My ADHD/stimulant story, as told to Ethan Brooks for @TheAtlantic, for a podcast feature called Scripts—about the pills we take for our brains, and the stories we tell ourselves about them
YouTube: https://t.co/jO2eY1EWBz
https://t.co/QQFWnu0ChT
It’s enormously frustrating and sad to see elected officials speaking with such certainty and disdain about a topic on which they clearly lack awareness of some critical information
We need to be able to have rational, reasoned conversations about the relationship between suicideality and SSRI’s
I of course agree that, for many, these drugs have been helpful in stabilizing and supporting people’s ability to live full, productive lives
But there’s no reason we can’t also acknowledge that in some cases, these drugs can induce or worsen suicidal ideation
The only appropriate approach is to
1. get better at discerning appropriate use
2. Get better at getting patients and prescribers all the information they deserve to have re: risks and adverse effects
3. Get better at supporting people in knowing when and how it is appropriate to come off these drugs, including expanding awareness of the differences between relapse and withdrawal
RFK Jr. is completely unfit to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
Not only is he wholly incompetent, but his attacks against mental healthcare directly contradict modern science and evidence-based medical practices that millions rely on.
RFK Jr. is completely unfit to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
Not only is he wholly incompetent, but his attacks against mental healthcare directly contradict modern science and evidence-based medical practices that millions rely on.
One or the many things Jordan Peterson got correct was peoples need for encouragement.
It’s amazing how many people have never had a single adult encouraging them and believing they can be a better version of themselves.
This is your reminder not to keep your positive thoughts about others to yourself, you have idea how helpful these small acts can be.
This is true and something to remember when you catch yourself thinking things like “I can do this because I have seen people much less intelligent and less well positioned and less equipped than me pull this off many times”
Being clever is more often a liability than an asset when the task at hand requires total commitment to a single goal
Walk into any room full of “ultra high achievers” and you’ll find a
50/50 split between those with absolute determination and grit, and those with absolute dumb luck who fell backwards into opportunities created by someone else
Every man who did something that looked impossible to the people around him just had will and nothing else. i know this sounds stupid and reductive but ive watched it enough times to stop doubting it. talent matters so much less than people think. intelligence matters less. money matters less. what matters is whether a man can hold one single decision inside himself long enough for it to start changing the things around him
I was talking to a household mold detection professional the other day, and she explained to me that simply leaving Petri dishes out to collect whatever might be in the air is useless unless the environment around them is being acted upon and jostled about in such a way as to unleash latent dynamics
@marclaurens It can be
It can also be related to being able to identify new opportunities as they emerge and getting sidetracked or overcommitted
intelligence is not always conducive to commitment
And good judgement can impede material success
After stopping antidepressants, this 23-year-old said she experienced a “chemical castration." What to know about PSSD, according to experts. https://t.co/jfG3KoxoMq
The most important idea I’m trying to instill in my children is that the people who end up with a lot of influence and leaving their mark on the world are mostly just the ones who didn’t wait to be invited or granted permission
Just go to where the action is and be curious, helpful and authentic
I knew a guy who was brilliant, everyone agreed. he could take apart anything in front of him, any argument, person, any idea, finished. but he never once turned that thing on himself, not once. and if you spent long enough around him, you started noticing something was off. he would destroy someone in a conversation and then look at you afterward for validation. the smartest people in the room always made me uncomfortable, when i couldnt see evidence that their intelligence had ever made them suffer. if your mind has never cornered you and made you look at the worst part of yourself, your intellect is not working for you, something else is using it
I can’t speak to your colleagues or your profession but I can speak to what I’ve seen happen generally
Which is that the Institutional response to increased public awareness of institutional harms has been to make a lot of noise about leaning in heavily on reducing slighter harms (such as those caused by mildly pejorative word choices) while avoiding “The Work” required to reckon with thornier, more intractable issues
Japanese candy manufacturers continue to understand me better than all but my most intimate friends
I’ve found a new gummy candy:
• 2 flavors/1 bag (lemon & lime)
• 1” cube format
• 1/3rd the sweetness
• 200% the bite resistance
• 7% salty
If we accept less, we get less
“Because these processes of problem recognition and clinical categorization are value-laden, socioculturally dependent, and susceptible to various biases, they can be distorted. When the guiding values are corrupted, when clinical services are wielded by the state for confinement and control or when benign states of distress are encouraged to be conceptualized as diseases requiring medications by pharmaceutical companies, we get the clearest perversions of the process. But subtler forms of distortion are all present: when guild interests shape diagnostic boundaries or psychotherapy is recommended as the default response to all life distress, or when the absence of viable or accessible non-medical alternatives creates a vacuum.
The answer to these problems, though, is not to search for an incorruptible, naturalist definition of the scope of medicine that will hold the line against medicalization. No such definition exists. Nor is the answer to artificially restrict the use of the clinical lens and deny people access to clinical care they want and could benefit from. If we are over-relying on the medical framework, the more productive response is to develop other frameworks that can offer people similar or better utility and facilitate more informed and mindful use of the medical lens. The answer is better processes: more transparency, more democratic participation (including the participation of those who receive care), more accountability, more genuine pluralism in the institutions available to people in distress, and more epistemic humility about the limits of any single framework. The answers I ultimately advocate for are thoughtfulness, conceptual clarity, person-centered care, pluralism, and realistic expectations around clinical treatments.”