How Silicon Valley is dealing with mental illness
money.cnn.com
money.cnn.com
Managers want consistency in the work output above all else frequently, despite all of our emotional hardware. Simply admitting that you have good days and bad days can sometimes feel like quite a feat.
This is even worse when you're recovering from burnout. If you reveal you suffered from burnout and are still recovering, you're effectively admitting your productive output is some percentage of what it used to be. Even if you used to be above average, you're implying that you're probably below-average now, and it'd make more economic sense to replace you or at least pay you much less. (And I bet a lot of devs actually would probably give up half their salary in exchange for only being expected to be around half the time, which may be a good compromise.)
From the business owner side I sympathize with wanting to have a workforce full of Carmacks. But realistically speaking, that's very hard to accomplish, and there's something to be said for giving even us somewhat defective mortals something constructive to do so long as we're not contributing negative value that isn't based on pure economic utility.
Yeah a good manager should let people blow off a day or two once in a while. Especially since these days you are likely to get a text message at any time of the evening or even at night for you to fix something.
This reminds me of a time in 7th grade.
In that class we had these desks where you could flip up the top to access your books.
I was sitting next to Elissa who had a huge collection of wacky packages. [1]
You know how everything is funnier when you aren't supposed to laugh? Elissa and I both lifted up our desks, pretending to rummage around in there, and she would show me cards to make me laugh.
We both laughed uncontrollably and thought we were getting away with it too.
In reality there was no way the teacher didn't know we were goofing off, but since we rarely made trouble he just let us blow off some steam.
Each of us makes surplus value for the owners of the companies we work for. Humans need unstructured time, slack, to goof off, call it whatever you want, and not that fake nerf gun levity that tries to pass for it in most startups.
Standups are mental health minefields. They are a hack evolution of an educational process best left out of the workplace. Law/med schools employ such tactics to deliberately create stress. That has a place in education, but to see it continue at a location where people work year after year is disturbing.
Startups that use standups also often miss the physicality of what they ask. They do not realize that they are disadvantaging people based on totally irrelevant criteria. There is a reason that, throughout history, people have sat down together to discuss important matters. Sitting is an equalizer. Sitting removes the threat of immediate physical violence. Save the standup confrontation junk for the courtrooms.
Talk to anyone in a wheelchair. The one situation where I've seen this resulted in the physical standup rule being immediately abandoned in favour of a conference room. Everyone recognized the awkwardness of the situation.
A strange twist on the standup is the evil situation whereby the meeting occurs in a manager's office. Typically, the person in charge remains at their desk, like a king lording over a royal court, and groups of people come in to give quick presentations.
All the standups I've been in the majority of the people were actually sitting down.
My impression is that the standing up part really works too. We usually get quite restless when the meeting exceeds the allotted 10 minutes. Of course that might just be because people are bored quickly too.
A question to those sitting down during your standups: Isn't it weird to sit down during a meeting that is literally called a standup? Have you tried or considered standing up?
Seriously though, my impression is that standing up encourages brevity in other ways.
Standing implies that the meeting must be short because there apparently isn't even time to sit down before you start. It really does save time when you do not have to find a suitable and available conference room and let everyone pick a chair.
Standing also makes subtle signals of loss of focus very visible. You easily pick up on the small things, like when people start shifting their weight, look at their phone, turn around to look at other things, etc. Things that aren't as visible when sitting down.
There is also a implied invitation to walk away at any moment. You're already standing, walking away requires little effort, at least physically.
I think I've actually stumbled upon a way to do this, allow me to explain: If you start to read about the statistics around social dynamics in MMORPG games then certain things fall out of the data, and game makers have picked up on these ideas and used them to make their games more fun and addictive, and I think these same insights can be applied to organize software development.
Lets start with World of Warcarft. The statistics prove that World of Warcraft is a highly addictive game for many diverse people, but almost everyone agrees that if you were to join an empty server you would find that it's not an addictive game in one player mode. If you take this a bit further and say.. "ok, now you're on a server with other people, but you're not allowed to join a group, but you are allowed to conference with several players, exchange weapons and loot, and message individual players. Well I think in this scenario people would agree that the game does indeed become more fun, beacause now it's social, but yet it's not as much fun as regular WOW.
I'll just cut straight to the point: Pair-programming is more fun even when it's done remotely, because it's like real-time grouping in World of Warcraft. The problem is, just like in World of Warcraft not every group that you join will be fun! The enjoyability of a particular group will depend on both the obvious factors such as the weapons, experience, and spells that the other members bring to the table, but also certain social factors which are perhaps more philsophical in nature and therefor difficult to talk about briefly.
I think that there is real hard evidence that this strategy works, and because of this it's actually the gold standard for the world's leading web-dev consultancies, at least in the Rails space which is my center of gravity.
examples (in no particular order): http://pivotal.io/labs/process https://thoughtbot.com/ https://hashrocket.com/ https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/effective-navigat...
Speaking as a gamer, it's escapism. If my brain is so busy trying to solve the mental challenge on the screen (or in front of me as a board game), all other thought get pushed out and I'm not thinking about them. If I didn't have a sufficient mental challenge in front of me, then my subconscious would spend time working on those things.
Also, it's low stakes, so I don't have to be stressed out while I'm engaged in it. I'm not being judged on how well I do, or even that I solved the problem at all, I know I can put down the game whenever and no one cares. This is why I don't think gamifying work is too useful in the long run, because deep down we know we're expected to solve those problems and get results.
So yeah, gaming is essentially my alcohol, and part of the reason why I don't feel the need to drink or take drugs all that often (besides caffeine and aspirin).
Well in World of Warcraft a lot of these players care deeply about their earned reputation, and the gameplay represents a huge chunk of their social life. I suspect that while these players are collaborating to clear a dungeon they are (emotionally) taking the gold and loot drops pretty seriously almost as if it were a real life salary on the line, but yet they're having fun.
Depression sucks, anxiety sucks, having both can be personally and professionally catastrophic.
This is why open offices and daily standups and constant micromanagement are terrifying to me - everyone is VERY happy with my work output and I'm considered an A player, but if you watched me on an hour by hour basis you'd have a much different opinion of me.
I was the first one they "indefinitely furloughed" when their investor tightened the belt.
When a previous company had a major layoff because of our only client tightening his belt, who got let go? Primarily the people who were paid more than the others, including veteran developers who were simultaneously developing and acting as project managers leading the teams. Only a handful of developers remained.
Same here, actually.
I've had days where I knocked out "estimated 4 hour" tickets in 20 minutes. I also have days where I can't focus for the first and last 4 hours worth a damn.
Modern work is more like a sprint than a marathon. If your not in the flow nothing gets done. But when you have flow, you just smash work.
Its quite frustrating that flow is so elusive.
Imagine that you actually could "call out to work because [you're] feeling extra anxious one day". What else would be different?
"Hi all - Woke up this morning not feeling too well, so I'm going to stay home today. Thanks, Mike."
I had a therapist tell me a few years back that I should call in sick every once in a while and go do whatever I want for the day, guilt free. Best advice I ever got. Doctor's orders.
The typical policy these days is to transfer the employee to some sort of disability after certain patterns of absence (X days in a row, Y days over period Z). I feel that is a good compromise. It's also very good for small teams since it's a predictable insurance payment, not a risky hire.
Also, you should consider that if everyone gets away with being consistently vague, you set a team standard that says people can stay home whenever they feel bad, for whatever reason, and it becomes harder for the company to legally crack down on someone who's doing it for emotional or psychological reasons.
Integrating feeling into the workplace doesn't mean sharing every emotion, any more than you'd share every thought or every story about your life. It just means being able to accommodate that information when it's relevant and respond appropriately, instead of seizing up with a taboo reaction. Then we'd trust each other more, be more creative, more satisfied at work, and so on. This would be good for productivity, so the most ruthless capitalist ought to be in favor of it in the long run.
But I think my comment may not have been clear. I'm imagining something that I hope will be possible in the future. It clearly isn't broadly possible at present.
I will also mention that some people have boundary issues due to various conditions and a employer/employee relationship can not support a healthy recovery. Similar to how some psychiatrists don't take their patients out socially.
I mention all this as I hope that it makes it your choice to not share and not a onus to stay perfect all the time.
Thats one of the many things I love about where I work currently: we can, and do, all the way up to the top. It makes life a lot easier when I've been able to be open and honest about why things are they way the are at a certain point in time.
I'm only one data point, but I've exercised more days of my life than not and have observed absolutely no difference in mental health between the me that exercises and the me that doesn't.
What about athletes: students-athletes, NBA players, olympians. Do they show a significantly lower rate of mental health issues?
This argument has been floating around in my head for a while. The reason I think this suggestion is harmful is because it is the most vocal and popular, and yet excludes anyone who already exercises.
Who is recommending this? My hypothesis is people who only exercise every once in a while and so they get a huge hit of endorphins and think, "Man if I did this every day I would feel great." Maybe, some people with mental health issues use exercise as an escape and are really recommending it for its temporary relief. But I'm just in denial about the majority of people being people who didn't exercise, were miserable/anxious/whatever, started exercising and now they're happy/normal/perfect.
Again, I'm not trying to start any arguments here. For those of you who have been saved by exercise, I'm envious. I would really just like to see more answers than this instead of seeing it as the go to answer. It makes the assumption that people who have mental health issues don't exercise.
As a kid, I remembering hearing - "drink water" all the time.
It never helped. I never once felt better drinking water than not. But no-one cared. "I'm already drinking water." "It doesn't help." It was the panacea to a sea of unrelated problems and no-one was interested in actually checking up on whether it worked.
Now, I'm at a different place in my life, and the water is immensely helpful.
Exercise really helps - on average, statistically, it's one of the most effective interventions, and if you're any sort of health care provider you immediately notice the difference in a whole group of patients after they exercise vs a day they don't. And a lot of times individuals cannot notice the difference from inside, even if their behavior is a lot more upbeat.
But for someone people who need something entirely different, it might not help for that particular issue.
But where most commenters go off the rails is in assuming that other people's depression is equivalent to what they experienced in the past, which couldn't be farther from the truth. If exercise produces a mild improvement for you and your symptoms were mild to begin with, you'll likely approach remission, which is awesome. But if your depression is moderate or severe, then intense exercise may only move you from "really miserable" to "still kind of miserable". Again, not arguing that exercise shouldn't be encouraged, but it's critical to remember that your depression experiences are not equivalent to others' depression.
Of course, the same is true of someone who is experiencing no mental health problems. But although someone without mental health problems perhaps ought to exercise, and probably would enjoy both a significant improvement in mood and a reduction in stress levels; that person nonetheless doesn't need and hasn't been identified as someone who needs a significant improvement in mood or ability to cope with stress.
To my understanding, the reason that exercise is mentioned so often in the context of mental illness is that (a) it very, very likely to have a definite and subjectively detectable positive effect (unlike many potential medications), (b) it has very few potential negative side effects, (c) it may improve the body's ability to metabolize some drugs, (d) it is something that the patient can have control of, (e) it can add some structure to an otherwise unfocused life. Although it might have a "tipping point" effect for some people at some times, and some people may associate it with the end of an isolated episode of chronic depression, I don't think that it is often recommended (by doctors) in the hopes that it will 'cure' mental illness, per se. It can help treat it, and it can help treat confounding factors like lack of purpose, lack of success, lack of agency or autonomy, lack of social contact... et cetera.
I'm sorry that exercise doesn't provide any positive benefit for you. It's not entirely clear whether you're comparing sustained periods (on the order of weeks or months) of low exercise to periods of frequent exercise, or whether you're expecting to find a difference between a day on which you exercise and a day in which you don't. From my experience, I tend to think of it as a general metabolic effect. It's possible that it genuinely doesn't or won't help you; it's possible that you do exercise more than enough, and that you might (or might not) feel worse than you do now were you to cease exercising entirely.
I certainly share your frustration with people who deflect conversations in the direction of exercise as an answer to (let alone cure for) mental illness, most especially when they are proposing to "solve" a problem that they themselves have not experienced or have no substantive knowledge of.
I can see why assumptions about the curative powers of exercise would bother you.
We have this testimony from Pete Sampras: [Letter to My Younger Self](http://www.theplayerstribune.com/pete-sampras-letter-to-my-y...)
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9803867
You know one thing those studies do, though, that we don't on HN? Screen every participant to make sure they qualify. Those screening tests take out people who don't meet clinical definitions of (ADHD, depression, anxiety, etc.), screen out people with physical problems that prevent them from completing the protocol, and then track participants.
Exercise is good medicine, but it's not the only one -- and the parent post here points out that sometimes it isn't the answer at all. For an anecdote I'll pull out a friend diagnosed as "just depressed" -- stomach hurt, some tough family situations. "Exercise! It'll help!" All the running, swimming, rock climbing in the world didn't really help. You know what did? Two surgeries to take care of the endometriosis that wasn't diagnosed for 6 years.
We're complex creatures. Try exercise: it's cheap, don't need a prescription, might have benefits esp if you form more social ties while you're at it. If it doesn't help, don't ignore that -- keep looking!
Feel free not to answer if you're not comfortable, but would you say your anxiety is more 'mental' (e.g. catastrophic thinking) or 'physical' (e.g. shaking, butterflies in stomach etc.)?
Not the parent, but are there different types of anxiety?
For me, the most prevalent effects are faster heartbeat at anxious moments (this even happens in the morning after waking up) and elevated symptoms of tinnitus and muscle pain in the neck.
Interestingly, working hard mentally seems to make the anxiety go away, but at the end of the day it hits me back hard.
I wonder how such symptoms would be classified.
Perhaps you focus well enough not to notice the physical effects. I know sometimes I'll stand up and realize I really need to take a bio break of some sort.
Definitely many kinds of anxiety. I think there are two broad groups (which aren't mutually exclusive): 'physical' anxiety/panic/phobia (your body's fight or flight response spools up at inappropriate times), and 'mental' anxiety (either specific or generalised). PTSD is in many ways is like a panic disorder, except the stimuli are memories or sensory inputs similar to ones that were salient during a traumatic event.
I've got much more experience on the 'physical anxiety' side of things. I've found propranolol (a beta-blocker) to be extremely effective at suppressing physical anxiety. It's a very safe medication (unless you have asthma) and is non-narcotic. If your physical symptoms are troubling you, maybe raise this with your doctor. It's very cheap too. There have also been recent studies on treating PTSD sufferer's (with sleep episodes) with a similar kind of drug: alpha-adrenergic blockers (e.g. prazosin). This makes a lot of sense as it would also suppress the physical FoF response.
I've tried a number of anti-depressants in the past with little success. They have a low probability of success in monothreapy for anxiety. Lastly, I'd strongly advise steering clear of benzos (e.g valium), unless you need acute short-term releif and are under medical supervision. You build a tolerance to them very quickly, and they're very physically addictive. The withdrawal can cause grand mal seizures (literally translates to 'big bad' seizures) and potentially even kill you (for long-term high dose usage). At the very least, when you come off them you'll generally experience rebound anxiety, which is not pleasant.
If it's mostly physical, a you consider it a big enough impairment, I'd suggest meds might be a better option (unless there's a strong phobic aspect present [e.g. fear of spiders], in which case exposure therapy and CBT can be helpful). If it's more mental, maybe discuss your options with a GP and give talk therapy a try first.
Good luck with your health. Don't leave it all in the hands of doctors; research and come to your own views before rocking up at an appointment.
I was planning to see a doctor soon, so this might very well come helpful.
Yes, I am a teeth grinder. No sleep apnea, and only little stress. Could that provide additional clues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporomandibular_joint_dysfun...
And take a look at 'sleep bruxism' in the table on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruxism#Classification_by_temp...
Wouldn't surprise me if half the valley was on meds of some kind.
Psychiatry is mostly based on an unproven hypothesis of chemical imbalance in the brain. Of which there's no actual scientific evidence to back up this claim. In fact, studies have concluded antidepressants can cause imbalances where nonexisted before, and can cause severe life threatening withdrawals if you stop taking them suddenly.
Psychiatry is a pretty flawed practice in my opinion as well. I'm sure it helps some people, but it also does a lot of harm as well.
A lot of people die in emergency departments under the care of doctors. There's a reason for that that has nothing to do with the ability of the doctors.
> Antidepressants even carry a black box warning they can increase suicidal thinking.
Which is in part due to the unscientific (but legally sound) way that such side effects are attached to these drugs. I'm less concerned with the fact that they are labelled thusly and more concerned with the fact that in some cases there have been statistical increases in suicides. Yes, that is a problem, but you're both separating that out of the larger picture of pharmaceuticals and dumping it in with psychiatry in general.
> Psychiatry is mostly based on an unproven hypothesis of chemical imbalance in the brain. Of which there's no actual scientific evidence to back up this claim.
This is an incredibly bold claim with no actual scientific evidence to back it up. There is, in fact, a lot of science backing up psychiatry and psychology (entire journals). Their experiments use widely accepted techniques that are also used in other sciences, like biology and medicine.
> In fact, studies have concluded antidepressants can cause imbalances where nonexisted before,
No study has made this blanket conclusion. Perhaps some studies have reached this conclusion about a specific class of anti-depressant or a single anti-depressant.
But you can't use that as evidence that psychiatry is flawed. First, anyone in medicine who can prescribe medication can prescribe antidepressants even if they aren't trained in psychiatry. Second, many medications can cause problems in our systems; it's why we have the prescription system in the first place. Antidepressants are not unique in this regard and therefore do not reflect on psychiatry in the specific.
> and can cause severe life threatening withdrawals if you stop taking them suddenly.
Just like many other pharmaceuticals, some antidepressants can cause withdrawal symptoms when the patient is not weaned off the medication properly. Noncompliance is a problem in ALL medicine. In the realm of mental illness there is also the problems of stigma and lack of proper insurance coverage both of which can create additional problems with compliance.
> Psychiatry is a pretty flawed practice in my opinion as well. I'm sure it helps some people, but it also does a lot of harm as well.
I won't see anyone without a Ph.D. A Ph.D. means they've done some science. But (just as with MDs),it's no guarantee that they're critical thinkers and scientists when they get out into the world and practice. But mine can cite papers, recommend reading, form reasoned opinions, and his Ph.D. thesis is impressive (I asked to see it).
I suspect you're largely judging the field from the current state of affairs: massive stigma, poor insurance coverage, and mediocre practitioners who are quick to write prescriptions but slow to make sure the long term healing is done. Find a psychiatrist, psychology, MFT, or whoever through your average insurance plan and you're more likely than not getting a counselor more than an actual therapeutic healer.
But these are largely economic and social problems, not a question of the effectiveness of the healing.
I'd be interested in reading your references.
SSRIs definitely do work for some people, but the mechanism isn't well understood and is well-researched. There is plenty of actual scientific evidence to back up the serotonin imbalance hypothesis, but of course no amount of evidence can ever prove a theory true. There are other findings that indicate other theories -- my personal favorite is that the antidepressant effect of SSRIs is from incidental neurogenesis, and NSI-189 looks promising as the first of hopefully many antidepressant drugs coming from this theoretical basis entirely.
While a lot of people who commit suicide are being treated for a mental illness, the majority of people who complete suicide (i.e., actually kill themselves) are not in any sort of treatment. Suicide is actually a very impulsive behavior in most cases. For this reason, if you make the means of suicide less available (putting fences up on bridges, gun control, etc.), you actually decrease the incidence of suicide even though there are plenty of ways people can kill themselves.
A few nits to your post:
* Psychiatry isn't based on a chemical imbalance hypothesis. SSRIs, and some other drugs, are. Psychiatry as a whole is far too wide to be based on any particular theory, except maybe probabilistic determinism (the assumption that events have causes that can be used to predict the future).
* Psychiatrists are medical doctors with a specialty in mental health. "Psychiatry" is not a very well-defined area, and usually indicates the speaker is a Scientology crank. The actual field you discuss in your post is psycho-pharmacology. You don't comment at all on diagnostic procedures, which is a major non-pharmocological component of a psychiatrist's job, nor on non-pharmocological therapies, some of which have been very well-studied and indicate to the best of our scientific ability to be reliably positive mental health interventions.
As a final note, it wouldn't surprise me if all of the Valley, and indeed most of the world, was on "meds" of some kind. Most people drink. A lot of people smoke. Marijuana is legal in California and is going to be legal soon in the general case. Video games exist that are thin wrappers around psychological reward pathways, and are functionally equivalent to drugs, even if they don't involve ingesting or inhaling anything. There are very few "pure" humans. The question isn't whether or not someone is "on meds," but whether they're getting what they need as a person to self-actualize.
PS: I recognize I have made a number of factual claims in this post. I have not included any links to scientific papers because it took long enough to type out and I didn't want to spend twice as long digging through sources. I'll provide the papers I thought of while writing this, but only under one condition: anyone asking for them shows convincing (to me) evidence that they have looked for these sources on their own. I help those who help themselves.
You need to cite that "common" claim there, and balance it against the numbers of deaths by suicide that are prevented by appropriate anti-depressant use.
No, that's not true either.
It is a problem, but you are overstating the problem.
Don't take my word for it, the man who chaired the committee for the DSM-V thinks so (nd he wrote a book about it called "Saving Normal". Regardless of what you think about psychiatry from a theoretical perspective (e.g. what studies show), there is a MASSIVE gap between what practicing psychiatrists do and what happens in studies. As a country we are over-diagnosed (the DSM says x% of the population will have a given condition based on clinical research, yet somehow a massively larger # of people will be prescribed pills for it due to incompetent doctors and drug company advertising..
On top of that we have almost no idea what the mechanism of action is for any of these drugs. We take people, let's look at veterans for example, who have gone through traumatic events and say: "I guess going through that war there messed up some chemicals, take these!". It turns out there is a lot more in the way of treatment than just pills. At the same time these people are living in the streets and have no connection to community or family. There are more dimensions to mental illness than just chemicals in the brain. Here's an interesting non-pill related approach that's apparently helped some vets who were beyond treatment from pills ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/what-does-a-parro... ).
Here's another example, in convenient peer-review form "The findings, from by far the most rigorous trial to date conducted in the United States, concluded that schizophrenia patients who received a program intended to keep dosages of antipsychotic medication as low as possible and emphasize one-on-one talk therapy and family support made greater strides in recovery over the first two years of treatment than patients who got the usual drug-focused care." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/health/talk-therapy-found-...
Unfortunately I can only open the door here, the material is complex and voluminous. I do encourage you to research and read on your own. The foundations of mainstream psych in American are shaky, and drug companies truly have an undue amount of influence in shaping research and policy.
We were lied to about the effectiveness of SSRI drugs by the drug companies. Psychiatrists were as much victims as their patients. I don't blame Psychiatrists. I have the look on my Psychiatrist face imprinted, when I sat in that chair, and told him "That drug did nothing." It got to the point where I felt like lying. "It kinda worked?" But I didn't. It was my life--I wanted to get better.
I finally found a drug that worked, a little bit. I think that's the rub. You need to see a Psychiatrist to find a drug that works a little bit. Keep in mind that drug might be habit forming, so only go if you are certain your condition is Not Situational.
If your psychiatrist just offers SSRI's, ot tricyclics; find another Psychiatrist. If you do find a drug that seems to work, be prepared for mandatory office visits. They need to make a living. (These drugs should be regulated differently, but that's another fight. By regulated, I mean, if you are on a long term drug; you shouldn't have to see a psychiatrist to get refills.)
If I was to do it over again, I'm not sure I would take anything, but my anxiety was not situational. It came from "I have no clue. Just life?". I have found controlled use of alcohol helps. Try to keep the alcohol to a minimum. Two drinks for a panic attact. Don't drink socially. You are drinking to control that busted gasket. It needs time to heal. An understanding family really helps.
I have said this before, and I have no reason to lie. You will get better with time.
I have gotten to read my Psychiatrists face/non-verbal tells. I believe it when he says "Anti-depressants do work for some of my patients." I've looked into the litature, and they might help some really depressed patients? Might? If you are seriously suicidial go to the hospital. Don't rule out ECT. (Use it as a last resort, but don't kill yourself. Emergency room personal are prepared to deal with psychiatric emergencies.)
And again, if you are reading this and just not feeling right, a little dizzy, just not right; you will get better with time.
As to the original question; No--mainstream Americans does not need to see a Psychiatrist. Most good Psychiatrists only want to see the patients who don't respond to a Psychologist's therapy.
As to therapy--give it a shot, I guess? I found it completely useless. I think they did more damage to a once innocent twenty something mind? They might have changed? My psychologist was a Freudian. I remember making an a appointment with another Psychologist. "What's your reason for seeing Dr.whatever?" Me, "I was told I have a Electra Complex." Office, "A what?" It's funny now.
Good luck! If you know someone fighting these problems, don't give offer them worn our clichés. Whatever you do, don't take advantage of a wounded individual. I was financially abused at my worst. Will never forget that retched person.
As neuroimaging becomes ubiquitous and cheaper, it will replace self-reporting as the primary diagnostic tool. At which point we'll be able to do away from the 'DSM disease model' and actually see which 'neural circuits' are dysfunctional. Consequently, medication will be better calibrated and targeted.
I really think we're on the verge of a psychiatric revolution, and will all be better off as a result.
Its failures point to the difficulty of the problem more than anything.
I don't know how to fix it. I do think military shrinks have a better track record. They are still employed, even if you get better. They don't have an inherent incentive to want you to keep being in need of "help" so they can finance a second home or some shit.
I still feel weak for saying this, but hearing another person say, "It was hard for me when I first joined this team too. Don't worry, you're doing a good job." was all I wanted.
Is Silicon Valley unique in lacking this openness? I suspect not, but have no basis of comparison.
It would be interesting to see stats of suicides or attempted suicides for tech workers in Silicon Valley vs other areas. If much higher in SF to the ratio of workers then that should be something to look at.
I don't mean to be an armchair psychiatrist, but I think loneliness and or stress can exacerbate depression, and family or something like it can make a world of difference.
Part of me wonders if part of what makes me a good developer also hurts my mental health. I have to focus on the grin realities of a situation. I can't just pretend things are all fuzzy and nice.
Hopefully it is not a one-way street, maybe through helping this wayward cousin your wider family have seen this 'getting better' and found reward in that, to be a happier family, even if there have been set-backs and disappointments along the way.
Speaking for myself, I chose this profession, years ago, because I loved problem solving, absolutely loved it...
I also knew I was the type of person who needed a certain amount of time away from other people, for long stretches of time, to "recharge" my social self...
Which means I am, at heart, an introvert...I need time away from people to be at my best....my wife loves me for that...I can't explain why, but she does...I married better than she did in my opinion...
Nevertheless, as our industry "speeds up" I wonder how many excellent "problem solvers" will be pushed beyond their "mechanical limits"...?
I'm horrified at the idea of being in a relationship where people don't get their own space to pursue their own interests and grow/learn together but also independently.
As we all know programming is complicated, and even the simplest algorithm can produce wildly unexpected results. Anxiety makes you better at detecting danger, and in the realm of software the danger is bugs and bad interactions and so on.
We all approach programming differently, there are some deliberative types, some who wing it etc, but I expect that anxious people may be a big sub-population.
(Also if someone is anxious, it doesn't necessarily mean they are socially anxious or shy. I myself seem 'normal' and can be gregarious and give talks, but I do have trait anxiety.)
On the one hand, some of my suicidal tendencies are rooted in physical, chemical side effects of what my condition does to my brain. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing crazy about wanting my suffering to end and feeling like death is the only answer.
And it pisses me off, because it doesn't have to be that way. But that is a rant I do not even want to get into at the moment.
EDIT: s/him/her
but next time I'll just say nothing
Telling me you hope I feel better is the kind of thing that absolutely is best left unsaid. I am, in fact, gradually feeling better because I have, in fact, figured out how to fix my body. This gets me nothing but shit on by other people, who accuse me of being crazy and a teller of tall tales.
Do not assume your suffering begins to compare to mine. It most likely does not. And do not ever tell someone you hope they feel better when they are talking about being suicidal if you do not have concrete suggestions for helping them actually feel better. It just comes across as incredibly obnoxious. (Yes, I am a Pollyanna who has done similar things in the past. I try to offer solutions these days, not empty wishes.)
I can't delete that comment. I would have if I had seen the replies in time. I made a huge mistake but it wasn't malicious.
It's not fair to think the worst of me. I really didn't mean it to come across as obnoxious and I feel absolutley awful about it
Edit: Actually, I'm gonna go ahead and abandon this account. This whole exchange has made me feel incredibly bad about myself
I don't want to be associated with this incident in the future
If you learned something from the exchange and are more careful in the future, that's as good as it gets. Lots of people keep making the same mistakes over and over, never getting any better. As long as you learn from your mistakes -- so you can go make all new mistakes -- you are fine.
As Mz said, if you learned from the mistake flagellating yourself isn't necessary.
Take a break until it smarts less, but don't swear off nontechnical discussions for all time. :-)
Have a great day!
This is a basic fact of human neurology that many people have trouble accepting because of the illusion of free will they like to indulge in.
Just because a lot of people fuck it up doesn't mean that speaking about it is the cause per se. Words have power for both good and evil.
Please, let's not promote the idea that we should be terrified of mentioning it. That deepens the problem.
Please do not do that.
Do you have anything that could back it up?
For mass shooting, absolutely true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 (Skip to 1:30 if you want an argument from authority.)
I suspect it's true for suicides as well. People underestimate copycat / monkey-see-monkey-do influences.
exercise + meditation one hour for two days per week --> 40% reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder.
To me the results sound a bit too staggering but the most interesting idea is that the researchers believe that exercise + meditation have an additive effect. So meditation or exercise alone is less effective than doing meditation first (breathing meditation, they didn't body scan) and then exercise right after it (running). In my humble opinion, that's an idea worth considering and that's an idea worth implementing in the company's culture. Provided that this study replicates well and is actually true ;)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160210134834.ht...
Sam Altman suggested in Startup School to "fix it" (w.r.t. burnout) because when doing a startup you don't have the luxury of taking time off. This is a way of how to fix it, and if you don't have the luxury to take an hour off to boost productivity, then there's an uneven trade going on (more hours working for less productivity). It's not a silver bullet unfortunately, but then again what is?
I have played basketball, football, ran cross country, multiple events in track & field, jogged, lifted weights, snowboarded, played ultimate frisbee, and done daily situps by the hundreds (a la American Psycho).
They all have a different affect on your body and they require differing amounts of preparation and concentration. I don't think all forms of exercise are considered equal and I suspect that different kinds of exercises would likely yield different results.
Notice that many of the examples of exercise I used are team sports and others are individual activities. I don't think this distinction can be ignored. Also, having concrete goals for exercise gives a person a different level of motivation than just a vague "allot X minutes in my schedule for some sort of exercise".
The idea of the combination of exercise + meditation is interesting. I feel like this would also lead to better sleep habits and more concentration and self-regulation of your schedule, which are both beneficial in their own ways.
Or just let people leave work at work. Give people weekends and evenings again. There used to be business hours (including being closed on Sundays) for a reason. Now, companies should be available more hours per week, but it's not healthy to ask individuals to be always on, or even always on call.
Good point :)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568402/
It's not only severe, but will pretty much screw you up(not being able to perceive time and act on time across long distances and all), but hey it works!
Nothing else works as well as what's available for ADHD for other mental disorders.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/289931.php <-- Showing that adhd doubles your mortality rate compared to the general population. Here is the abstract
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
The medication, or the disorder? Because that's a pretty succinct description of ADHD.
This has to change in the industry so that mentally ill people get help and support so they can keep their jobs and contribute to the company.
When companies think about disabilities they think about people in wheelchairs, the deaf, the blind but not the mentally ill who have a hidden disability and still need support and accommodation.
Anyway since they had the conflicts in the dates, I should have filed a suit with the EEOC. But somehow they knew I was mentally ill and tried to get rid of me because of it. At work I had an episode where I heard two airplanes crashing into the building, so people knew I was hearing things. That could have tipped them off as well.
At time of writing I only have two people that I go out of my way to 'level the playing field' for. This costs me time and money, real time and real money. For one of my 'clients' I have taken time off work to help them find a proper roof over their head and I covered a few bills to make sure that worked out (things like furniture and food in the cupboards had to be magically paid for). Notionally they are expected to do some work in my sister's allotment when the weather gets better to repay the favour. Obviously I won't hold them to that, this was just a creative device to move things along a bit without there being any feelings of pride getting hurt. Importantly I don't pass on silly advice, e.g. 'you should get a job...' blah, blah.
In this example, why bother??? I could have bought myself toys, or I could have gone on a really exciting city break given the time + money outlay.
Well, to answer that question, yesterday, this mystery 'client' of mine sent me through some jobs that they really wanted to go for. I was hoping that might happen in about 3 months time, no pressure though. But yes, I was delighted that, out of the blue, they should send this stuff through to me. We don't normally talk work, I assumed it was not what they were ready for.
I would describe my approach as fairly hands off, we text/message most days but not all. We do things together about once a week - meals, cinema, gigs, galleries and all those normal things that normal people do as well as just hang out in the reasonably appointed flat.
At the moment I am on a bit of a winning streak with this mystery 'client'. Health has been restored, which to me is quite a miracle, something I did not expect to see. Mystery 'client' also has friends and other social invites out, again quite miraculous given the 'no mates' start.
My 'clients' can be from any walk of life, any age, any gender. I mentor difficult teenagers too, one at a time, with work placement stuff. I am truly stoked with the success I have had on that front, the last two have been no-hopers, total worries to their respective mums. One of them is now at Oxford University, the other at Imperial College. I played a little part in that, helping them become sons their mums are truly proud of. I would say the process was 'osmosis' with no expectation of such stellar results.
Furry animals and elderly neighbours are also on the books from time to time. I am proud of all of them.
Sure I choose carefully, I do not reach out to those with alcohol dependency problems (I have tried though...). However, both of my current 'clients' would possibly be actually homeless without my on-going help.
So, for anyone reading this, please do reach out to others, even if it costs real time and money with no promise of results. Just imagine what the world would be like if everyone able to do so did go the extra mile to help out a couple of others with depression related problems. Imagine how inspiring the world could be.
The problems of homeless individuals are typically intractable and not readily solved.
They often gravitate to larger cities both because you get to be more anonymous that way and because there are more support resources available than in a small town.
When I took that class on homelessness through SFSU, I learned that New York is about ten times the population of San Francisco and they have similar numbers of homeless people on the street. Part of the reason is the beautiful weather in San Francisco. You are much less likely to freeze to death there or die of heat prostration there than in most other places in the U.S. and it rains relatively little. Part of the reason is the generous benefits in San Francisco. It actively attracts homeless people.
When I first hit the street, I traveled from the East Coast to San Diego. It has less rain than San Francisco and a lower cost of living, but is a large enough city to have soup kitchens and other resources. I spent six months in downtown where there is a concentration if support programs, then traveled north as I became less needy. I later left the county entirely, seeking out a lower cost city, but one still large enough to have the resources I need and where I won't stand out excessively.
Although I fervently wish that there was not so much prejudice against me for being homeless and I fervently wish I could get more help, I mostly do not want charity. I mostly want people online to take my need to develop an online income more seriously. I wish people online, in places like Hacker News, were more capable of seeing me as an intelligent, competent human being who is medically handicapped, not an incompetent dolt and not "just a skirt."
I am on the street to get myself well. I very much need more earned income, a message that mostly falls on deaf ears while people treat me like a beggar, a charity case or a damsel in distress who is after their money. My pleas to help me figure out how to develop an online income stream of earned income are dismissed and ignored, often by the same people who would like for me to shut up and stop telling people I am homeless because they interpret that admission as a request for a handout.
I have had at least three friends offer me a place to stay. I turned them down. They were on the East Coast or the Gulf Coast and the housing would not have been adequate to my needs for other reasons. I very much would like to get off the street, but not at the cost of the health improvements for which I have paid such a dear price.
Your judginess of people in Silicon Valley is rooted in nothing but ignorance. It takes a lot more than good intentions and money to help people with long term, intractable personal problems. I absolutely would accept housing at this point, but only if it met the picky standards necessary to keep me healthy. This rules out both homeless shelters and rental housing. It is imperative that I somehow go from homeless to homeowner.
If you think you are morally superior to the people in Silicon Valley, feel free to stick about $50k or $100k in my PayPal account so I can go house shopping. If not, perhaps you can at least rein in your ignorant contempt for a city that has more homeless people than average in part because it gives them more support than average.
The physics community has dealt with this, DOD code breakers deal with it, the manhattan project, etc. It's a well studied phenomena because of how it related to the war effort and much of the research documentation is declassified, in the public domain, and is a matter of the historical record.
My point is software development is just another domain where this research applies. This information is generally recognized by the pop culture as evidenced by the fact that there are several blockbuster movies about it, for example the film 'Pi' by Darren Aronofsky and 'A beautiful mind'. However this phenomena is generally not accepted by the startup community. I assume that the reason for this is because recognizing it could theoretically lead to a rise in insurance cases by engineers who developed serious mental illness over time due to prolonged exposure to what were known to be unsafe working conditions. In my opinion it should be thought of as a high risk job akin to scuba instructor, or roofer.
So the whole thing is swept under the rug. Never the less I will give my recommendations as a developer who works all the time and has wrestled with this phenomena in the past:
- Force yourself to hike/walk/bike outdoors for at least an hour per day. I'm convinced that merely jogging on a tread mill or gym excercise does not have the same benefit. Think of the outdoors (and the sun) as a relief valve for the "cabin fever" effect.
- A daily Zazen practice (15 minutes+) This is the kind of meditation from Japanese buddhism where you're not trying to accomplish or "do" anything, you just sit, in a good posture. I think of this as putting your overclocked CPU in hibernate mode long enough for the heat sync to do it's thing. I think this can provide a similar effect to having had a couple extra good hours of sleep, and all it costs is a few minutes of your day. The more you practice it, the better it works.
- healthy diet and exercise
- yoga (or just plain stretching)
- Do not under-estimate prolonged caffeine consumption as a likely co-factor for many symptoms. Always eliminate this as a possibility whenever you can
- As a relaxation excercise take a break during your day and spend a few minutes in a quiet place directing your attention to any area of your back, neck, shoulders, or even your face whereever you expereince a sensation of pressure or weight. Sometimes just stopping to pay attention that these muscle groups are becoming tense is enough to help them relax some.
- super mellow music at a low volume even if it's not what you prefer generally can help when writing software. Classical music, downtempo, ambient, chill-out, atomospheric drum and bass, even unusual stuff like gregorian chant. It can be slow and boring, after all it's less about entertainment and more about the cumulative effect it has on your brain when used as background music.
example of downtempo genre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYdebVcZDPw
soma.fm/groovesalad plays a good mix imho. There's good studies on this on mice. A good rule of thumb is asking yourself this question "could this song be characterized as 'intense' in any way ?" if so then save it for some other activity
Ironically that's a fairly meaningless statement. "Finding meaning" can actually be counterproductive if I find a self-destructive meaning or one that hurts the people I care about.
Now if you mean we should break out of day-to-day scurrying about and searching for actual truth... I can buy that. But I've seen people "find their own meaning" with catastrophic personal consequences.
The delusion is that life is infinite. It is not.
Especially so when we are young. As we get older, we feel like we are running out of time, we haven't done enough.
This is why I think some people commit suicide when their startups dont take off. They can't accept a reality that everything they are doing is ephemeral.
So when your startup fails, or some software you worked on for 4 years without any pay goes to shit because you couldn't get enough customers, brush this shit off because life and universe is ephemeral and even more so ephmeral are the failures to meet your own expectations and others. So what? Failing at startup isn't a fucking crime? There's no Russian mob coming to reclaim the "equity" that you owe them. Similarly if you succeed, the world just goes on. You might get cover, you might serve as inspiration, you will have changed your life and everything money can buy. But I think that in the end, if you think about it, money is important but not the entirety of our human existence.
At age 29, having boostrapped to failure for the past 6 years, I'm no longer hung up about it. Now this might sound like the fox claiming that the grape is sour because he can't reach it, but money, a single fixation on success or a particular product that you built (and you fall in love with your own creation), is unhealthy and frankly a waste of pure fucking energy.
This is why I've given up on chasing one idea or marrying myself to one goal. I'm also slowly turning my back away from bootstrapping and focusing on how I can raise money. The only painful realization is that I could've done 6 years of work in just 6 months with 6 engineers. Now that I've done the entire shit myself from the ground up, I have a pretty fucking good idea how to build something from scratch and turn it into a product. Startup is not a one man game, it's really coming together, sharing the pain and growing as individuals and as a group. Success should be the goal but I believe the process is equally important in getting to that goal. I may not ever reach it and that's fine. What's important is that I've tried the best I absolutely can and being proud of what I've built. That's all you can do and just walk away and keep going.
And don't get caught up with trends, noise, techcrunch and other non-essential activities that adds to the anxiety. Just do you.
Remember that life is ephemeral. Suicide is a permanent approach at a temporary problem! This failure, the stress, the depression, the mania, all this, even the lack of money...all of this is just temporary. Nothing lasts forever.
Depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, ADHD, and other mental health issues are extremely complex issues that can't be universally explained away by blood sugar or lack of spouses or loneliness as some of commenters here confidently claim. Every case is different, every person has their own complex set of issues and maladaptive coping behaviors and external stressors, and everyone responds to medications and lifestyle changes differently. Perhaps more importantly, navigating all of those individual variations is best left to a close patient-doctor relationship, leveraging each patients' feedback against the doctor's years of clinical experience.
The mistake many people make is trying to map others' mental health disorders on to their own prior experiences. That's why you see so many comments from people confidently declaring that curing depression is as simple as exercising because they felt sad a few years ago but felt better when they started running. That's great, and exercise is likely to help everyone, but that doesn't mean that another person's depression is simply a lack of exercise. Don't ever discount or downplay another person's mental health suffering, because that's only going to make things harder for them. Mental health sufferers often feel significant guilt about their symptoms, and having someone dismiss or downplay their suffering only compounds that.
Modern psychiatry isn't perfect and has plenty of room for improvement, but frankly it's a whole lot better than the comments here make it out to be. If you're struggling with mental health issues, make it a priority to see a professional. Get a second or third opinion if you're not happy with your treatment. But whatever you do, don't get sucked in to the misinformed internet commenters trying to discourage people from seeking treatment. Psychiatry can take some time, but the area under the curve of even marginal mental health improvements can add up to a huge difference over the course of your life.
I'm autistic and my wife has PTSD and anxiety disorder. She's been through about 6 therapists, all of whom were highly recommended by other people we know or other therapists. We've been to three marriage counsellors. I've been to a therapist that was an "autism specialist" who told me after speaking to me for 3 minutes that I'm not autistic because I have at least 1 friend and I'm married. Perhaps these were all smart people, but between the 10 of them, they have so far been completely unable to help my wife and I with any of our problems. We've been throwing a small fortune at our various issues, and our lives are still a nightmare.
I'm even about to pay 10-15k out of pocket for a fucking therapy dog that's probably going to be a waste of money, because we are desperate and the professionals aren't very useful.
The problem is that psychiatry as practiced is an attempt to solve people, and people can't be solved; or if they can, it is unique (as you say) to the individual.
And really you're no different: you're giving out advice to people on how to manage their mental health. Your advice is harmless from a societal perspective in that it's literally what psychiatrists want you to be saying.
That doesn't mean you're not one of the misinformed internet commenters. It's not universally applicable. Most people don't have the time and money to shop around, even if the actual problems of their mental state allow them to seek help.
You can't come up with the words that are going to make people better. Nor should you be expected to!
Recognizing that psychiatrists are the ones we pay to be expected to act to make people better and they are themselves human and subject to human failures: this, I think, is why criticism of psychiatry emerges in topics like these.
I'm not disagreeing with your general advice, just criticizing your smugness and certainty in your opening lines. You're not better at this than we are just because you're giving the generic safe advice.
There is nothing that annoys me more then the every person is a special snowflake argument for why we can't use standardized treatment for mental health problem.
Exercise works really well for curing depression. I talked to a depressed patient yesterday who had no idea what he could do to combat his depression. I finally convinced him that if he couldn't think of anything else to do he should just try going for a walk and he told me later that it really helped.
I've had that exact conversation a hundred times.
Almost all patients I meet have the faulty belief that they are special. That they function in a way that is different from others and that often make them resist treatment.
Your head is connected to your physical body and therefore we can figure out what helps for everyone in the same way a doctor knows what to do about a broken foot.
Did you know that almost half off patients who suffer from anxiety take too shallow breaths and this creates respiratory alkalosis that creates a lot of the anxiety symptoms.
Did you know that by breathing calmly you will cure yourself from panic attacks? Forever.
Did you know that psychologists know how to cure insomnia in a single session?
The biggest hurdle to overcome is the idea that there exists a magic barrier where your disorder goes from being something that you can cure yourself to something you need a professional for. The barrier is an illusion.
You always have the power to change your mood for the better.
I'm not saying that therapy isn't useful. It is extremely useful and helps people tremendously.
I'm saying that every single individual can make a conscious effort to focus on improving their mental health irregardless of the fact that they are seeing a therapist.
Also. Almost every single person is illiterate about how to treat mental health problems.
I've been a fairly happy person all my life and I believe I owe it to the fact that I developed excellent coping mechanisms.
If you haven't got those you need to learn them. Once you have them it gets much easier to have good mental health.
I'm actually working on building free online treatment for depression right now. It is a work in progress but if anyone is interested they can check it out here.
Can you please elaborate more on this point? :)
Peer-reviewed study, please?
> every person is a special snowflake argument
Right off the bat, you sound like a condescending asshole. I would never go to more than one session with you if this is how you treat patients.
> Exercise works really well for curing depression.
You really think you _cured_ someone's depression by telling them to take a walk sometimes? Granted, I find strenuous exercise is really helpful, but there are also days where you cannot will yourself out of bed to go to the gym. Having some asshole psychologist tell you that it's your fault just makes things worse.
> Did you know that by breathing calmly you will cure yourself from panic attacks? Forever.
Yeah, tell this to my girlfriend, who gets _more_ anxious when she's trying to take deep breaths.
> I've been a fairly happy person all my life
Because you never experienced significant trauma, you don't have an imbalance of chemicals in your brain, basically you just won the goddamn lottery. Do you take advice from people who win the Powerball about how to get rich?
> I'm actually working on building free online treatment for depression right now
This sounds really admirable. Looking at the website, it's so cluttered and confusing I don't think anyone could benefit from it. And it seems like you're recommending that people contact you over Telegram? Like anyone? Just your formal patients? This is a giant ethical and HIPAA minefield, offering professional medical services via text message.
.5 women + .25 men > .2 all people
I'd like to suggest that your patients' beliefs might originate with a valid, correct observation from their lives; their experience is that they do function in a way that is different from others in their lives, and they have generally, in their lives, seen that those who have insisted that they do not function any differently, do not, in truth, actually understand their experience at all. I would suggest that you cut them some slack.
It's generally true, to my understanding, that one "always [has] the power to change [one's] mood for the better;" but its also true that human volition isn't very well understood, that self-control is understood to be a limited (albiet apparently trainable) resource that correlates strongly to blood glucose, that some people seem to have innately poorer impulse control than others, and that everyone experiences absolute freedom of choice at all times only in a crass and unsatisfactory Sartrean sense.
This leaves me wishing to suggest to you that you might want to avoid relative comparisons of mental health that admit a "strength of will" argument as to why one person might succeed in overcoming depression where another might fail.
I am sure that you do have excellent coping mechanisms, and I am sure that you are happier for it; I am sure that, by definition, most anyone would be happier if they improved their ability to cope with events in their lives; I am sure that every single individual can make a conscious effort to focus on improving their mental health. However, some will fail; others will fail to try. I am sure that you understand that it is nothing other than good luck that you were able to develop excellent coping mechanisms, even if it is a good luck that most people, perhaps even most people with mental health problems, might share. But your remarks make some strong generalizations and propose a virtuous course towards self-empowered mental health without being duly respectful of the actuality.
If you managed to get through med school, and finish a residency in Psychiatry; I have a money making idea:
Write a book on just how you got into medical school.
(Wow--could you imagine pulling out you wallet/purse after this session?)
Sorry dude, but please, see a psychiatrist. Bring this post.
A psychiatrist is a specialist medical doctor. They've been right through the whole med school thing.
A clinical psychologist takes an accredited psychology BSc and then takes further courses. These finalises with a doctorate, giving the Dr title. They are, however, not medical doctors.
It may have changed but a good rule of thumb is that a psychiatrist can prescribe the full range of treatments, including medication. From what I recall, a clinical psychologist focuses on prescription of therapy - they may need a psychiatrist to prescribe if they believe medication would be useful.
If you are someone who read that post and are about to take what was said as fact at least google the statement that is the most obviously fake: "Did you know that psychologists know how to cure insomnia in a single session?" and in doing so remember the word that was chosen: cure. -------------------------------------------
Red flag: (you don't need help you can help yourself)
> The biggest hurdle to overcome is the idea that there exists a magic barrier where your disorder goes from being something that you can cure yourself to something you need a professional for. The barrier is an illusion.
-------------------------------------------
To blatantly dangerous and false statements:
> You always have the power to change your mood for the better.
From another one of this user's posts:
> In the last 50 years clinical psychologists have figured out effective psychological treatments for almost all mental health problems and manualized them so a professional can know or easily look up the best way to treat a disorder.
and:
> I regularly meet patients who are very depressed when we first meet who manage to overcome their depression in a couple of weeks.
Which would be like 2 appointments?
I would place serious doubt on anything this person claims.
It already exists. 7 Cups of Tea
"Glen Moriarty, Founder and CEO, is a psychologist passionate about the Internet’s power to help people lead better lives. He has been involved in a number of services and organizations that support people in need. 7 Cups of Tea is his most recent endeavor; marrying his background in psychology with his love for technology. "
Best explanation of depression I've ever heard/seen is "Andrew Solomon: Depression, the secret we share" https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_solomon_depression_the_secr...
I've spent quite a bit of time and money working with psychologists, psychiatrists, done sleep studies and kept up with the latest research, and there's nothing I'm aware of that would support your claim.
So, I have a few questions for you:
1) Peer-reviewed sources?
2) Are you concerned that making these kinds of claims non-anonymously without publishing any data to back it up could cause you to lose to your medical license?
When in stressful situations, [0] 'take big breaths, then breath out', repeat. This should lower your heart rate by 10%. There's a nice overview explanation of "respiratory sinus arrhythmia". [1]
[0] https://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/7811997-Ho...
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-neuroscience-mindfu...
CBT is proven to be effective when the depression is low-level, ie not acute. Like when people can get it together to get out of the house and see a therapist. Really it amounts to little more than reversing the causality of standard behaviours (eg exercise to make yourself feel good rather than because you feel good).
The website linked to is extremely poorly written, and contains zingers like: 'The way out of depression is all about getting started doing all the things you once loved to do! Getting started is the hardest step but trust us, you will feel better after doing all the things you love!'
This is the kind of wonderful advice you get from people who've never suffered from crippling depression.
I'm curious to know which nation this person is a clinical psychologist in.
It's a shame because exercise is probably the single thing most likely to help depression. That and drugs.