
The Shamanic View of Mental Illness (2010) - pmoriarty
http://www.jaysongaddis.com/the-shamanic-view-of-mental-illness/
======
kerkeslager
I'm an atheist and don't believe in spirits, but when I came across a
viewpoint similar to this a few years ago it really changed how I empathize
with people.

I really don't agree with how widely we apply the disease model when thinking
of human behaviors. Some people are mentally ill, but the world we live in is
more certainly ill. The expected arc of a life in the Western world is that
you spend your healthy years working on other people's goals so you can spend
the last few years of your life doing what you want with what resources you've
amassed and what health you have remaining. We wage wars and torture, reward
greed, deny each other healthcare, homes, food, our leaders are cartoon
villains. If we manage to find love, it is discriminated against unless it
fits into a narrow set of parameters. If we are unlucky, we are born, starve
for a few years, and then die of preventable, curable disease.

Happy participation in this society is not rational. As Krishnamurti said, "It
is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a sick society." I have been
lucky in the opportunities that I have had available to me, but it's not hard
for me to conceive of situations where the rational choice is to drink oneself
to death. Life is unkind to many people.

The ideal solution is to fix all of the world's ills, but obviously that isn't
realistic, at least not in our lifetimes. We can make progress, but help will
arrive too late for many. I can empathize with those who choose to say that
the individual is sick, rather than the world, because the individual is
easier to change.

But it's simply not true in some cases. Instead of telling someone, "Something
is wrong with you, let's fix it," we should often be telling them, "You're
right, there's a lot wrong with your life and the world, and much of that
can't be changed; let's see if we can find a way to find you some contentment
despite that."

To be very clear: some people are mentally ill. Individuals can be ill AND the
world's can be ill. The two are not mutually exclusive.

~~~
benevol
> I'm an atheist and don't believe in spirits

I'm not sure what you mean by "believing in spirits". But our origin is of
spiritual nature and this "materialistic" world we experience is just one
(temporary) expression of it.

There is more than one healer who claims that a certain percentage of
"schizophrenic" people are not actually ill, but have a heightened level of
sensitivity, meaning they receive information coming from "the other side"
(from our "source"). Hearing voices can therefor be part of that. Some call
such people "psychics".

Here's an example of such a person (healer):
[http://www.miraclescome.com/en/the-book-
summary/excerpts](http://www.miraclescome.com/en/the-book-summary/excerpts)

~~~
MacsHeadroom
People who care a about empiricism call them psychotic.

If there was something real to this "other side" it would be reliably
reproducible. Yet no well formulated double blind follow up study has ever
reproduced any psychic phenomena.

Not to mention, I can trick a "psychic" every time with acting.

~~~
retreatguru
This book changed by view on the subject: [https://www.amazon.ca/Twenty-
Suggestive-Reincarnation-Revise...](https://www.amazon.ca/Twenty-Suggestive-
Reincarnation-Revised-Enlarged/dp/0813908728)

------
findateamfirst
I went through a pretty intense major depressive episode (6 months not getting
out of bed) plus chronic dissociation and depression. End to end from the
onset of the episode to reaching a point where I feel I'm "fully actualized"
took 6 years. During that process I went from being one of the angriest and
most unpleasant people to being very happy with many close relationships, and
a clear sense of purpose.

My mental health crisis was absolutely a wake up call. It lead me to make
significant structural changes to my approach to phenomenology, aesthetics,
morality, and epistemology. I totally restructured my moment to moment
experience of existence.

~~~
mikelyons
How did you do this? I spend almost every waking moment fantasizing about
ending my life

~~~
oheard
The key thing is to realise that YOU control your thoughts. We're creatures of
habits. YOU choose what to think whether you realise it or not.

Something within you associates the feeling of "depression" with reward.

Actively review your history, your relationships, patterns of behaviour. Look
at your own thought processes critically, document them, decide how you want
to think instead, and force yourself to think in the new way.

You control not just what you think but how you feel. You can feel how you
want to feel. That's the key. Once you decide or are told you're "depressed"
you "accept" that you have an "illness" and internalise it. Stop doing that
shit. Ignore those bastards. Change how you think.

This is basically CBT. You have to actively control your thought processes to
change them to something you want. Once you've done that for a while it
becomes the new default.

Don't allow yourself to think things that don't help you. When you start
fantasising about death, don't let yourself think about it. Force yourself to
make plans for the next few days or something instead. When you think "I don't
have the energy/motivation to make plans because I'm 'depressed'", tell
yourself, "I'm not allowed to think that, instead I'm going to MAKE THE
FUCKING PLANS".

Fuck all that bullshit about "chemical imbalances". You know what that means?
It means your brain is wired wrong. Those chemicals? The sames ones everyone
else has. Wanna know what the imbalance is? YOU LEARNED TO BEHAVE IN THE WRONG
WAY, SO YOUR WIRING IS ALL FUCKED UP. Those neurotransmitters are going
exactly where they've learnt to go.

YOU have to retrain your brain. Fuck everything people have told you about
being "mentally ill". Recognise your brain as a learning machine and TEACH
THAT MOTHER FUCKER HOW TO BEHAVE.

Life sucks? You either learn how to change it or learn how to change what you
think about it.

You think those poor mother fuckers in third world countries with just enough
food to eat who save up for years to buy a BICYCLE are depressed? FUCK NO THAT
MOTHER FUCKER GOT HIS BICYCLE. He's 40 years old, barely feeding his family,
but he's got a smile so wide he lights up every mother fucking heart in his
village.

You know WHY? Because he doesn't think about why things are shit. He thinks
about why things are SHIT HOT. MOTHER FUCKING BIKE HAS A BELL CHECK THAT SHIT
OUT.

YOU define your reality. YOU define how you perceive the world. With a great
deal of influence from those around you.

Surrounded by mother fuckers who are "depressed"? Get the fuck away from them.
Find happy people. Catch their disease instead.

Control your thoughts, control your environment, discipline your brain to only
allow you to think things that help you. Fuck everything else.

That's how you cure depression. You control what you think by understanding
why you think what you think right now and throwing away the bad shit and
keeping the good shit.

Do yourself a favour. Next time you think "I should be dead". Think "lol brain
you're not allowed to think that shit anymore", SMILE and write down some shit
you're grateful for. Call your friends/family and chat about some good shit
that went down in the past. Think about the people who have done good shit for
you over the years, and how happy it makes you that those mother fuckers
exist.

Think of the mother fucker who you're most grateful for. Why do you like them
so much? How did they make you feel? GOOD. Now go make other people feel like
that. Be happy. Make other people happy. Feed on their happiness.

"But I want to die". Shut the fuck up brain you're not allowed to think that.
Hey brain, remember that fucking awesome ice cream we ate last week? Yeah that
was some good shit. I should show someone that ice cream, they'll like that
shit. Remember that kid we used to hang out with when we were kids? Wonder
what he's doing with his life now. We laughed our fucking cocks off at such
and such. What a good memory.

What's that brain, feels good? Yeah, yeah it does feel fucking good. That's
why you're gonna think good shit from now on brain. BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD.

Fuck. Think good stuff. Don't allow yourself to think bad stuff. Make it a
habit. Eventually you stop thinking bad stuff.

Make plans. Make people happy. Feed on happiness. Think of good memories. No
good memories? Go fucking make some. Then think about them.

Fuck depression. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Here have a hug. They're free. Pass it on. Have a smile too these fuckers are
great. :-D

Okay I'm done.

~~~
cup
This is painfully condescending.

~~~
johnchristopher
And painfully wrong.

For instance:

> The key thing is to realise that YOU control your thoughts. We're creatures
> of habits. YOU choose what to think whether you realise it or not.

Rather, you choose what to think of those thoughts you have.

~~~
alphapapa
Are you saying that it's impossible to control your thoughts?

Saying that "you choose what to think" means that you can control your
thoughts.

You seem to be operating with unusual definitions of "think" and "thoughts" if
thinking does not result in thoughts.

~~~
DanBC
CBT isn't as simple as "you can control your thoughts". It's a carefully
structured plan of therapy to give a person the skills and techniques they
need to control thoughts.

By saying, and repeating "you can control you're thoughts" without giving any
of the detail of CBT you're merely telling people with depression to just
think themselves happy.

Also, people with OCD will find it harder to control their thoughts, and
people with psychosis may find it impossible without medication.

------
boomboomsubban
From my experience, it sounds like they're pinning the cause of the illness on
their ancestors, allowing the mind to get past the fear that fixing the
problem involves a destruction of yourself.

Conventional psychology tries to do something similar by saying these problems
are a chemical imbalance or a dysfunction of the brain, but both of those are
hard for a person dealing with the illness to separate from "your mind or
yourself is wrong." This is a terrifying idea that only gets worse when an
illness goes untreated for long periods.

When the only life you remember is depressed, if you work towards fixing it
you find the things you like, the friends you've made, and the life you've
built will pull you back towards depression. This overcomes all of that by
putting you in a new situation and setting a new path for your life.

The causes they claim seem silly to me, it's not far away from "of course you
have cancer you unrepentant sinner," but some aspects of their treatment
methods seem helpful.

------
mentalprivacy
This is a pretty interesting perspective. I'm someone who was 'diagnosed' with
severe depression not that long ago. Treatment in the USA is drugs and talk
therapy, but this is an interesting perspective. Maybe depression is a call
from a higher being to wake up in your life and make big changes on your path,
to adopt a different mindshift. That could be evolutionary adaptive, and it's
more inspiring than the medical communities approaches.

~~~
robotresearcher
> Maybe depression is a call from a higher being

What's the more likely explanation:

(1) various different conditions including depression and psychosis are calls
from a higher being, not thus far sensible to science; or

(2) the brain, a vastly complex organ with significant structure and dynamics,
grown out of meat from a tiny unique egg and trained over decades of unique
experience, works a bit differently to the norm in some people, in ways that
can be distressing.

Occam's Razor is tingling.

~~~
pmoriarty
This reminds me of a story by Wynette Barton:

 _" When my son was four or five years old, he asked one of those interminable
questions that children ask: 'Why does the sky get dark at night?'_

 _" Eager to increase his understanding, I put a lamp in the middle of the
floor to act as the sun, got down the world globe, and used a tennis ball for
the moon. Then I walked around the "sun", carrying the globe and turning it,
explaining how we are suspended in space, constantly moving. It was the
universe in a nutshell - sun, earth, moon, stars, seasons._

 _" My son watched the production with silent, squint-eyed attention. When I
finished, he said to me, 'You don't expect me to believe that, do you?'"_

For a lot of people, the supernatural explanation is the simpler explanation.
The so-called "scientific" (or more properly Scientistic[1] or maybe
Naturalistic[2]) world view rests on explanation after explanation that takes
years and years of education to even understand, much less accept.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29)

~~~
ikeyany
Does it really take years and years of education to comprehend that the Earth
is spinning around the sun?

~~~
averagewall
It's not obvious that the sun isn't spinning around the earth instead. You
could use coordinate acceleration in an earth-centered frame and the sun would
be spinning around the earth. That's equally as correct as the conventional
view. So I think a test can be that if someone doesn't understand that the sun
is spinning around the earth, then they probably don't actually understand at
the earth is spinning around the sun - they just believe it.

I'm a physics teacher, and most teenagers don't have a clue about this at all.
They think astronauts float around in space because there's no gravity there.
If there's no gravity, then how does the earth stay in orbit around the sun?
That shows they really don't understand it at all. It's difficult and you have
to actually think hard over a long time to make all the pieces fit together.

------
wu-ikkyu
Metaphysics aside, which model for dealing with mental illness do you think
would have the least adverse effects on one's fragile mental state?

1) a model which stigmatizes you for life and rejects you as a functioning
member of society and has the supra legal power to subject you to a vast array
of human rights abuses including but not limited to: indefinite detention,
solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, forced drugging, and other forms of
psychological torture[1].

2) a model which accepts and respects you as a member of society

[1][https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/29gr27/redditors...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/29gr27/redditors_who_were_involuntarily_admitted_to/)

~~~
crusso
Some other questions that may be more relevant:

    
    
      * Which model is more likely to prevent someone with mental illness from harming himself or others because of incorrect diagnosis?
      * Which model is more likely to lead to scientifically sound treatments for his malady?
      * Which model is more likely to encourage people to generally think rationally about the real world around us?
    

Science isn't embraced because it's always right and every impact of its
rational-based methodology doesn't have any losers anywhere. The shaman and
the priest and the holistic healer all tend to be on the losing end of the
argument when Science is given primacy. The tradeoffs of Science vs everything
else have proven to be worth it over and over.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
By science, do you mean objectively observable/testable inquiry and analysis?
Because that's not what psychiatry is. Medical pathology is an objective
science, but psychiatry is subjective conjecture, generously classified as a
"soft science".

>The tradeoffs of Science vs everything else have proven to be worth it over
and over.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law here but it is worth noting the key role
"science" and psychiatry played in propagating the Holocaust[1]. If we're
going to play the science card, we should make sure it's objective.

[1][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511221](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511221)

Edit: curious you spell Science with a capital "S"

~~~
crusso
I'm not going to defend psychiatry as hard science, but it is scientifically-
based. Theories exist based upon our existing data. Studies are performed.
Experiments are performed. Data is analyzed and old theories are discarded
because they don't match the data while new theories are proposed to explain
the data. Furthermore, other hard sciences in biology and chemistry feed into
psychiatry to provide the basic framework.

The problem with psychiatry isn't that they aren't trying or that they're not
going about it the best way that we know how. The problem is that the human
mind is still too complex at the macro level to be easily testable. But
Science has shown again and again that it's the best way to go about
determining how reality works. We shouldn't abandon it now and prefer
delusional thinking because it has a minor winner in making a patient feel
better. That said, tell the patient whatever he may want to hear in the
psychiatric ward. Just don't try to pass it off as legitimate outside of the
mental institution.

Regarding capitalization: Sometimes I find it helpful capitalize schools of
thought that embody more than just a casual set of principles. I can do some
science in the lab, but not really have a lot of trust in Science as a way to
live life, run society, and generally approach problem solving. I do the same
thing when writing about being liberal vs being "a Liberal".

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>The problem is that the human mind is still too complex at the macro level to
be easily testable

I agree this is the root problem, which is why I think psychiatry, if it wants
to be a legitimate medical science, should adhere to medical ethics, i.e.
_primum non nocere_. Otherwise, psychiatry patients are akin to lab rats.

------
jaygaddis
Hey guys Jayson Gaddis here. This post is on my blog. What's fascinating to me
is how many people this post has struck a chord with. Clearly our culture's
approach to mental illness if exceedingly limited.

And, fortunately, there is growing research with psychedelics and
"alternative" substances such as MDMA, Ibogaine, psilocybin, and even LSD as
legitimate forms of healing PTSD, trauma, and various ailments people suffer
from.

I really appreciate everyone's comments here. Hundreds of thousands of people
have read this post. 15,000 people have joined a private facebook group to
share their stories. Wow.

This post is 7 years old. Now I'm a relationship student and teacher and run
The Smart Couple Podcast to help individuals and couples learn better tools
and skills for long-term partnership. I also founded The Relationship School™
because I believe the source of so many of the world's problems are relational
in nature. My aim is to eventually bring relationship education to teens and
young adults everywhere.

Thanks for reading and engaging guys!

Respect, Jayson

------
thisisforyou
I'm pretty ashamed to see this sort of stuff making the front page of HN. If
an argument for a similarly archaic and backwards explanation was posted about
some other topic (this sort of stuff is on par with heliocentrism, creationism
and homeopathy, at best) it would be ignored, but for some reason (it's hard
for me to pin down exactly, but perhaps because it has to do with mental
illness?) it is given a free pass.

~~~
coleifer
Thank you for your comment. It's a shame. Only the most ignorant or naive
reader could believe this garbage.

My youngest brother was diagnosed with schizophrenia a decade ago. I've
watched him cycle through horrible psychotic episodes for years until he
gained insight into his illness and agreed to start taking medicine. It's only
since then that he's been freed from the voices that tormented him, and the
paranoid delusions he would obsess over. He would tell you that there's
nothing spiritual about the symptoms of his illness.

I'd also note that the guy who posted this also recently posted an article on
LSD micro-dosing. Tells you a bit about where he's coming from...

~~~
metaphorm
do you know for certain that LSD micro-dosing has no merit? there are
significant indicators that it might have quite a lot of merit.

------
armitron
This process has been known for thousands of years in the west and falls under
the term "Initiation" (1), when it is deliberately induced and not as a result
of trauma or other pathological causes.

In modern terms, it can be described as mind reprogramming. Moreover, in my
view, all of the useful techniques for inducing and successfully guiding such
a process, come out of the western mystical tradition and include tools such
as the Tarot and the Hermetic Qabala.

The modern non-mystical paradigms (psychology, new age spirituality and
religion) and various disparate shamanic systems are lacking too much in terms
of understanding and are thus too imprecise and even dangerous if taken too
far.

(1)
[http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=716ACCF7F16455CD2EE...](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=716ACCF7F16455CD2EED7DA72AE0DD96)

~~~
pmoriarty
It's really debatable how much understanding mystical, magical, shamanistic,
religious, or occult traditions have themselves.

You'll note first of all that many of them disagree with one another as to
what is really going on in the world. Is it spirits that are controlling what
happens in the world, or is it ghosts, or ancestor, or God, or gods, or
demons, or what? It's any or all of them or none of them, depending on which
mystic, magician, Kabbalist, or shaman you ask. If they had some kind of
understanding of what was going on, you'd think they could at least agree on
the baseline of what was happening, but they don't.

Next, it's quite possible to be effective while being mistaken about the
nature of the underlying phenomenon or the mechanism (figuratively speaking)
at work. There's a great Radiolab episode on placebos that has a number of
very entertaining examples on this front.[1]

Finally, history has shown that human fallibility and potential for self-
deception is vast if not unlimited, and the potential for abuse of controlling
the narrative around the nature of the world is great. I'd be very wary of
anointing any world view as the one that has the secret key to understanding.

[1] -
[http://www.radiolab.org/story/91539-placebo/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91539-placebo/)

~~~
armitron
It's not the worldview or the underlying philosophy that's important, but the
techniques themselves.

And when it comes to the techniques, the western esoteric tradition is without
equal. Moreover, in many cases, the techniques have been obscured behind
layers and layers of metaphysics (occult knowledge) and a superficial
examination of the material will quickly lead one to reject it. Which is why
traditionally, such knowledge was passed down in chains of transmission
through teacher-student relationships.

These days, most of that knowledge is no longer occult ("hidden") but it's
been obscured by vast amounts of garbage, a lot of it falling under the so
called new age/wicca/esoteric psychology categories.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" It's not the worldview or the underlying philosophy that's important, but
the techniques themselves."_

From a certain perspective, that could be true. But it very much depends on
your perspective.

For instance, what is actually going on when you, say, sign that contract with
the handsome cloven-hoofed gentleman at the crossroads, could very much
matter. It could matter much more than the symptom relief or other worldly
benefits you might experience from the "technique".

Similarly, whether it's a loa mounting you or just an expression of your
subconscious could also very well matter.

Whether the knowledge which is not occult or esoteric reveals anything of
value that once was also really depends on who you ask. Some might say the
really secret knowledge has never been revealed to profane outsiders, and is
kept secret for the elect, and what has been published is false, no matter
what some others might claim. Many also believe that the true knowledge is
only passed on directly from teacher to student, sometimes non-verbally or
even supernaturally, and can not be expressed in words.

But who knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff here? Certainly not me.

~~~
armitron
One reason I used the term "western esoteric tradition" is to exclude things
like the loa or the cloven-hoofed gentleman at the crossroads ..

By this term, I am referring to a consistent stream of philosophy and induced
brain-change practices, that provided the underlying foundation for
Christianity and Judaism (the bible and the Zohar were written by qabalists).
Some scholars place its beginnings in ancient Greece and Egypt.

Of course, if one goes looking for these practices in modern Christian texts,
one will come away empty as they've been diluted to uselessness or removed
altogether. But if one looks at early Gnostic texts or immerses him/herself in
the Western esoteric tradition then said practices will be laid out in a clear
manner. They spell out a consistent system that is well-defined and amazingly
sophisticated. It is humbling to think that "primitive savages" possessed a
better understanding of the human mind hundreds of years ago, than most
scientists do today.

------
_pmf_
I honestly believe that (at least for the siberian variant of shamanism) a)
conceptually, this is not very far from modern psychotherapy and b) the
implementation is more straight forward than the instruments of modern
psychotherapy and c) this article is pretty much bullshit

------
blhack
Here's the medical view on depression:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc)

Robert Sapolsky is a genius. Listen to this lecture, please.

------
zyxzevn
As someone who can work with both worlds, I am already helping some
psychiatric patients (together with certified professionals).

I help them first with some simple meditations: it really helps them to learn
to focus. Focus on the body and emotions. Often their thinking has run wild
and that causes them to overstress and think unclearly. By just breathing and
if possible, feeling they can get their senses back slowly. It already helps
with people that have a light psychosis.

The spirits, as I perceive them, are often in a psychosis themselves. Others
are in a huge depression, or in an extreme panic. They can feel like a cloud
enveloping the mind. It draws us into their world, if we are not grounded
well. That is why people that are close together can get into the same
psychiatric problem.

People often call these spirits the "negative voice" or inner demon. But it is
a bit more complex than that. Spirits are part of the consciousness of people
that have died, and have not returned to their source. They lost contact with
themselves, and with reality. They identify themselves with anything that they
can attach themselves to. So when you are very stressed due to work or life,
it can happen that a spirit joins your experience and identifies itself with
you. And suddenly you "lose your mind". In deeper stages this can lead to
depression or psychosis or other psychiatric problems.
[https://imgur.com/gallery/SOS4E](https://imgur.com/gallery/SOS4E)

By removing the spirits, a person can recover his/her own mind. I have often
spoken with people in total panic and seen them calm down in a few minutes
after removing the spirits. Depression and psychosis take a bit longer,
because there are more factors involved. But there have been some
improvements.

In scientific sense it all seems impossible, since we have no models for
spirits or consciousness or whatever. I am working on that on
[http://www.reddit.com/r/paradigmchange](http://www.reddit.com/r/paradigmchange)

Medicine can help to slow everything down, but does not magically remove the
psychosis or depression. It makes it less active. Modern medicine works by
slowing down so much that most stress can go away, after which the patient can
recover. Sadly that means that the patient can sometimes fall back into the
same psychosis or depression if the medicine is stopped or when it has grown
less effective.

To heal better, it is always good to learn to meditate and regain control over
your own mind. Mindfulness can already be effective. Enjoying some peace in
nature works very well too.

~~~
alphapapa
> Spirits are part of the consciousness of people that have died, and have not
> returned to their source. They lost contact with themselves, and with
> reality. They identify themselves with anything that they can attach
> themselves to. So when you are very stressed due to work or life, it can
> happen that a spirit joins your experience and identifies itself with you.

Upon what do you base this claim?

~~~
alphapapa
LOL, what? GP claims that depression is caused by the disconnected
consciousnesses of dead people, I challenge the claim, my comment gets
downvoted, and his doesn't? Is this Hacker News: Dark Mirror?

------
Nekorosu
This isn't a complete bullshit. I have had similar experience. My problem is
I've been having this kind of experience every several years including long
depression phase with some breakthrough in the end of it with "I'm smart and
feel high" phase next. I absolutely had some real breakthroughs both spiritual
and psychological (I was visiting a shrink) but in the end the cycle was
there.

Finally I've got help from a professional physician and psychiatrist (not the
same person) and now I'm taking pills to treat my inherited hypothyroidism and
Type 2 Bipolar Disorder. The only thing left is to find a good shrink
(probably CBT) 'cause living with untreated BPD for a long time leaves your
mind in a overshadowed state with a lot of negative self-believes and harmful
mental habits.

------
johnchristopher
> That what we sometimes call depression, bi-polar, psychosis, schizophrenia,
> might actually be a significant transformation in consciousness and a
> necessary stage on the path of human development.

Right. You'll tell that to the guy who put me on a police watch list and cost
me a job opportunity because he reported me (and two other persons) for
computer fraud and illegal access to his computers. Because he thought he had
seen photographies of his sister's wedding on my computer screen. And I was
hand in hand with koreans forcing him to sleep so they can launch missiles
over Japan.

/anger

tldr; Nope, mental illness such as bpd, schiz., etc., are illnesses that have
real consequences.

~~~
metaphorm
what you said is a total non-sequitur.

the antisocial behavior of the person who harassed you is a result of poorly
treated mental health issue. to use the shamanic model, this would be a person
who has not been properly guided through a spiritual transformation and
therefore is living in a state of painful unintegrated delusional paranoia. a
shaman's job would be to help them complete that transformation and cease
their antisocial behavior.

~~~
johnchristopher
> the antisocial behavior of the person who harassed you is a result of poorly
> treated mental health issue

Exactly. It's not _a significant transformation in consciousness and a
necessary stage on the path of human development_.

~~~
metaphorm
I don't see the difference. What is mental health treatment besides
"significant transformation in consciousness"?

~~~
johnchristopher
What is sleeping besides "significant transformation in consciousness" ?

Seriously, « That what we sometimes _[0]_ call depression, bi-polar,
psychosis, schizophrenia, might actually be a significant transformation in
consciousness and a necessary stage on the path of human development [1]. » is
loaded with so much personal development and alternative medicine red flags I
am not surprised the only way to defend it is already to start a word
definition war.

[0] derogatory wording. Emphasis is mine [1] are we referring to « humanity »
or to that « individual » ? The whole sentence reads like it's the former
approach.

~~~
metaphorm
it seems to me like because you have a pre-existing bias against the shamanic
model you deliberately use the most uncharitable interpretation possible and
conclude, as you were determined to do so from the outset, that the author is
both derogatory and making statements beyond the scope of the individual
experience. I concluded neither of those things.

I don't think we have anything else to discuss. Have a nice day.

------
dmitrybrant
At least he's not selling anyth... oh, wait....

------
shipman05
Next up on HN, "Practical Guide for Casting Out Demons and Drowning Swine"

------
sixstringtheory
The best part of moving the discussion to a nonfalsifiable premise is that
your assertions can never be "proven" wrong.

This stuff is interesting to think about, but I find it lacking substance to
explain reality with any sort of consensus.

~~~
metaphorm
"explain reality" seems like it is not at all the objective of the Shaman, or
even of a Western mental health worker (psychiatrist, for example). the
objective is to help a suffering person. the measure of success or failure is
whether or not the person is suffering more or suffering less.

even within the positivist worldview you are advocating it is wise to consider
that there are, in fact, non-falsifiable premises underlying some of our most
important tools. mathematics requires axioms. the standard model of physics
requires non-falsifiable assumptions about initial conditions. there is no
escaping this. not everything is falsifiable.

~~~
sixstringtheory
We must first understand the reality of a problem before we can begin to
address it. Redefining "suffering" and "mental illness" to be completely fluid
ideas that depend on who you ask moves us farther from the objective of
helping people, in my opinion.

I don't think we can redefine "suffering" to be a state of spiritual
exaltation and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. You are excusing
a departure from the progress we've made in understanding the human mind
because: not everything is falsifiable, so may as well throw rigor out the
window?

~~~
metaphorm
> We must first understand the reality of a problem before we can begin to
> address it.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. But then, I'm just an engineer,
not a real scientist.

~~~
sixstringtheory
What kind of engineer are you? One of the types that must gain a license to
practice?

Regardless, I'm interested to hear elaboration on how you could fundamentally
disagree that engineers must achieve a rigorous consensus on the facts before
e.g. landing a rocket booster on a moving target in an ocean, after propelling
to low earth orbit.

~~~
metaphorm
I'm a software engineer.

Rigorous consensus on the facts is a completely different statement and
objective than what you originally mentioned, which was "understand the
reality of a problem". you're moving your target here and that discredits your
argument.

We can certainly (and are required to) have a rigorous consensus on the facts
in order to do good engineering (yes, even software engineering). That doesn't
mean we must "understand the reality of the problem". I can fix a bug in my
code without understanding the theory of computation. I do know a lot about
the theory of computation, but it just doesn't come up in my day to day
problem solving. That's the point. The facts that are required to begin
solving a problem are a very restricted sub-domain of the set of all possible
facts that pertain to the problem, and are relatively independent of also
having an understanding of the fundamental theories underlying the domain.

~~~
sixstringtheory
I feel obliged to respond to your accusation that I'm moving the goalposts,
which I don't believe I've done.

I meant "understanding the reality of a problem" insofar as that understanding
can be achieved by more than just the internals of one person's mind by
achieving "a rigorous consensus on the facts" from a group/team/society.

If the team of engineers at SpaceX responsible for landing that rocket booster
had a mixture of people who

1) worked with the known facts governing physics, and 2) believed that
chariots are pulling the sun across the sky, or that the concept of gravity is
a poor approximation of the spiritual energy binding all things,

then I doubt they would have gotten close to success. They would have
fundamental disagreement on the "reality of the problem" (need to land an
object on a floating target) because they'd have no consensus on the facts of
the constraints involved (gravity, thermo/aerodynamics, degrees of freedom,
confidence intervals, probably a bunch more I can't imagine). Those
constraints constitute the reality of the problem.

More to your point of fixing bugs, just because you don't understand every
tenet of theories of computation, does not mean that you can substitute
whatever explanations you imagine for how computers work and they become truth
in reality.

~~~
metaphorm
> insofar as that understanding can be achieved by more than just the
> internals of one person's mind

ok, but let's back up a bit and remember what kind of thing we're discussing.
we're discussing the unusual mental states that some people experience which
causes them some form of suffering. a psychiatrist might call it
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or psychosis.

the subject in question is very much about _the internals of one person 's
mind_. if you're trying to argue that rocket engineering and mental health
services are equivalent I think you've got a lot of explaining to do. if, on
the other hand, you acknowledge that mental health services are not the same
kind of thing as rocket engineering, then maybe we have some grounds to find
agreement on.

I wouldn't ask a shaman to have anything to do with building rockets. I might
ask a shaman to have something to do with mental health services though. Do
you see the distinction?

------
cmrx64
That's one way to look at the world I guess.

~~~
zepto
Having more than one way to look at the world is important.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
It's essential: there's a reason we have physics, chemistry, biology,
neurology, psychology, and sociology. (There are other similar chains of
approximations.)

Each provides a tractably computable approximation to a scale that the
preceding ones can't be worked through at, while also discovering emergent
properties that manifest at that scale.

There's no reason to think that our dominant paradigms in any of those fields
are the only sensible way to approximate the underlying phenomena, and other
(radically different) models might be able to express features present models
struggle with.

~~~
smohare
No evidence? Except for the vast predictive and explanatory power of science
over magical thinking? Please, go ahead and list some major contributions to
humanity of the latter.

~~~
c22
Well, among other things, it gave us science.

------
interfixus
I have consulted the HN guidelines to find a polite way of saying this. Best I
can come up with is "What an utter load of superstitious crap".

Purely anecdotal, of course, but everything I have ever seen confirms a very
clear positive correlation between mental illness and all sorts of dabbling in
various squishy 'spiritual' matters. I don't know which way the influence
goes, but suspect both, really.

The strong version: I believe that if you encounter serious mental health
issues, and you start seeking cure in this strange mumbo jumbo alt.reality,
you will very likely never get well again.

[Typos edited]

~~~
jacobolus
If you ignore all of the “superstitious crap”, what you end up with is: people
experiencing mental illness in this tribe are treated with kindness and
respect, told that they are experiencing something important and special and
helped through their recovery by a patient and sensitive guide, instead of
being told they are broken and thrown into a jail-like setting where they are
treated with drugs that have severe side effects.

~~~
reddytowns
In other words, religion trumps modern medicine for mental illness. I agree,
but I don't see this tribe's beliefs having a special status or better
probability of success above any other religion.

~~~
Nekorosu
There isn't much of a difference between religion and psychology (I'm talking
about applied one, psychotherapy). As far as I remember the only method coming
from evidence-based medicine approach is CBT. Everything else is based on
anecdotal evidence.

The problem of the article is that it ignores physiology which is evidently
related to mental illnesses. A lot of illnesses have genetic factor.

I actually don't like calling inherited conditions illnesses. And I'm talking
about anything including diabetes. You can't get sick with bi-polar disorder
or diabetes. They're given from birth. You can't be completely cured and have
to maintain yourself with medications for the rest of your life.

~~~
krageon
If you have the requisite genetic triggers, bipolar has only a chance of
popping up. It's triggered by circumstances in your life that present
significant stress/hardship.

Next to that, there are also plenty of people that manage to wean themselves
off medication after they've been on it for a few years. It's not something
you're necessarily stuck with for the rest of your life.

~~~
Nekorosu
I hope so. Have you got any links to read about first-hand experience of going
off medications from a person with bipolar disorder?

------
apeace
Apologies if I'm missing something--what is this doing in the front page of
HN?

This person claims he can see spirits perturbing the mentally ill. He claims
he has the cure for schizophrenia. What kind of science or unbiased analysis
is going on here that is OT for HN?

~~~
mikelyons
watch out for dogmatic belief in science and unbiased analysis. Check out the
mechanics of belief

~~~
lutusp
> watch out for dogmatic belief in science

"Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined.
Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part.
In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to
overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would
be called "thinking".

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _Science doesn 't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no
> part._

The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but
scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences,
hunches, and gut feelings.

It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that
anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it.
That's dogmatic belief in science.

~~~
lutusp
> The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but
> scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences,
> hunches, and gut feelings.

Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences,
hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be
able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline
imposed by science.

> It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson
> that anything a scientist says is true ...

That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the
rejection of all authority.

The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in
existence, is _nullius in verba_ , "take no one's word for it." The Society
explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of
Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements
by an appeal to facts determined by experiment."

> That's dogmatic belief in science.

A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts
experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything
looks like a nail.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in
existence, is nullius in verba, 'take no one's word for it.'"_

That might be their motto, but that's certainly not their practice.

It's simply impossible to personally reproduce every scientific study one
reads about, for lack of time, money, staffing, knowledge, skill, etc. So even
if some scientist wanted to reproduce every one exactly as it was done, they
couldn't do it.

Modern science is an edifice built largely on trust. Scientists mostly trust
that what they read about in scientific journals and books (especially ones
outside their specialty), or that someone somewhere has verified it, or could
in principle. Like ants, scientists mostly focus on building their little bit
of the whole, and not try to rebuild the entire anthill every day.

Imagine if some physicist set out to try to personally reproduce every physics
experiment in history to see if the results square up with what he's read
about. Maybe if he lived a thousand years, had hundreds of billions in funding
and mastery of every branch of physics he could do it. But realistically, it's
not even conceivable as a possibility for a single human being.

But even if this hypothetical physicist superman could do it, the "scientific
world view" (if we may call it such) is based on so much more than physics. As
soon as he was finished with physics, this superman would need to move on to
every other branch of science, to personally verify the rest. Not bloody
likely, to say the least.

The skepticism that scientists do have tends to be at the local level, much
like a couple of ants tugging at a little twig. They never tug at every grain
of sand in the entire anthill. At best, they could maybe tug at a part of the
foundation, and maybe the whole anthill will collapse and then they'll build
themselves another one.

~~~
lutusp
> That might be their motto, but that's certainly not their practice.

To whom does "they" refer? You're speaking as though scientists define
science. That would be like arguing that, because murders are committed,
therefore laws against murder serve no purpose.

Because of how science is structured, properly trained practitioners know what
to doubt (i.e. everything but empirical evidence) -- claims are assumed to be
false until supported by empirical evidence (the _null hypothesis_ ). The
alternative is pseudoscience, which uses the opposite presumption -- a claim
is assumed to be true until proven false.

In science, theories remain theories regardless of the evidence -- some
theories have more weight than others, but all are open to falsification using
new evidence.

In pseudoscience, because ideas are assumed true until proven false, and
because most things cannot be proven false, we have Bigfoot, alien abductions,
and virgins claiming to have been raped and taken seriously[1].

Take your pick, but don't assume science is defined by how it's practiced.

p.s. I was just reading a scientific paper and found this:

(from [https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/04/10/genetic-link-to-
str...](https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/04/10/genetic-link-to-stress-and-
depression-questioned/118890.html))

"Culverhouse noted that finally, when it comes to this gene and its connection
to stress and depression, the scientific method has done its job.

“Experts have been arguing about this for years,” he said. “But ultimately
_the question has to be not what the experts think but what the evidence tells
us_. We’re convinced the evidence finally has given us an answer: This
serotonin gene does not have a substantial impact on depression, either
directly or by modifying the relationship between stress and depression."
(emphasis added)

1\.
[https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/](https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/)

------
edem
So where is the proof that this is not just some mumbo jumbo?

------
k__
Oh lord, this site looks like one giant click-bait

------
dubaithrowaway
edit: this was a low-quality post that I should have made. Sorry.

If you are suffering from depression, please seek medical help.

~~~
metaphorm
which yoga teachers have promoted anti-vaccination? did you encounter that
somewhere or are you making up strawmen to lash out against?

~~~
dubaithrowaway
You're right. It was a strawman. I'm sorry.

------
youdontknowtho
I'm all for taking a fresh look at our basic assumptions, but..."seeing
entities" around the patients? Do what now?

------
falcolas
/angry

Tell me, how does dementia lead to the birth of a healer? How does someone
regressing mentally, with their ability to communicate being completely lost,
with their behaviors becoming more and more childlike to the point where they
can't even feed themselves, how does that signify becoming a healer?

The only blessing in watching my grandmother's decline like this is that it
was swift. Six months of hell, of watching someone you love becoming
frustrated at their inability to communicate even the most basic thing. Of
watching them forget how to take basic care of themselves. Of watching a
simple door lock with the code printed right above it being sufficient to keep
them from using that door. Of watching them play with a child's woodworking
set because they no longer know the difference between that and the beautiful
works they used to make with wood.

Fuck this shit. Birth of a healer my ass.

~~~
jonas_b
Chill out, dementia is something very different from schizophrenia.

~~~
falcolas
It's a mental illness, and while the article focuses on schizophrenia (and
depression), they generalize it to all mental illnesses.

I'd be a bit less angry if they hadn't generalized it like that. A bit: how
many "healers" have been lost to their visions, or to their depression? I have
a feeling they'd simply sweep that under the rug as a natural consequence of
seeing the spirits that others can not.

~~~
theoh
The best way to look at it is a corrective to the harmful pathologization of
unusual mental states by psychiatry. Yes, the new-agey claims are not really
plausible. But mental illness is less prevalent in traditional societies where
it is understood in a more nuanced way.

AFAIK dementia patients don't generally get involved in the oppressive and
demeaning psychiatric system. It's a horrible business.

It is important to listen to the experiences of the "neurodiverse" to
understand how we need to make life better for them. It's true that
schizophrenia is generally a disaster that destroys the life of the sufferer
and the people around them. What needs to be more widely recognized is the
psychosocial aspect of illnesses like schizophrenia, e.g. the extent to which
they are caused by toxic families and/or social circumstances. This is where
"healing" becomes relevant: a psychotic problem can be an opportunity to
change and escape from a toxic situation. Of course, it often has the opposite
effect, when the patient is pathologized, medicated, and told that they are
the problem.

~~~
falcolas
Those "unusual mental states" are not classified as problematic by psychiatry
until they adversely affect the patient's ability to live in modern society.
And if they can't deal with life in a modern society without assistance,
something needs to occur. If the person has the support of their community to
make up for their shortcomings, then great. If they don't have such a
community, then if medicine, CBT, or can help them, why not use it?

As for how dementia is handled in the US? With full time care in lockup
facilities. The few families who try and handle the care themselves fail most
of the time, since it requires around the clock alertness and care, lest the
person with dementia hurt themselves at 3 in the morning.

Also, most of the "neurodiversity" and "unusual mental states" proponents try
to tell me that my ADD is a benefit to my life, that I would have made a great
hunter gatherer. Which is, as the person actually suffering from the ADD on a
daily basis, complete and utter horseshit. I know I couldn't have survived in
such a lifestyle, because I'd die of starvation if I was required to hunt to
survive.

Hunting requires moving in silence; ADD means I'm constantly bumping into
things. Hunting requires sometimes interminable amounts of waiting; I'd get
antsy after ten minutes and have to move. Hunting means being able to
concentrate so when the right moment comes, you're ready to strike; ADD means
I'd be thinking about ways to improve my spear and bow as a buck passes me by.

------
skilled
Nice to see something like this on HN.

~~~
simplexion
I'm thinking the exact opposite.

~~~
ghusbands
As food for thought about how we treat the mentally ill, it is quite
interesting. Hopefully, nobody will go away believing the nonsense about
spirits attaching to people, but the manner in which they give the depressed a
role to grow into and an external reason for their suffering could really help
some. The alternative "you are internally broken" message from modern science
can be unpleasant, even if it's true.

