I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."
Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.
What do we make of this?
1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.
(Though of course, just like any time you set up system that will grant resources to someone on the basis of a signal, there's now an incentive to fake the signal.
I'm sure there are people who are fooling themselves about how bad their mental problems are as a way to buy that slack for themselves.)
2. In some cases there is more at stake than simply getting slack in order to function. If you can claim to have been "traumatized" or "abused" (in a way that will be believed), you can use that to marshal political support,
because "abuse" like "racism" is loaded word that points out something that contemporary culture has coordinated to oppose heavily.

https://t.co/07v275i2gt
(A recent example of this is the AOC video about the capital attack.

While she said some things I agree with, I rolled by eyes at her use of the word "trauma" because it seemed to me a transparent way to show political support to folks who's trauma narratives are important to...
them, while simultaneously making a social attack on the other side, by claiming to have been harmed "a lot" by them.)

I guess there's a general thing here: the more you can claim to have been harmed, the more likely people are to rally to support you.
So, if someone is denying that you were traumatized, that's threatening, because they're making a move to take away the foundation of your social power.
3. Another tact: Assuming _I_ was engaging in this kind of behavior, what would be happening for me?

I was once in a social dynamic where I would construct things such that I was visibly sad or put upon, because that was the only way I knew to revive (a type of) affection.
So one plausible story is that the ONLY way that a person knows how to get sympathy (or maybe some particular kind of sympathy) is by dint of their mental health stuff.

They need it, and they need it to be believed, because that's the only way they can feel loved and supported.
4. Maybe the simplest story is that this doesn't have anything to do with mental health stuff, in particular. People just have a need to have their narratives validated, and this is just one special case of that.

(Though that begs the question of WHY people have that need.)
Notably, it seems that the mechanism of most therapy is "a prestigious person gives you attention for a while, validating that your problems / experience is real.
5. A more specific version of the above hypothesis is that people feel a latent shame about their mental health stuff, because some part of them thinks it is personal weakness.
But if the establishment certifies them as having a medical condition, or they otherwise construct a narrative about how this is a thing that is happening to them instead of a thing that they are doing, then they have a kind of security from blame and/or shame.
But if someone doubts that narrative, the latent shame comes roaring back, and so they feel threatened.
5.5. Another flavor of this basic idea:

The establishment certifies that this problem is HARD, you're not expected to just be able to trivially solve it. Which gives one protection against others' claims (or even demands) that you can and should.
(Which, surprisingly, seems to be almost a reformulation of my first hypothesis.)
Are other people familiar with this phenomenon, either in yourself, or in other people?

Do you have a story for what's going on?
(All of this was almost definitely influenced by and exchange with @HiFromMichaelV, plus some other stuff.)

More from Eli Tyre

My catch all thread for this discussion of AI risk in relation to Critical Rationalism, to summarize what's happened so far and how to go forward, from here.

I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with


So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.

(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)

But in addition to that, there has been a much more sprawling conversation happening on twitter, involving a much larger number of people.

Having talked to a number of people, I then offered a paraphrase of the basic counter that I was hearing from people of the Crit Rat persuasion.
CritRats!

I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.

Anyone want to hash this out with


For instance, while I heartily agree with lots of what is said in this video, I don't think that the conclusion about how to prevent (the bad kind of) human extinction, with regard to AGI, follows.

There are a number of reasons to think that AGI will be more dangerous than most people are, despite both people and AGIs being qualitatively the same sort of thing (explanatory knowledge-creating entities).

And, I maintain, that because of practical/quantitative (not fundamental/qualitative) differences, the development of AGI / TAI is very likely to destroy the world, by default.

(I'm not clear on exactly how much disagreement there is. In the video above, Deutsch says "Building an AGI with perverse emotions that lead it to immoral actions would be a crime."

More from Health

this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
🚨Important changes to lockdown/self-isolation regulations from 5pm

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data

https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC


“Large gathering offence”

As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence


Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400

Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000


Second big change:

Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive

Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution


This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.

Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so.

You May Also Like