3 ms·

> Instead, many of us have put ourselves in that dumb empty box with just a screen or two, and then we're surprised when we don't feel good. “Stop hitting your

> Instead, many of us have put ourselves in that dumb empty box with just a screen or two, and then we're surprised when we don't feel good. “Stop hitting yourself” is a common pet theory on depression.

4gotunameagain 3y ago
“Everything is out of my control” is a common pet theory about self treatable mental illnesses.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  That most things are a mixture of things in and out of your control is a completely normal attitude to most things that we don't arbitrarily decide is just complete self-hitting. EDIT: But let's just think of something that might take months to change (this might be exercise routines): that falls into the set of things that you can change yourself but that can't be condescendingly described as something that you do habitually and are “surprised that you don't feel good” (it's 90% about habit-building and 10% about intellectually understanding the cause and effect). It's not a simple “one weird trick”.
munificent 3y ago
I could have worded this better by saying that "a combination of personal choices, cultural norms, and societal pressure has led to us being in dumb empty boxes". A failure mode I see in today's Western culture is an inability to reason carefully about the intermingling of agency, responsibility, guilt, and blame. Tied to my original pet theory is another pet theory that it is this cultural cognitive dissonance that exacerbates many of our psychological problems. If you point out that someone suffering depression could improve it by doing XYZ, the knee jerk response someone invariably raises is "you're just victim-blaming them for being depressed. It's not their fault and making them feel bad just makes it worse." But interpreting the statement that "you could improve your depression by doing XYZ" as blame is a narrative framework imposed upon the claim. It's the person claiming "victim-blaming" that is forcing the depressed person into the role of "victim". An equally valid narrative framework is that pointing out that a depressed person could improve it by doing XYZ is in fact honoring the person by attributing to them agency and the ability to improve their own life going forward. I understand completely the desire to not shame or blame people suffering mental illness (which is why I talk about my own struggles with it all the damn time). But once they have a mental illness, you can't take away their responsibility for what they do about it without also taking away their agency. The trick is to help people feel they have agency while also having the grace to not feel horrible if they make mistakes.

4gotunameagain 3y ago

“Everything is out of my control” is a common pet theory about self treatable mental illnesses.

avgcorrection 3y ago
That most things are a mixture of things in and out of your control is a completely normal attitude to most things that we don't arbitrarily decide is just complete self-hitting. EDIT: But let's just think of something that might take months to change (this might be exercise routines): that falls into the set of things that you can change yourself but that can't be condescendingly described as something that you do habitually and are “surprised that you don't feel good” (it's 90% about habit-building and 10% about intellectually understanding the cause and effect). It's not a simple “one weird trick”.

munificent 3y ago

I could have worded this better by saying that "a combination of personal choices, cultural norms, and societal pressure has led to us being in dumb empty boxes". A failure mode I see in today's Western culture is an inability to reason carefully about the intermingling of agency, responsibility, guilt, and blame. Tied to my original pet theory is another pet theory that it is this cultural cognitive dissonance that exacerbates many of our psychological problems. If you point out that someone suffering depression could improve it by doing XYZ, the knee jerk response someone invariably raises is "you're just victim-blaming them for being depressed. It's not their fault and making them feel bad just makes it worse." But interpreting the statement that "you could improve your depression by doing XYZ" as blame is a narrative framework imposed upon the claim. It's the person claiming "victim-blaming" that is forcing the depressed person into the role of "victim". An equally valid narrative framework is that pointing out that a depressed person could improve it by doing XYZ is in fact honoring the person by attributing to them agency and the ability to improve their own life going forward. I understand completely the desire to not shame or blame people suffering mental illness (which is why I talk about my own struggles with it all the damn time). But once they have a mental illness, you can't take away their responsibility for what they do about it without also taking away their agency. The trick is to help people feel they have agency while also having the grace to not feel horrible if they make mistakes.