Is it all about the money?

A recent study trying to establish which countries are "happiest" found a correlation between wealth and happiness (IE. Countries which rated higher levels of "happiness" were generally countries with higher income earning populations.).

I looked up some statistics myself trying to see if income discrepency played a role in LESS happiness, and although very limited sampling, (first world) countries with higher income discrepancy DID rank lower than countries with more equal distribution of wealth.

Surprisingly (to me), Norway has the highest proportion of millionaires (per capita), yet ranks 3rd in "happiness".

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of a distribution which has been used to measure inequalities in different disciplines including economics.

Using the Gini coefficient, Norway ranks higher (IE. Less inequality) than countries such as Japan, USA, and Canada. Not surprisingly, these countries rank lower in happiness.

So as much as money is a major contributor to happiness, (a sense) of (more) equality may be even more influential.

Doing V. Being

To simply say one doesn't like their job is selfish. Even I (of all people!!!) would say "If you don't like it do something else".

Now if someone says "I feel I have more to offer (myself and the world)than my current occupation does", that's different.

Our culture of "immediacy" doesn't promote self-fulfillment or even social fulfillment. It is more important to "do" than to "be".

Go to any dinner party, what's the first question? "What do you do?" We judge others worth by their socio-economic status. It's even part of the English language (IE. I AM a lawyer, accountant, doctor...)

When we are what we do, no wonder thousands of us are depressed. We know we have much more to offer, but social conventions insist that simply "doing" something is all that matters regardless of how fun / boring, useful / useless, real or fake it may be.

Wanting to want more is portrayed as selfish.

Pedestrian clichés like "Be grateful of what you do have", and "Just work hard and the rest will follow" are just that, pedestrian.

We are socialized to believe that happiness occurs after (hard) work, on evenings and weekends. That happiness is somehow earned, as if happiness is a commodity.

If "working hard" means slaving away at a job which doesn't maximize my skill set (how's that for a buzzword?!), is what I'm expected to do to "earn" my happiness, I'm not interested.

I know I'm not alone.

What are we doing to our boys?

I've been reading where my (original) hometown of Montréal has the highest rate of high school drop out (almost 45%), and close to 80% of those are boys.

Firstly, I'd like to say that calling them "dropouts" is hypocritical. When an adult leaves a job of their own volition, they "resign". We no longer say they "quit" because that hurts our sensitive ears. But calling 16, 15, 14, and even younger children "drop outs" is fine.

Calling them "drop outs" puts the emphasis on them, and removes responsibility from teachers, school directors, school boards, and parents.

I specify boys in the title because of the disproportionate number they represent, and that discrepancy makes it easier to diminish the problem. By that I mean that if there were a more even number of girls "dropping out", more would be getting done to address the problem.

Now before you call me a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, let me explain. If the discrepancy were more along the line or 55-45 or even 50-50, it would be affecting the same number of people, but more equally spread out in the population, hence more opportunity for people to get involved.

As well, since it is mostly boys, this can (more than likely does) lead to ghettoizing these "drop out" boys, while at the same time isolating the girls who "drop out" since they are the "exception".

When the "drop out" rate as high as it is in Montréal, it is time they looked at the education system. Not necessarily "what" they are teaching because after all math remains math, French is French, and so on. But how are we teaching it, and more importantly what are we teaching our children about themselves and life. Instead of shoving down their throats that "High education is the best way to have a better life", maybe we should explain that a better way to a potential good life is for them to think critically and logically about what they want, weigh the pros and the cons, explain how "life" or "society" works, and that a "successful" life includes balancing social expectations with personal needs and wants.


P.S. The French term for "drop out" is "décrocheur" which is just as derogatory.

Just don't be a nuisance

This morning at a neighbourhood coffee shop I overheard an interesting conversation between 2 scruffy looking men. One asked the other "are you still clean?", the second answered "yup, going on 7 months", the first congratulated him. They went on to talk about work, the first man saying he was working construction 7 days a week, when the second man said he was looking for work, the first said he would see with his employer if they need extra help and hopefully they would have work for his friend.

As ordinary and common as this conversation probably, it lead me to think about social expectations.

What first hit me is the hypocrisy of our society which would appreciate how these 2 men have straightened out their lives, yet where were we (society) when they needed help?

At a deeper level, I recognized that socially, we don't care that these 2 men might still be going through difficulties financially, work wise. That they don't really have choice about what they do for a living, they have to take the first thing which comes along. When they do, they will be expected to be grateful. As if "doing something", regardless of what it is, how (un)important, or boring it may be, is all that's important.

What matters to us a society is not that people have happy, fulfilling, and complete lives; we only don't want others to be a nuisance.

So in order to function in our society, one must simply "not be a nuisance". Not very mtivating is it?

Adapting is a sign of mental health

The society I am part of does / accepts things that I find atrocious such as (despite being one of the most prosperous societies in the world) letting it's own citizens live on the streets (often even blaming them!!)

My society is also hypocritical in that it condones (even encourages) unhealthy habits such as cigarette smoking, gamblind, and (to a lesser extent) consuming alcohol. While at the same time there's grandstanding about how marijuana and prostitution are horrible sins.

These socially accepted behaviours and hypocrisy bother me. It bothers me because if "adapting" to a society which chooses to remain flawed rather than making an effort to better itself is being mentally healthy it's time we re-consider what constitutes mental health.

How to think is not What you think

I touched on this on a previous thread, but How one thinks is different than What they think.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is extremely beneficial in how it teaches a person to change their "way" of thinking, but it doesn't changes their thoughts themselves.

For example, when I began therapy I was extremely angry and told the counsellor "I'm angry because people don't do enough to genuinely help people with depression".

I learned through therapy that my way of thinking was flawed in that I let my anger prevent me from moving forward. That doesn't mean that WHAT I thought was wrong;people do not do enough.

What is important is that what we think is not wrong, it may only need to be re-framed.

How adapting and functioning are not enough

I recently completed reading a book which I purposely am not posting the title of since it can be interpreted as controversial and that in itself may influence people's opinion (positively or negatively). On practically every page I would go "that's exactly what I've always believed". I never sought a public platform per se, but even getting people to just listen (never mind understand or agree!!) has been excruciatingly difficult (IE. Impossible).

This reluctancy of others to listen has partially lead to a long-standing bout of chronic depression. I refer to this as my "existential depression".

Perhaps people don't want to hear me because it's not very "positive", maybe it's "too deep" for them, or maybe the truth of their own fallibility makes them uncomfortable.

Regardless, my pre-existing depressive condition has been magnified with this (perceived by me) lack of understanding / caring by others.

I control my condition through various ways such as medication, counselling, and educating myself about it, but there still seemed to be something missing.

Reading this book has helped me understand that I'm not "wrong" in my beliefs, just that they are not commonplace, and that most people are uncomfortable hearing such truths.

Reading is therapeutic. I have done hours of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which basically helps a person change their throught process. CBT has been extremely beneficial, but it strictly targets "How you think", not "What you think (and truly believe)".

It's very easy for me to think "I live in an industrialized country where corporations and money influence / decide how people (ought to) behave; therefore I simply need to adapt to that and I'll be "happy"".

My "problem", has been that I go further and say "but that is wrong, and if I "adapt" to (what I believe is) a wrong, that doesn't make me happy, it actually makes me feel worse".

The therapeutic part of reading (this particualr book) is that it confirms that I'm not "wrong" (nor alone) in my beliefs; that other people belief very similarly, in fact (some) get published and have public forums (IE. They fucntion).

Don't ask what others can do....

Most of us have heard part of the JFK inauguration speech in which he said "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you cn do for your country".

I would modify it somewhat and say "Don't ask what others can do for THEMSELVES, ask what you can do for them".

I say that in reference to the lame excuse which states that people "need to help themselves". What if someone can not help themselves? What if they have not been taught proper life skills? Is it their fault, the fault of their underwhelming education, or is it the fault of the society which tolerates this without doing anything about it?

If the person suffering depression doesn't have the energy to "help themselves", is it appropriate to expect them to "find it" (the energy)?

Is it the right thing to "tolerate" someone who's not helping themselves (to our liking of course!!), or are WE keeping everyone at a lower level of functioning?

So what do we talk about?

The previous post may have left some of you wondering what I suggest can be done in order to make mental illness a less touchy subject of conversation.

Let me begin by saying that it will always be a very delicate topic, and needs to be addressed as such. Just like talking about cancer and other serious illnesses is not pleasant, it is still important to discuss these matters without feeling like we're an alien.

So if we don't talk about mental illness as being "stigmatized", what do we call it or how do we approach the topic?

Very simply by talking about it for what it IS, not what it isn't!!!

I will use the example of depression since it is so close to me.

Depression will affect 1 out of 5 Canadians in 2010 with varying degrees of severity. Some won't be able to leave their house for days on end, while others will be able to function normally despite it. The vast majority are somewhere in the middle.

Depression can not be diagnosed the same way as organic diseases (IE. You can't take a blood test or urine sample for diagnosis), but several physical and emotional symptoms occur in most depression sufferers, and through these we can establish diagnosis.

Since diagnosis is based on "experienced" symptoms, and patient recognition of these symptoms, diagnosis can often be off the mark. This explains in part why some patients may have medication and dosage changes. For other mental illnesses, correct diagnosis is even more difficult.

Many people suffering depression will often concurrently suffer one or more other mental illnesses, most commonly anxiety (under it's various forms), and/or substance abuse.

Which came first, the depression, anxiety, or substance abuse is not important, what is important is proper diagnosis of what ails the person and follow treatment accordingly.

Some form of depression is also very common in most other mental illnesses (IE. The average bipolar person will be depressed 70% of the time as opposed to 30% of the time in manic phase). Schizophrenics also have periods of severe depression, but theirs is part of schizophrenia.

Now most people suffering from unipolar depression do manage to function normally in society, some with the help of medication, counselling, some not. Each case is different.

Depression is a very common ailment, it affects people of both genders, all races, and all age groups. Some symptoms will be more prevalent in certain groups of people, but again these need to be taken as one (potential) piece of a very large puzzle.

That, in an extremely brief summary is what depression is.

Was that so difficult?

Stop talking about it

We've all heard about "Self-Fulfilling prophecies", the idea that the more you talk about something the likelier it is to happen.

In fact, a lot of our vocabulary has changed in the past 20 or so years in order to perceive things more positively. We talk about mental "health" instead of mental "illness", "health centres" as opposed to "hospitals", and "challenges" have replaced "problems".

When used in the context of making things seem less difficult, I find this to be fine.

Where I have a harder time though is those situations for which we choose to keep negative vocabulary because we simply do not want to put a positive spin on something.

The main one is the word "stigma" when reference to mental (interestingly enough here we say) "illness".

The biggest irony is that practically everyone would agree that the stigma of mental illness is negative, and something we need to eliminate. If that's the case, why do we keep referring to it?

My "theory" is that we (as a society, perhaps even as a species) are so fearful of mental illness (especially in men because the idea of the "hunter / gatherer / provider" not being able to function is absolutely inconceivable), that we continue to refer to a "stigma"; that way we don't have to address it.

By continuing to call mentall illness "stigmatized", we re-inforce the stigma!!!

Are we willing to talk about mental illness the same way we do diabetes, cancer, and heart disease?

Do we have the courage to face mental illness, admit that it can cripple (or is it "challenge") any one of us, and that just like many other diseases, it does not discriminate on age, gender, race, or anything else?

where were you?

We often hear praise for people who overcome difficult circumstances such as losing a spouse or child, fighting disease or surviving warfare and giving their life a positive turn.

An example of this is Mr. Frank O'Dea, a Canadian businessman who was homeless until 1975, when he managed to slowly get his life back in order and he evntually co-founder the Second Cup chain of coffee shops, and is President and Co-Founder of charitable organizations.

What Mr. O'Dea did is absolutely incredible and fascinating, he deserves every single ounce of praise he receives, we can all learn from him.

My point though is not about Mr. O'Dea directly, it's about people CURRENTLY in the situation he found himself in in the early 1970's.

There are more homeless than ever before (in Canada) despite the fact there are more resources than ever before.

We, as a society like using people like Mr. O'Dea as examples when it's convenient to us. (IE. "Look at him, he did, why can't you?")

The excuse that people need to "help themselves" is crass at best.

Next time you see a homeless person, and you think of Frank O'Dea, ask your this. If this person becomes another Frank O'Dea, do I want to have simply walked buy, or do I want to be part of the beginning of something big?

Humility anyone?

I have been reading and thinking a lot recently about how altruism and generosity are not only not common in the social sense of the word, but not something humans are born with. We are not inherently altruistic or generous, those traits and behaviours are learned (or not!!)

Aren't people generous when they give money or donate food, clothing, and toys to charities? I would say that for most it's not genuine generosity, but rather something we are conditioned to do at specific times (IE. X-mas), or when dramatic events (IE. Haiti earthquake) happen.

So what does it take for a person to be genuinely altruistic or generous?

I believe a person needs to be humble before they can be genuinely altruistic and generous.

By the way, I am aware of the irony of calling out people on their lack of humility.

By humility, I don't mean the occasional (usually on specific occasions like birthdays, anniversaries or awards presentations)outward expressions of gratitude.

Rather, I refer to the ability to accept reality; the reality that *I* am not better than others.

In an odd twist, accepting this reality leads to behaving differently than most. I say odd because my perception of "humble" people as often been that of shy and reserved people who do not "rock the boat".

Now while humble people do not "rock the boat", they also behave in much more altruisitic ways. They are the ones who will help charities throughout the year (not just in the 2nd and 3rd week of December), they will contribute to the Red Cross and other such organizations regularly not just AFTER A DISASTER.

They're not the ones you call in order to "put out a fire", they're the ones you learn from in order to avoid having a "fire" in the first place.

Regarding depression, they're the few who educate themselves, and unlike most are not afraid of mental illness.

A little humility can go a long way.

Victimizing

People don't generally appreciate another (person) claiming to be a victim. It comes off a whiny and weak.

Of course it's different when we (or someone close to us) is victimized.

When a Jewish person mentions how they come from a heritage which suffered one of the worst attrocities in history are they "playing the victim", or pointing out historical fact?

When a woman talks about being raped, is she "victimizing" herself, or telling us about a heinous crime?

When an adult mle mentions his depression making his life a living hell, is he "playing victim", or sharing his feelings?

By the way, if you think these examples are exaggerated, I suggest you go tell that to Walter Koenig and other parents of adult males who have committed suicide.

Some would say that a person is "playing victim" when they expect something from others.

That may be true IN SOME CASES, but I believe the rape victim has every right to expect help in the form of medical attention, legal advice, and extra protection.

Why then is the adult male (often) perceived as "playing the victim" (IE. weak) when discussing the difficulties his depression bring about?

In an ironic twist, the family and friends of an adult male are accepted as "victims" after he commits suicide.

Ask the right question

I've often been amused by the statement (often used by "Positive Psychologists") "You're just not asking the right questions".

what I find amusing is not the idea of searching for the source of a problem, but rather that there's discrimination in how a person goes about it.

A prime example is a depressed person; in positive psych, the question they would see fit is "what can I (depressed person) do about it?". As well intentioned as that is, it omits to ask "Am I depressed (or is it something else)?", "Why am I depressed?", "Have I felt this way before?"...

To the "positive" crowd, these questions may seem irrelevant, redundant, and a waste of time, but how can one truly access the root of the problem without asking those questions?

Simply asking "What can I do about it?" doesn't get to the root of the problem, it actually promotes avoidance (IE. I'll occupy myself and pretend "it" isn't there).

Asking the tougher questions such as "am I depressed?", or "Why am I depressed?" are precisely that, tougher, but also truer.

I thought of this topic not specifically in regards to depression, but more social issues. One issue which is close to me is homelessness since it is often related with mental illness.

When you see a homeless person what question do you ask yourself? Do you ask "How can a person bring themselves to that?" or the tougher "How does the society that I belong to accept this for it's own citizens?"

I'm sure there's tons of other questions, some tougher than others, but next time you start asking questions, maybe the first one should be "Is this the TOUGH question?"

Selfishness

A difficulty I have encountered which has contributed to my depression is the mixed message in our society about selfishness and altruism.

As a general rule, selfishness is defined and portrayed as being negative and not something that one wants to be (or be known as), yet when someone is going through difficulties, it is often said that they need to "help themselves" (IE. Be selfish).

In fact, the entire industry of popular "psychology" is based not on generosity and altruism, but rather on selfishness; it's even called "Self-Help".

I've often heard people say "So-&-So, he's just TOO NICE a guy". How can someone be "too nice"? None of us will ever be half as nice as we can!!!

The difficulty I've had is when at times I've be nice, or generous (perhaps naively), I was actually criticized. That just did not make sense to me. In my mind, I was doing it in good faith, and for a good reason. Whether the (hoped for) result was reached or not was not the goal, I just wanted to help.

It would make me depressed to realize that I couldn't even be nice!! I did what I thought was right, and still got shit, how useless am I!!!!

After this happened a few times, I got less enthusiastic about being nice or helpful, and then I was accused of "selfishness". This in turn also made me depressed.

The most depressing part was the contridiction which (in my mind) was "whether I do something nice or whether I don't, the result is the same (criticism)". That left me depressed that I didn't do the right thing either way, and more importantly, that there was no "right thing" I could do.

Is it un-manly to de depressed?

Reading recent issues of men's magazines "GQ" and "Esquire", I couldn't help but question (once again) society's fear of male depression.

Both editions included a full article on American (male) Iraq war veterans who have returned to the USA and the struggles they are experiencing.

Without detailing the articles, the main thing I got is that these vets were nothing more than a commodity. When they followed orders and killed the enemy they were a great commodity, the minute they no longer could, their "value" diminished and they were drummed out.

As active Servicemen, they symbolized what our culture portrays as "men". Bigger, stronger, and faster than the "enemy", putting in 12-15 hour days (regardless of whether they were doing something constructive or destructive), and whatever else they did (drinking, drugs) was "nobody's business".

Once their "skills" diminished, they suddenly (in our culture's eyes) became weak, useless, and their drinking and grug use turned into a lack of will power.

The fact their "skills" were nothing more than a "service" which justified politicians' bad judgement (to put it mildly), and that these skills are useless anywhere else but in a battlefield is something we (as a society) never look at.

More importantly, the reason their "skills" diminished (and lost their "manliness") is mental illness. Mental illness brought upon directly by their military experience.

When our culture's predominant message to men is "Follow-orders-we'll-like-you. Get-sick-we'll-let-you-rot-in-the-dumpster", no wonder so few men ever disclose being sick (especially psychologically).

What are we waiting for? Continued...

Below is an article explaining the recent suicide of singer Marie Osmond's 18-year old son who was suffering from depression.

What kind of society are we that we just accept such tragedies, and even comfort (IE. Bury our heads in the sand) ourselves by thinking "it can't happen to us"?

Is it more/less important because it happened to a celebrity, of course not. The celebrity aspect is strictly because that's what we, as a society, want to hear about.

What is important is that depression kills, but it also treatable (as long as it's not made out to be something to be ashamed of!!). We ALL need to educate ourselves on what depression is, and how to cope with it.

Whether a sufferer or not, it is EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US' responsibility to be courageous enough to overcome our misconceptions about depression and mental illness, and finally be cognizant of what it really is,, and what we can do to combat it and prevent future events like this one from occuring.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100228/entertainment/centertainment_us_osmond

What are we waiting for?

Below is an article on the recent passing of Andrew Koenig, actor and son of Star Trek actor Walter Koenig.

The story explains how Andrew was suffering depression, and it is what eventually got the best of him.

The Koenig family did what they could, but the limited available services made it impossible for Andrew and his family to make the seriousness of the situation known.

This must not become another "sad story" and be left for not.

Depression is real, it kills people, and does not discriminate; men, women, young, old, rich , poor.....And we are all victims, whether as sufferers or friends / family of sufferers.




http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100225/entertainment/koenig_disappearance

How does evolving differ from conforming?

As mentioned previously, I've struggled with the idea of "Fitting in / Normalcy" while being "unique" at the same time.

When I take about "evolving", I refer to a person "progressing socially" and "keeping up with the times". How is this different from "keeping up with the Jones'"?

To be "up with the times" in 2010, one would be up to date with celebrity culture, technologically literate, have a Facebook account, Tweet, blog (!!). Yet so many people fit that description, how is that not simply conforming?

Our culture emphasizes being "true to oneself", self-expression, and our differences, but these differences are more similarities. My Facebook / Twitter / blog are "different" than others, but are they not all the same?

Functionality and happiness.

One of the most difficult things in life in balancing how one fits in society without feeling like they are just a number, while embracing their uniqueness without coming off as a kook.

In my deepest darkest days, one thought that kept coming back was "If being functional is all there is, I'm not interested". My definition of "functional" was (and still is!!) "just do enough bot to be a nuisance to others". During my depression, that thought was compounded with the belief (which is not entirely wrong, by the way!!) that the main thing people care about in social contact is to not be burdened.

If someone is not "funcional" they are a burden and therefore unworthy of genuine care.

Functionality, by that definition, has nothing to do with happiness.

Is the functional person automatically happy?
Is the non-functional person automatically sad?

When taking stock of a person (or ourselves), do we put a disproportionate emphasis on functionality, as opposed to happiness?

If functionality is as important as it is made out to be, why are so many people still unhappy?

Stigma (continued)

Back on December 7th 2009 I wrote about the use of the term "stigma" in relation to mental illness (specifically depression), and how it's a euphemism for "shame", but sounds much better.

Today I would like to further the topic of the use of the term "stigma", and how it relates to other facets of depression.

Numerous articles and publications suggest that depression manifests itself differently in men and women adding that "Male Depression contains an extra stigma" (IE. Cultural gender bias). Once again, the word "stigma" sounds better to the ear. Synonyms of "stigma" in this context can include: "gender bias", "unfair disadvantage", and "inequality". Use of these terms (for male depression) would never be accepted.

Another part of mental illness and depression which is stigmatized is compliance (The word adherence can also be used). Compliance is defined as "The degree to which patients follow the medical recommendations of practitioners."

Compliance of mental illness and depression medications is judged much more severely than any other conditions. The person with lung cancer or emphysema who continues smoking, the person with high blood pressure who continues to drink heavily, not get regular exercise, continue eating a high fat diet, even not take their medication will likely get reprimanded, but they will not be portrayed as "weak-willed", or "just not wanting to help themselves".

Also, the idea that psychiatric medications are "more important" than medications for other conditions is false. The diabetic who misses his insulin is at much higher risk than the depressive who misses his anti-depressive medication or even the schizophrenic who misses his lithium.

Difficulty posting

I have not posted in too long (to me). It's not due to a lack of things to write about going on in my life (work, relationships, finances, goals...) and how these impact my mood.

I often even write down blogging ideas, yet when the time comes to put it on here, I just don't.

Several factors account for this, lower energy level, bad time management, simple laziness.

I recognize a bit of a more insidious reason; I have expectations for this blog.

I say insidious because un-realized expectations have often been a trigger for depressive episodes. I have began jobs why expectations of this one being "The One", gotten new apartments with lofty goals of "this is where I'll establish myself once for good". There's nothing wrong with appropriate goal setting, and having ambition, but all in appropriate terms.

This remains "only" a blog, one among millions out there. A good one (I like to think), but one of many regardless of it's quality.

I also have bigger goals such as emigrating to Australia (which everything that will encompass), and getting settled down with my fiancee. Now I recognize how those are much loftier, yet more important, and definitely achievable.

This blog is just one of those many (seemingly) "less important" goals. The whole "Nothing dramatic will happen if I don't blog today" creeps in. As true as that is, if I choose not to blog based on that reasoning, I'm validating the excuse, and before you know it I won't be blogging at all.

Some things are more important than others, but just because something is less important is no reason to stop entirely.