Decades ago in my first abnormal psych course, the prof warned us that there was an almost iron-clad law that students will immediately start self diagnosing themselves with “weak” versions of every disorder we learn about. In my years since then, it has absolutely held true and now is supercharged by a whole industry of TikTok self-diagnoses.
But there are a few things we can learn from this:
- if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves that makes them feel unique, they’ll take it.
- if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves to give a name/form to a problem, they’ll take it.
- most mental disorders are an issue of degree and not something qualitatively different from a typical experience. People should use this to gain greater empathy for those who struggle.
> - if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves to give a name/form to a problem, they’ll take it.
This one is widespread among the young people I’ve worked with recently. It’s remarkable how I can identify the current TikTok self diagnosis trends without ever watching TikTok.
There’s a widespread belief that once you put a label on a problem, other people are not allowed to criticize you for it. Many young people lean into this and label everything as a defensive tactic.
A while ago, one of the trends was “time blindness”. People who were chronically late, missed meetings, or failed to manage their time would see TikToks about “time blindness” as if it was a medical condition, and self-diagnose as having that.
It was bizarre to suddenly have people missing scheduled events and then casually informing me that they had time blindness, as if that made it okay. Once they had a label for a condition, they felt like they had a license to escape accountability.
The most frustrating part was that the people who self-diagnosed as having “time blindness” universally got worse at being on time. Once they had transformed the personal problem into a labeled condition, they didn’t feel as obligated to do anything about it.
> But there are a few things we can learn from this:
> - if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves that makes them feel unique, they’ll take it.
This is almost the opposite of what we can learn about this, and the article does a great job at pointing that out. It's a very recent social phenomenon. Yes, that contradicts your abnornal psych class, but think about it. 20 years ago (in 2005), did anyone voluntarily, happily label themselves autistic, without any disgnosis, outside of such psych classes (outliers for obvious reasons)? In elementary, middle and high schools, at the workplace, in other majors? IME absolutely not, very much the opposite. The only ones who did so were the diagnosed, and then only mentioned it when very relevant. Let alone 100 years ago. Let alone the massive differences between different regions/cultures in desire for uniqueness, both historical and uniqueness.
This is a massive sociocultural phenomenon, absolutely not something inherent to the human psyche. Almost no one is born this way (strong desire to make themselves feel unique).
The author's concerns would mostly all be ameliorated by logging out of TikTok and never logging back in. They seem to think that "TikTok" and "Society" are synonyms. They are not.
When I first discovered that I suffered from a "new" condition called Prosopagnosia - by means of an online "Are you face blind?" test - everything about my life suddenly fell into place. It was a liberating self-diagnosis which gave me permission to admit that it was some small malformations in my brain that were the cause of my troubles, not some selfish malformations in my personality and social skills.
Of course a self-diagnosis is not enough. I discovered my condition while it was still in the early stages of research. I signed up to be a guinea pig for researchers, and got paid a handsome £20/hour to undertake various tests (including brain scans - I still have a 3d image of my brain stored in a box somewhere) to help people better understand the underlying causes of the condition. It was fun for a while, until some of the tests got more disturbing. I also got to learn about the coping strategies I had already developed, and how to use them in better ways to help lessen the impact of the condition on my social interactions.
It's interesting because there are two diametrically opposed ways to interpret what you said
One is - everybody thinks they have disorders, so just ignore that feeling it'll mess with you.
The other is - everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more
My parents did psychology and they always warned us about this.
Bayesianism helps but isn't taught well enough in school. Basically, we fail to handle the false positive and false negatives into the calculation, and this happens a lot with psychologists as well. This is really the point where people say untrained 'professionals' are dangerous - they can't evaluate that inaccuracy of the diagnosis itself.
Precisely. I would posit that many of those are no different from those who start studying psychology formally struggle with statistics because it requires a shift from intuitive, qualitative thinking to rigorous, quantitative analysis, which can be challenging for those without prior exposure. Psychology curricula often include courses in statistical methods or research design, which demand skills in mathematical reasoning, data interpretation, and abstract concepts like probability distributions or hypothesis testing. These topics can feel alien to students drawn to psychology for its focus on human behaviour and emotions rather than numbers.
> now is supercharged by a whole industry of TikTok self-diagnoses.
As I understand, this is mostly affecting young women who are much more mimetic than young men. Is this also affecting men at (nearly?) the same rates? I don't see a lot of short form video content from men talking about their emotional issues. However, there is virtually unlimited content from women.
To be clear about my comment: I am not trying to be anti-women here, just point out a trend that I see.
I remember someone telling me a story of a horoscope type thing that was handed out to people in class after ascertaining their birthdate. People were asked to comment and thought things were accurate... until the professor had everyone compare their horoscopes. Theire identical horoscopes.
I think this is exacerbated by the acute rise in real autism cases (not self-diagnosed) going from 1 in 10,000 clear to 1 in 31 cases in children, in the span of 50 years.
As people learn there's something gravely wrong with how they interact with others, struggle with social situations, etc. — and they validate that by observing enough "normal" people interacting or watch enough Hollywood entertainment depicting perfectly rehearsed conversations — in desperation, they seek a remedy in everything from personality systems ("everything must be labeled and explained") to psychiatric treatment just to cope with the lack of frequent, validating, normal interactions; and in many cases, aren't improving because of how isolated their lives have become.
This is something I've observed in my own life and in friends who share similar challenges.
The "tiktok self diagnosis" thing is more like a moral panic. It is not really an attempt to feel unique and healthcare professionals would do a lot of good to their patients if they understood this.
At least as of one decade ago psych professors still give that warning. I remember being warned not to do that in psych 102. It's always bothered me a little that everyone seems to completely ignore it.
> People should use this to gain greater empathy for those who struggle.
This is part of the cause of the current situation though - that putting labels on yourself gets you more empathy than you would have gotten as a "normal" person.
> if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves that makes them feel unique, they’ll take it.
Where do you see uniqueness? If anything, it seems to me that people are making themselves not unique, but more of "someone who is part of large group of same like individuals".
According to Google, any physical symptom is indicative of cancer.
According to social media, any personality quirk is indicative of ADHD.
I am diagnosed ADHD from a qualified professional, took medication, found it a great help, and I’ve come around to believe it’s all bullshit. Yeah, you have ADHD symptoms, yeah it’s disrupting your life, yeah you cannot find concentration and motivation. No, you’re not special. You’re not genetically born with pre-frontal cortex deficiencies. It’s, simply enough, an epidemic of massive proportions. We’ve created a society of distracted, gratified, unsocialised lazy squirrels all but interacting with the world through a piece of magic glass; what do you expect?
The word “disorder” is loaded, but it is interesting to also look through the lens of the Social Theory of Disability. For the rise in diagnoses for autism, ADD, gender dysphoria, eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia etc.
Just as we now view the historical labeling of women as suffering from “hysteria” as a systemic failure, not a personal pathology, we should interrogate whether current diagnostic regimes will look just as crude and institutionally convenient in 50 years
Many social and health-related challenges we label today as “disorders” may in fact be downstream responses to structural issues in how society is organized — education, labor, healthcare, media, food, and housing. It’s worth asking: what if we’re pathologizing reactions to a sick system?
Generations identifying as trans:
Gen Z: 2.8%
Millennials: 1.0%
Gen X: 0.3%
Baby Boomers: 0.2%
Silent Generation: <= 0.05%
A lot of it has to do not with the label itself but with the industry. Where someone in the past would be called a “tomboy” or “femboy” today they would have a different diagnosis, the DSM-5 would be consulted, etc.
Similarly with ADHD if a kid would have been called “rambunctious”, today they might be labeled as having a “disorder” and medicated with literal amphetamines, instead of for instance reforming public schools. (To be clear, I am talking not about exteme/acute cases but overdiagnosis of relatively mild cases.)
We can look at other examples (eg Finland’s schools where children can climb trees and have much lower ADHD diagnosis rate) as one way to compare.
Or in the past, anorexia and eating disorders were a form of body dysmorphia, and some such images were actually promoted by industries such as fashion modeling or ballet performance. And when I say promoted - I mean also heavily enforced within the industry itself.
Industry in USA works with government, together. For example the factory farms (overusing antibiotics, abusing animals) and ag-gag orders, criminalizing whistleblowing and exposing them. Or monsanto and intellectual property enforcement. Or pistachio farmers in CA and water shortages. Or bottling companies and clothing companies putting out metric tons of plastics and microplastics, while regular people are told they can’t have a straw or a bag, and must recycle (itself revealed to be mostly a govt+industrial scam, shipped to China etc.)
This is across the board. Obesity and diabetes are a major epidemic in USA but instead of questioning high fructose corn syrup, highly processed starches and sugars in everything, people are told they can fix things themselves with diet and exercise. Actually it has been shown that obesity and disabetes in mothers is correlated with autism in their children. It has been shown that there was a serious correlation between obesity, diabetes and covid morbidity but the latter was taken extremely seriously but the former is not.
Same with plastic recycling, etc. or going vegan. Or buying free range. Or whataver. The individual is kept distracted.
In USA medicating things downstream is the default. One in five middle aged women is on antidepressants. Teenage girls have the highest levels of “sadness” (most outlets don’t want to say depression) etc.
Of course when it comes to depression and gender dysphoria we get extra political sensitivity due to activism around those issues. Of the usual character: the INDIVIDUAL is the one that has to make all the downstream adjustments and cope with the SYSTEMIC upstream issues, which are not questioned much. The individual is even told to embrace their label and tell others it is great (eg “big is beautiful” for obesity, celebrating the result instead of reforming the system).
Until AI takes the jobs, the social compact has become: both parents have had to work for corporations, to afford the expenses that could previously be paid by one “breadwinner” in the family working for corporations. And they stick their kids in public schools and elderly parents into nursing homes. And then medicate them if they don’t like it, because the DSM 5, school administrators or nursing homes staff say that this is the best way. Everyone is afraid to speak up against the system, they would rather perpetuate it and cover their own ass.
There was a time when people derided USSR people for drinking a lot to cope with the failures of their economic system. But now with men on opiates, women on antidepressants, high rates of teen suicide ideation, elderly and kids being medicated — perhaps we should rethink our own economic system. There are a lot of “problems” that people are experiencing and it may be from upstream systemic causes. But they are kept distracted by govt and corporations with the idea that they can fix it by their individual actions, which include recycling, dieting, and placing a label on themselves that the industry then helpfully gives them medications to manage it.
The lovable aphorisms we had for people with character quirks were largely from our original support systems. What no one is talking about is the reason therapy-talk has become so pervasive is because all those support systems: family, friends, and local communities (religious or otherwise), have all degraded so severely for most that therapy is the only option for reaching out and getting help.
I agree, though possibly for different reasons. Those support systems may or may not be weaker than they were in generations past, but they are certainly more likely to say "I can't help you, go get professional help" than in the past.
In some ways this is a good thing. It is good if bipolar people get the medication they need faster, and can start living their best lives. But as someone who almost died to depression, the "help" out there is criminal. It is not a disease we have a cure for, in fact it's not clear to me it's even a disease in most sufferers, but a healthy and rational response to societal decay. I do not believe some disorders will ever be satisfactorily explained by individual-centric medicine, in the same way history will never be satisfactorily explained by great man theory.
I don’t see these as opposing ends of a spectrum. I think they’re largely independent variables.
Anecdotally, the people I know who have become most immersed in therapy speak are also the most socially connected. The therapy speak and associated language have become tools for establishing themselves within their social support system, communicating cries for help, and even trying to use therapy terms to shield themselves from accountability for their actions by transforming it into a therapy session.
It was also possible to buy afford a house and a small family on a job that doesn't require much training or special skills. It's easier to deal with (often meaning "ignore") undiagnosed mental issues with your own roof over your head.
> is because all those support systems: family, friends, and local communities (religious or otherwise), have all degraded so severely.
I disagree! There was never a good support system at all. We used to just man up and live with it. Now that stress is reaching it's new heights. We can't cope with it.
If you were neurotypical; if you bought in to the local religious sect's particular flavour and embraced it wholeheartedly; if you followed the other local cults of sports fandoms; if you were lucky enough to either have family without their own trauma that didn't take it out on you OR decided to repress it in exactly the same way that they did and just simply passed it forward or didn't talk about it.
i don't know what the ratios are but a LOT of people fell through the cracks.
it's just that the birth rate was high enough to continue the population growth, and there were socially acceptable ways to ignore the inconvenient problems (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy)
it's why there's now suddenly an influx of ADHD and Autism diagnosis - because in the past anyone outside of the norm who wasn't lucky to do one of the things above was simply ignored, beaten, or died.
now the stigma is gone and we're finding EXPLICIT paths to treatment, tolerance, and embracement of mental health, neuroatypical brains, spectrums, etc. Is there overpathologizing? Maybe? Hard to know! The stigmas still aren't gone. Go read the comments on any video providing tips on how to parent children on the spectrum and see neurotypicals freaking out about how soft the current generation is.
the western world seems to have peaked in tolerance in the 2010s, and is now backsliding into authoritarianism and fascism. that's trying to recreate a lot of those original support systems (by destroying the new ones). It's a bold plan, let's see how it happens.
Your leaving out that people with mental and even physical issues often were outcasts for revealing them to their family, friends, and community in the past.
I'm suspicious of the use of "we" here since I don't feel like I'm a part of this discourse. Also:
>Now you are always late to things not because you are lovably forgetful
In the past from, say, 30-40 years ago, if you failed to arrive at appointments and meetings on time you probably weren't labeled "lovably forgetful," and you probably would face punishments for having certain personality traits. We're changing in how we understand those kinds of differences now, and it's not all for the better, but in general the discourse now is better than how things were in the past when neurodiverse folks tended to receive a lot of punishment, invective, bullying, and ostracism.
I've been autistic my whole life, but I'm from the older set where there was no understanding of such things, we used to get bullied a lot, sometimes quite violently, and social ostracism was typical then for folks on the spectrum. I'd be thoughtful about romanticizing the past or get taken in by the false feelings of nostalgia - it's wrong to imagine people used to deal with the neurodiverse in glowing light and thoughtful acceptance, no one ever said I was "lovably forgetful."
When I was young, unsure about myself, and frequently derided when I stated my preference for quiet evenings instead of going out and meeting people, I grasped at the notion of "introversion" the moment I found it. It made my feelings and preferences legitimate during a time when I perceived that people were telling me that I was wrong for being that way.
Now, more than two decades later, after a bit more life experience, I cringe when someone labels me as an introvert - they aren't wrong per se, but they also unload a bunch of assumptions attached to that label on to me, 90% of which are inaccurate/unrelated/tangential.
A good friend of mine told me that labels are useful, but warned me to not make them my entire identity. He turned out to be right.
“mental health challenges are an important part of my identity.”
Because there's now a payoff for those. Those girls proudly display a whole slew of these on their 'bio' because the societal framework they live in 'scores' them on their 'oppression/victim' status.
Interesting article. It reminds me of TVTropes. It's the most systematizing (as opposed to holistically) way of looking at media, decompose it into parts (tropes) that are shared with other media. It feels like approaching the ultimate in the Western scientific orderly systematizing thought.
The part that seems to be lost in all this is that there's really no purpose to learning/exploring/explaining unless it points to action.
Knowing you have ADHD, childhood trauma, attachment issues, etc. is useless if that knowledge does not enable you to take action or if you don't intend to take action.
Unless you just enjoy the learning for the learnings sake, seek to learn so as to plan and execute.
Fascinating article. It's think the author's experiences are fairly context-dependant, with where you live, the political leanings of your social circle, your online community etc. But I have noticed an increase in the pathologizing of normal human behaviours and traits. Maybe not all character flaws should be fixed.
I always feel like these "We do this new horrible thing that's taking over" articles are always blown out of proportion- sure, _some_ people talk that way, maybe it's even trending to talk that way for a significant group of people, but it's not true of everyone, all the time. To me, this trend seems largely confined to youth culture and social media.
I also found it ironic that part of the OP's argument was that nobody has personality anymore, they just have problems to solve, and this article seemed to be doing the same thing, but for culture at large; reducing it to a problem to be solved.
> This is part of a deeper instinct in modern life, I think, to explain everything. Psychologically, scientifically, evolutionarily. Everything about us is caused, categorised, and can be corrected. We talk in theories, frameworks, systems, structures, drives, motivations, mechanisms. But in exchange for explanation, we lost mystery, romance, and lately, I think, ourselves.
This is the rejection of science applied to a less common target.
We live in increasingly complex societies with more and more demanding social dynamics. In the past, it was all much simpler, though at certain costs, that the article fails to mention or romanticises. Not all quirks were celebrated or "funny" and not all people survived to tell beautiful stories.
Moreover, a lot of things were simpler in ways that are becoming less and less ok. People now can divorce; marriage is not even need to start a family. Navigating relationship dynamics was simpler in the sense that there were (more or less) specific roles each gender should abide. Many marriages were arranged, especially if "it was taking you time", thus you did not have to figure out dating yourself.
I don't think that therapeutic discourse is a good strategy. Medicalising personhoods and relationships is bad, but going back to a (romanticised) past cannot be a solution at all. Raising to a higher consiousness would be an actual, good solution, but that takes time. It is uncertain if we have that with the speed that things move nowadays.
I'd say - everybody has a personality which is not who they really are. The personality is "simply" the response and defence mehanism of the ego of trauma inflicted during the early formatory years during childhood. It's really interesting what an automatic-machine a person is. Unaware that he is acting machanically in most cases. Source - the Enneagram and Gurdjieff.
IIRC a "disorder" is a personality trait that is extremely strong; specifically, strong enough to significantly negatively affect one's life and relationships without medication or therapy (real therapy, not "talk to someone" therapy).
For example, sometimes people talk about lowercase "t" and capital "T" trauma. Lowercase "t" is when something affects you enough that recognizing it elicits an emotion, e.g. some people fell uneasy when smelling saline because they associate it with getting shots when they were young. Uppercase "T" is when the emotion is overpowering, e.g. soldiers who wake up screaming or experience lifelike flashbacks when they see military equipment, or people who can't visit a location without panicking because it reminds them of a negative experience. Only uppercase "T" is diagnosed PTSD, although that doesn't mean lowercase "t" is never a problem, it's just not life-altering and can be worked around without medication or therapy.
We have regular adjectives for the manageable "lowercase" version of disorders. "Obsessive" for OCD, "antsy" or "trouble focusing" for ADHD, "strange" or "peculiar" for Autism. I do think someone can be "manic" or "depressed" without having diagnosed Bipolar or Depression. Unfortunately, language is defined by how it's used in practice, so if most people call themselves "ADHD" when they don't have real diagnosed ADHD, you'll have to use their meaning to understand them, and eventually it'll become the norm; but you can speak and write the non-disorder adjective to help counter it. Worst case, we still have "diagnosed X" to distinguish from "X" (unless people start using it like "literally" to mean figuratively...)
Believe to know more. As someone who has managed to live comfortably in the margins... I have never been more miserable than recently. What changed? This unsolicited assistance.
I was a perfectly fine and productive remote worker before the pandemic. Now, every bit of energy I have goes towards "no, really, I'm alright" and the leagues of hustlers.
There is a lot of this content out there about mental health and there is a lot of it that tries to explain everything people do. Much of the issue I see is that it is taken to extremes and is very much driven by algorithms pushing particular pieces of content. And if it is ambiguous enough it will reach a larger audience, a beneficial sign for the account posting it.
There's no room for nuance that perhaps the person who is generous both has qualities of a people pleaser but is a generous person because once upon a time they did a generous thing and it made their life happier. Where it becomes a mental health issue is when it starts to reduce the quality of your life and your relationships significantly.
The bigger issue is that each of these things seem to be labelled as problems and how they can be solved, not managed nor be normal human behaviors. At the extremes, yes perhaps they need to be managed to a higher degree, but everything else is still what makes up peoples lives.
I myself am swarmed with reels about anxious/avoidant attachment reels with any random man/women and their dog trying to talk ambiguously about human behaviors and providing an explanation for them.
For young people sitting on TikTok and Instagram late at night being bombarded with mental health related reels trying to explain your behavior and other peoples behavior you like or don't like. It's best to give that type of content a break.
> This is part of a deeper instinct in modern life, I think, to explain everything.
To explain everything shallowly by looking for direct cause and effect and not a multitudes of causes and effects. That complexity is too much to think through comfortably whilst living within it and having an unreliable experience of the self, especially in the younger years. Labeling causes with an easy broad moniker provides temporary comfort, relieving the individual of the burden of deeper reflection.
I often see a generalized notion where refusing to be a person doing a bad thing instead transforms into being a person with doing-bad-thing-syndrome, which then distills to doing-bad-thing-syndrome-sufferer. It removes agency, but also accountability, so it's a good way to coast through life with learned helplessness
2. Personally, I think the being more knowledgeable about (and conversant in) common psychological issues is great. Much better if we have a label for "depression" rather than just thinking "The world and everything is awful and I'm the only one who feels this way." Same for anxiety, attachment, all of that.
3. If young girls happen to co-opt it in a way you find self-absorbed, get over it, stop trying to police it and make a fake moral panic over it. It's no worse than astrology or whatever other loose avenue of self-exploration would be otherwise happening.
It to me sounds like the author fundamentally misunderstands the whole thing, this just is soaking in boomer energy. That is -- the premise that recognizing these trends is somehow shaming/bad and it's "better" if we all use loosely-defined unscientific terms like "nice-person" rather than looking at and challenging our overly intense and dysfunctional people-pleasing or whatever.
The way gen-z uses these terms, is that they aren't some hardcore disorder, but as a common parlance for real and addressable things to change about oneself (e.g. that talking on the phone can be uncomfortable, or making an appointment is stressful). Like gen-z may say "Oh I have insecure attachment" and they just mean "Sometimes I'm afraid to reach out for fear of rejection" and that's a healthy thing to talk about, even if the term they used is used a different way in the DSM.
The genius of social media is that they propagated some labels and then they let people do the hard work of adjusting their personalities and belief systems to more closely adhere to those labels. Likely driven by mimetic desire for status and recognition. Adherence to well known labels provides instant recognition and validation.
Then when it came to 'targeted advertising', social media advertisers could just target the labels and reach a huge amount of people because those people had already fine-tuned and optimized themselves to be receptive to that kind of messaging.
Their personalities were homogenized to the point that the focus groups ended up being representative of the real people behind the labels.
Unfortunately (but given the slant of all her other articles, most likely intentionally), the author suffers from one major oversight:
The absence of labels is just as much of a marketing gimmick as their presence. Even anti-identitarianism will be weaponized. Even nothing is something. Eliminate all the labels and concepts and redundancies, and you are yet left with a "natural, unspoken, normal default" state of being.
And as it turns out, there are plenty of forces out there willing to exploit that appeal towards the "the unspoken", for either financial or political gain. The question remains, then: who or what gets to determine this unspoken part of life?
[+] [-] parpfish|8 months ago|reply
But there are a few things we can learn from this:
- if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves that makes them feel unique, they’ll take it.
- if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves to give a name/form to a problem, they’ll take it.
- most mental disorders are an issue of degree and not something qualitatively different from a typical experience. People should use this to gain greater empathy for those who struggle.
[+] [-] Aurornis|8 months ago|reply
This one is widespread among the young people I’ve worked with recently. It’s remarkable how I can identify the current TikTok self diagnosis trends without ever watching TikTok.
There’s a widespread belief that once you put a label on a problem, other people are not allowed to criticize you for it. Many young people lean into this and label everything as a defensive tactic.
A while ago, one of the trends was “time blindness”. People who were chronically late, missed meetings, or failed to manage their time would see TikToks about “time blindness” as if it was a medical condition, and self-diagnose as having that.
It was bizarre to suddenly have people missing scheduled events and then casually informing me that they had time blindness, as if that made it okay. Once they had a label for a condition, they felt like they had a license to escape accountability.
The most frustrating part was that the people who self-diagnosed as having “time blindness” universally got worse at being on time. Once they had transformed the personal problem into a labeled condition, they didn’t feel as obligated to do anything about it.
[+] [-] jjani|8 months ago|reply
> - if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves that makes them feel unique, they’ll take it.
This is almost the opposite of what we can learn about this, and the article does a great job at pointing that out. It's a very recent social phenomenon. Yes, that contradicts your abnornal psych class, but think about it. 20 years ago (in 2005), did anyone voluntarily, happily label themselves autistic, without any disgnosis, outside of such psych classes (outliers for obvious reasons)? In elementary, middle and high schools, at the workplace, in other majors? IME absolutely not, very much the opposite. The only ones who did so were the diagnosed, and then only mentioned it when very relevant. Let alone 100 years ago. Let alone the massive differences between different regions/cultures in desire for uniqueness, both historical and uniqueness.
This is a massive sociocultural phenomenon, absolutely not something inherent to the human psyche. Almost no one is born this way (strong desire to make themselves feel unique).
[+] [-] stevenAthompson|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rikroots|8 months ago|reply
Of course a self-diagnosis is not enough. I discovered my condition while it was still in the early stages of research. I signed up to be a guinea pig for researchers, and got paid a handsome £20/hour to undertake various tests (including brain scans - I still have a 3d image of my brain stored in a box somewhere) to help people better understand the underlying causes of the condition. It was fun for a while, until some of the tests got more disturbing. I also got to learn about the coping strategies I had already developed, and how to use them in better ways to help lessen the impact of the condition on my social interactions.
[+] [-] zug_zug|8 months ago|reply
One is - everybody thinks they have disorders, so just ignore that feeling it'll mess with you.
The other is - everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more
[+] [-] muzani|8 months ago|reply
Bayesianism helps but isn't taught well enough in school. Basically, we fail to handle the false positive and false negatives into the calculation, and this happens a lot with psychologists as well. This is really the point where people say untrained 'professionals' are dangerous - they can't evaluate that inaccuracy of the diagnosis itself.
This is the best explanation I've seen so far: https://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-...
[+] [-] nelox|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2037|8 months ago|reply
To be clear about my comment: I am not trying to be anti-women here, just point out a trend that I see.
[+] [-] m463|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] docmars|8 months ago|reply
As people learn there's something gravely wrong with how they interact with others, struggle with social situations, etc. — and they validate that by observing enough "normal" people interacting or watch enough Hollywood entertainment depicting perfectly rehearsed conversations — in desperation, they seek a remedy in everything from personality systems ("everything must be labeled and explained") to psychiatric treatment just to cope with the lack of frequent, validating, normal interactions; and in many cases, aren't improving because of how isolated their lives have become.
This is something I've observed in my own life and in friends who share similar challenges.
[+] [-] unknown|8 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] seethedeaduu|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] msgodel|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] LoveMortuus|8 months ago|reply
It was because of that point of view that I always avoided labeling myself or my behaviour, because (in my mind) I did not want to be limited.
But I guess I'm the odd one.
[+] [-] account42|8 months ago|reply
This is part of the cause of the current situation though - that putting labels on yourself gets you more empathy than you would have gotten as a "normal" person.
[+] [-] watwut|8 months ago|reply
Where do you see uniqueness? If anything, it seems to me that people are making themselves not unique, but more of "someone who is part of large group of same like individuals".
[+] [-] uncircle|8 months ago|reply
According to social media, any personality quirk is indicative of ADHD.
I am diagnosed ADHD from a qualified professional, took medication, found it a great help, and I’ve come around to believe it’s all bullshit. Yeah, you have ADHD symptoms, yeah it’s disrupting your life, yeah you cannot find concentration and motivation. No, you’re not special. You’re not genetically born with pre-frontal cortex deficiencies. It’s, simply enough, an epidemic of massive proportions. We’ve created a society of distracted, gratified, unsocialised lazy squirrels all but interacting with the world through a piece of magic glass; what do you expect?
[+] [-] unknown|8 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] KolibriFly|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] satoru42|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|8 months ago|reply
Just as we now view the historical labeling of women as suffering from “hysteria” as a systemic failure, not a personal pathology, we should interrogate whether current diagnostic regimes will look just as crude and institutionally convenient in 50 years
Many social and health-related challenges we label today as “disorders” may in fact be downstream responses to structural issues in how society is organized — education, labor, healthcare, media, food, and housing. It’s worth asking: what if we’re pathologizing reactions to a sick system?
Generations identifying as trans:
A lot of it has to do not with the label itself but with the industry. Where someone in the past would be called a “tomboy” or “femboy” today they would have a different diagnosis, the DSM-5 would be consulted, etc.Similarly with ADHD if a kid would have been called “rambunctious”, today they might be labeled as having a “disorder” and medicated with literal amphetamines, instead of for instance reforming public schools. (To be clear, I am talking not about exteme/acute cases but overdiagnosis of relatively mild cases.)
We can look at other examples (eg Finland’s schools where children can climb trees and have much lower ADHD diagnosis rate) as one way to compare.
Or in the past, anorexia and eating disorders were a form of body dysmorphia, and some such images were actually promoted by industries such as fashion modeling or ballet performance. And when I say promoted - I mean also heavily enforced within the industry itself.
Industry in USA works with government, together. For example the factory farms (overusing antibiotics, abusing animals) and ag-gag orders, criminalizing whistleblowing and exposing them. Or monsanto and intellectual property enforcement. Or pistachio farmers in CA and water shortages. Or bottling companies and clothing companies putting out metric tons of plastics and microplastics, while regular people are told they can’t have a straw or a bag, and must recycle (itself revealed to be mostly a govt+industrial scam, shipped to China etc.)
This is across the board. Obesity and diabetes are a major epidemic in USA but instead of questioning high fructose corn syrup, highly processed starches and sugars in everything, people are told they can fix things themselves with diet and exercise. Actually it has been shown that obesity and disabetes in mothers is correlated with autism in their children. It has been shown that there was a serious correlation between obesity, diabetes and covid morbidity but the latter was taken extremely seriously but the former is not.
Same with plastic recycling, etc. or going vegan. Or buying free range. Or whataver. The individual is kept distracted.
In USA medicating things downstream is the default. One in five middle aged women is on antidepressants. Teenage girls have the highest levels of “sadness” (most outlets don’t want to say depression) etc.
Of course when it comes to depression and gender dysphoria we get extra political sensitivity due to activism around those issues. Of the usual character: the INDIVIDUAL is the one that has to make all the downstream adjustments and cope with the SYSTEMIC upstream issues, which are not questioned much. The individual is even told to embrace their label and tell others it is great (eg “big is beautiful” for obesity, celebrating the result instead of reforming the system).
Until AI takes the jobs, the social compact has become: both parents have had to work for corporations, to afford the expenses that could previously be paid by one “breadwinner” in the family working for corporations. And they stick their kids in public schools and elderly parents into nursing homes. And then medicate them if they don’t like it, because the DSM 5, school administrators or nursing homes staff say that this is the best way. Everyone is afraid to speak up against the system, they would rather perpetuate it and cover their own ass.
There was a time when people derided USSR people for drinking a lot to cope with the failures of their economic system. But now with men on opiates, women on antidepressants, high rates of teen suicide ideation, elderly and kids being medicated — perhaps we should rethink our own economic system. There are a lot of “problems” that people are experiencing and it may be from upstream systemic causes. But they are kept distracted by govt and corporations with the idea that they can fix it by their individual actions, which include recycling, dieting, and placing a label on themselves that the industry then helpfully gives them medications to manage it.
[+] [-] hresvelgr|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Paracompact|8 months ago|reply
In some ways this is a good thing. It is good if bipolar people get the medication they need faster, and can start living their best lives. But as someone who almost died to depression, the "help" out there is criminal. It is not a disease we have a cure for, in fact it's not clear to me it's even a disease in most sufferers, but a healthy and rational response to societal decay. I do not believe some disorders will ever be satisfactorily explained by individual-centric medicine, in the same way history will never be satisfactorily explained by great man theory.
[+] [-] Aurornis|8 months ago|reply
Anecdotally, the people I know who have become most immersed in therapy speak are also the most socially connected. The therapy speak and associated language have become tools for establishing themselves within their social support system, communicating cries for help, and even trying to use therapy terms to shield themselves from accountability for their actions by transforming it into a therapy session.
[+] [-] dpkirchner|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] theusus|8 months ago|reply
I disagree! There was never a good support system at all. We used to just man up and live with it. Now that stress is reaching it's new heights. We can't cope with it.
[+] [-] deanCommie|8 months ago|reply
i mean they were, if you got lucky.
If you were neurotypical; if you bought in to the local religious sect's particular flavour and embraced it wholeheartedly; if you followed the other local cults of sports fandoms; if you were lucky enough to either have family without their own trauma that didn't take it out on you OR decided to repress it in exactly the same way that they did and just simply passed it forward or didn't talk about it.
i don't know what the ratios are but a LOT of people fell through the cracks.
it's just that the birth rate was high enough to continue the population growth, and there were socially acceptable ways to ignore the inconvenient problems (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy)
it's why there's now suddenly an influx of ADHD and Autism diagnosis - because in the past anyone outside of the norm who wasn't lucky to do one of the things above was simply ignored, beaten, or died.
now the stigma is gone and we're finding EXPLICIT paths to treatment, tolerance, and embracement of mental health, neuroatypical brains, spectrums, etc. Is there overpathologizing? Maybe? Hard to know! The stigmas still aren't gone. Go read the comments on any video providing tips on how to parent children on the spectrum and see neurotypicals freaking out about how soft the current generation is.
the western world seems to have peaked in tolerance in the 2010s, and is now backsliding into authoritarianism and fascism. that's trying to recreate a lot of those original support systems (by destroying the new ones). It's a bold plan, let's see how it happens.
[+] [-] unknown|8 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ryuker16|8 months ago|reply
Some of that supoort wasnt present.
[+] [-] nemo|8 months ago|reply
>Now you are always late to things not because you are lovably forgetful
In the past from, say, 30-40 years ago, if you failed to arrive at appointments and meetings on time you probably weren't labeled "lovably forgetful," and you probably would face punishments for having certain personality traits. We're changing in how we understand those kinds of differences now, and it's not all for the better, but in general the discourse now is better than how things were in the past when neurodiverse folks tended to receive a lot of punishment, invective, bullying, and ostracism.
I've been autistic my whole life, but I'm from the older set where there was no understanding of such things, we used to get bullied a lot, sometimes quite violently, and social ostracism was typical then for folks on the spectrum. I'd be thoughtful about romanticizing the past or get taken in by the false feelings of nostalgia - it's wrong to imagine people used to deal with the neurodiverse in glowing light and thoughtful acceptance, no one ever said I was "lovably forgetful."
[+] [-] sometimes_all|8 months ago|reply
Now, more than two decades later, after a bit more life experience, I cringe when someone labels me as an introvert - they aren't wrong per se, but they also unload a bunch of assumptions attached to that label on to me, 90% of which are inaccurate/unrelated/tangential.
A good friend of mine told me that labels are useful, but warned me to not make them my entire identity. He turned out to be right.
[+] [-] PeterStuer|8 months ago|reply
Because there's now a payoff for those. Those girls proudly display a whole slew of these on their 'bio' because the societal framework they live in 'scores' them on their 'oppression/victim' status.
[+] [-] jowea|8 months ago|reply
Anyway here's the relevant trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeasuringTheMari...
[+] [-] djoldman|8 months ago|reply
Knowing you have ADHD, childhood trauma, attachment issues, etc. is useless if that knowledge does not enable you to take action or if you don't intend to take action.
Unless you just enjoy the learning for the learnings sake, seek to learn so as to plan and execute.
[+] [-] _benton|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tmseidman|8 months ago|reply
I also found it ironic that part of the OP's argument was that nobody has personality anymore, they just have problems to solve, and this article seemed to be doing the same thing, but for culture at large; reducing it to a problem to be solved.
[+] [-] cowboyscott|8 months ago|reply
This is the rejection of science applied to a less common target.
[+] [-] freehorse|8 months ago|reply
Moreover, a lot of things were simpler in ways that are becoming less and less ok. People now can divorce; marriage is not even need to start a family. Navigating relationship dynamics was simpler in the sense that there were (more or less) specific roles each gender should abide. Many marriages were arranged, especially if "it was taking you time", thus you did not have to figure out dating yourself.
I don't think that therapeutic discourse is a good strategy. Medicalising personhoods and relationships is bad, but going back to a (romanticised) past cannot be a solution at all. Raising to a higher consiousness would be an actual, good solution, but that takes time. It is uncertain if we have that with the speed that things move nowadays.
[+] [-] stanislavb|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] armchairhacker|8 months ago|reply
For example, sometimes people talk about lowercase "t" and capital "T" trauma. Lowercase "t" is when something affects you enough that recognizing it elicits an emotion, e.g. some people fell uneasy when smelling saline because they associate it with getting shots when they were young. Uppercase "T" is when the emotion is overpowering, e.g. soldiers who wake up screaming or experience lifelike flashbacks when they see military equipment, or people who can't visit a location without panicking because it reminds them of a negative experience. Only uppercase "T" is diagnosed PTSD, although that doesn't mean lowercase "t" is never a problem, it's just not life-altering and can be worked around without medication or therapy.
We have regular adjectives for the manageable "lowercase" version of disorders. "Obsessive" for OCD, "antsy" or "trouble focusing" for ADHD, "strange" or "peculiar" for Autism. I do think someone can be "manic" or "depressed" without having diagnosed Bipolar or Depression. Unfortunately, language is defined by how it's used in practice, so if most people call themselves "ADHD" when they don't have real diagnosed ADHD, you'll have to use their meaning to understand them, and eventually it'll become the norm; but you can speak and write the non-disorder adjective to help counter it. Worst case, we still have "diagnosed X" to distinguish from "X" (unless people start using it like "literally" to mean figuratively...)
[+] [-] xivzgrev|8 months ago|reply
For example, generosity is not the same as people pleasing. They can look the same, but one is born of love and one is born of fear.
We generally want to help people experience more love and less suffering. Give, not to please people, but to please yourself.
[+] [-] bravetraveler|8 months ago|reply
I was a perfectly fine and productive remote worker before the pandemic. Now, every bit of energy I have goes towards "no, really, I'm alright" and the leagues of hustlers.
[+] [-] unknown|8 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NoPicklez|8 months ago|reply
There is a lot of this content out there about mental health and there is a lot of it that tries to explain everything people do. Much of the issue I see is that it is taken to extremes and is very much driven by algorithms pushing particular pieces of content. And if it is ambiguous enough it will reach a larger audience, a beneficial sign for the account posting it.
There's no room for nuance that perhaps the person who is generous both has qualities of a people pleaser but is a generous person because once upon a time they did a generous thing and it made their life happier. Where it becomes a mental health issue is when it starts to reduce the quality of your life and your relationships significantly.
The bigger issue is that each of these things seem to be labelled as problems and how they can be solved, not managed nor be normal human behaviors. At the extremes, yes perhaps they need to be managed to a higher degree, but everything else is still what makes up peoples lives.
I myself am swarmed with reels about anxious/avoidant attachment reels with any random man/women and their dog trying to talk ambiguously about human behaviors and providing an explanation for them.
For young people sitting on TikTok and Instagram late at night being bombarded with mental health related reels trying to explain your behavior and other peoples behavior you like or don't like. It's best to give that type of content a break.
[+] [-] kshahkshah|8 months ago|reply
To explain everything shallowly by looking for direct cause and effect and not a multitudes of causes and effects. That complexity is too much to think through comfortably whilst living within it and having an unreliable experience of the self, especially in the younger years. Labeling causes with an easy broad moniker provides temporary comfort, relieving the individual of the burden of deeper reflection.
[+] [-] kristjank|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zug_zug|8 months ago|reply
2. Personally, I think the being more knowledgeable about (and conversant in) common psychological issues is great. Much better if we have a label for "depression" rather than just thinking "The world and everything is awful and I'm the only one who feels this way." Same for anxiety, attachment, all of that.
3. If young girls happen to co-opt it in a way you find self-absorbed, get over it, stop trying to police it and make a fake moral panic over it. It's no worse than astrology or whatever other loose avenue of self-exploration would be otherwise happening.
It to me sounds like the author fundamentally misunderstands the whole thing, this just is soaking in boomer energy. That is -- the premise that recognizing these trends is somehow shaming/bad and it's "better" if we all use loosely-defined unscientific terms like "nice-person" rather than looking at and challenging our overly intense and dysfunctional people-pleasing or whatever.
The way gen-z uses these terms, is that they aren't some hardcore disorder, but as a common parlance for real and addressable things to change about oneself (e.g. that talking on the phone can be uncomfortable, or making an appointment is stressful). Like gen-z may say "Oh I have insecure attachment" and they just mean "Sometimes I'm afraid to reach out for fear of rejection" and that's a healthy thing to talk about, even if the term they used is used a different way in the DSM.
[+] [-] jongjong|8 months ago|reply
Then when it came to 'targeted advertising', social media advertisers could just target the labels and reach a huge amount of people because those people had already fine-tuned and optimized themselves to be receptive to that kind of messaging.
Their personalities were homogenized to the point that the focus groups ended up being representative of the real people behind the labels.
[+] [-] ViolentMoon|8 months ago|reply
The absence of labels is just as much of a marketing gimmick as their presence. Even anti-identitarianism will be weaponized. Even nothing is something. Eliminate all the labels and concepts and redundancies, and you are yet left with a "natural, unspoken, normal default" state of being.
And as it turns out, there are plenty of forces out there willing to exploit that appeal towards the "the unspoken", for either financial or political gain. The question remains, then: who or what gets to determine this unspoken part of life?