing to get a good raise nor having my motorcycle stolen has any significant impact on my basic needs (heck, the latter would statistically improve it), but I think a primal urge to acquire and keep resources fueling my anxiety over these things.
These urges used to be necessary - the cave man that didn't worry about feeding himself and didn't worry about having his stuff stolen probably had a tougher time surviving - but I think the urges remain but there's no real outlet in many developed parts of the world.
As an addendum, I think a good way to mitigate this is to find things that satisfy these urges when possible, and be serenely introspective about the things you can't. When I stress out about material resource, I calculate how long I can live comfortably with no income and try to tangibly see hoe wide my safety net is (granted, this is not something that may result in reduced stress for everyone). But some things just need to be accepted as a part of myself. For instance when I feel the temptation to sleep with other women I just have to accept that this a part of an innate instinct to impregnate as many women as possible, instilled through hundreds of millennia of evolution in a society vastly different from the one I currently live in.
I would contest the conflation of financial security with loss aversion / primal urges:
- Loss aversion for me for physical goods is today defined by value of the item relative to my income. I probably won't fret over losing a water bottle or tearing a t-shirt, but losing my house is a real problem. 1 week salary worth for me is a ton of money since it has the potential to add up quickly - while I have gotten to a point where I have to lose way more water bottles than I got to get to a worry state. When I lost one of my bicycles - I was pissed but thankfully it didn't break it. I still followed up with cop reports etc. because it worried me about the garage safety. This doesn't tie into urges / financial security at lower levels.
- Financial security chase is innate - probably the closest to a primal urge. But I worry about calling it that because I don't know if having enough resources for the long term was a real concept. I can see how animals look at short term need addressal, I don't know if they really have a safety net mentality. That is a new one - but I may be splitting hairs. My theory is that it is a harkening to 'retirement' - something that's out of reach for more and more folks every day.
- primal urges for me are the base drives, the lower level of Mazlow's Hierarchy + progenies.
RE Anxiety's link to anyone of these: I am assuming that comes down to your current life situation + personal makeup.
Finally I always assumed folks talk about 'Medical depression' as a diagnosed scientifically + possibly treated mental issue. I wouldn't conflate that with Anxiety either. Anxiety might have you feeling down - but that isn't depression. The fact that we naturally tend to call feeling down as 'depressed' is probably one of the reasons depression doesn't get the attention it needs. (Again I don't understand depression myself thankfully, I am placing my trust in the doctors here).
I still worry about my motorcycle getting stolen off the street even though it's a leisure vehicle and is a used, small bike that costs less than what I make in a week.
Dude, that one's easy. Look at your cheap crappy bike and laugh. "Hah! What kind of self respecting thief would even bother stealing a crappy bike like this?"
That's essentially what I do. I deliberately park it next to more expensive motorcycles. As my MSF instructor told me, "By far the best theft deterrent is to park next to the Harley-Davidson".
Peasants in a feudal society are constantly getting abused by the “nobles”. That is: beaten, robbed, property destroyed, forced into involuntary labor, tortured, raped, killed, often just for looking at one of the nobles the wrong way or for sport. Life was precarious, and everyone was constantly stressed about it.
Not to mention famine was common, and parents would e.g. go hungry for long stretches of time so their kids could subsist on half-rations of nutrient-poor staples. In such an environment, domestic violence is common, and it is difficult to make any kind of long-term plans. You just try to survive day by day.
Then there’s also literally backbreaking labor, poor sanitation, poor healthcare, parasites, the equivalent of smoking a few packs a day by sleeping next to a wood fire, infant mortality of >50%, and so on.
Source: this stuff was still rampant in the 1960s in rural southern Mexico, and still happens today in many countries around the world. You can still interview people who grew up with that kind of terror.
Back during WW1, what we now know as PTSD was called "Shell Shock". I wonder what the depression and anxiety rates would be if we used modern psychiatric diagnosis techniques against say, a WW1 soldier, or maybe a medieval peasant.
>We all have better luxuries now than kings had hundreds of years ago.
If by luxuries we mean trinkets, then yes.
But power is also a luxury, and kings had it.
A nice house is also a luxury, and kings had the best (and actually, several).
Free time is the biggest luxury of all, and kings had it (what with personal cooks, a ton of attending stuff, etc).
The ability to influence your society is a luxury, and kings had it in spades.
A sense of purpose is also a luxury, and kings had it handed to them (e.g. leading their nation, etc).
Luxury is also comparative, and you don't miss what you don't even know (e.g. a 16th century king wouldn't miss not having internet). On that comparative level, to their peers, kings were above everybody else.
So, yeah, they didn't have Advil and iPhones, but their lives could be very much better than someone who had.
Hunter gatherers didn't necessarily suffer that much. Sure, they faced a lot of environmental challenges like bugs, a lack of air conditioning, hunger, and serious diseases like malaria and smallpox, but they arguably had much easier social customs than we do now.
There were no clothes, no laws, no social signaling for the most part. If you didn't like your tribe, I'm sure you were free to run away and eat berries in the forest and try to figure it out yourself.
These days being homeless is illegal and they face a lot of harassment. You are forced to conform and commute to a job to pay for a bed to sleep in.
>There were no clothes, no laws, no social signaling for the most part. If you didn't like your tribe, I'm sure you were free to run away and eat berries in the forest and try to figure it out yourself.
What archaeological or anthropological evidence are you basing these assumptions on? Why would hunter gatherers not wear clothes, when they can offer useful protection against the elements? Why would they not have common customs or taboos ("laws?") at least at the level of families and clans when even gorillas have some semblance of it?
It seems as if you're just assuming the past was some idyllic and anarchist inversion of modernity.
> Why would hunter gatherers not wear clothes, when they can offer useful protection against the elements?
I was curious about this and looked it up. Apparently there was some period of time during which humanity did not wear clothes. This has been determined by looking at the DNA of hair lice versus clothes lice and seeing where they diverged: http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2011/01/uf-study-of-lice-dna-sho...
The occasional brush with a health condition, serious injury, and/or surgery hints to me that we have become so well protected from physical pain that we barely remember what we are so lucky to avoid.
Wheaton needs to lift heavy. Exercise is known to cure male depression and many people on HN (myself included) can testify to it's effectiveness and the positive outcome in their lives.
It's nice there are some treatments now, however modest.
Also nice is that the illness is sufficiently accepted that a guy who works on TV can talk about it publicly (though perhaps uniquely and I suppose with some risk)
The notion that we live better than the kings of old is absurd. Even materially one can ask Where is my castle? where are my tracks of land? where are my ships and armies? Where is my gold and gems? Where are my servants and slaves?
Here is your tea, sugar, salt, and spices each for a pittance. Here are your 600 thread count sheets, your satin for a song, your comfortable house that heats & cools itself. Your telephone and computer, which do the work of an army of couriers & mathematicians. Your Netflix subscription, which can keep you endlessly entertained.
And, if you want ships and armies, you can always join the military and pursue a command. Remember, many kings of old were not just politicians with military powers bestowed on a purple cushion, they were war figures who rose to the top of the bloodshed. Think Andrew Jackson, Washington, Grant.
Perhaps my tastes are too low but for food there is nothing better than cooked meat of which the kings had in abundance. Netflix is a (virtual) substitution for real drama, real romance , and real violence. If your gonna count the netflix you might as well just say The Matrix is material utopia.
> hunter-gatherers, then feudal farmers and then now - how does median/average suffering per capita compare?
I think as a man you have evolutionary pressure to spread your seed as much as possible, that pressure manifests itself as depression. I don't think that has changed.
'anxiety is the dizzyness of freedom' ― Søren Kierkegaard, once one accepts ones mental illness and instead of running from it, accepts and attacks it head on can one truly make progress. The paradox is that [mental] illness hinders ones ability to do so.
Is there any evidence that talking about depression openly, or talk-type therapies, help to reduce depression? My experience of colleagues talking openly about these things is that it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, and ultimately makes things worse.
"Talking about it" and "talking with a therapist" are different, and a good therapist using an evidence-based approach to therapy is effective. Evidence-based therapies are different than "chatting with a buddy."
That said, finding a good and well-trained therapist is often difficult. In approximately 10% of people, psychotherapy makes things worse rather than better. Sleep hygiene and regular exercise are always a good idea, and in some cases medication is worth considering.
Essentially I'm questioning this common idea that talking about depression will alleviate it, and maybe prevent suicide. I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm just asking for evidence that it does. My anecdotal experience is that people who talk about it, solidify it into their outward personality. I'm not sure it's a good thing, but other posters seem to have had good outcomes.
Anecdotal evidence is that it has changed my life. It may not work for everyone. But it'll probably be effective if you want it to be.
As regarding "making things worse"... well, sometimes it might. For example, say over the years you've developed strategies for coping with depression that involve angry outbursts. Getting into therapy to help with the angry outbursts may "reveal" the underlying depression for which those coping strategies were developed.
Therapy isn't a production line. Everyone is different. You are paying a mental health professional to get to know you as well as you feel comfortable with, and collaborate with you on treatment for what you're there for.
I have some level of social anxiety and it helped me a lot to talk to someone who accepted it as a real thing. Previously my experience was that people wouldn't want to hear how I felt and just told me "go out, talk to a few people and have fun".
I think it's the same for depression. It's nice to not have to live in hidden shame where you know that something is wrong but nobody accepts it as real.
For all the people in this thread musing that our ancestors had it good- a little risk, sure, but plenty of fulfillment & meaning- I can't help but wonder if the stigmatization on the left & among techies of serving in the military, could have unintended consequences.
I've never served, but if you want to live in a small tight knit group, live adventurously with real danger and do physically grueling work and get your hands dirty- you still can.
The military’s purpose in the US is far from meaningful unfortunately.
Go into the fighting forces and it’s endless war against fake enemies that does nothing to help the nation. Come home broken, with terrible support. If you’re badly broken enjoy winding up on the streets in your mid twenties with PTSD and no future.
Or for techies, maybe you’d go into the clandestine services and then find it’s massive overreach, spying on your own citizens, and building the tools to bring about dystopia.
It’s a pity because otherwise you’re right. And it should be as you say. It’s just that’s not what our military is sadly.
Is there any progress being made with regards to gut microbiomes causing depression? it's such a new area of research that it has the potential to bring out a cure for depression if we figure out why it's caused. I don't believe it's some un-crackable enigma living in the mind, because neuroplasticity is very very easy to change.
He's probably been adversely affected by a scene he's acted in.
In this particular scene, a nasty bald-headed old man shouts "Shut up, Wesley!" at a young Will Wheaton. It's immensely popular on YouTube, the click-count alone probably haunts his psyche daily.
This article strikes me as partially honest and raw and then the other to be very planned and calculated.
Let's get this out now: I'm glad he finally sought help, and that he's getting it.
The things about this article that bug me:
1. He starts off with the article with a "trigger warning." The title is about depression and anxiety. Having a 'trigger warning' is either insulting to the reader, or it's a weird posturing thing. Seems a little offputting when he's trying to write about his own experience and then in a way has to apologize for it.
2. He talks about his huge accomplishments and then he discounts himself due to his 'identity': " I have run out of space in my office for the awards I’ve received for my work, and as a white, heterosexual, cisgender man in America, I live life on the lowest difficulty setting — with the Celebrity cheat enabled." (Why is that even important to talk about your sexuality, race, or even standing... if he's trying to do a raw and honest appeal this seems a little off to me) This topic has nothing to do with those categories. Leave it for a later addressing of remarks to discredit due to those attributes (this is an issue that can affect anyone, even Trump, [insert who you hate])
> My life is, by every objective measurement, very very good.
Clearly not if you're suffering.
3. The apology to his mother. Again why is he apologizing for what he's going for? This to me seems like: 1. an improper sharing of a message to a close family member 2. a projection of his relationship to his mother, etc. This just seems really weird with respect of the audience of the talk.
EDIT: If you want to communicate how it's affected people close to you.. tell the audience. I spoke with my mother on this. Her concerns were x,y,z. That would give the audience a template of how to do the same if they feel it's needed.
4. The ending which he's trying to become an activist. He's trying to call for political influence and then trying to endorse organizations.
At the end of this, I'm left wondering:
Why did he write this?
What does this piece mean? It goes from being very personal and revealing to impersonal and political/advocating. Why not split both of those up. Let the next question be: "How can we address that? Give the audience a way to say "I'm seeing these things.. what can I do?"
Is this a vehicle for him to talk about "change" he wants to see?
>> My life is, by every objective measurement, very very good.
> Clearly not if you're suffering.
C'mon, you know this statement was meant to illustrate the fact that even if everything in your life is going your way, it doesn't mean that you are immune from depression.
I can see where you are coming from on your other points, although I don't share all your sentiments myself. So ok, he probably shouldn't become a psychiatrist. And maybe the next talk he gives at a mental illness conference could benefit from some of this constructive criticism (I agree on that whole "I live life on the lowest difficulty setting" bit).
But overall, I see this article as a big plus in the fight against the stigma of mental illness, and the struggle for those afflicted to find help. Sure he's not an expert in the medical field, and his style of sharing his own story maybe isn't for everybody, but surely there is more value to him sharing than just that he is getting help for himself.
Devils advocate, personal experience, personal interpretation, and understanding of current literature:
1) Reflects current consensus in the field. Some may argue as 'coddling'(and consensus and approach may change) but is in general regarded as the safe empathetic thing to do, slightly analogous to epilepsy considerations.
'Posturing' could be considered an uncharitable assumption here... "What is the agenda behind any posturing?"
2.a) Presumably pointed out to show that it can indeed affect anyone. B) likely reflects a common thought cycle of his (guilt at feeling this way due to position etc.; this becomes part of the self hate cycle). C) to precisely acknowledge that this article doesn't intend to undermine other precarious or disadvantaged positions).
"> My life is, by every objective measurement, very very good.
Clearly not if you're suffering."
This is precisely the point he was making, I believe(...?)
3) is important to those readers that still cannot bear to even imagine burdening their loved one with a similar admission. At least one of this article's readers wept imagining the value, freedom and weightlessness that may come from finally saying this, and by extension realising the inevitability of that statement vs a more unsatisfactory ending. (I.e it was valuable to one reader , at least).
4. Seems appropriate to ask for funding to reduce net negative emotion in the world.
I would assume that your downvotes are due to your answer showing
appearing unnecessarily hostile and uncharitable to the article, which is probably being interpreted on face value and being written with good, empathetic intention (not a hidden agenda).
I don't agree with all of your points/responses. But I do appreciate the respect shown in the response!
Hidden agenda: I'm terrible at those. I want to see him, as I would to other speakers looking to speak, with a better and more consistent speech. My dog in this fight is that I want to see him lead people to improve.
If it's important: I really don't like the guy. (If I'm going to be consistent I don't like how he projects himself) He doesn't seem to have a respect for people he disagrees with and he comes off really smug in some of his work. My criticisms were about his speech and how I saw it and was made uncomfortable about where I felt it was going.
You've been downvoted because it sounds like you're rejecting Wil Wheaton's core point, which is to bring into the open a topic that is still pretty taboo in American society. He's doing this to raise awareness, and help other people who are suffering alone get help.
To address your points:
- This is planned and calculated only to the extent that it's a speech meant to get a point across. It is revealing personal vulnerability in order to help others who might be suffering from similar conditions, or those who have friends or family suffering from them, recognize the symptoms and take action.
1. The term "trigger warning" is sadly overloaded these days, but it is still useful for those suffering from the anxiety and depression he's talking about. Those are the people targeted by that paragraph, not you. Note that this speech was addressing NAMI, "National Association on Mental Illness", so it's likely some of those people were in the audience.
2. The word "objective" is the last sentence is key here. He is contrasting how other perceive the quality of his life vs how he's actually living it.
3. He's apologizing to his mother because she is likely going to hear or read this speech which reveals some pretty personal information, and she will likely blame herself. More generally, it's a message to people who have lost loved ones: don't blame yourselves.
4. Yes, he's trying to raise awareness and push for social change. Activism is part of doing that, and of course publishing this speech is as well.
I think we both agree here that this is a very important topic and people should be aware of it. I wished this had more of a RCA response at the end. How can you [the audience member] get help.
If I saw him saying "well .. I want to tell you something very personal, and that has taken me on a very dark path" .. insert full story. At the end, rather than trying to promote organizations and his political stances. I wished he would say: "I've been very much helped by x, and y." or "I feel that this organization could help with this issue, because ... "
I feel like that would have been a much more personal, and gave him a much more consistent speech that would have persuaded his audience better. These are things happening to him, that's his story. I get the feeling that friend's I've known that have been suicidal/depressed, if they read his message, they wouldn't have a positive path forward. They'd read it and it wouldn't give them tools to help their situation.
maybe he genuinely believes that 1) and 2) are important. or maybe he doesn't want to get trashed in the comments, so he just throws the easy disclaimers out front. either is fine, imo.
I think a lot of the issue that I had for that is that it comes across from me that he mixes speaking from a point of view of himself from the exterior then builds up a case of what was happening internally.
To me, the 1&2 just came off as "look at my accomplishments" rather than a humble and personal "I did well, and I felt that a lot of people saw me as x,y,z" Comments: He's been well known for being outspoken and aggressive towards people he disagrees with.
1. For the audience this is not unusual, if not even expected.
2. If you're going to mention accomplishments, why _not_ mention things that may temper them?
3. I don't think the statement was necessarily incongruent with the rest of the talk, but your criticisms are fair.
4, and the rest. Given that this is specifically a talk to and in support of a specific organization, why _wouldn't_ he do this? If he doesn't believe in and support their views, why would he be talking for them? And if he does, why would he not say so while talking to them?
> It’s just an illness. I mean, it’s right there in the name “Mental ILLNESS” so it shouldn’t have been the revelation that it was
I think this is actually a big part of the problem. In most other contexts we encounter, stuffing an adjective in there means "NOT". Soy milk? Not real milk. Computer science? Don't see anyone using the scientific method.
I'm absolutely certain that mental illness is real, and deserves real study and real treatment, but even so, whenever I hear "mental illness" I can't help but hear a twang of "... (not real illness)". The phrase "physical illness" is relatively rare because we normally just call it "illness".
Is there a better word for mental illness, which stands on its own? Names matter, and I don't think this one is doing us any favors.
After wrestling with this linguistic problem for quite some time, the best term I’ve come up with this far is “mental injury”. I strongly prefer it to “illness” because illness connotes a disease of the flesh, and there is no proof that any of the things we typically call mental illness (with a few notable exceptions like alzheimer’s and possibly seizures) are actually based in the body.
In contrast, most of the common “mental illnesses” can be linked to specific forms of psychological trauma or injury. For example, depression and anxiety being caused by emotional abuse. Or PTSD resulting from a traumatic event.
The other term that comes to mind is “fracture” or “break”. Like, I fractured my femur when I was in college. I got surgery, the femur healed. My femur didn’t get an “illness” and I certainly don’t feel any stigma or shame around the experience, other than regretting skiing way too fast.
It would be cool to say the same about the depression I experienced.
“What happened to you?”
“Oh, I fractured my mind after a really bad relationship with an emotionally abusive ex. Yeah, my mind broke pretty good, but thankfully it was a pretty clean break, I got it set right and after a few years of psychoanalysis and some quality entheogens it’s as good as new.”
It’s time to ditch the illness/disease model for mental illness and use terms like injury/fracture/break that both accurately describe the situation and clearly indicate that the situation can be remedied. The idea of chronic and untreatable mental illness is a self fulfilling prophecy and does far more harm than good.
there is no proof that any of the things we typically call mental illness (with a few notable exceptions like alzheimer’s and possibly seizures) are actually based in the body.
Then where are they based? Literally all we are is a body.
The idea of chronic and untreatable mental illness is a self fulfilling prophecy and does far more harm than good.
Who has this idea? I’ve never heard of depression or anxiety being described as untreatable.
Just like the common cold is an “illness” and nobody claims it’s untreatable.
They are symbolic constructs, based in the mind and expressed through the body. Like memes. As opposed to genes, which are also expressed through the body but which are chemical in nature.
Perhaps “garden variety” depression and anxiety aren’t the best examples here, although both of them do have their severe forms and even clinical labels like “treatment resistant depression”. I’m thinking particularly of more severe diagnoses like bipolar or schizophrenia, which are generally assumed in mainstream western psychiatry since at least the 60s to be lifelong illnesses whose symptoms may be treatable with medication but for which there is no known “cure”.
I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who watched his sister receive a bipolar diagnosis after a suicide attempt in late teens, and then watched her develop more severe “bipolar” behaviors as a result of the so-called antipsychotic drugs she was prescribed. Only years later did I realize that her suicide attempt was a direct result of severe chronic parental abuse that she was enduring at the time. Of course the relevant information never made it to the doctors who were forced to come up with a reason for a young girl attempting suicide, hence bipolar. My sister died by suicide last year. I can’t speak for others, but in her case the bipolar label was both a convenient cover-up for severe child abuse and essentially a death sentence for my sister’s soul and ultimately her life. I suspect that the same could be happening in many cases where abnormal or self-harming behavior is in fact a reaction to abuse. It’s just so much easier to tell someone that they have a chemical imbalance in their brain and it’s nobody’s fault, rather than confront a child abuse situation.
That's interesting. The Wiktionary definition of "illness" says "an instance of a disease", and their definition of "disease" specifically says "distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired".
If one gets PTSD from a traumatic event, then, is that by definition not mental illness? Wouldn't that literally be a "mental injury"?
Unless I’m missing something obvious - always a possibility - I believe we’re in complete agreement on PTSD being a great example of a “mental injury”. You may want to re-read my original comment.
I see people already picking apart what you said, but I see where you're coming from. If course lung cancer is not fake cancer, because it's treated at the same places as other types of cancer. We have hospitals for physical illness though, and you usually see mental illness treated at a separate place. The mental health therapists in my town work out of unremarkable buildings behind some restaurants, while the major hospital has a block to itself with flashy signs identifying what it is. I think that is that leads me to see the "illness" in "mental illness" with a different connotation.
> In most other contexts we encounter, stuffing an adjective in there means "NOT".
I think that's less a comment on grammar and more about how there's a tendency to name stuff that is similar to other stuff, yet markedly different, in oxymoronic ways. For example:
To me, none of those on their own, without context are oxymoronic. Yes, their meaning is often stretched without that being realized by the speaker, but at the same time they have a useful baseline meaning.
As a person who suffers from mania I would argue that everyone "suffers from it" does not apply to mental illness.
Do you have 3 or 4 days in a row where you can't sleep? Do you send emails to everyone at three in the morning that are totally crazy (such as only a maniac would write)? Do you speak at company meetings and have one of your employees write "shut up" on a piece of paper and hold it so that only you can see it?
The one sentence you posted doesn't advance the conversation very much. I'd suggest adding a few sentences to clarify what point you're making, and to help make it.
He raises a good point. I've read some of this guy's stuff on Twitter, it's really pathetic. No wonder he's depressed if he lets himself be treated like this.
I feel like capitalism separates people based on intelligence because value is added to businesses/society by your ability solve problems/create.
Manual labor is something literally anyone can do(barring major physical disability).
While this isn't a new idea in human history, the intelligent have always had it better, it's become a new problem recently that people who are of average intelligence cannot live decent lives.
This is just a theory but I feel like up until the past 20 or so years even if you were of average intelligence you could live a very decent life just working, raising your kids, etc.
Factory workers of the 60's made enough to do well for themselves and family.
Now with automation, outsourcing, etc, only the people who create the automation and can compete with the best minds from around the world have decent jobs, (i.e. STEM which isn't accessible intellectually to a fair amount of people).
So we're ALL competing intellectually now whereas before only some people were needed to be the brains and the rest could live a decent life.
I feel like constantly having to compete on this level with your mind having to constantly perform at its peak... not just to get ahead...but for basic survival without a foundational safety net, really lends itself to mental disorders or exaggerates existing ones.
> Manual labor is something literally anyone can do.
No, it's not; people can just as easily lack the physical capacity for manual labor as they can lack the intellectual capacity for knowledge work. There are plenty of people who can do knowledge work but would be unable to do manual work.
I think human beings have been doing manual labor since they emerged from the forests 50k years ago: hunter/gathering, agriculture(pre-industrialization)
Manual labor is our default condition.
Everyone can do manual labor, or they can eventually get in shape enough to do it.
> I think human beings have been doing manual labor since they emerged from the forests 50k years ago
Believe it or not, the conditions humans live in now are different than 50K years ago; it's much more common for someone able to survive to adulthood without being able to do manual labor now.
> Everyone can do manual labor, or they can eventually get in shape enough to do it.
Stephen Hawking, for a fairly extreme and well-known example, was quite capable of knowledge work, but could not have done manual labor, and could not have gotten in shape to do such labor, either.
That's exactly the same, and therefore exactly as wrong, as 100%.
As of 2010, 12.2 million people in the US had disabilities for which they needed physical assistance with tasks like “doing housework, using the phone and preparing meals.”
It might have been our default condition, but it certainly isn't now. Manual labor has evolved with the machines and techniques of civilization. Its been a while since ditch diggers weren't aided by mechanical assistance, and we've all met people who really cannot be trusted near anything with moving parts.
> Our bodies have not lost the ability to do manual labor in under 10 generations.
Our living conditions have substantially weakened the filters that prevent people likely to be unable to do manual labor from surviving to adulthood (if the problem manifests at birb) or surviving long after the condition arises (if it manifests later.)
'Manual' does not mean lifting 300 pound stuff up stairs, which, yes, few people are strong enough to do, but rather jobs that are simple and hands-on. Almost anyone can pick up a mop and move it around. The minimum IQ to do that is around 78 I think. But few people can grasp the intricacies of coding, or math, or anything that involves a lot of abstractions and knowledge. It's not a matter of elitism but just biological reality.
> Almost anyone can pick up a mop and move it around. The minimum IQ to do that is around 78 I think
I've worked with people—quite talented knowledge workers—who could not physically lift and move a mop. Or their own body more than trivially without mechanical assistance, for that matter. Yes, you can be intellectually handicapped and capable of physical work, but intellectual handicaps aren't the only kind.
This guy has a lot of stories about how Shatner was rude to him without cause. Well he has turned into shatner and is rude without cause to many people, including myself.
I now think his real psychological problem is that he’s a sociopathic narcissist and this entire article is just manipulation.
Wow, downvoted and flagged Within literally 5 seconds of posting.
Personal attacks and name calling aren't opinions, and aren't allowed here. Please don't do this again, regardless of how you feel about someone or how badly they behaved.
Read the summary here https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Want-Talk-About-Overcoming/dp/06...
The thesis of the book is about how depression often manifests in men in ways society doesn't recognize as depression. Examples would be rage problems, substance abuse, "workaholism", and many others.
I don't know, maybe the book just caught me at exactly the right time in my life, but it has been profoundly transformative for me.