
Help Wanted: America’s love affair with amateur advice - behoove
https://www.weeklystandard.com/caitrin-keiper/asking-for-a-friend-review-help-wanted
======
nimbius
As an auto mechanic by trade, ive got a theory about this. People love amateur
advice because they cant afford the shop rate.

In the US im guessing we like it because the cost in terms of healthcare fees
and social stigma is likely a high enough bar to entry that people find
amateur help more accessible. Mental health in the US has a sad stigma. men
are supposed to be rocks of silence and discipline, women are supposed to be
strong and independent, we really leave little room for variance.

as for "the shop rate" its exactly why my neighbor asks me about his car when
Im picking mint from the herb garden and not while im swinging deadblow
hammers in the shop. $70-$120 an hour really puts a damper on your ability to
get help any other way. I guess psychiatrists charge way more, but if
insurance never chips in, I guess chamomile tea and dear dotty columns are the
next best thing. But these arent scientific and they certainly dont help.

Just like pouring gallons of engine repair snakeoil in the crank case. Its
something, its just not going to fix the problem. It will let you ignore it
long enough until it becomes a blown head. or i guess in the case of mental
health, a meltdown in a crowded office or something that comes with an assault
charge and a rap sheet.

------
DoreenMichele
_Q: What qualifies this group for the position of beacon to the masses?

A: Not a blessed thing._

If you pay a psychiatrist, you have to worry that they have a conflict of
interest. If you really get well, you won't need them anymore. They have an
inherent motive to help you only enough to take credit for things going
better, not enough to set you free from needing their services.

If you turn to family, coworkers, or friends, the odds are very high that you
will face similar conflicts of interest. Family inheritance. Family allies
(the "favorite" child/sibling/cousin). Etc.

It's really hard to find someone to talk to whose personal biases are less
problematic than those entrenched ties. A stranger or advice columnist may not
give good advice, but they are somewhat less likely to give advice designed to
encourage you to cut your own throat for their personal benefit.

People like me who like actually being useful and hate that kind of crap are
sometimes drawn to giving advice for free in online forums. I read this
because the title made me think it would be about that trend. There are
endless places on the internet where you can anonymously ask for advice
without admitting to your boss that you don't actually know how to do X or
admitting to your spouse that you are thinking of leaving, etc. I think a
similar article about that in specific would likely be far more interesting.

~~~
criley2
A psychiatrist that behaves as you describe is literally engaging in
malpractice.

You are a perfect example of what the article describes: your rationalization
process for mistrusting experts _seems_ rational at first glance, but upon
closer examination it falls apart as quite simply an irrational fear used to
rationalize not trusting an expert.

The thing about free advice online is that... you didn't go to school for 4-6
years and practice under an established expert for years further to learn how
to give good advice the right way.

The idea that some jack in an online forum will provide better advice than a
licensed psychiatrist simply because you're irrationally afraid that the
psychiatrist will engage in malpractice -- frankly it's ludacris! It's
literally insane to me.

But this is how we end up with an America where multiple doctors diagnose you
with cancer but your Facebook Group swears by essential oils and power
crystals....

~~~
DoreenMichele
_A psychiatrist that behaves as you describe is literally engaging in
malpractice._

Not if he is giving the standard advice everyone in the industry gives. There
are lots of conditions where the standard expectation is that "people like you
don't really get well" and "symptom management is the name of the game." It
would be considered malpractice to even tell people with certain diagnoses
that you will shoot for curing them.

But if you don't even try to get someone well, if you only shoot for muddling
through, don't you think that has bearing on the kind of results you get? If
actually getting them well isn't even a goal, no, of course, you won't get
them well.

~~~
criley2
_Not if he is giving the standard advice everyone in the industry gives. There
are lots of conditions where the standard expectation is that "people like you
don't really get well" and "symptom management is the name of the game." It
would be considered malpractice to even tell people with certain diagnoses
that you will shoot for curing them._

This is not a fair summary of your previous point. You previously implied that
a psychiatrist will maliciously give information they know to be against the
patient's interests purely to continue a financial relationship.

In this second post, you have walked back your irrational and ridiculous claim
from "a psychiatrist will give you bad advice so you pay them forever to" "a
psychiatrist will offer you evidence and science based advice that doesn't lie
to you about your condition or future and instead seeks to give you the best
options or advice that evidence teaches us can help"

Sure, that sounds great to me. That's why you trust an expert.

Now you seem to be mostly upset that a specific mental illness or condition
isn't curable and may be permanent as the result of damage or pathology, and
are blaming humanity's best experts for not having a panacea for your
troubles.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I haven't walked anything back. An awful lot of people are woefully misreading
what I said in a much more negative light than I intended, then acting like I
changed my story when I try to communicate about the issue.

It's probably best for me to walk away at this point. Most of the remarks here
do not strike me as good faith engagement.

~~~
jestgrade
If lots of people are simultaneously misunderstanding you in the exact same
way, it's probably not that they're all stupid and malicious.

Cf. [https://xkcd.com/1984/](https://xkcd.com/1984/)

~~~
slededit
Its a malicious rhetorical tool to use attempts at clarification as evidence
of retreat. That's what politicians do. People here are not professional
communicators, you can't expect them to say things perfectly the first time.

------
gowld
> Sure enough, Savage Love and its equivalents at every conceivable type of
> publication are considered “undignified reading material” carrying “a whiff
> of shame,” writes Jessica Weisberg

An ironic (and unsubstantiated) claim from _amateur_ anthropologist Jessica
Weisberg.

~~~
hluska
Have you read the book?

