>Others engage in therapy with an artificially intelligent (and usually feminized) chatbot. Disturbingly, these digital apps are largely unregulated and have questionable standards of care.
What alternatives are there? Therapists don't scale. If half of society could improve their life with therapy, and a therapist can treat 30 people per month over 10 years, then 1% of society have to become therapists. More therapists than teachers would be needed.
I believe that this is a huge opportunity. Like medicine, people will be willing to pay anything to be happy. The biggest problem apart from developing a cure will be getting heard. The market will be flooded with enticing apps and a most likely bitter medicine will be a tough sell.
This has become much more clear in the last couple years. Demand shot way up and is far outstripping supply. Then you get into the issue of how so many patients aren't a good match for the first therapist they try, so they have to jump through all the hoops and fill out all the forms to try another one, which also may not be a good match (all while potentially on the edge of some kind of breakdown)... I went through at least five before I found one I felt was effective for me, and my experience is not uncommon.
Personally, I think we need to lower the barrier of entry for people to become therapists, and streamline the whole patient intake process. It's not like the quality is all that great with existing barriers, there are PhDs out there actively harming patients-- one kept trying to push Jesus on me when part of what I was dealing with was childhood religious trauma and the difficulties of restructuring my world view as a nonbeliever, an absolute breach of ethics.
We need to make it easier for people to try out multiple therapists until they find one that's a good match for them, and part of that is increasing the supply of therapists. Unfortunately I'm not sure a chatbot is ever going to quite do it except for in the simplest & most clear cut cases, the mental tangles we can get into really require general intelligence to grapple with.
Therapist have a huge amount of influence and power over their patients.
Do you really think lowering the bar is a good idea? Try and imagine the end result. Maybe it's me, but I shudder thinking of it.
The real problem, IMHO, is we've built an inhumane economic system that causes tremendous stress over the psyche of the individual. Instead of optimizing for wellbeing,we optimize for GDP, this is a pretty poor proxy. A more humane and tolerant society, with less hyper stimulating culture could reduce the need for more therapists.
But of course this is an ideal, I don't know how to get there, but it seems to me unleashing therapists into the wild, while streamlining out the ethical and self regulation that come with the guild structure is a terrible idea.
I agree in principle, but in the mean time we need triage. The current system has reached a breaking point.
> Do you really think lowering the bar is a good idea?
How much lower can the bar go? The "ethical and self regulation" you describe is all too often nonexistent. If my experiences - and many others I've read about - are any indication, the situation couldn't be much worse. There are certified professionals doing everything from actively pushing religion to making a cynical game out of how fast they can pigeonhole your 'symptoms' into a checklist so they can prescribe the currently most marketed drug for that DSM entry. Then they tell you to report back in two months.
Just having someone to talk your shit out with regularly who doesn't judge too much and has knowledge of practical solutions for common stressors would be a vast improvement over the 'care' all too many are currently receiving. The guidelines for providing simpler care like this can be clear & concise, and we have better tools now for filtering out bad actors. I see more reasons to continue advocating for such an approach than not at this point.
Not to mention that the dating game of filling out all the paperwork for the third time may be what pushes someone from on-edge but stable for the day into a breakdown.
Instead of scaling therapy/drugs up, maybe we improve community instead. Humans often just need to vent and otherwise connect with each other. OTOH, work is often considered a dangerous place to do that and we spend most (or at least a significant portion) of our waking lives there. This means we need to build community outside of work. Among other things, that in turn negates at least one of long commutes or long hours.
We already have therapist alternatives in the form of parasocial relationships and pseudo-personalized entertainment. There's even one prominent livestreamer who acts as a collective psychiatrist and does public sessions with other streamers, which is the most 2022 thing I've heard of in the last few weeks.
Therapists just play the role close family fulfill in most of East and South Asia. That scales very well but requires a societal monoculture that I’m not sure the west is capable of.
Mental health is terrible in east asia (at least in Korea), where mental health issues are highly stigmatized, mental healthcare is not covered under insurance (it's all in your head), familial and cultural narcissism is rife, the suicide rates are staggeringly high (especially among children and the elderly), and highly disordered behaviour (drug abuse, eating disorders) are considered as part of the culture, so I'm not sure these are good examples?
No they don’t. East and South Asian family relationships can be quite fraught. People don’t talk about their feelings. Parents put tremendous pressure on their children to study in school. Then they pressure them to quickly get married and have kids right after school. I have met plenty of people from both India and China who have expressed a lot of alienation from their families.
Tactically not talking about your feelings is a good thing. Nothing coming out of psychology has been replicated or validated i.e. a bunch of invalidated opinions. The most important thing is to prevent alienation and isolation and Asia does that better than anyone else.
My thought experiment question around Psychiatry is:
How would pre-electricity age people explain the operations of a digital computer?
They would probably invent some theories that bore no resemblance to the actual underlying technology. They might be close and even create some relevant metaphors but the theory would never be "correct", I suspect. Is this analogous to Psychiatry?
An old engineering axiom is:
"If you can't build it, you don't really understand it"
This leads me to ask, will we only understand the human mind after we learn how to build one or two?
Notwithstanding the question, can a network with X neurons fully comprehend a network with X neurons?
The mechanistic view of the universe is ancient and thinking of things as a set of motion induced cause/ effect dates back at least to Democritus. The ancient Greeks had mechanical computers for astronomy. And mechanical automata have been around for a long time.
Depends on the definition of understand. If you mean complete and faithful reproduction then maybe not. At least in one mind. Definitely a set of N minds with X-1 neurons can together understand the whole of X neurons if each simulates under given conditions or subsets of the whole.
The mind also probably has a degree of fractal self similarity in its structure and understanding a part gives a representation of the whole.
We don't need to understand all of the workings of the human brain. We need to provide a way for patients to be able to deal with their psychological burdens and establish mental self-sufficience.
> The real crisis in academic psychiatry is that there is no crisis.
I so love this words, especially I love to read that in the middle of my reading of Kuhn's "Structure of scientific revolutions" book because that book lets me clearly visualize of what crisis in psychiatry is being waited for.
Years ago my doctor switched me to an SSRI as a one time trial to see if it would better help/could be tolerated... yeah never again. That shit straight up induced mania and suicidal thoughts. I cut that trial off real quick right after noticing.
Everyone's different, but SSRIs are a hard no for me.
The crisis is societal argues the author, it's not really about the drugs. The drugs might be effective (and a lot of evidence suggests they're not really all that effective) but in our society even if they were. They would probably be behind paywalls and only accessible to rich people.
I've recently immigrated to Australia, trying to seek mental health help here has been a huge struggle and it's funny because you'd think for people with mental health problems to find a solution should be really easy. Imagine you have an accident and one of your legs stops working and the only way to get to the doctor is by walking; that's how it feels. To my australian native friends the situation has not been much easier, recently a friend was in the hospital on a suicide attempt and not only they were discharged fairly quickly but the only support they got was with a completely apathetic doctor.
Mental health is a big business and there is no interest in solving it, because as it says in the article, the biggest crisis in psychiatry is that there is no crisis in psychiatry.
I don't think it helps that working a lot of jobs it feels like I've had a negative contribution to human well-being and ecology. I cannot think of a large successful private company that is a net positive to society.
Honestly, if you travel around a bit as consultant, you don't even need to dig to know a "companys crimes".
Just sit in the canteen and talk with some.
The employee neurosis tells you all about it.
Lots of vegan activism - grows animals on farms or trades in that sector.
Pro-Peace and cultural sector activism. Produces weapons.
Greenpeace? Usually chemical dumps or other environment damage.
Virulent Patriotism? Usually exploits cheap labor & conditions abroad.
List goes on.
The more desperate the cooperate souls peddling their convictions to "outside strangers", the more morally rotten the business usually is.
This is one of the primary reasons I'm disgusted with private industry. It's BS, pointless at best and harmful at worst purely to make a couple people rich on the backs of others
Interesting how the two most promising "new" therapies are CBT (basically ancient Greek Stoicism) and psychedelics (which predates our species most likely)
I think this section is worth emphasizing - mental disorders are as unlikely to be due primarily to underlying genetic issues as getting an infectious disease is:
> "The oft-cited claim, for example, that schizophrenia has a genetic basis has failed to pass scientific muster. As Scull discusses, after failing to find a Mendelian set of genes that could explain schizophrenia, researchers in the 2000s pinned their hopes on new genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that could investigate hundreds of thousands of base pairs in the search for genetic linkages to psychiatric disorders. But GWAS studies have not revealed a clear genetic basis for schizophrenia (or bipolar disorder, for that matter). While combining hundreds of genetic sites can help explain, at best, 8 percent of the observed variance of schizophrenia, it is still possible for an individual to have many of these genetic variations without developing the disease."
There might be some influence - for example, someone born with genetic immunological defects is likely to be more susceptible to various infectious diseases, and there might be some kind of brain development issue that means that some people are less able to cope with high levels of stress, disappointment, trauma and so on - but the claim that this outcome is somehow ordained at birth is nonsensical.
All in all, the science of mental disorders today could be compared to the science of infectious disease in say, 1890 - they didn't have much in the way of understanding of core mechanisms, even if some approaches (surgical sterilization, rigorous post-operative hygiene, etc.) were being shown to reduce mortality.
Probably the most promising tools in this regard are the use of psychedelics under controlled settings to improve outcomes, but even here, the research is basically in its infancy due to the socio-governmental paranoia over these substances.
I do research in this area, and that paragraph is misleading. GWAS was a mistake from the beginning -- it was overhyped and ridiculously oversimplified from an analytic-design perspective. No one should have expected genes of major effect to emerge, and everyone generally agrees with this now. To me it's fine to point to GWAS as a major failure, but it's a major failure with academic systems and how research foci and funding occur, not with the idea of genetics in psychiatric phenomena in general.
What's more realistic to me -- and what I tried to get colleagues to do for years -- is a focus on polygenic risk, where numerous genes have small effect. This research has been more fruitful, but again, it's overhyped and oversimplified (the article mentions this too, briefly). The problem isn't with the idea of genetic influences on mental illness, especially severe mental illness, it's the way that academic research occurs in general.
The truth is, the most likely genetic explanation (which will only be a small part of the pie) -- the one that's been the case all along -- is some combination of polygenic influence, involving some complex cascade of genetic effects, along with very rare mutations occurring within single individuals or families. There's also probably lots about genetics and genetic expression we are totally wrong about in general.
I'm deeply sympathetic with the articles' arguments. Modern psychiatry has really lost its way and has neglected more psychosocial, systems-level explanations, along with things like chemical and microbiological exposures. I myself have written critiques of popular psychiatric genetic positions.
However, I think the underlying problems stem from wanting to shoehorn behavioral science into to some model where it doesn't fit. Typically this is physics or chemistry, or molecular biology. It's not that. It's kind of like that, but not the same. It's also kinda like economics, and kind of like infectious disease science, and kinda like computer science, but not quite like any of those things. But people want to oversimplify it nonetheless, and it becomes this all-or-nothing argument, between the "brainless" and "mindless", and you're not allowed to take some integrative position. Then you get into people in say, physics, complaining that because it's not that it's not scientific, which is also not true. There's just a lot of politics and pendulums swinging back and forth.
Combine this with academic fad-chasing and the funding nonsense that fuels that fire, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's like layers of people wanting to oversimplify things for attention, combined with some kind of narcissistic vulnerability with people wanting to prove they're "real scientists" or "real physicians" and in the end people with problems just end up becoming pawns in this political back-and-forth.
I'm happy to see these articles, but also a little frustrated because although their underlying arguments are on-point, they kind of end up perpetuating the same problems. Yes, part of the problem is that genes just aren't the end-all-be-all explanation for behavior. But part of the problem is we just don't know very much right now. So what will happen is the biopsychiatrists will retort with some new method or R-squared that refutes the specific points, but not the underlying message. And the process will just go round and round.
Some of this is maybe true of academics in general -- oversimplfying things to get attention -- but some of it is made worse by the field not having some consensual agreement that behavior is really complex and not likely to be reducible to anything simple.
I'd compare and contrast the state of the field to something like how modern molecular biology can produce an unambiguous diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis in a patient and prescribe an effective course of treatment, relative to diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia.
There's no unambiguous physical test for schizophrenia that I've ever heard of, it's just things like patients having auditory hallucinations and so on. There's no known mechanistic pathway (i.e. there's no known defective proteins that the genes express that somehow mess up the auditory pathway in the brain causing such hallucinations). It really sounds more like a mis-wiring-of-neurons type of thing that develops over time in the person, due to external pressures that they're unable to cope with.
Now with infectious disease, there is a great mystery still - out of a thousand people exposed to the same level of the same pathogen, some get sick and some don't. Some of this is explained by previous immunological exposure, but a lot isn't. Some of it is probably genetic in that one's in-born complement of immunological genes likely results in increased resistance or sensitivity to viral and bacterial proteins used to target cells.
What I'd guess here is that people just don't want to admit that mental illness is more of a social problem than a biological one, due to things like mass homelessness (which could cause schizophrenic breaks), poor parenting (which parents would rather blame on 'bad genes' rather than their own personal failures), etc. Of course, the same can be said of the prevalence of infectious disease due to poor public health regimes, contaminated food supplies, etc.
This quote is comically misused. It refers to people being called "controversial" or misfits, or being disapproved of for questioning the orthodoxies of deeply immoral societies.
It does not mean that if you're low-functioning in daily life, you get to blame climate change/economic inequality/injustice/whatever. Refusal to take responsibility for one's behavior is always a sign of lack of emotional health.
wow, quite the quote adjudicator, aren't we? where does your krishnamurti lineage come from, may i ask?
have you ever heard of an eastern philosopher who didn't think western civilization was profoundly sick??
it's deeply immoral that we force kids to sit in chairs for hours a day, and then diagnose them with "the ADHDs" when they don't like it. but we could multiple examples endlessly...
It is! I suppose because of its dubious origin. First attribution seems to be from Mark Vonnegut in The Eden Express. Did you read the book, or where did you learn what it _actually_ refers to?
Good question; I can't read the author's mind since the quote is made up.
But basic logic dictates that the quote (which is apocryphal) means that we cannot deduce that we are healthy simply because we are well-adjusted to society, if that society is sick. It does not say that psychiatric illness is rooted in societal or social problems. And empirically, proponents of the quote (theosophists and Buddhists) also rarely use it to refer to actual psychiatric illness, but rather to moral compasses, values, and overall behavior.
I doubt you'll find many Buddhists parrot the "I'm only depressed because of how messed up society is" line that you often see on the web, since Buddhism explicitly preaches self-transformation.
Refusal to take action to improve your life is unhealthy. Attributing the source of your problems to an external agent via a plausible mechanism is sensible.
And the way to feel healthy, truly healthy, is to be connected to networks of society or communities that are safe, supportive and which have your back.
But how many of the earlier societies had thousands of years of experience to look back to? Wouldn't you say in a society where we're capable of talking to anyone anywhere in the world at any moment we'd be able to at least try and solve these problems?
We've solved so many problems that afflicted humanity for thousands of years in the past 200 years. So why not this one? I guess because, as the article says, to solve this problem we actually need to change society as a whole.
Their livelihoods are predicated as being part of a complex economic web and having good geopolitical conditions. Norway used to be one of the poorest European countries, now it is one of the wealthiest thanks to large oil reserves.
It's interesting to me that oil is one of--if not primary--reasons societies are so rich and industrious. We're burning through hundreds of millions of years of carbon sequestration in a few centuries. It really looks like rocket fuel for civilization. What will it look like when oil isn't so plentiful?
I guess we're starting from different first principles here - I don't believe that societal fit requires sociopathy, but then, you and I live in different societies, and even if they're only separated by a few thousand kilometres of sea, I feel there's an ocean of difference between our countries in terms of governance and political style.
I'd agree that capitalism has a tendency of rewarding sociopathy, but there's no requirement to be an amoral asshole to be accepted by your community - in fact, it often prevents it.
My experience during the Christchurch earthquakes where people risked their lives to save complete strangers is what convinced me that most people are inherently decent, and I'm not sure a society made up of mostly decent people could become as cruel as you suggest.
Yes, it's kind of a long article. It's also one of the best analyses I've ever read of our current mental health treatment situation, whether you agree with the final paragraph or not. Save it for later if you don't have time now.
I started writing a long comment in response to this article (more to respond to the original catchy headline this topic first went live with "Mental Illness Is Not in Your Head").
This is a response to an article currently being discussed on Hacker News [Two recent books by historians explore the crisis in biological psychiatry, originally titled Mental Illness Is Not in Your Head]. I believe that the, now replaced, catchy headline of the article is not correct. I believe mental health is in your head, but this does not mean that mental health is controllable through altering neurotransmitters (or in fact altering any specific biological process).
~All mental health issues use the same biological structures[1]. A structure which interprets the emotional dynamic of the situation you are currently in. Another structure which reactivates the emotional memory you have associated with that dynamic.
Most likely the same mechanism is used for both happy and unhappy paths:
# Happy paths:
If you grew up with a loving (but not overwhelmingly loving) and calm family, your unconscious association between the emotional dynamic of a situation you are in, and the emotional memory associated with it are positive. These could range from: "Everyone is having fun right now, I can relax and have fun too!", to "That person did something that made me uncomfortable, I know it's safe to express my needs and feelings, so I can communicate calmly to the person who upset me how I their behaviour made me feel".
# Unhappy paths:
If you grew up with caregivers who were stressed by certain situations, your unconscious association between the emotional dynamic of a situation you are in, and the emotional memory/requirements associated with it will contain protective responses. These could range from: "Everyone seems to having fun right now... but everyone got so stressed out when I was anything other than calm and happy when I was young, I better keep all my stressed feelings hidden inside, and be act like I'm happy and having fun too - even if something is going on for me which means deep down I'm not feeling good", to "That person did something that made me uncomfortable. Everyone go angry so quickly when I was little, that I’m sure this person will get really angry too if I say anything to them. I will just pretend that I’m ok with what they did.” This list goes on and on, and will depend on the subtle dynamics of the relationships you were raised in.
You will notice that in the happy paths there is not a separation between your external world and your internal worlds, whereas in the unhappy paths there is this split. This split is uncomfortable and it is lonely. It requires a tense form of control that the person on the happy path doesn’t need to apply to themselves.
# Things get worse […before they get better?]
I’m sure a bit of you related to the unhappy paths that I described. That is because we all have them. One of the biological survival mechanisms we have as highly dependent infants is to bend our emotional responses into ones which mean we get what we need from our caregivers.
This is such a common requirement for making it through infancy that the human is built to shed these leant emotional shackles. I am in a controversial minority within psychotherapy that believes that the precise diagnosis of these emotional shackles is the function of dreaming (https://psyarxiv.com/k6trz).
Getting rid of an emotional shackle is not complicated when it is clearly visible. It is not particularly pleasant, but you simply have to unlearn the fear by facing up to it. If you notice you keep your stressed feelings inside, you’ll need to find the courage to start opening up. If you are not setting boundaries when you feel yours are getting trodden on, you need to find the courage to start having those (initially) awkward conversations. The same is true for whatever unuseful emotional conditioning you are trying to get free from.
The mechanism behind this approach is very simple. We are extremely scared of facing these learnt fears (the type and level of fear we typically[2] only know in infancy). When we repeatedly face these fears and survive they are very quickly unlearned from the brain. It is highly inefficient for the brain to keep a fear in place that we now know (at an experiential, not only cognitive, level) to be superfluous, and the brain does not seem to want to do this.
But what happens if no one is there to help you work our your emotional shackles and you are left to suffer their isolating consequences on your own? Again, I am in a bit of a controversial minority of the mental health community, but I believe it is the useful response that mental health symptoms should worsen.
If things worsen both you and others begin to notice that something is wrong. If they notice something is wrong, there is an increased likelihood that you will get the emotional care that might lead you to successfully removing your emotional shackles; reducing your stress and isolation. Many people start treating their mental health because things have gotten bad, but the treatment (the process of discovering and facing up to unconscious fears) doesn’t need to stop when you return to your base level.
In summary, I think there is a strong component of mental illness that is very much within our own heads. Because the happy and unhappy paths of mental illness use the same structural processes we cannot force a change at the biological level. Instead we have to explore, challenge and ultimately change the underlying emotional memories that are elicited in the structural processes. From my personal experience, this causes the greatest improvement to our mental health/reduces our “mental illness”.
[1] I'm aware that I am talking with one of two layers of abstraction. I'm not talking about the specific parts of the brain, but these processes are consistent in all of us.
[2] Stressful situations we experience as adults that cause PTSD are ones where our emotional processing of the situation we are going through mimics our childlike experience. The experience is overwhelming.
The whole article is worth reading. It's a tortured history of the failures of psychiatry, least of which is the DSM and worst of which is mass incarceration of blacks engaged in activism due to "schizophrenia," similar to how homosexuality was once considered mental illness. It ends too early with:
> "The fact is, if we didn’t have such a fucked-up society, I’d be out of a job." ... As historian Joanna Radin encouraged me to discuss in my undergraduate course on the History of Drugs, the question is not only, What is the right drug for me?, but also: What would the world have to look like for me not to need drugs at all?
He stops short of really exploring this concept. I'll paraphrase an old comment of mine:
Are you ready for me to diagnose your totally normal reaction to our shitty society as mental illness so I can get you addicted to mind altering drugs for the rest of your life? https://imgur.com/Jb1mJyx
Or as the social critic Dr. Ted Kaczynski said, "Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable."
The problem is, this is the only life most of us have lived, and so we cannot imagine it otherwise, like a fish who cannot conceive of a world without water, or even that water is the medium surrounding it. If our entire society is causing this, then what can we do? Wage slavery, oligarchy, attention theft by tech companies, disintegration of community from various causes. Life for so many people is crawling through glass Monday through Friday, then getting shitfaced on the weekend. Is that happiness?
It's so easy to call this society "shitty" and "sick". It's much harder to articulate what it should be - and how it should be.
Oh I know you can give a wishlist of things you want society to be; I bet you can't even begin to describe how you achieve it. No one ever does. The only method ever given is "revolution and then New Soviet Man". Every method is a restatement of those six words in longer format.
Most of the dystopian decrease we've had has come in the form of added economic surplus. We won't have a revolution and a new man, just a gradual increase in energy production until cruelty and competition is no longer the default state. Or alternatively we'll all choke on our own inventions and shortcomings.
TO pick only: 'Form on the Day', well doesn't that sound real, realy Mood-controlled ? So IF there are 'high-ends' in 'mood' THAN picking up a receptor-blocker to diddn't let those ('overwhelming' neuro-transmitter) be a part of the unwanted chemistry docking, cos ... hu you know... 'it may be NOT favorable FOR others' -so what's the thing ? That modern psychiatry went from behavior-analysis of criminals, scum and murder to a broader market of salesman... um that maybe is more in touch with the main story behind psychiatrists and 'illness-management'... ?
Sry, non native english speaker... but a broader view... ^^
Universal healthcare and higher education doesn't seem all that much to ask for (US). Offering those seems like a solid start for improving society without unwanted, heavy handed direct action/totalitarianism.
A cause worthwhile advocating for, but do you think you'll get people to stop saying that society is "sick" if you get it?
Hint; Scotland has both universal healthcare and free higher education and also the highest drug deaths per person in Europe - or close to the highest.
Are drugs decriminalized there? What's their policy regarding policing and public health as they relate to drug users?
Just because universal healthcare and higher education are offered does not mean they equate to drug deaths. That's a bullshit conclusion to draw and likely is a result of many other policy/societal factors.
And absolutely they will say society is sick, but wtf does that have to do with offering universal healthcare and higher education? Of course society will always be fucked in one way or another, but measures should be taken to improve quality of life for all in an attempt to make it more bearable and hopefully would contribute to finding solutions to the issues society faces
Yeah, it seems like everything these days is about figuring out how to get everyone motivated to have a revolution. We probably already hit peak civilization at some point over the last 20 years and this revolution stuff is just speeding up the downslope off of that.
> Max Stirner, was a German post-Hegelian philosopher, dealing mainly with the Hegelian notion of social alienation and self-consciousness. Stirner is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism and individualist anarchism.
> Stirner's egoism argues that individuals are impossible to fully comprehend, as no understanding of the self can adequately describe the fullness of experience.
> He believed that everyone was propelled by their own egoism and desires and that those who accepted this — as willing egoists — could freely live their individual desires, while those who did not — as unwilling egoists — will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause while they are secretly fulfilling their own desires for happiness and security. The willing egoist would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion.
> Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions — including the notion of state, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society — were mere illusions.
> He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism in which individuals would unite in Unions of egoists only when it was in their self-interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might, saying: "Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him belongs [property]."
> Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint and that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting.
Isn't that what we already have, a profoundly selfish society?
I don't see myself in his system - I'm neither a willing nor unwilling egoist. I consider my self-interest to be part of a larger "collective self-interest" of humanity and the ecology of life. But perhaps that's my false belief and I'm only "secretly fulfilling [my] desires for happiness and security". It could be, since the happiness of the collective supports and contributes to my personal happiness.
One aspect of Stirner's thought that bothers me is that his depiction of the egoist sounds more like a specific outlook on life that is no less sacred and artificial than the systems he rejects.
As a way to illustrate this, unmoderated online forums tend to adopt the same tone of voice and type of humor as 4chan. If there was true intellectual freedom without restraints, there would be more tonal diversity, but what instead ends up happening is that the type of people who would adopt Stirner's worldview would end up behaving in very similar ways to one another.
I'm not so familiar with anarchist thinking, so it kind of surprised me to learn about Stirner's "egoist" worldview and philosophy. He takes it to its logical conclusion, which is to be free of any morals and consideration for others, to serve one's self interest as a goal in itself. In a way it's refreshing to hear it expressed so directly, because it does seem like an attitude that's fairly common, maybe even as animal instinct. It helps to contrast and understand my own values and perhaps wishful thinking that humanity can grow beyond it to a holistic philosophy of living together.
Ted Kaczynski had an infamous description of his ideal society, and from a quick glance (I didn't fully read) he seems much more of a primitivist than a socialist.
yknow , I agree with your broad points -- I even agree with the sarcastic tone you used to convey the line, but the families of those murdered or injured by Ted Kaczynski would probably prefer the title murderer/arsonist/terrorist.. even inmate.
Most folks would probably prefer that the most infamous title be used when speaking about those that society has deemed to be of ill repute.
'Spiritualist Genghis Khan' sounds weird. So does 'music aficionado and critic Charles Manson'.
It's a grim take, but the condemnation offered by the legal process is one of the things that helps the victims of a crime cope. In other words, the social branding of 'murderer' or 'convict' onto the person charged with the crime is also part of the justice offered to the victims via the legal system -- to ignore that the social title and distinction of the person has been affected by their transition to 'convict' status is to ignore a facet of what the prosecution was attempting to achieve for the sake of the victims.
I think that the branding of the UNABOMBER as a "bad guy" is pretty secure at this point.
> to ignore that the social title and distinction of the person has been affected by their transition to 'convict' status is to ignore a facet of what the prosecution was attempting to achieve for the sake of the victims.
why on earth should that take precedence over everything else?
Why can't we just skip the virtue signaling and just discuss the ideas presented? Absolutely none of the discussion we have here is going to affect the societal process of justice as described.
Do most people even take psychiatric medication for "the rest of their life"? I thought that most people who take psychiatric medications take them for a few years, but I don't have the stats on that.
Well, Ted Kaczynski is certainly someone we should emulate right? Go live in a cabin in the woods, and send bombs in the mail to people, sounds like the epitome of great mental health.
Someone might have a good analysis of the problem but being incapable of coming up with an appropriate solution to it. These are definitely two different skillsets.
Imo a lot of what Kaczynski says is actually very well thought out and there are multiple other philosophers and thinkers that have come to similar conclusions or have pointed similar problems with society.
If you had read that statement without reading who it was that said it, what would you have thought about it?
Fair. If I'd read that without the ascription, I would've considered it to be an overly simplistic view of things, that was probably influenced by Bill Hicks' comedy/social commentary [0].
Reducing the multiple potential causes of depression to "society is bad" does a dramatic disservice to people who suffer it.
I don’t know if it’s relying on science. It’s a somewhat tautological statement.
We are physical beings. All the processes happening inside us are mediated through chemicals. Most are assembled according to a building plans encoded in your genes and the building blocks come from your environment. Then obviously as the brain is the command centre of the body, it does involve the head.
Still, it doesn’t tell us much.
For all intents and purposes, we have shockingly little understanding of how the brain actually works. We know some chemicals have unexpected effects but we don’t always understand exactly how that happens. We don’t understand how memories are stored or recalled. We have some understanding of the feedback loops involved in emotion processing but that’s far from perfect. We are starting to realise that the processing happening in other organs like the digestive system have an effect on the brain but it’s not entirely clear which.
I think people generally are not humble enough regarding the level of actual knowledge we have reached in psychology and medicine.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we came to discover we had actually been missing something foundational at some point.
I agree that most likely genes, environment and the mind itself are an influence. But is science enough to resolve mental problems?
The mind is very close to a computer. Few people use science to develop or debug software. Even if there is a scientific model that explains why somebody feels bad, is that model enough to determine a cure?
The problem is if you assume a resolution is possible, and it can be shown to work, that is science. When people say "Science can't solve problem X" what they are saying is either "Problem X is unsolvable" or "X isn't really a problem". Science by definition is a a self-updating system that accepts new information based on what works.
That doesn't look like a scientific statement to me. What are its implications? Under what conditions does this hold? How is it falsifiable? What is the relative contribution of each element in that equation?
this article reframes the recent trend in psychiatric into psychedelics in a bad light:
> Understanding the undulating history of psychiatric hype and crisis is crucial today as the profession builds toward its next trend: psychedelics, already heralded as a “renaissance” and psychiatry’s “next frontier.” These two histories demonstrate that the academic and corporate pursuit of such hype [...] resulting in significant psychological and bodily harm.
this articles ignores the unfounded claim: that the real purpose of the APA was not quite to heal, not after ww2.
> We also have not had any significant breakthroughs in treatment.
They even say this, which is as nazi social control as it gets.
> psychiatrists in the 1970s who pathologized Black activism as “psychosis.”
oh, and what Bush said in the 90s? I suppose all that went into marketing, and later on (i.e. nowadays) into 'engagement' metrics for online content and so on. so, as I said, they're not trying to heal you, they're trying to make a buck same as everybody else in a capitalist society/marketplace.
now all that scientific progress is being used in an information war. as war crazy as it gets.
I wondered what is this “community-based” mental health care that the author advocates for, and how is it different from psychiatry. Are psychiatrists not part of the community? It turns out it refers to “dream-work, breathwork, herbalism, and meditation.”
in what way did it turn out to refer to those things? Community-based health care seems to me like a way of saying that mental health is connected closely to the community you are a part of, and that this community therefore can play a big part of keeping your mind healthy.
Which, I think, sounds very reasonable. If your work environment is toxic, the way to get better is to improve the work community, or find another community to be part of.
This couldn't be more wrong for me, personally. I first started getting depression when I was, so to speak, at the top of my social game in high school. Now, it is more or less well managed, and doesn't really manifest except for periods of time when I'm under significant stress.
Depression isn't a defense mechanism at all- it is purely destructive and aimed internally. Projection is a much better example of an unhealthy defense mechanism to social failure.
How can you help? Depression and anxiety are both examples of self-reinforcing pathologies; the manifestation encourages the continued behavior in a repetitive cycle. Treatment focuses on breaking that cycle- medication for what we guess might be the underlying biological cause on the one hand, and therapy to build up more resilient behaviors that don't lead to spiraling on the other (i.e. if you get too anxious at work, methods to handle the anxiety that don't put your job in jeopardy by feeding the flight response and causing more anxiety).
Social life being zero sum is also, I think, a fundamentally wrong statement, but I'd rather keep the discussion focused on the medical side as it is more relevant to the rest of the thread.
If that's the case, could we develop methods to ensure that communities we build have inclusion mechanisms to ensure all people (including mentally ill) participate and are valued?
Sometimes I wonder if hyper-individualism in western society plays a big part in mental issues, since it is so easy to isolate oneself from any community. It is left up to the individual to find communities, there is no mechanism to stop people 'falling through the cracks' like there would be in a tribal community or even modern close-knit villages / country towns.
I don't see how social life is a zero-sum game. Sure, some people gain status and popularity above others, but that does not preclude inclusion of all people. I.e just because Bob has 10 friends and Alice only has 2, doesn't mean that Alice can't be part of Bob's community.
"Gould expressed deep skepticism as to whether evolutionary psychology could ever provide objective explanations for human behavior, even in principle; additionally, even if it were possible to do so, Gould did not think that it could be proven in a properly scientific way." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
This. I think that people too often overemphasize one factor when it is many that can contribute to mental illness. The gut is definitely an integral part of mental health as has recently been popularized. Being in long-term social isolation or damaging relationships can also lead to mental illness. Having chronic stress (noise/chemical pollution/lack of good sleep/etc) can also lead to mental illness. All of these factors can be combined or work completely on their own.
The human system really has only three inputs your conscious brain has control over (and they're almost all 'loose' controls). Loose controls meaning imagine feeding birds, you don't feed the individual birds you just provide seeds and let them figure it out. Your inputs to your body are rarely localized, you just provide signals and your body figures it out.
So, three inputs.
Energy input as food/drink, how fast you breathe in.
Energy output as what you do in the world and how much your muscles exert themselves.
The third input to your body is your stress response as interrupted by your brain. Stress in this case can be pain and discomfort, but also any other input or thought from your senses.
Your body doesn't know that a lion jumping out of the grass is terrifying, it just responds to your brain throwing terror seeds at it.
Your body doesn't know that seeing "23 53 34 78 and bonus number 5" means you just won the Powerball lottery, it's just responds to the your brain throwing happiness seeds at it.
Like you said, mental health can be systemic, but having bad inputs can stress you out as well. If your problem is mainly bad inputs, then you can control your response, just in a loose way rather than a tight way that we humans seem to prefer.
I don't agree. Our perception of the world is colored in the gut and served to the conscious mind. When I was living in New York, the jingle of the ice cream truck draw me crazy, it was torture. But for kids, it was happiness because the gut microbes feeding on sugar send a message to the conscsious mind to buy the sugary stuff and they created an irresistible desire for it. This is all done in the guts. Some people can remain cool under any adverse situation because they have a healthy gut.
No sarcasm intended. I genuinely don't think you can reduce the human body into parts without simplifying how it works. Humans design machines component-wise that way, but that is a methodology unknown to evolution.
Not "probably" but certainly. Mental illness not just as a psychological or even chemical problem but also as an ontologically-inflected political one.
What alternatives are there? Therapists don't scale. If half of society could improve their life with therapy, and a therapist can treat 30 people per month over 10 years, then 1% of society have to become therapists. More therapists than teachers would be needed.
I believe that this is a huge opportunity. Like medicine, people will be willing to pay anything to be happy. The biggest problem apart from developing a cure will be getting heard. The market will be flooded with enticing apps and a most likely bitter medicine will be a tough sell.