I thought you were implying that the mental health framework is an oversimplification, but then you oversimplify the issue yourself by saying that the world is bad. Neither is the truth. It may also still be worth invetigating data related to mental health issues and mobile phone usage.
No, I am saying it is overused, not oversimplified.
Oversimplification on its own is usually one of the weakest critiques of a model, because the point of any model is to simplify. For example, reducing the entirety of the sun and the Earth and everything in or on them as two point masses in an empty space is a ridiculous, almost offensive oversimplification, but it’s really useful for understanding our orbit. It’s an insufficient critique to say this model of our galaxy is oversimplified, because it obviously has utility. Often, the best theories or models are really simple. When we have really good, simple models, we often call them things like “elegant.”
Mental health, as a model, is actually extremely complex. You can spend a lifetime getting advanced degrees in that field and you’d probably barely scratch its surface. I wouldn’t dream of calling it an oversimplification. If anything, I’d say you’re more likely to find a fruitful critique going in the other direction.
“Mental health” is so all-encompassing in its breadth (It’s basically our entire subjective experience with the world) but at the same time, it’s actually quite limiting in the solutions it implies, as if there’s specific ailments or exercises or medications.
Are you saying that mental health is too limiting in terms of its solutions, because the real world is not involved? For example, I might come to a doctor saying that my child is restless. The child might be prescribed with medicine for an ADHD diagnosis, whereas the root cause is a flaky parent.
I agree with this point.
We’re miserable because our world is bad. The mental health crisis is probably better understood as all of us being sad as we collectively and simultaneously burn the world and fill it with trash, seemingly on purpose, and we’re not even having fun.
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large.
The mental health framework, by converting our anger, loneliness, grief, and sadness into medicalized pathologies, stops us from understanding these feelings as valid and actionable. It leads us to seek clinical or technical fixes, like whether we should limit smart phones or whatever.
Which may be valid under some circumstances, but sometimes a clinical fix as you call it might be in order. Sometimes people are just extremely unkind to themselves due to conditionings of the past, which are not relevant anymore today.
I would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
Perhaps. I am not an expert. It was an example of a problem where the diagnosis depends more on the social context than on the biological context.
My wife is a family systems therapist and she told me once of a case, where one group of therapist had a child diagnosed with autism and another group found that the parents were the problem and that the child was only behaving in a certain way as a reaction to the parents’ behavior. They had a meeting on the topic and after re-evaluation they decided that the child was not autistic after all.
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large
Maybe it is, but is it useful? Right now, our currently accepted model for dealing with our widespread sadness is to go to doctors. Biden administration recently announced it wants to start screening every American over a certain age for anxiety.
I propose we consider that maybe people are more sad because the world is actually getting worse in a variety of ways. Sure, it’s simple, but I think it’s a great starting point. This way of thinking won’t help us understand every single so-called mental health problem, but isn’t it a reasonable starting point, rather than screening every American for anxiety.
would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
Sure. That’s fine. I even agree. Multiple models and theories can coexist and have utility, even if they’re conflicting. My main point is that we’re seemingly stuck on one. There will never be one theory that explains anything perfectly, and I think the one we’re using now is particularly harmful for the reasons that I have set out.
I thought you were implying that the mental health framework is an oversimplification, but then you oversimplify the issue yourself by saying that the world is bad. Neither is the truth. It may also still be worth invetigating data related to mental health issues and mobile phone usage.
No, I am saying it is overused, not oversimplified.
Oversimplification on its own is usually one of the weakest critiques of a model, because the point of any model is to simplify. For example, reducing the entirety of the sun and the Earth and everything in or on them as two point masses in an empty space is a ridiculous, almost offensive oversimplification, but it’s really useful for understanding our orbit. It’s an insufficient critique to say this model of our galaxy is oversimplified, because it obviously has utility. Often, the best theories or models are really simple. When we have really good, simple models, we often call them things like “elegant.”
Mental health, as a model, is actually extremely complex. You can spend a lifetime getting advanced degrees in that field and you’d probably barely scratch its surface. I wouldn’t dream of calling it an oversimplification. If anything, I’d say you’re more likely to find a fruitful critique going in the other direction.
Ok, let me see if I get you.
Are you saying that mental health is too limiting in terms of its solutions, because the real world is not involved? For example, I might come to a doctor saying that my child is restless. The child might be prescribed with medicine for an ADHD diagnosis, whereas the root cause is a flaky parent.
I agree with this point.
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large.
Which may be valid under some circumstances, but sometimes a clinical fix as you call it might be in order. Sometimes people are just extremely unkind to themselves due to conditionings of the past, which are not relevant anymore today.
I would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
I’d just like to say that this does not tend to be the issue in ADHD diagnoses, and is framing the issue of ADHD in a very incorrect way.
Perhaps. I am not an expert. It was an example of a problem where the diagnosis depends more on the social context than on the biological context.
My wife is a family systems therapist and she told me once of a case, where one group of therapist had a child diagnosed with autism and another group found that the parents were the problem and that the child was only behaving in a certain way as a reaction to the parents’ behavior. They had a meeting on the topic and after re-evaluation they decided that the child was not autistic after all.
I understand that singular cases do happen, it’s just a fairly irresponsible framing to use as an example imo.
👍
Maybe it is, but is it useful? Right now, our currently accepted model for dealing with our widespread sadness is to go to doctors. Biden administration recently announced it wants to start screening every American over a certain age for anxiety.
I propose we consider that maybe people are more sad because the world is actually getting worse in a variety of ways. Sure, it’s simple, but I think it’s a great starting point. This way of thinking won’t help us understand every single so-called mental health problem, but isn’t it a reasonable starting point, rather than screening every American for anxiety.
Sure. That’s fine. I even agree. Multiple models and theories can coexist and have utility, even if they’re conflicting. My main point is that we’re seemingly stuck on one. There will never be one theory that explains anything perfectly, and I think the one we’re using now is particularly harmful for the reasons that I have set out.