3 ms·

> If everyone's entitled to their own perspective and experience, isn't this person entitled to theirs? The downvotes (not mine) aren't for their experience, t

by re 9y ago

> If everyone's entitled to their own perspective and experience, isn't this person entitled to theirs? The downvotes (not mine) aren't for their experience, they're for the dismissiveness. It's like the paradox of tolerance; you shouldn't be surprised if people don't support your viewpoint about not supporting other viewpoints. > Because it doesn't fit into the modern mental-health-awareness agenda? Because it doesn't actual contribute anything substantive; it invalidates the author's experience seemly just to make a point that the author already acknowledged ("It seemed the only real difference between us was that I knew something was wrong") > being told your problems are non-problems compared to someone else's is a helpful thing How so? Far more often, people tell others that their problems are non-problems in an attempt to shut them up, not to help them. What actual value comes from attempting to precisely determine who has it worst? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

safek 9y ago
Fair enough on the first two points. That makes sense. > How so? Far more often, people tell others that their problems are non-problems in an attempt to shut them up, not to help them. What actual value comes from attempting to precisely determine who has it worst? Now that I think about it, I do see this on the internet a lot, and agree that it's highly unconstructive. What I was more getting at was a critique of a pervasive idea that everyone's self-reports should be taken at face value, and treated with equal gravity. A contrived example: imagine someone who feels depressed because they were pumped full of self-esteem as a kid, then found out in their twenties that they weren't that special; and someone who feels depressed because of chemical imbalances they can't control. Both people would use the word "depression" to describe themselves, and in our culture, you're not allowed to say that one is "real" while the another "isn't." But in fact it would probably help the first person to know that their depression isn't, in a strict sense, real: they can get out it by improving their external circumstances, while the second person can't. (That's not analogous to the situation here; it's just a random example.)
- mercer 9y ago
  > But in fact it would probably help the first person to know that their depression isn't, in a strict sense, real: they can get out it by improving their external circumstances, while the second person can't. But that's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? First off, we still know so little about mental health that we can't accurately tell which is which. And it strikes me as really harmful to categorize people's issues as 'real' or 'not real' based on vague notions. Autism, for example, was initially seriously considered a result of bad parenting, and the consequences are noticeable to this day. Second, even if we can distinguish between, say, depression because 'raised with too much self-esteem' or 'chemical imbalance', this is mostly relevant for treatment, not diagnosis. If the person in question cannot find their own way out of the situation, the problem is by definition 'real'. The only difference might be how the situation is handled. In fact, in many cases the treatment is the same, regardless of how someone got there. I've seen a lot of harm caused by people arbitrarily distinguishing problems as either 'nature' or 'nurture' or 'internal' or 'external'. This distinction is not only extremely vague, it doesn't actually matter to anyone except those who are developing or implementing solutions. To everyone else, I'd advise compassion, support, and avoiding judgment. That said, you do have a point. Personally I've become more and more convinced that for various reasons, some good, most bad, our current treatment models err on the side of adjusting yourself to fit your environment, while the most beneficial solutions I've seen involve shaping your environment to fit 'you', or at the very least a combination of both. Regardless of whether an issue is 'internal' or 'external' (again, I don't think making the distinction is as valuable as it seems).
  - safek 9y ago
    I'm guessing that where I'm maybe communicating this badly is in the word "real." I don't mean to suggest that people whose problems don't meet some arbitrary criteria shouldn't be taken seriously. And I certainly think hasty, dismissive judgments can have sinister consequences. What I do think it's productive to do is to assess based on evidence the relative weight of people's issues. I think we'd agree that treatment depends on successfully and accurately identifying the problem. A huge part of that is figuring out what order of magnitude of difficulty you've got in front of you. I'd say that in distinguishing between 'raised with too much self-esteem' and 'chemical imbalance,' the difference in the resulting treatment is so drastic that it may as well be a different diagnosis. Someone in the former category needs to acquire some combination of acceptance, a sense of agency, and goals to strive toward. Someone in the latter needs medication. The former is easier to solve, because the latter in some cases may not be solvable at all. This doesn't mean we should abandon compassion and start yelling at the person, but isn't it a good litmus test? Shouldn't someone who genuinely wants to get better be delighted to hear that their problem wasn't so big after all? It sounds like you're less against judgment in general and more against lazy, dismissive, heartless judgments. But that's not what I'm advocating at all. I just have sympathy for the war veteran rolling his eyes when he hears a story about someone who got mugged getting PTSD. Of course no one should be mugged, and getting mugged sucks, but oh come on, let the guy roll his eyes.

by re 9y ago

safek 9y ago

Fair enough on the first two points. That makes sense. > How so? Far more often, people tell others that their problems are non-problems in an attempt to shut them up, not to help them. What actual value comes from attempting to precisely determine who has it worst? Now that I think about it, I do see this on the internet a lot, and agree that it's highly unconstructive. What I was more getting at was a critique of a pervasive idea that everyone's self-reports should be taken at face value, and treated with equal gravity. A contrived example: imagine someone who feels depressed because they were pumped full of self-esteem as a kid, then found out in their twenties that they weren't that special; and someone who feels depressed because of chemical imbalances they can't control. Both people would use the word "depression" to describe themselves, and in our culture, you're not allowed to say that one is "real" while the another "isn't." But in fact it would probably help the first person to know that their depression isn't, in a strict sense, real: they can get out it by improving their external circumstances, while the second person can't. (That's not analogous to the situation here; it's just a random example.)

mercer 9y ago
> But in fact it would probably help the first person to know that their depression isn't, in a strict sense, real: they can get out it by improving their external circumstances, while the second person can't. But that's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? First off, we still know so little about mental health that we can't accurately tell which is which. And it strikes me as really harmful to categorize people's issues as 'real' or 'not real' based on vague notions. Autism, for example, was initially seriously considered a result of bad parenting, and the consequences are noticeable to this day. Second, even if we can distinguish between, say, depression because 'raised with too much self-esteem' or 'chemical imbalance', this is mostly relevant for treatment, not diagnosis. If the person in question cannot find their own way out of the situation, the problem is by definition 'real'. The only difference might be how the situation is handled. In fact, in many cases the treatment is the same, regardless of how someone got there. I've seen a lot of harm caused by people arbitrarily distinguishing problems as either 'nature' or 'nurture' or 'internal' or 'external'. This distinction is not only extremely vague, it doesn't actually matter to anyone except those who are developing or implementing solutions. To everyone else, I'd advise compassion, support, and avoiding judgment. That said, you do have a point. Personally I've become more and more convinced that for various reasons, some good, most bad, our current treatment models err on the side of adjusting yourself to fit your environment, while the most beneficial solutions I've seen involve shaping your environment to fit 'you', or at the very least a combination of both. Regardless of whether an issue is 'internal' or 'external' (again, I don't think making the distinction is as valuable as it seems).
- safek 9y ago
  I'm guessing that where I'm maybe communicating this badly is in the word "real." I don't mean to suggest that people whose problems don't meet some arbitrary criteria shouldn't be taken seriously. And I certainly think hasty, dismissive judgments can have sinister consequences. What I do think it's productive to do is to assess based on evidence the relative weight of people's issues. I think we'd agree that treatment depends on successfully and accurately identifying the problem. A huge part of that is figuring out what order of magnitude of difficulty you've got in front of you. I'd say that in distinguishing between 'raised with too much self-esteem' and 'chemical imbalance,' the difference in the resulting treatment is so drastic that it may as well be a different diagnosis. Someone in the former category needs to acquire some combination of acceptance, a sense of agency, and goals to strive toward. Someone in the latter needs medication. The former is easier to solve, because the latter in some cases may not be solvable at all. This doesn't mean we should abandon compassion and start yelling at the person, but isn't it a good litmus test? Shouldn't someone who genuinely wants to get better be delighted to hear that their problem wasn't so big after all? It sounds like you're less against judgment in general and more against lazy, dismissive, heartless judgments. But that's not what I'm advocating at all. I just have sympathy for the war veteran rolling his eyes when he hears a story about someone who got mugged getting PTSD. Of course no one should be mugged, and getting mugged sucks, but oh come on, let the guy roll his eyes.