They have a totally different outlook on life and it's smaller crises.
I don't want to diminish the suffering of current generations but I think everyone looks for something that gives their life focus and if there is no big challenge then people will look for something that makes their life important. To me the last 30 years were sort of stale. The west has no big project to work on and for the not 0.1% life seems to stagnate. So people look for something else to give life meaning. This can be religion or watching scary news and having anxiety over non issues.
Not sure what the solution is but I think somehow people must have a mission in life and the feeling they are going somewhere. Without that anxiety and other psychological problems develop.
America's is a young nation that has been constantly growing and fighting for much of hour history, we have never sat still for long enough to develop a more mature unifying ethos. Our culture is crumbling because it's at odds with the world we now live in.
Being a middle class grown up is not inspiring. Work, code, moderate exercise (no more football), meetings, dinner, pay bond, repeat. Its been pretty much the same for the last 15 years in my case.
I'm only in my late 20s, and I have a friend group that I gather is unusually social, but I sense this type of malaise in my friends too.
I don't understand it at all! I have personal projects in fields I'm no good at, I play and write music, I play intramural sports, I'm learning another language, I read voraciously, I periodically take sabbaticals to do extended travel... My problem is that there aren't enough hours in a year. I can't personally relate to the notion that life is unchallenging, and I would like to understand it. Sure, unlike in school, stimulation won't force itself on you ad mandatory, but that seems like a weak complaint.
One of the only explanations I have for it is that working too much leaves people too mentally exhausted to do much else with their time. If I was stuck with 40 hrs/wk + 2 wks vacation a year I would be pretty miserable, and it occurs to me that this is something I had to recognize and take action on personally. And note that I'm not talking about lower-income folk, for whom "work less, make less" may be unrealistic. As you mentioned, we're talking about middle class or higher.
I've heard that other industries can be far less flexible in terms of how accepting they are of unconventional schedules like time off on between work. Does that fully explain the mismatch you're describing between "I feel unstimulated and yet don't have stimulating hobbies while also having the extra resources to buy the extra time in which to do these hobbies"?
Sorry if this is sort of rambling, but it's something I've been wondering about for at least a few years. I used to think I was odd for not being cut out for the de jure work schedule of the US (not even talking about extra work), but it seems far more universal, even if people won't admit it to themselves and thus do something about it.
Final thought, the source of my anxiety right now is that it is 10pm and I need to go sleep to be fresh for my Monday morning project update meeting. A meeting where I will have to answer pointy haired boss (Dilbert) style questions.
Well don't keep us in suspense, what'd you do about this?
In my current job, I make about 35% less than I did in my last job (incl. expected value of equity). This is probably an outlier due to various details of my career. But it's illustrative of how much I'm willing to walk the talk, since I was very clear on the reasons for the switch and decided that they were worth the cost to me.
I'm not suggesting that everyone has a magical dream job waiting for them at the perfect point on the salary/quality-of-life spectrum. I'm just saying that, at least among all the people I know, it's a lot more in your hands than a lot of people realize (with the caveat reiterated that some industries are just too slow and dumb collectively to treat workers as anything but inflexible cogs.
I figured this out very early on in my work-life after falling into depression after my first work year, which prompted me to re-adjust some things in my life. After I got myself back together I looked for a job to get into it again and have been with my current company almost 3 years now.
EDIT: Oh, also where I'm from there's 5 mandatory vacation weeks per year, so that helps too. I still try to take all my overtime (which I do still accumulate! :)) in time- rather than money-compensation though.
I've had -- partially bad luck; partially trying to accomodate bad advice from authority figures -- a horrible time trying to achieve simply a quiet living space. And a peaceful work environment.
It's not "big, dramatic stuff", but it has dragged on me, day in, day out.
Jobs used to be more secure. Neighbors, even if they were jerks, didn't have so many instruments with which to be so loud. And neighborhoods tended to have more cohesion, including allies when you needed to deal with the jerks.
A lot of people are not being shot at. They are just being chronically, highly stressed. In everyday ways that add up.
P.S. Yes, definitely a U.S. perspective. I'd say "first world", but an increasing portion of the U.S. is actually in the process of leaving the first world, if it ever was in it.
But, there is a level of social isolation here, and a lack of a sense of allies and someone who "has your back", even if at the same time someone else is trying to "take you out".
I guess I can't really compare. I don't have the experience. But, for a lot of people in the U.S., the everyday stuff is plenty stressful. And, it never goes away.
This nails it I think - which then creates a myriad of social issues that end up being a feedback loop. I do also strongly feel the US "suburban" style of living is a large driver of this. The more I travel and the more places I experience I've come to the conclusion that density matters. A lot.
Even small towns were dense walkable communities in many ways until recently. The forced day to day social interactions naturally built up social cohesion and trust - and those cannot be replaced by scheduled human engagement.
The lack of "community" in the US is quite concerning. There are many reasons, but being locked into various boxes (house, car, cube/office) through pretty much 100% of your day has to add up. The natural ebb and flow of a socially vibrant neighborhood just is nonexistent in I'd posit the extreme majority of the US.
I live in an 8-storey high building in an Eastern European capital, and about a couple of hours ago my gf called me telling me she had gotten stuck in the elevator. I was still at work, my work is 20 minutes by foot from home, but not 5 minutes pass and my gf calls me again telling me that a neighbor had helped her get out of the elevator. So, now I know that at least one of my neighbors (whom I don't even know) would be kind enough to get me out of a stuck elevator if I'd ever need it. Also, the small talk you usually do from time to time with your neighbors helps a lot when you're living life as a single person, had I lived in a suburb instead of a very dense neighborhood after my divorce I would have had an even worse depression.
This, I think, is under-recognized. People with phones, cheap stereos, and small portable speakers, have made many places that used to be quiet into noisy areas. Worst is when they are all competing with each other to hear their own music.
Big struggle may not be the recipe for mental health.
You know, there were probably a lot of Germans in 1930 going overboard with politics, yet Hitler got elected.
Bad politics was bad politics back then, and it's bad now, and it's good that there are people trying to lift the quality and substance of political discourse. Even if it means spending weeks debunking clueless, loud and aggressive ignoramuses; going to rallies, writing to reps and senators and so on.
Maybe, as the folks back then weren't too effective, the folks nowadays might be not very effective either, but that doesn't mean the problems are less important.
For example, there are more people now that in the 1940s, and a lot more pollution, and so more people die thanks to pollution than back then, so if you can persuade others to help curb pollution, you help saving millions of people. The same thing goes for other aspects of life.
And yes, people are bad at appreciating the paperpusher numbercruncher aspect of change, and naturally feel the awe and the epicness of a world war.
And the same way a war affects millions a financial crisis, a flood or drought, or an epidemic does too, yet one is a lot more palpable, with good and bad actors, with bad guys to shoot at.
Another interesting aspect is how people treat refugees and civilians (interment of Japanese, sending back Cubans, now the handling of Syrians) which again is a lot less glorious than a world war, but potentially (and likely) affects a lot more people.
But there are real issues voted on. And even if there's no clear path forward, it's important to not go backward!
> It's just "You are bad. No, YOU are bad"
And? It's how ideas are criticized - ideally, by pointing out the errors in them.
If someone uses ad hominem arguments, maybe try to find better people to listen to? (Economists, sociologists, policy scholars?)
> And the electoral system doesn't allow anyone with new ideas to come up.
Then don't spend time on those things, spend time on election reform, look at where those are, look at interesting things that matter and that help predict the world.
So, the debate is what you make it to be.
I take Klonopin. It is the ONLY thing that works for me. I have tried nearly everything. Every form of therapy you can think of, basically every class of drug to treat anxiety...
But Klonopin (benzos) are the only things that allow me to function enough to work and provide for myself. If I didn't have Klonopin, I would be without a job and would be homeless. I would literally be unable to function outside of the house (by function, I mean interact with people, work, go to the grocery store...), until I were forcibly removed because I haven't paid rent in months.
So if this attitude you and others share continues to embed itself into the minds of doctors, then people like me will be left without proper care. And what that means is that people like me will be unable to work, and unable to slog through the process of acquiring disability (and trust me, it's hard as hell), so we will be homeless or forced to burden our families with our care. It's not some abstract issue, one that can be handwaved away, one that you can distance yourself from by saying "the drug is bad so it should not be used with regularity; those who need it with regularity can instead be treated in other ways". There are zero other ways, in my case, and I am sure in many others' cases too.
Sorry if I seem accusatory, but people's insistence that these drugs be given only for short periods of time is in effect an insistence that I be left without any options after that short period of time expires.
Tolerance and physical dependence develop rapidly. For most patients, the actual effect of the drug disappears within a few weeks unless the dose is increased. The most common withdrawal symptom is rebound anxiety, so you'll feel worse after stopping the drug than before you started. Benzodiazepines are respiratory depressants and tolerance of this effect develops more slowly; higher doses present a substantial risk of overdose, particularly when combined with alcohol. Paradoxical effects are remarkably common, with a significant proportion of patients developing impulsivity, aggression and mania.
I accept that long-term prescription of benzodiazepines may be a reasonable option for some treatment-resistant patients as a last resort, but America is grossly over-prescribing benzodiazepines with disastrous consequences. Here in the UK, benxodiazepines are some of the most strictly controlled prescription drugs and new prescriptions for more than 14 days are rare.
It took a very long time in what was the psychological equivalent of someone going through physical therapy to learn how to walk again, but I was able to identify and work through the underlying causes of my anxiety. I'm doing better now without the medication.
To be clear, I am NOT saying medication is bad or unnecessary. Some people do need these medications long term. But benzos really need to be prescribed with the same responsibility as opioids, because the risk of addiction and withdrawl is very real.
My point was more that prescribing a strong benzo like Xanax is done too easily. There are people, like yourself, who need such medicine long term but with doctors handing them out to almost anyone who has a little bit of anxiety opens them up to abuse which then makes it harder for people like you to get medicine they really need.
She has now been on Xanax, Cymbalta, Lyrica, Klonopin, Ativan .... I could go on. Every time she begins a new medicine or comes off an existing one is a trying time for both of us as the side effects (both mental and physical) can be incredibly brutal.
You might be interested in the English NICE website, which sets out some evidence based standards for treatment of various disorders.
Here's what they say for general anxiety:
Recommendations for treatment: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg113
Quality recommendations: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs53
For me the scattershot approach is most alarming; it would be far better if there were some kind of in-vitro test to see what would be best rather than "suck it and see". I've seen a few other people have problems with that.
EDIT: the service is called GeneSight: https://genesight.com/
I take Alprazolam (generic for Xanax) in a low dose (0.25mg) 2 or 3/day. This makes the difference between my being able to work and not, so in my case it is certainly effective and beneficial. I haven't noticed adverse side effects at this low dose level.
After over two years of use, I haven't felt any need to escalate the dose. I have only one experience stopping (as an experiment). Disabling anxiety returned in less than five days and persisted without change for 3 weeks. Stopping was otherwise not difficult, certainly not "seriously horrible". Resumption of the med after four weeks off returned me to manageable anxiety levels in two days.
I've considered the tradeoffs inherent in long-term use and have decided for now to continue. Things that could change my mind about this: absence of relapse into disabling anxiety after an experimental stop; unambiguous demonstration of damage caused by long-term use; appearance of a better alternative.
Check with your doctor before using this med. There are contraindications and adverse interactions with other meds.
Further, anxiety is highly idiosyncratic, therefore YMMV. My mother was essentially disabled by chronic anxiety for her last 3 decades, and I suspect I'm predisposed to chronic anxiety. Others will of course present differently and need a different treatment plan.
That's not how short acting benzodiazepines like Xanax are intended to be used (Klonopin is more likely for longer term use). Most psychiatrists would be getting you onto a regular antidepressant regimen within a few weeks of the onset of generalized anxiety.
I wonder why drugs like propranalol and gabapentin aren't used more as first line treatments for anxiety. Propranalol is particularly effective in treating anxiety without the potential for abuse.
Pregabalin is growing in popularity as a second-line treatment if SSRIs or SNRIs are ineffective or poorly tolerated. Some caution is necessary here, due to the uncertainty over dependency, the potential for abuse and possible risks of suicidality. It doesn't appear to be more effective than the common SSRI treatments, although it may be better for treating psychosomatic symptoms.
I've had benzos, painkillers to help with the after seizure care, and their withdrawals were absolutely nothing compared to the gaba/prega. Most medications give you maybe a week at max of physical withdrawals, not a month...
However, it's absolutely great for anxiety! I would really exercise caution to everybody. If you don't believe me, Google first hand accounts on Reddit, Bluelight etc.
I would never touch it again.
If that doesn't work or if the anxiety is particularly severe (anxiety disorders can be debilitating and cause years lost to disability) medication might be indicated.
I've noticed an atypical anti-anxiety benefit from metropolol (which I take for the usual bp/heart effects). It's not an anxiolytic; it won't do much to stop stop a panic attack that has already started. What it does is reduce the slope of increasing anxiety, which means more time before a minor/moderate anxiety can grow into a full panic. Very occasionally this has let me avoid a panic attack.
Sadly, you need the right strain - if you live in a state where cannabis is legal, you're lucky.
I have 3 different types right now, only one is actually good for anxiety and stress, the other 2 make my thoughts race. And I can't choose what I buy, the dealers tend to go for high THC content because it gets you high. I suggested the lower THC plants and they said I'm crazy.
I used to smoke weed every day for years but had to stop around the age of 24 due to ever-increasing paranoia and anxiety. It was really messing with my head and negatively affecting my life.
I can smoke fine these days but there is always that slight sense of anxiety and negative introspection when I do. It's not a pleasant feeling at all, so I I generally avoid weed these days.
Strange really as I do LSD and MDMA maybe once or twice a year for special occasions and have no problems.
That said I am definitely pro-legalisation. I just think people need to be educated about it. Legalisation proponents with genuinely good arguments can often find themselves drowned out by by those that refuse to acknowledge any potential downsides to their favourite recreactional drug, which is a shame.
To my untrained eye being prescribed any benzo for extended daily use seems like it should be an exceptional treatment, but maybe I'm wrong.
Unless you want to be curled up on a couch for 5 days and sleepless with your muscles and forehead visibly spasming every 15 seconds, DON'T take any benzos, and DON'T quit them cold turkey.
I had the misfortune of experiencing this first hand, but others have had it much worse, going into seizures and dying after trying to quit benzos for years.
There are definitely other treatment options. Don't mess with benzos unless you absolutely cannot bear an acute situation!!!
Good luck to everyone who is truly suffering out there! You can make it through !! :)
Thyroid underactivity is a very common condition (thyroid hormone is the third-most prescribed medication in the UK), and some of you anxiety sufferers out there may have a thyroid problem (either under- or over-activity).
The most common problem is an underactive thyroid, which 90% of the time is caused by auto-immunity.
Detection is complicated by an ongoing controversy over reference ranges . I recommend you seek the advice of the most careful practitioners. If you suspect a problem but your doctor won't treat, keep testing. The results will fluctuate, and even more so if you have a problem.
Beware TSH measurements consistently above 2.0. That may put you at risk of chronically elevated cortisol , which has been shown to cause anxiety in mice .
My body was effectively screaming for more thyroid hormone.
I've also had high levels of anxiety and cortisol, I wasn't aware of the relation though. Unfortunately hypothyroidism is so common place that my doctor's don't really give me the info. I'll read through your links to find out more about this.
EDIT: After reading the chronic exposure article I think I'm going to avoid adrenalin releasing activities for a while. Coffee and intense video games :)
"There is no evidence to support the benefit of routine early treatment with thyroxine in non-pregnant patients with a serum TSH above the reference range but <10mU/L. Physicians may wish to consider the suitability of a therapeutic trial of thyroxine on an individual patient basis" 
So what might happen to you if your TSH is, say 3.5, for at least a decade (hey hey, I know the answer to this one...)? Well, you're at risk of elevated cortisol with resulting mental illness, to which my previously posted links will attest. Doctors, if they're not especially attentive, will just prescribe the usual anti-depressants (perhaps a low dosage as an anxiolytic) which are band-aids and don't get to the root of the problem.
Note that I never mentioned non-standard tests - "keep testing" means "keep getting the standard tests". The problem is that interpretation of the standard tests varies - some test results may or may not indicate disease, and this is not always carefully followed up on. There are of course many more people in this grey area than there are people with overt disease. I'd say if you're in the grey area and you have chronic mental health symptoms the risk/reward ratio is overwhelmingly in favour of treatment with thyroid hormone (carefully monitored of course).
The reference has loads more detail...
In general, it seems to me that you will get some false negatives when using a less sensitive test result to qualify a more sensitive test result.
Edit: I mean to also point out that as our society becomes more conscious of the effects/risks associated with anxiety, it increases the likelihood of creating issues like what I described above.
Being able to identify the problem made it way easier to handle, even before I started actively trying to fix it with things like mindfulness. These days whenever I notice air hunger, I stop and think what I might be anxious about and am usually able to reason my way out of subconsciously freaking out (even if it's as simple as "this isn't going to make it _more_ likely that the situation resolves well").
It seems just as likely to me that more awareness of anxiety will work in the opposite direction from what you're describing, mitigating anxiety off for people earlier since they're able to start recognizing and managing it earlier through greater awareness.
Is there a good more-factish article about this? I'm the type of person who wants to read words like "thrumming". For an article about anxiety, the prose seems to be designed to produce further anxiety. Anxiety about anxiety is probably the most dangerous kind.
So the prose was effective! Sometimes being dry and objective is not the best way to get across a point.
Readers find it distressing when we as reporters don't speak in an authoritative voice; it makes readers question if we really have a definitive answer to the problems we present to them.
I knew as I clicked the link that Twitter would be mentioned, and it occurred just 40 words into the first paragraph.
I also knew "Russia" would appear, which is especially ironic when you consider that most of what you hear about Russia nowadays is utter bullshit - listen to Putin talk about the US sometime if you want to feel calm. I'm dead serious about that.
You should do your damnedest to limit the scope of your anxiety to things you can actually do something about.
After my mom retired she started watching a lot more cable news. She became noticably more anxious after a while.
If you're feeling anxious, I'd suggest stop watching/reading popular news media. Turn off push notifications. Reduce or eliminate social media apps.
Our psychology did not evolve with constant input about every crisis happening in the world.
Live your life slowly and locally. You'll be happier.
As for TV channels, yes, they are all crap.
Personally I strongly agree. A lot of news consumption serves little purpose, and might very well have all sorts of negative effects. My solution is to avoid most news sources most of the time, read some updates occasionally or, ideally, use sources that write longer articles (that have the added benefit of context and filtering).
Here in Holland we have one paper that has this as their mission statement (De Correspondent). For other perspectives or updates on other areas I mostly rely on a few newsletters and 'bigger picture' articles from various sources. Also my feed reeder for skimming.
My second point was that the OP did not differentiate between newspapers and TV channels, but that their reporting is substantially different. I have no doubt that exposure to an abundance of 'news' TV channels such as Fox News or CNN, and their online services, can increase anxiety and maybe even distort people's views of the world. For example, the overall conditions for mankind is continuously improving in terms of standards of living, hygienic and medical standards, equality, absence of wars and major conflicts, etc., conditions have generally even improved in the worst regions of the world, but this is not commonly perceived that way.
But the claim is that this effect is mostly due to TV, not due to newspapers and other news sources. Of course, I could be wrong about that, just wanted to clarify what I've meant.
Finally, neither this nor any other statement I have made has anything to do with politics.
But more importantly, even if the NYT were entirely unbiased, that does not mean that it's good for your mental state to be reading it. Being exposed to a lot of problems that you cannot do anything about might not be a good thing.
And actually, if you just carefully compare NYT _headlines_ to their corresponding _articles_, you'll realize that the headlines really are pretty crappy. Certainly nowhere near the standards for headline writing we used to have in ninth grade journalism class.
I really hope to see a resurgence of classical quality journalism. But I'm not optimistic.
Headlines are crappy everywhere, agreed.
But there is difference between bias and fake news.
That said, I think there's always place for a (or many) counter-culture sites, but I expect a more rigorous intellectual foundation from them not a lesser one to be taken as proper alternative sources. Kuhn's paradigm view is helpful here, MSM is not perfect, but a lot better than fringe/crackpot explanations of the world, and sure, there is probably a better one, but that's not the dominant one yet, but it'll be found by better and more data, better analysis, better methodologies, not by less, and not by more anger. (Sure, reading alt-news might feel right, you might get the feeling of OMG WHY I HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD OF THIS! DAMN I'LL HAVE TO USE THIS to keep myself free from MSM bias!! But to get less biased the solution is to explore the topics at hand from more primary sources (like watch a few youtube videos about the topic, watch a lecture by an accepted scientist/scholar), not by perusing even more biased sources).
(If I had a source of future stock price deltas that was almost always "wrong", I could be a very rich man.)
That said, I've personally come to the realization that my marginal hour spent reading daily news is generally better spent reading ancient philosophy. News is certainly addictive, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with examples where it's improved my life.
> better spent ...
Did you read the title?
High land prices mean we can afford to rent (the cost of carry on the debt on the land) but never own. Therefore we can never be financially independent. With technology and globalisation eroding job security for everyone we are never able to relax. Always looking over our shoulder, unable to refuse overtime, hunted.
Yes this might not apply to the upper class tech of hacker news but they are not representative of the vast majority of people.
I disagree that this is the root cause. News media and social media have both become extremely efficient and high speed conduits for "stress loading" upon our population.
A local news story used to only isolate the stress to a small locality; now, however, mass media is amplifying and propagating this local stress all around the country. It's only going to get worse.
It should be clear that this doesn't encapsulate the problem if there's a reasonable segment of the population feeling the same effect without being subject to the same causes. And the stuff you're describing is on the order of 20% here, not 1%.
Drugs like LSD are illegal because people enjoy them in a non-medical context, enough to become a visible cultural phenomenon. This is the entirety of what motivates (or at least used to motivate) US drug policy.
Ignoring the fact that I'd like to see your evidence for the latter claim, there certainly hasn't been a drop in prescriptions of antidepressants or a lack of new patented (and popular) ones.
My .02c: Modern anti-depressants are less effective than the MAOi's they replaced and haven't advanced much in the last 50 years. It's not surprising since our knowledge of the brain's function and structure (at the cellular level and below) is roughly where our understanding of genetics was in the 1950's (note, it wont take 60+ years to catch up). The Human Connectome(mapping of the 100 trillion connections our neurons make) and Obama's BRAIN initiative (taking ultra detailed scans of super thin slices of the brain) as well as a mature brain informatics field will push knowledge quantum leaps forward.
Lets hope scientists have learned their lesson from rhe genome and don't label parts of the brain they dont understand as junk neurons or simply take a reductionist approach. The brain is fractal... we have more or. less the same neurons as a fly. Using these same parts and simple instructions, when you scale a brain, you get us. When you Garry Kasparov was defeated by Deep Blue who tried to control them by saying you were defeated by quantity not quality period he retorted with enough quantity comes quality
That also wasn't what they said: the claim was that antidepressants weren't really effective, not that they haven't really gotten better in the 21st century.
You're looking at the older class of MAOIs. Although it is probably a bit overhyped, Selegelline has all the advantages of MAOIs with hardly any of the dietary restrictions. Only those who subsisted on a diet of aged, stinky cheese like Roquefort or otherwise consumed excessive amounts of Tyramine are at risk. You still have to be careful not to take certain medicines, mostly those containing pseudoephedrine. As selegiline is also used as a treatment for parkinson's, it has shown to be neuroprotective, and enhances/induces the differentiation of neural stem cells into neurons (neurogenesis) and is used off label as a nootropic. (Disclaimer: I was taking this prescription until I no longer needed it and saw tremendous results)
Modern anti-depressants certainly are more effective than a placebo and have saved many lives. However, I think that a significant % of people would also receive the same or greater results from exercise or mindful meditation. I don't have any numbers in front of me, but anti-depressants are over-prescribed to people who are not clinically depressed but who aren't as happy as they feel they should be.
As we glean more results from the various public/private brain research partnerships our undeerstanding should lead to more effective modalities of treatment. How long it takes to get through clinical trials.
Note for the uninitiated: I'm being sarcastically understated here. The author in question is an authority in drugs for depression and writes extremely lengthy and well-cited essays. He's also a very engaging author.
And another where he explicitly recommends SSRIs: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/16/things-that-sometimes-h...
I was really shocked that you posted something from his blog, but I guess if you've already decided the answer you can find evidence anywhere you look.
People are medicated, self-medicated, addicts, etc for various reasons. Why are we so obsessed with what other people do or don't do?
Hell, even if we stick with your model of "why would I ever care about another person's well-being", understanding that anxiety is apparently so common can help an individual better understand where his anxiety is coming from (eg perhaps weighting universal factors more heavily than personal ones).
Is it because I don't occupy my mind with any memory or thoughts of that problematic?
The world feels splendid when you don't keep in mind your past or future experience of it.
I am better than you ... because... if anything in your existence has anything to do with that then you are in the game.
What prevents more of that is the nature of the game of business and the competition that goes with it, which is dog eat dog. Businesses would go out of business very quickly if they catered to the social needs of their employees rather than the business itself. The point then is to design a business process which isn't that ruthless with different objectives.
The media is poison for the population. Not only do they deceive the population, they intentionally try to cause fear and anxiety in the population to sell ads.
This is getting ridiculous.
Is this article really drawing a conclusion that nobody was anxious during the 1990's? That's how it seems to me.
The easiest way to get clicks is to sell fear. "Opioid" crisis. Trumpaggaedon. Ebola/SARS/etc. "Your child might die from this!!! Click to find what it is before your child might die! Click NOW!"
Think about it. If absolutely nothing happens in the world, the "journalists" have to write something to sell themselves and make the newspaper money.
These people are no better than clickbaiting youtubers.
Also, fear and anxiety are great ways to control and manipulate the people. It's what north korea does to its people. It was the nazis did in the 1930s.
Just like reading the bible critically is the cure for christianity. As a former 7-day subscriber to the NYTimes, reading the NYTimes critically is the cure for propaganda.
Here's a book that adds to this point that mental illness "spreads" in a social contagion sense: https://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Like-Us-Globalization-American/...
>This article is a great example of "unless it's reported by the media, it doesn't exist."
Alerts should be for things like tornadoes, floods and hurricanes, not upcoming birthdays.
And even more fundamental than that, most of us are unprepared to deal with such intimate knowledge of one another. The goody-goodies are losing it when they realize how much suffering there is in the world. It makes us all feel so powerless (if we let it).
Humans apparently evolved to have enough memory to deal with about 150 personal relationships... We're now pervaded with human contact and persona from thousands of people at varying distances...
And our mistakes, instead of being dealt with on a personal, intimate level of people nearby to us are projecting outwards to the entire globe! And stored there indefinitely!
I liked playing low-res video games and calling BBSes, but this world-wide persistent network is too intense!
It has been one hundred percent effective. If I miss a day, I know (and so does everyone else). We (psychiatrist and I) tried to see if I had gotten past the point of needing it by tapering off. Didn't work, so I'm back at ten, probably for life. That's fine, there's way worse medications to be dependent on!
A small point, but the "discontinuation effects" for these meds can be severe, and they can make people think they still need to take the meds. This keeps people taking meds for very long amounts of time.
Some people are okay with the side effects, and they've made an informed choice about the risks of taking these meds long term.
The Guardian newspaper has been running a couple of stories about long term use. I think they're a little bit alarmist, but the personal experiences are useful.
The experience of others doesn't mean a darned thing. Each person's biochemistry is highly individual which is why the success rate of treating various mental disorders using medication is so low.
I, for example, get rapid tolerance to just about everything, so even the few SSRIs that worked didn't help for long.
For example, if (Google) knows you are living beyond your means then ads targeted change in aspect from aspirational to more basic needs and the news and social media surfaced to you modify so that you feel less stressed and less out of a loop till the time you have more disposable income?
(just a thought experiment)
In a symbiotic relationship it's in your interest for both entities to remain healthy.
In the alternative scenario, ultimately it ends in selling a casket, however presumably there is more money to be made in a healthy and happy customer.
No large company can see further ahead than the next quarterly earnings report.
On the one hand, the shareholder value movement has done immense harm to the long-term planning of businesses by focusing fanatically on quarterly profits. At its worst, this turns into corporate raiding and asset stripping.
On the other, an increasing proportion of equities are held by tracker funds; Vanguard are largely indifferent to the performance of any one company, as long as the market as a whole keeps growing. The entire business of index tracker funds is predisposed upon stable long-term growth.
tl'dr You recharge you batteries in life a number of healthy and natural ways.
Or, perhaps this falls under their "do no evil" mission statement!
Only if people strongly demand it. It wont come from politicians who those companies have in their pockets...
Do you have a source for that ? (Eg empirical study)?
> are more likely to 'stay tuned in'.
It is more or less a trivia style collection of references and anecdotes, from different sources related to the topic. It feels a bit like a tweeter feed itself, if you search #anxiety - a really wide collection of tangentially related observations (haven't actually tried that, no twitter account, but you get the point). No attempt of synthesis, no deeper analysis of the connections between topics, no statistics.
The way I understand it, when there is no core but a shattered collection of associations, that by itself can cause anxiety. Because the reader now has him/herself to build connections, or leave that as uncertainty, and uncertainty will cause anxiety. And to expect the reader will do that is unrealistic - even the skilled reader will need time for that.
Also, consider how the article came to existence: The author
seems to be a professional writer, 2-3 articles a month, half of them about hand watches. You have just read a socio-cultural analysis by the author of hand watch surveys. On nytimes.com.
Granted, life of writers is tough and jumping to conclusions here would be premature. But even if the author is capable of writing a thoughtful piece, writing that kind of article on a serious subject should be a violation of some kind of writer's version of Hippocratic Oath.
Couldn't nytimes.com find a reasonable expert to write that? It could, but it wouldn't for some reason.
Finally, the first paragraph mentions Sarah Fader,
"the Brooklyn social media consultant", "who has generalized anxiety disorder" with her tweet - apparently a gesture by one of the common people.
One of the last paragraphs mentions her again, but now
"the Brooklyn social media consultant who also runs a mental-health advocacy organization called Stigma Fighters". So perhaps more a calculated step rather than a gesture, but why spoil the hero story right in the first paragraph?