6 ms·

I'm always wary of anyone leveraging concepts such as "investing in mental wealth" or "focussing on self improvement" in order to pander 5 bullet methodologies.

I'm always wary of anyone leveraging concepts such as "investing in mental wealth" or "focussing on self improvement" in order to pander 5 bullet methodologies. Even more so when the author interjects a plug, both shameless as well as irrelevant, for their own book - Beyond Coffee - in their argument. The fallacy hidden in the article is that each of us is completely in control over our physical and mental well-being. That your well being isn't an inevitability but a choice. If it's a choice, then this implies that making the right choices is 100% your own responsibility. Sure, the author does raise a number of fair points about mental healthcare and how some good daily habits affect your own well being. But then the author completely misses the mark in the conclusion. No two human lives are the same. Everyone's experience is uniquely different and shaped by an infinite number of events and circumstances past, present and future. Most of which humans don't even get to control directly. The idea of controlling your life and the optimistic view that one is able to mould it towards an ideal stems in Modernistic tradition. Human minds are doing poorly at self diagnosing, while it's very hard for others to spot the signs of mental health issues. Mental health is also deeply woven into the identity and the personality of individuals. Personal struggles are very much part of being an individual. Rather then pandering "we should invest in our mental wealth" or even "we should go for a yearly mental health check up", start by sitting down and listening compassionately to those around you first, without offering any practical solutions. If someone lost a loved one, they don't want to hear "maybe you should see a therapist" right off the bat, they are addressing you directly, and they hope you're just willing to listen and acknowledging their pain and not much more. If someone states they suffer depression, anxiety or PTSD, rather then arguing semantics, the more important questions to ask would be: Am I listening to this person, what are they trying to say and do I understand what they are saying? Finally, statements that start with "we should..." without backing up their claim, tend to rustle my Jimmies. Who's this "we" anyway? And why am I being dragged into the argument from the outset?

austincheney 6y ago
Nobody is contesting that uniquenesses apply to everyone. People should never self diagnose mental or physical ailments, but that also is not an excuse to ignore deliberate decisions to advance personal health. > If someone lost a loved one, they don't want to hear "maybe you should see a therapist" right off the bat, they are addressing you directly, and they hope you're just willing to listen and acknowledging their pain and not much more. While you directly address listening I think, more broadly, you mean to suggest active empathy. I fully agree and it’s a skill many people inadequately develop or practice.
CrazyStat 6y ago
> The fallacy hidden in the article is that each of us is completely in control over our physical and mental well-being. That your well being isn't an inevitability but a choice. If it's a choice, then this implies that making the right choices is 100% your own responsibility. This is nonsense. The author makes no such argument, you're just projecting it onto him. "Here are some things you can do to proactively manage your mental health, rather than ignoring it until you have a crisis" is in no way putting 100% of the responsibility on the individual.
- CrazyStat 6y ago
  I was in an accident many years ago that split my chin and chipped or cracked about a dozen of my teeth, resulting in over $10k of dental work since. But when my dentist advises me to proactively manage my dental health by brushing and flossing daily I don't accuse her of fallaciously implying that I am in complete control of my dental wellbeing.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    > I don't accuse her of fallaciously implying that I am in complete control of my dental wellbeing. Of course not. Your dentist does understand the difference between what you can do and can't do. But context matters. And I'd venture your insurance may hold a different idea about personal responsibility. The same applies to a self-described silicon valley angel investor, founder, podcaster, author and general start-up helper who writes about "investing in mental wealth".
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Well, there's this statement. > And these are creating the current environment where we can explore these topics in the abstract collectively — or the acute symptoms we are feeling with loved ones and therapists alike with more positive encouragement from others than ever before, and that helps us zoom in on our individual underlying root causes… and for better or worse, it seems more and more clear that optimal mental health is an individual sport. Full, hard stop there. Mental health being an individual sport? No. Not by a long shot. Sure, our own human experience is utterly individual. That is, nobody can feel what you as an individual feel. Barring telepathy, it's not possible to get to the bottom of what someone else is going through. That doesn't mean that your mental health is shaped in a vacuum nor that you are managing your own mental health entirely solo at the end of the day. Your mental health is tied into your circumstances, your past, your upbringing, the people you met, your current family situation, job, culture, religion, politics, financial situation and so on and so on. How you feel right now is the net result of infinite external and internal factors tying into each other balancing out what goes on in your subconscious. > Progress is being made, but we have a long way to go in continued open, public dialogue and destigmatization of these common ailments. So when you get a chance to talk about your direct or indirect experience with a mental illness, seize the opportunity to talk about it openly. There’s never been more receptivity to open dialogue than now. This is true. And those are first steps.But that's not nearly enough. My gripe with the article is that it only lightly brushes the topic of discussing underlying root causes. For instance, PTSD caused by domestic or child abuse. Sure, you can openly talk about coping with PTSD, have group sessions or do an awareness campaign, but actually creating a socio-economic and judicial environment in which abuse within large communities can be addressed and prevent through strong ties and support networks? It's not exactly like the ball gets pushed forward on this front in a way that a tangible impact has been made, right? If anything, modern life very much puts the focus on the individual with all the unintentional downsides that this brings. Moreover, this the article simply moves into the opposite direction. > It goes from a lens of “fixing” to “investing” — in other words, instead of fixing something that is by implication broken, it’s investing in its durability to withstand the wear and tear that comes with modern life. And this begins well before the internal or external life-interrupting event itself (in fact, that is the whole point). I read this as: there's somehow a way to build "mental credit" that you can expend when you fall on hard times. Yet, the author disregards individual social and economic background, personality traits, and so on. As I said, sure, to an extent managing stress and sleep are things you do to maintain your own well being... in the present moment. I'd feel down as well if I eat unhealthy, don't get enough sleep and just don't manage the basics in my life properly in general. But they aren't a silver bullet that solves anxiety and depression caused by losing your job and your house in a pandemic. Neither does a strict and health-focussed training inoculates soldiers against the horrors of the battlefield. The numbers on mental health issues and suicide in veterans serve as a stark reminder here. And they sure aren't a golden hammer that does away with anxiety and depression in teenagers caused by peer pressure or meeting the high expectations by parents and guardians. > For example, instead of just thinking about fixing an acute financial problem like personal debt, wiser heads are thinking about investing in the optimal outcome with almost every economic decision; financial freedom. > Instead of fixing a mental illness when it comes across your path, it’s investing in the optimal goal with daily and weekly habits beginning as a teenager; mental freedom. After all, optimal outcomes are planned years and decades in advance. We have this understanding in other investments in our lives… financial, career, relationships, acquired skills, hobbies, etc, and we’re starting to have that with regards to mental health, and I want to further encourage that with the concept of mental wealth. Okay. This is where the article devolves in pandering. What is this "optimal goal" exactly? What are "optimal outcomes" here? And why is mental health a separate item on the list between "financial career" and "relationships"? In my opinion, the author does nothing more then dumbing the concept down. Sure, maybe you don't read in his writings that mental health is 100% the responsibility of the individual. But I'd wager that a sizeable part of his audience would be most willing to believe this, for the simple reason that it's far easier to accept simple solutions then deal with the murkiness and complexity of human minds. Finally, I made the effort to construct a criticism and all you give me is a "you're just projecting"? Please. You'll have to do better then that.
bonoboTP 6y ago
> The idea of controlling your life and the optimistic view that one is able to mould it towards an ideal stems in Modernistic tradition. Okay, that's your view. I've taken control in the areas listed, I pay attention to what I'm doing, I'm journaling, noticing what improves my well-being and it's been a great journey that is helping me with my depression tendencies. I am proud to feel that I now have control to go to sleep over Youtube rabbit holes till the sun comes up, etc. etc. I am moulding myself and it's largely thanks to helpful material that doesn't just say you are good as you are, keep being a slob who never exercises, procrastinates eternally, etc. Keeping my wakeup time constant and going running first thing in the morning has helped me a ton. The exercise and the regular wake up makes me sleepy in the evening, I don't need coffee in the morning etc. Things do work. > Human minds are doing poorly at self diagnosing, while it's very hard for others to spot the signs of mental health issues. Mental health is also deeply woven into the identity and the personality of individuals. Personal struggles are very much part of being an individual. I don't want my struggles with my sleep schedule to be part of being an individual. Nor do I want my gaming addiction to define myself. Nor my anxieties. You don't realize that this attitude of "anything goes", "you are okay", "no lifestyle can be ever better than any other" can give people the idea that there is nothing for them to do. That things will necessarily stay the same until some big social revolution comes sometime in a few... decades? People can take action here and now however small. The feeling of a bit of control and agency can do wonders and can snowball into great things.
- nonbirithm 6y ago
  The point is that statements like "you are not okay" can be misconstrued depending on the mentality of the subject. The simplistic version of this is telling a depressed person they should "lighten up." But such a person may not have the resources to just change their mood on a whim, and when they also realize this and internalize it, they may become defensive. If they are unable to follow this "simple advice" to just become "okay" again in the context of society at large, their reaction could only reinforce those self-destructive thoughts. Because I am unable to just do these simple things, then what is my value in life, and so on. There can be a meta to this mentality. A lot of such people could be well aware they are not okay, and still not have any intention to get better, for a variety of reasons. The assumption is that every person wants to act for their own benefit. There are some people who only want to act for their own detriment. Someone defensive enough could just twist the words of "you could do better," which are completely well-intended, into meaning "but I'm failing to, and that is my fault, and that means I am not good enough for you." They can just believe the helper thinks less of them because they just can't do what they say, and ignore anything they say to the contrary, to make a point. And that is what is defined as "success" for them - proving that they are not good enough to the people that want them to improve, through their own actions. So with that mindset it is an endless negative feedback loop that will frustrate everyone trying to genuinely help the person, until they all give up or nothing ever improves and then said person is left alone with their own thoughts. And then anything could happen. But that is not to say that it's the same with anyone who is genuinely willing to listen and take advice to heart. You can choose to say "yes, and here are the steps I'll take to get to 'okay'". It's just that not all people are open to advice, and sometimes the only way to make those people listen is to pay other people to force their own worldviews on them (therapists), "for their own good," like a parent would to a naive child who refuses to listen. And in the end, some people still cannot be changed.

austincheney 6y ago

Nobody is contesting that uniquenesses apply to everyone. People should never self diagnose mental or physical ailments, but that also is not an excuse to ignore deliberate decisions to advance personal health. > If someone lost a loved one, they don't want to hear "maybe you should see a therapist" right off the bat, they are addressing you directly, and they hope you're just willing to listen and acknowledging their pain and not much more. While you directly address listening I think, more broadly, you mean to suggest active empathy. I fully agree and it’s a skill many people inadequately develop or practice.

CrazyStat 6y ago

> The fallacy hidden in the article is that each of us is completely in control over our physical and mental well-being. That your well being isn't an inevitability but a choice. If it's a choice, then this implies that making the right choices is 100% your own responsibility. This is nonsense. The author makes no such argument, you're just projecting it onto him. "Here are some things you can do to proactively manage your mental health, rather than ignoring it until you have a crisis" is in no way putting 100% of the responsibility on the individual.

CrazyStat 6y ago
I was in an accident many years ago that split my chin and chipped or cracked about a dozen of my teeth, resulting in over $10k of dental work since. But when my dentist advises me to proactively manage my dental health by brushing and flossing daily I don't accuse her of fallaciously implying that I am in complete control of my dental wellbeing.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  > I don't accuse her of fallaciously implying that I am in complete control of my dental wellbeing. Of course not. Your dentist does understand the difference between what you can do and can't do. But context matters. And I'd venture your insurance may hold a different idea about personal responsibility. The same applies to a self-described silicon valley angel investor, founder, podcaster, author and general start-up helper who writes about "investing in mental wealth".
CaptArmchair 6y ago
Well, there's this statement. > And these are creating the current environment where we can explore these topics in the abstract collectively — or the acute symptoms we are feeling with loved ones and therapists alike with more positive encouragement from others than ever before, and that helps us zoom in on our individual underlying root causes… and for better or worse, it seems more and more clear that optimal mental health is an individual sport. Full, hard stop there. Mental health being an individual sport? No. Not by a long shot. Sure, our own human experience is utterly individual. That is, nobody can feel what you as an individual feel. Barring telepathy, it's not possible to get to the bottom of what someone else is going through. That doesn't mean that your mental health is shaped in a vacuum nor that you are managing your own mental health entirely solo at the end of the day. Your mental health is tied into your circumstances, your past, your upbringing, the people you met, your current family situation, job, culture, religion, politics, financial situation and so on and so on. How you feel right now is the net result of infinite external and internal factors tying into each other balancing out what goes on in your subconscious. > Progress is being made, but we have a long way to go in continued open, public dialogue and destigmatization of these common ailments. So when you get a chance to talk about your direct or indirect experience with a mental illness, seize the opportunity to talk about it openly. There’s never been more receptivity to open dialogue than now. This is true. And those are first steps.But that's not nearly enough. My gripe with the article is that it only lightly brushes the topic of discussing underlying root causes. For instance, PTSD caused by domestic or child abuse. Sure, you can openly talk about coping with PTSD, have group sessions or do an awareness campaign, but actually creating a socio-economic and judicial environment in which abuse within large communities can be addressed and prevent through strong ties and support networks? It's not exactly like the ball gets pushed forward on this front in a way that a tangible impact has been made, right? If anything, modern life very much puts the focus on the individual with all the unintentional downsides that this brings. Moreover, this the article simply moves into the opposite direction. > It goes from a lens of “fixing” to “investing” — in other words, instead of fixing something that is by implication broken, it’s investing in its durability to withstand the wear and tear that comes with modern life. And this begins well before the internal or external life-interrupting event itself (in fact, that is the whole point). I read this as: there's somehow a way to build "mental credit" that you can expend when you fall on hard times. Yet, the author disregards individual social and economic background, personality traits, and so on. As I said, sure, to an extent managing stress and sleep are things you do to maintain your own well being... in the present moment. I'd feel down as well if I eat unhealthy, don't get enough sleep and just don't manage the basics in my life properly in general. But they aren't a silver bullet that solves anxiety and depression caused by losing your job and your house in a pandemic. Neither does a strict and health-focussed training inoculates soldiers against the horrors of the battlefield. The numbers on mental health issues and suicide in veterans serve as a stark reminder here. And they sure aren't a golden hammer that does away with anxiety and depression in teenagers caused by peer pressure or meeting the high expectations by parents and guardians. > For example, instead of just thinking about fixing an acute financial problem like personal debt, wiser heads are thinking about investing in the optimal outcome with almost every economic decision; financial freedom. > Instead of fixing a mental illness when it comes across your path, it’s investing in the optimal goal with daily and weekly habits beginning as a teenager; mental freedom. After all, optimal outcomes are planned years and decades in advance. We have this understanding in other investments in our lives… financial, career, relationships, acquired skills, hobbies, etc, and we’re starting to have that with regards to mental health, and I want to further encourage that with the concept of mental wealth. Okay. This is where the article devolves in pandering. What is this "optimal goal" exactly? What are "optimal outcomes" here? And why is mental health a separate item on the list between "financial career" and "relationships"? In my opinion, the author does nothing more then dumbing the concept down. Sure, maybe you don't read in his writings that mental health is 100% the responsibility of the individual. But I'd wager that a sizeable part of his audience would be most willing to believe this, for the simple reason that it's far easier to accept simple solutions then deal with the murkiness and complexity of human minds. Finally, I made the effort to construct a criticism and all you give me is a "you're just projecting"? Please. You'll have to do better then that.

bonoboTP 6y ago

> The idea of controlling your life and the optimistic view that one is able to mould it towards an ideal stems in Modernistic tradition. Okay, that's your view. I've taken control in the areas listed, I pay attention to what I'm doing, I'm journaling, noticing what improves my well-being and it's been a great journey that is helping me with my depression tendencies. I am proud to feel that I now have control to go to sleep over Youtube rabbit holes till the sun comes up, etc. etc. I am moulding myself and it's largely thanks to helpful material that doesn't just say you are good as you are, keep being a slob who never exercises, procrastinates eternally, etc. Keeping my wakeup time constant and going running first thing in the morning has helped me a ton. The exercise and the regular wake up makes me sleepy in the evening, I don't need coffee in the morning etc. Things do work. > Human minds are doing poorly at self diagnosing, while it's very hard for others to spot the signs of mental health issues. Mental health is also deeply woven into the identity and the personality of individuals. Personal struggles are very much part of being an individual. I don't want my struggles with my sleep schedule to be part of being an individual. Nor do I want my gaming addiction to define myself. Nor my anxieties. You don't realize that this attitude of "anything goes", "you are okay", "no lifestyle can be ever better than any other" can give people the idea that there is nothing for them to do. That things will necessarily stay the same until some big social revolution comes sometime in a few... decades? People can take action here and now however small. The feeling of a bit of control and agency can do wonders and can snowball into great things.

nonbirithm 6y ago
The point is that statements like "you are not okay" can be misconstrued depending on the mentality of the subject. The simplistic version of this is telling a depressed person they should "lighten up." But such a person may not have the resources to just change their mood on a whim, and when they also realize this and internalize it, they may become defensive. If they are unable to follow this "simple advice" to just become "okay" again in the context of society at large, their reaction could only reinforce those self-destructive thoughts. Because I am unable to just do these simple things, then what is my value in life, and so on. There can be a meta to this mentality. A lot of such people could be well aware they are not okay, and still not have any intention to get better, for a variety of reasons. The assumption is that every person wants to act for their own benefit. There are some people who only want to act for their own detriment. Someone defensive enough could just twist the words of "you could do better," which are completely well-intended, into meaning "but I'm failing to, and that is my fault, and that means I am not good enough for you." They can just believe the helper thinks less of them because they just can't do what they say, and ignore anything they say to the contrary, to make a point. And that is what is defined as "success" for them - proving that they are not good enough to the people that want them to improve, through their own actions. So with that mindset it is an endless negative feedback loop that will frustrate everyone trying to genuinely help the person, until they all give up or nothing ever improves and then said person is left alone with their own thoughts. And then anything could happen. But that is not to say that it's the same with anyone who is genuinely willing to listen and take advice to heart. You can choose to say "yes, and here are the steps I'll take to get to 'okay'". It's just that not all people are open to advice, and sometimes the only way to make those people listen is to pay other people to force their own worldviews on them (therapists), "for their own good," like a parent would to a naive child who refuses to listen. And in the end, some people still cannot be changed.