Does anyone else think the "Just talk about it" is just not good enough.

Fozzydog3

Rant ahead:

Women get free breast and cervical checks, ribbons, marathons, public service ads , mobile clinics, marches, coffee mornings awareness campaigns and referenda for uniquely women's issues. For one of the biggest issues affecting men today all we get is "Just talk about it", the sentiment is good but it seems to remove responsibilty from the HSE and places it on the victims for not opening up and the victim's friends and family for not listening.

I'm lucky that I'm not suicidal but if the feeling were ever to creep up on me I don't think my friends would have the resources or skills needed to 'snap' me out of it. Do they seriously expect your average person to replace the role of medically qualified people ?

We have Physical Education from an early age in our schools. I would say Mental Health Issues are starting to make their way in there too with things like Mindfulness Meditation coming into some schools. But I would love to see a whole curriculum build up from an early age. There is so much to learn there - and so much that can be applicable in helping people with issues but even helping people with no issues - that I think a useful curriculum could be put together quite well.

There are even areas of psychology and mental health that people deride - often for good reasons. "Transactional Analysis" for example springs instantly to mind. But even that has the ability to give people a language they might not otherwise have for discussing or even internally examining our own Mental Well Being and Health. Sometimes even a nonsense or otherwise unsupported by evidence approach like Transaction Analysis can give one a linguistic framework where they come out saying things like "Yea I have had those feelings and thoughts internally but I just did not feel I had the language to articulate it meaningfully".

That for me is one place where the "Just Talk About It" approach falls down. Many people who would greatly benefit for talking about it simply do not have the language to do it.

The other place where it falls down of course is worse - which is that usually when a person has issues of depression - the time when they would most benefit from talking about it is usually also the time where they feel least able to. Or worse - feel least convinced that anyone cares enough about them to even want to list in the first place. Depressed people can often feel like a worthless imposition on friends family and society. And talking about their problems therefore just feels like they would be being a greater imposition.

Like you I would not want to take responsibility away from the HSE - and certainly would not like to shift blame and so forth to the victims. But maybe there are other areas we can meaningfully shunt some responsibility for helping with the issue. And I wonder if our School Curriculum is one of those places.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say Mental Health Issues are starting to make their way in there too with things like Mindfulness Meditation coming into some schools.

True, however how such a curriculum is framed is the thing. It seems there are broad gender differences when it comes to mental health. For example you mention mindfulness, yet a couple of studies into mindfulness has found that while it was of clear benefit for women, it didn't do men much good, even made some slightly worse. Here's one such study of college age folks. My concern would be that schools are more likely to follow the general cultural background and "gender" the curriculum more towards girls/women. If we look to the US boys are routinely "diagnosed" as troublesome and attention deficit and many are saying it's just as much because they're just not acting like girls in the classroom. We've already seen in some teen and adult programmes here where it's suggested that feminism is what young men need and a few talking heads have backed this.

Even this "Just talk about it" slogan is somewhat gendered and problematic. Why are men less likely to "Just talk about it" in the first place? There are certainly cultural influences in this, but too often and again the background philosophy de jour, is that we're blank slates and it's all cultural. However across cultures gender differences in handling stress, responses to stress and types of mental illness are seen. For example of the so called "Big Five" personality traits, neuroticism is most found in women. Where men figure in this trait is when young and already at high risk of neuroticism because of existing mental conditions. Women also score very highly in the other traits of agreeableness and warmth, men score highly in open to new ideas and assertiveness. So "Just talk about it" may work more for women and society needs to tease out why and take different approaches to reach more men in need of reaching.

silverharp

I’d put this with a huge question mark after this but given how education and health have become so feminised my bias would be that any advice forthcoming would be based on what works for women and that the gender difference are ignored or worse still blamed with a subtext that if boys and men just behaved more like women they would be happier.
That being said there is robust psychological work out there and it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of the education system to distil and impart some of it.

johnnyskeleton

Wibbs wrote: »

Even this "Just talk about it" slogan is somewhat gendered and problematic. Why are men less likely to "Just talk about it" in the first place?

Lots of my male friends are open about their mental health, right across the scale. What I often find is that they get frustrated taking about these things to women, because they dont understand. So they clam up and then women get to say "aha, you need to talk more" because their silence in the face of an inhospitable audience is taken to be an inability to articulate their thoughts

One eyed Jack

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

Rant ahead:

Women get free breast and cervical checks, ribbons, marathons, public service ads , mobile clinics, marches, coffee mornings awareness campaigns and referenda for uniquely women's issues. For one of the biggest issues affecting men today all we get is "Just talk about it", the sentiment is good but it seems to remove responsibilty from the HSE and places it on the victims for not opening up and the victim's friends and family for not listening.

I'm lucky that I'm not suicidal but if the feeling were ever to creep up on me I don't think my friends would have the resources or skills needed to 'snap' me out of it. Do they seriously expect your average person to replace the role of medically qualified people ?

I’m guessing you’re talking about mental health issues solely from the perspective of men, which is a fair point on it’s own merits, but it can’t really be compared with the services that are provided for women when ordinary people have had to fight tooth and nail for what resources they have to provide services to women. Men haven’t done that for themselves, and so that leads on to your second point - it’s not that anyone expects your average person to replace the role of medically qualified people. Ordinary people are often each other’s best support. That’s how there are so many services provided for women that aren’t provided for men. That’s how they get the resources and the people with the skills, because they campaign tirelessly for it, and often they’re a pain in the teeth, and they face harsh criticism for their endeavours and their attitudes, but they have the resources, and men don’t. There’s the real “Why not?” question you should be asking, and the answer is painfully obvious - because men experiencing issues with their mental health don’t speak up for themselves, let alone do they generally want to speak to other people about it. We can’t have it both ways. Either speak up, or don’t, but if we don’t, then we don’t have any right to complain when other people do and they get what they campaign for.

I don’t see the message taking responsibility from the HSE and putting it on family and friends at all. I simply see it as ineffective, as it’s falling on deaf ears.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We have Physical Education from an early age in our schools. I would say Mental Health Issues are starting to make their way in there too with things like Mindfulness Meditation coming into some schools. But I would love to see a whole curriculum build up from an early age. There is so much to learn there - and so much that can be applicable in helping people with issues but even helping people with no issues - that I think a useful curriculum could be put together quite well.

...

Like you I would not want to take responsibility away from the HSE - and certainly would not like to shift blame and so forth to the victims. But maybe there are other areas we can meaningfully shunt some responsibility for helping with the issue. And I wonder if our School Curriculum is one of those places.

We do have a curriculum there already, both at primary and secondary level education - the SPHE curriculum, and as well as that the HSE regularly visit schools to have discussions with parents and their children and the staff about a whole range of topics related to their physical and mental health, as well as the range of programmes they run throughout the year targeted at children and their parents in schools.

I’m not gone on the whole mindfulness thing personally tbh, but it’s been introduced by the Dept. of Education in a good number of schools now after what was regarded as a successful pilot program -


Well Being in Primary Schools
Well Being in Post Primary Schools


We can’t force people to talk when they don’t want to, and I would never want anyone to feel like they had to, but when they do talk, it’s pointless talking about shifting the responsibility for their circumstances onto others instead of actually seeking help, because the help actually is there for people, and the resources are there, but they’re of little use if they aren’t being used. It’s up to people to take responsibility for themselves, because there really is only so much other people and organisations can do in the area of mental health and suicide prevention.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems there are broad gender differences when it comes to mental health. For example you mention mindfulness, yet a couple of studies into mindfulness has found that while it was of clear benefit for women, it didn't do men much good, even made some slightly worse.

It is very interesting stuff isn't it? But I would of course suggest quite a lot of caution before making that interpretation. For example the link you offered showed responses to "college based" training and in the conclusion said this has implications for "school based" training. How they feel they can test in one setting and jump to conclusions about a completely different setting is not clear to me. Especially as the earlier one starts such training the less pre-conceptions children would be bringing to the practice.

I think this is important and relevant as the link you offer also discusses differences such as how each gender tends to internaliize or externalize their emotional issues. But the paper does not discuss whether that is one of those natural tendenceies of the genders or something that is socially formed. Similar to how we can often think boys tend towards one type of toy and girls another - while missing the fact this can be heavily due to however every piece of social interaction and media we pump their direction influences that. You mention this "blank slate" issue yourself and I am quite middle of the road on that continuum thinking it is a (un?)healthy mix of both. Natural differences in the genders that we magnify with social expectation and status quo and conditioning.

Further the study was for a "12 week course". My own forays into the area would suggest that is significantly far from long enough to get any meaningful results at all. A study showing mindfulness practices integrated over their entire college career might be more informative. Worse again it was not even a 12 week course on meditation training they used to come to their conclusions about meditation training. Rather it was " 12-week courses with meditation training components" so not only was it only 12 weeks - the 12 weeks was not even entirely made up of what they claimed to have been studying. In my experiences it takes weeks or even months to make good progress with it. And the Arc I always observe is people think they are bad at it - then think they are getting better and better at it - then suddenly think they are getting much much worse at it. And that is the point that perversely they are actually getting better at it - but think they are getting worse because they have reached a level that they are now noticing the things such as their mind wandering that they were not usefully noticing before. Dan Harris a writer on meditation talks about this well in his book actually - how the self reported progress in meditation practices does not track with actual progress in the field. And a lot of people give up on it for that reason - because just when they are getting good at it they start to think themselves they suck at it.

On top of all that it is important to point out that I would not suggest mindfulness meditation as a curriculum on it's own. It was only a single example of the _type_ of thing that would be an element in an over all curriculum based approach to mental health. Mindfulness meditation in isolation is likely to be beneficial but the crux my first post above was that we should also be bringing in a number of practices that give people a vocabulary and linguistic framework to better be able to articulate their mental health issues in a way I am unconvinced they can at the moment. Meditative introspection is one thing - but being able to articulate what one discovers on that journey - to oneself or others - is quite another. And I think either one - without the other - is likely to be a whole lot less useful than we might want. Your link itself even suggests this when it says the benefits observed in men "changes were correlated with an improved dimension of mindfulness involving the ability to identify, describe and differentiate one’s emotions." which I think really supports my point. I do not like that this paper has a "This or this" mentality suggesting that maybe Tai Chi would be better for men or maybe "open-monitoring and affect labeling may be more beneficial to men". They do not really mention or consider the idea that it is not an either/or thing but a more holistic approach melding introspective meditation _with_ active mediation forms like tai chi _with_ linguistic monitoring and labeling and linguistic approaches all together might be the focus of most benefit.

Another concern I would have would be related to what was mentioned above already about gender tendencies towards external and internal action on emotional issues. This would not suggest, as you and the study writers seem to think, that there is a difference in benefit between men and women. Rather - given meditation is itself an introspective approach and they indicate women are _already_ doing that - then the issue is such an approach would show effects sooner in women than in men - because such training would have more to undo in men before benefits could be observed than in women who are already tending in the direction meditation would send them. So again my concern that 12 weeks is all they worked with here would be increased - and so too my feeling that getting such practices into a curriculum in early schooling - rather than much later college/university would be beneficial before social ideas of how men and women should be dealing with and processing their emotions takes hold.

Finally the results of the entire endeavour was based solely on "self reported" measures which is also unfortunate. Especially with a questionnaire before and after which would have the tendency to make people focus too heavily on the measures we would be trying to get at. Also when you say "slightly worse" their exact words were "slight but Non-significant" which carries less implication that "slightly worse" might imply.

All of that is not to entirely disagree with your suggestion that a gendered curriculum is a good idea. I just would suggest it might not be _as_ effective as one might suspect - especially the earlier in our schooling it is introduced. Certainly however the later in our schooling system we introduce such mental health training - the more gendered an approach we indeed would have to make.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do have a curriculum there already

Nothing comparable to what I am describing however. There is some good stuff on that list for general development of children but of the 15 "Broad Objectives" listed there the only ones that even err into the area of Mental Health I am discussing are a brief mention of "self-esteem" in the first one. The rest of the list appears to be focused almost entirely on group interactions and conflict resolution and identity. All good social stuff - but little to nothing about the introspection - maintenance of mental health and well being - and the communication of same to oneself and others that I am describing.

At best therefore, the contents of your link there are what I would see as the pre-requisites and basis for the kind of development I would like to see installed atop it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not gone on the whole mindfulness thing personally tbh, but it’s been introduced by the Dept. of Education in a good number of schools now after what was regarded as a successful pilot program

Not sure what "not gone on" it actually means to be honest as I have not seen you discuss the subject much in the past or indicate even all that much knowledge about it. But yes I mentioned in my first post that it has already been making it's way into some schools - and as you say it has been successful enough.

It is absolutely a step in the right direction and also gives us the ability to study the effects on a larger group of people over a much longer period of time. Which will yield more informative data than a hand full of people shown the rudiments of the practices over a mere 12 weeks - which is the kind of data we have for it now.

But I absolutely see it building on the pre-requistes from something like SPHE rather than being a replacement for it - or in conflict with it - or in any way a mere duplicate of it. These are complimentary approaches to a more holistic approach to mental well being that we can - and hopefully are as we see here - introducing both more comprehensively and _earlier_ in our schooling.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can’t force people to talk when they don’t want to, and I would never want anyone to feel like they had to

Nor would I - but what we should be giving them from a much earlier age is the language narratives and linguistic structures by which they _could_ talk if they want. So that if and when they do choose to - that are as well equipped to do it as we can make them. And even those that never choose to - or actively choose not to - such linguistic improvements allow them to have that conversation better with themselves - and being better able to identify issues internally should hopefully allow them to better action them.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing comparable to what I am describing however. There is some good stuff on that list for general development of children but of the 15 "Broad Objectives" listed there the only ones that even err into the area of Mental Health I am discussing are a brief mention of "self-esteem" in the first one. The rest of the list appears to be focused almost entirely on group interactions and conflict resolution and identity. All good social stuff - but little to nothing about the introspection - maintenance of mental health and well being - and the communication of same to oneself and others that I am describing.

At best therefore, the contents of your link there are what I would see as the pre-requisites and basis for the kind of development I would like to see installed atop it.

I’m a bit confused about much of what you’ve written above. I cannot understand how after reading the curriculum you came to the conclusions you did above. The three strands of the curriculum are ‘Myself’, ‘Myself and others’ and ‘Myself and the wider world’. You’ll note the first word in each of the three strands is ‘Myself’. If that doesn’t imply introspection, we’re working off different definitions of the term ‘introspective’ (the irony ).

But seriously though, after reading through the curriculum, you didn’t see anything in the Aims -

Aims

The aims of social, personal and health education are

• to promote the personal development and well-being of the child
• to foster in the child a sense of care and respect for himself/herself and others and an appreciation of the dignity of every human being
• to promote the health of the child and provide a foundation for healthy living in all its aspects
• to enable the child to make informed decisions and choices about the social, personal and health dimensions of life both now and in the future
• to develop in the child a sense of social responsibility, a commitment to active and participative citizenship and an appreciation of the democratic way of life
• to enable the child to respect human and cultural diversity and to appreciate and understand the interdependent nature of the world.

Or the broad objectives -

Broad objectives

When due account is taken of intrinsic abilities and varying circumstances, the SPHE curriculum should enable the child to

• be self-confident and have a positive sense of self-esteem
• develop a sense of personal responsibility and come to understand his/her sexuality and the processes of growth, development and reproduction
• develop and enhance the social skills of communication, co-operation and conflict resolution
• create and maintain supportive relationships both now and in the future
• develop an understanding of healthy living, an ability to implement healthy behaviour and a willingness to participate in activities that promote and sustain health
• develop a sense of safety and an ability to protect himself/herself from danger and abuse
• make decisions, solve problems and take appropriate actions in various personal, social and health contexts
• become aware of, and discerning about, the various influences on choices and decisions
• begin to identify, review and evaluate the values and attitudes that are held by individuals and society and to recognise that these affect thoughts and actions
• respect the environment and develop a sense of responsibility for its long-term care
• develop some of the skills and abilities necessary for participating fully in groups and in society
• become aware of some of the individual and community rights and responsibilities that come from living in a democracy
• begin to understand the concepts of personal, local, national, European and global identity
• appreciate and respect the diversity that exists in society and the positive contributions of various cultural, religious and social groups
• promote the values of a just and caring society in an age-appropriate manner and understand the importance of seeking truth and peace.


that would suggest your claims that - ‘little to nothing about the introspection - maintenance of mental health and well being - and the communication of same to oneself and others’, is more than a tad disingenuous? Because even the broad objectives alone cover exactly what you’re suggesting, and more, certainly a lot more than just self-esteem in relation to mental health.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure what "not gone on" it actually means to be honest as I have not seen you discuss the subject much in the past or indicate even all that much knowledge about it. But yes I mentioned in my first post that it has already been making it's way into some schools - and as you say it has been successful enough.

I don’t mean to be nit-picky tax but I didn’t say it has been successful enough. The reason I’m being nit-picky about that is because I said ‘introduced by the Dept. of Education in a good number of schools now after what was regarded as a successful pilot program’. I was referring to the pilot program, which was indeed regarded as a success, ie - the pilot program met it’s intended objectives. I didn’t say I agreed with the objectives, or that I was personally convinced that the pilot program did meet it’s objectives. The only objective it actually met as far as I was concerned were it’s budgetary objectives - it costs little to implement.

That goes some way towards explaining why you didn’t understand what I meant when I said I’m not gone on mindfulness personally - while I can understand that it’s something you’re obviously quite clearly passionate about, I just don’t find it interesting. That’s why I don’t discuss it or indicate I have all that much knowledge of it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is absolutely a step in the right direction and also gives us the ability to study the effects on a larger group of people over a much longer period of time. Which will yield more informative data than a hand full of people shown the rudiments of the practices over a mere 12 weeks - which is the kind of data we have for it now.

It yields more data tax, certainly, but how useful that data is, is really anyone’s argument. The data we have so far suggests anything between no benefit at all, to all sorts of benefits that can cause some people to become evangelical in their promotion of mindfulness. My brothers are practitioners for years and one has recently become a ‘Life Coach’, and my wife has been a practitioner for years, I hear more than enough about how it’s changed their perspective on life, everyone’s talking about mindfulness and how it has changed their lives :pac:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But I absolutely see it building on the pre-requistes from something like SPHE rather than being a replacement for it - or in conflict with it - or in any way a mere duplicate of it. These are complimentary approaches to a more holistic approach to mental well being that we can - and hopefully are as we see here - introducing both more comprehensively and _earlier_ in our schooling.

Oh absolutely, while I suggested earlier that I personally see no value in it, I also understand that different things work for different people, and I personally see no harm in mindfulness whatsoever. I simply see it as a waste of class time and something which should be taught to children by their enthusiastic parents is all, because from what I observed during the pilot program, it’s difficult to get other people enthusiastic about the idea in order to deliver the program effectively to children.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nor would I - but what we should be giving them from a much earlier age is the language narratives and linguistic structures by which they _could_ talk if they want. So that if and when they do choose to - that are as well equipped to do it as we can make them. And even those that never choose to - or actively choose not to - such linguistic improvements allow them to have that conversation better with themselves - and being better able to identify issues internally should hopefully allow them to better action them.

I can see where you’re coming from tax, but from my perspective I think listening and teaching people to listen, is a far more important skill than teaching children how to talk or engage in self-examination. At least if you teach people to listen, it teaches them to be aware of other people besides themselves, and from that they’ll work out a way to communicate their ideas to each other effectively, effective communication being a two way thing, being aware of and being considerate of other people who may lack the ability to be able to communicate their ideas.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that doesn’t imply introspection, we’re working off different definitions of the term ‘introspective’ (the irony ).

Or you are not reading what I write closely enough. Because no where in what I wrote or what you quoted did I say it did not imply introspection. What I _did_ say was "but little to nothing about the introspection - maintenance of mental health and well being - and the communication of same to oneself and others that I am describing. ".

I trust I do not have to explain the difference between "nothing to do with X" and "Nothing to do with the kind of X I am referring to" now do I?

Pasting the curriculum at me does not change what I said. Which is that there are 15 elements listed in the "Broad Objectives" and of those 15 only the one briefly mentioning "self esteem" is touching on the kinds of things I am talking about. Rather the 15 things listed are what I would see as the foundation upon which the kinds of things I am discussing would usefully be placed. And even then looking a the curriculum it is unclear what they even mean by self esteem. What content do they have - for example - on the concept of "locus of evaluation" and how some people find their mental health suffers greatly for having the wrong one? As an anecdote for example almost my _entire_ near suicidal depression and mental suffering in my early life was alleviated by nothing more than my shifting my internal locus of evaluation from external to internal sources. This one single move changed me over night from the lay about useless depressed nobody to the much happier much more successful happy nobody I am today

To take a random example from the list take the objective "develop and enhance the social skills of communication, co-operation and conflict resolution". Great - here we aim to build the skill of communication itself. However the type of thing _I_ am referring to would use that only as a foundation. As I am talking about having worked on the communication - we _then_ give them the language and ideas around mental well being that they can use when doing that communication. To use a very loose analogy - I see one as installing the phone line and I see the other as teaching the language to be used when communicating with someone over it.

Other things on the list have nothing to do with what I am talking about. For example some are about physical health. Sure physical health feeds into mental well being in the long run - but it is still very distinct from anything I am talking about here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That goes some way towards explaining why you didn’t understand what I meant when I said I’m not gone on mindfulness personally - while I can understand that it’s something you’re obviously quite clearly passionate about, I just don’t find it interesting. That’s why I don’t discuss it or indicate I have all that much knowledge of it.

Well the nit pickyness aside (though if it helps there are two meanings of the word "enough" in that context and your response to me suggests you picked the wrong one of the two.) you are pretty much stating what I suspected here. Which is that your lack of interest in it is itself entirely uninteresting and irrelevant and if we are going to discuss the issue we should do so in terms of actual facts and not personal emotion. I think we might find it difficult to move a conversation forward if you're claiming the curriculum already does what I am suggesting in one breath (which it doesn't) and in the next breath telling us why you actively do not really know what you or I are actually talking about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It yields more data tax, certainly, but how useful that data is, is really anyone’s argument. The data we have so far suggests anything between no benefit at all, to all sorts of benefits that can cause some people to become evangelical in their promotion of mindfulness.

I would say very useful. However I also think a rule of thumb in general is that having any data is almost always going to be superior to having no data at all.

But some data is massively superior to others. Sometimes monumentally so. And if we take something that requires months to see real progress and benefit from - and then observe a study that only looks at people who were _partially_ engaged with that something for only 12 weeks - then it is very safe to say there is much better and informative data we could be working on obtaining.

So when you comment on "the data so far" without actually citing or presenting - well - any of it then it leaves the listener in a position of not having anything of use to glean from your paragraph. As you have essentially said nothing at all. What we would need to do is see what data you are talking about - and see if the data showing "no benefit at all" and/or the data showing "all sorts of benefits" falls under which evaluation paradigm. I certainly would not be biased in my evaluation of the data - and if I saw something showing massive benefits but only after studying the test group for 12 weeks I would be as quick to dismiss it as the opposite.

But so far I have seen few "no benefit at all" studies that were done over the long term. With the exception of the longer term studies of people with rarer but relevant conditions that mindfulness meditation has been shown to actually exacerbate or compound. Data which should inform with a level of caution any curriculum we form on the matter at the school level.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply see it as a waste of class time and something which should be taught to children by their enthusiastic parents is all

Which is 100% exactly how I would also see the nonsense you personally like to see taught to children under the guise of "religion". Alas there are things that get into our school curriculum that is a waste of time. On this thread I am discussing one specific area of a schooling system. If we want to shift to discussing the curriculum as a whole then we might be derailing the thread somewhat. But suffice to say I think there are massive overhauls we could benefit from across the entire board at that level.

And if the process for doing so were to bring to the table data and studies showing whether the things we want to add or remove from a new curriculum actually has real world benefits and advantages then I think a module built around - but not solely consisting of - mindfulness practices might find itself significantly higher on the pecking order than some of the complete nonsense and waste of time you might find it up against which lack much or even _any_ such data about it's benefits.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

because from what I observed during the pilot program, it’s difficult to get other people enthusiastic about the idea in order to deliver the program effectively to children.

Again an issue I see in many areas of the curriculum. I would even dare to risk saying most or even all of it at times. Take how we teach languages for example - which appears to get very few people enthusiastic or to an effective level of competency. Most Irish people can not even speak our own language of Irish for example let alone foreign languages. And as one of my partners is a linguist I get quite a lot of exposure and travel into Europe.

And there I see their level of Enthusiasm is quite high for language learning - and they do it much differently to us. Here in Ireland for example - just one example of the differences I see - I can think of Hector Ó hEochagáin who was a TV presenter who spoke a lot of English but loved peppering his dialogue with little Irish words or phrases here and there.

In Europe - particularly in Germany and Austria - I find almost everyone loves doing that with English. They just love to get a word in here - a phrase in there. Like it gives them a little buzz. I do not see that here much or at all.

And that is just languages. I see it across the education system myself alas. So I entirely agree with you building enthusiasm is an issue when implementing something. I just do not think _at all_ that it is an issue specific to anything I have proposed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see where you’re coming from tax, but from my perspective I think listening and teaching people to listen, is a far more important skill than teaching children how to talk or engage in self-examination.

I would not go down the route at all of thinking one "more important" than the other. I would see them as entirely complementary. In fact for reasons I will describe below I am not even sure I would distinguish them as separate things at all in some contexts. Which is again why I feel the curriculum you linked to does not address the things I discuss but provides a foundation for them.

After all - you can spend all the time in the world teaching people to communicate their internal world - but what use is it in a society where no one is listening? That makes as much sense as installing a radio tower in a country where no one will ever own radios.

But conversely radios are not much use if no one is broadcasting - you can give people all the listening skills in the world - but what use is that if we do not have the ability to communicate - or the language to internally make sense of and _then_ articulate our internal issues.

Further listening - good listening - is not just about passively sitting there as a sponge and taking it all in. It is also often about constructing the right questions at the right time. So giving people the structures to talk - _is_ to give them the tools to be a listener too. Sometimes the right question asked in the right way can open up whole channels and systems of thought in your brain that were not explored before.

I am not sure therefore I see much utility in the "listening is more important - and sure if they can do that they will probably work out the rest for themselves" approach you describe here. Why assume they will reinvent the wheel - or that they even should - if there is a language of psychology and psychiatry there that they can be given to do it?

Whatever you might think of the man himself for example - and I can understand what gets peoples backs up about him - The Blindboy Podcaster of late has done a series of podcasts on different systems of thought in this. CBT and Transactional Analysis were among the things he discussed to an audience much of whom knew nothing about either.

And the feedback he appears to have gotten I find more interesting than anything he actually said himself - and it fits exactly what I am saying here. His listeners are commenting on his streams or writing into him saying pretty much every time "I had these thoughts and feelings and I did not know how to discuss them even within myself - and listening to what you taught about CBT/TA/OTHER put the words in place around which these otherwise nebulous things were given substance".

It is like the anti-1984 thing with Newspeak. There the idea was to remove words from the language. Not because removing the words magically stops people having feelings or thoughts. But because if those feelings or thoughts do not have words to coalesce around then it is significantly more difficult to action them or address them internally or ex.

So to return the thread to the OP - the issue for me with "Just talk about it" when people do not have the linguistic frame work to actually do it - is like telling someone with no legs to just get up and walk out.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or you are not reading what I write closely enough. Because no where in what I wrote or what you quoted did I say it did not imply introspection. What I _did_ say was "but little to nothing about the introspection - maintenance of mental health and well being - and the communication of same to oneself and others that I am describing. ".

I trust I do not have to explain the difference between "nothing to do with X" and "Nothing to do with the kind of X I am referring to" now do I?

Pasting the curriculum at me does not change what I said. Which is that there are 15 elements listed in the "Broad Objectives" and of those 15 only the one briefly mentioning "self esteem" is touching on the kinds of things I am talking about. Rather the 15 things listed are what I would see as the foundation upon which the kinds of things I am discussing would usefully be placed. And even then looking a the curriculum it is unclear what they even mean by self esteem. What content do they have - for example - on the concept of "locus of evaluation" and how some people find their mental health suffers greatly for having the wrong one? As an anecdote for example almost my _entire_ near suicidal depression and mental suffering in my early life was alleviated by nothing more than my shifting my internal locus of evaluation from external to internal sources. This one single move changed me over night from the lay about useless depressed nobody to the much happier much more successful happy nobody I am today

To take a random example from the list take the objective "develop and enhance the social skills of communication, co-operation and conflict resolution". Great - here we aim to build the skill of communication itself. However the type of thing _I_ am referring to would use that only as a foundation. As I am talking about having worked on the communication - we _then_ give them the language and ideas around mental well being that they can use when doing that communication. To use a very loose analogy - I see one as installing the phone line and I see the other as teaching the language to be used when communicating with someone over it.

Other things on the list have nothing to do with what I am talking about. For example some are about physical health. Sure physical health feeds into mental well being in the long run - but it is still very distinct from anything I am talking about here.

You understand the use of the term ‘broad’ in relation to the objectives of the program? While such philosophical and linguistic interpretations of simple language may be of interest to you, it is of no interest whatsoever to me. That being said, of course I’m happy for you that you have found something which makes you happy.

Well the nit pickyness aside (though if it helps there are two meanings of the word "enough" in that context and your response to me suggests you picked the wrong one of the two.) you are pretty much stating what I suspected here. Which is that your lack of interest in it is itself entirely uninteresting and irrelevant and if we are going to discuss the issue we should do so in terms of actual facts and not personal emotion. I think we might find it difficult to move a conversation forward if you're claiming the curriculum already does what I am suggesting in one breath (which it doesn't) and in the next breath telling us why you actively do not really know what you or I are actually talking about.

I never said I didn’t know what I was talking about? I said I had no interest in mindfulness. That should be easy to understand. The curriculum does exactly what I think you’re suggesting, but if you’re suggesting it doesn’t, then you’re going to have to be much clearer in exactly what you are suggesting, in order to move the discussion forward. I think there might be something in what you’re trying to suggest is lacking from the program, and I’m interested to hear it, but so far I’m at a loss as to what you’re suggesting is missing that isn’t already covered by the program.

I would say very useful. However I also think a rule of thumb in general is that having any data is almost always going to be superior to having no data at all.

But some data is massively superior to others. Sometimes monumentally so. And if we take something that requires months to see real progress and benefit from - and then observe a study that only looks at people who were _partially_ engaged with that something for only 12 weeks - then it is very safe to say there is much better and informative data we could be working on obtaining.

So when you comment on "the data so far" without actually citing or presenting - well - any of it then it leaves the listener in a position of not having anything of use to glean from your paragraph. As you have essentially said nothing at all. What we would need to do is see what data you are talking about - and see if the data showing "no benefit at all" and/or the data showing "all sorts of benefits" falls under which evaluation paradigm. I certainly would not be biased in my evaluation of the data - and if I saw something showing massive benefits but only after studying the test group for 12 weeks I would be as quick to dismiss it as the opposite.

But so far I have seen few "no benefit at all" studies that were done over the long term. With the exception of the longer term studies of people with rarer but relevant conditions that mindfulness meditation has been shown to actually exacerbate or compound. Data which should inform with a level of caution any curriculum we form on the matter at the school level.

12 weeks is certainly enough time to evaluate the efficacy of a program which is normally delivered over the course of 8 weeks -

The original Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy programmes are designed to be taught over 8 weeks.

All the pertinent research has been carried out on courses lasting 8 weeks.

The length of each class is at least 2 hours, ideally 2.5 – 3 hours.


Source: The Mindfulness Centre, Ireland

Work with the data you’re given - I see no benefit personally, is one data point; the other is that of my brother who is evangelical in his promotion of mindfulness as an effective tool that everyone should be using. I have no problem introducing my bias in saying that he’s doing the concept of mindfulness no favours by making it sound like nothing more than a slick ponzi scheme for some slick operators to take advantage of gullible shmucks, but that’s just my impression of his marketing skills.

In the school environment of course it’s a different story, and at least one expert has as you suggest cautioned against drawing any hard and fast conclusions with the limited data set that is currently available -


Willem Kuyken, a professor of clinical psychology at Oxford University and director of the Oxford Mindfulness Centre has urged caution about the widespread adoption of the practise in schools.

"There’s a lot of enthusiasm [about] mindfulness and we think that the enthusiasm may be ahead of the research,” he told Times Education Supplement.

“I completely see why people might say it’s wishy-washy, which is why we’re working to ensure there is good research answering important questions about whether it works, how it works and how it can be best implemented in school systems.”

Prof Kuyken said that advocates of mindfulness in schools often point to the NHS, mental health charities and other health organisations that encourage the practise. But he warned that evidence for its use in these fields is far more robust than it is in education.

“There have probably been at least 20 studies now of mindfulness in schools, all of them small, all of them not designed optimally,” he said.

Prof Kuyken, who is one of the lead researcher on a five-year study of almost 6,000 children which aims to establish what benefits, if any, mindfulness has on children in school.

“What we’re doing now is designed to provide a much more definitive answer of ‘Does it work, for whom does it work and is it cost-effective?’” he said.


Source: [url=
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/25/schools-should-wary-teaching-mindfulness-children-professor/]Schools should be wary of teaching mindfulness to children, professor says. The Telegraph[/url]


Here’s the thing though - I’m ok with that, and we’re already agreed that different things work for different people, so it stands to reason on that basis that some people will benefit from it, some people will see no benefit whatsoever. I don’t see any harm in mindfulness itself, and if people benefit from it, then while I personally consider the program a waste of school time, I consider it a waste of school time because I think the benefits of it are only gained by people who are interested in it. People who are not interested in it will see no benefit, and because children only spend 20% of the calendar year in school, and 80% of their time outside the school environment, they are unlikely to gain the full benefits of mindfulness, which could be better delivered by parents who are enthusiastic about the idea.

Which is 100% exactly how I would also see the nonsense you personally like to see taught to children under the guise of "religion". Alas there are things that get into our school curriculum that is a waste of time. On this thread I am discussing one specific area of a schooling system. If we want to shift to discussing the curriculum as a whole then we might be derailing the thread somewhat. But suffice to say I think there are massive overhauls we could benefit from across the entire board at that level.

And if the process for doing so were to bring to the table data and studies showing whether the things we want to add or remove from a new curriculum actually has real world benefits and advantages then I think a module built around - but not solely consisting of - mindfulness practices might find itself significantly higher on the pecking order than some of the complete nonsense and waste of time you might find it up against which lack much or even _any_ such data about it's benefits.

You’re clearly not, as you’ve just wedged in religion out of nowhere. I didn’t bring it up, you did, but let’s stick to mindfulness for now.

Again an issue I see in many areas of the curriculum. I would even dare to risk saying most or even all of it at times. Take how we teach languages for example - which appears to get very few people enthusiastic or to an effective level of competency. Most Irish people can not even speak our own language of Irish for example let alone foreign languages. And as one of my partners is a linguist I get quite a lot of exposure and travel into Europe.

And there I see their level of Enthusiasm is quite high for language learning - and they do it much differently to us. Here in Ireland for example - just one example of the differences I see - I can think of Hector Ó hEochagáin who was a TV presenter who spoke a lot of English but loved peppering his dialogue with little Irish words or phrases here and there.

In Europe - particularly in Germany and Austria - I find almost everyone loves doing that with English. They just love to get a word in here - a phrase in there. Like it gives them a little buzz. I do not see that here much or at all.

And that is just languages. I see it across the education system myself alas. So I entirely agree with you building enthusiasm is an issue when implementing something. I just do not think _at all_ that it is an issue specific to anything I have proposed.

And again, let’s just stick to mindfulness for now. While that is certainly an interesting perspective on language and education, and while I’m a cunning linguist myself with fluency in several languages, I’ve never found it particularly interesting personally, it’s just one of those things as far as I’m concerned. My real talents lie elsewhere, far more interesting, at least to the ladies anyway

I would not go down the route at all of thinking one "more important" than the other. I would see them as entirely complementary. In fact for reasons I will describe below I am not even sure I would distinguish them as separate things at all in some contexts. Which is again why I feel the curriculum you linked to does not address the things I discuss but provides a foundation for them.

After all - you can spend all the time in the world teaching people to communicate their internal world - but what use is it in a society where no one is listening? That makes as much sense as installing a radio tower in a country where no one will ever own radios.

But conversely radios are not much use if no one is broadcasting - you can give people all the listening skills in the world - but what use is that if we do not have the ability to communicate - or the language to internally make sense of and _then_ articulate our internal issues.

Further listening - good listening - is not just about passively sitting there as a sponge and taking it all in. It is also often about constructing the right questions at the right time. So giving people the structures to talk - _is_ to give them the tools to be a listener too. Sometimes the right question asked in the right way can open up whole channels and systems of thought in your brain that were not explored before.

I am not sure therefore I see much utility in the "listening is more important - and sure if they can do that they will probably work out the rest for themselves" approach you describe here. Why assume they will reinvent the wheel - or that they even should - if there is a language of psychology and psychiatry there that they can be given to do it?

I have found that one can learn far more about oneself from listening and observing others, than one can ever learn about oneself on one’s own. That’s the utility of the importance of listening far more than one speaks. I didn’t say it was either/or, nor did I suggest they weren’t complementary. They are, and saying that one is more important than the other does not mean anything like I’m suggesting that we reinvent the wheel, but rather I acknowledge that language evolves, from Old English to Modern English to modern day Engrish (it’s big in Japan ). By the time you’ll have taught children the basics of the language of psychiatry and psychology (which itself is undergoing constant evolution), they’ll no longer be children you’re attempting to teach, but adults.

Whatever you might think of the man himself for example - and I can understand what gets peoples backs up about him - The Blindboy Podcaster of late has done a series of podcasts on different systems of thought in this. CBT and Transactional Analysis were among the things he discussed to an audience much of whom knew nothing about either.

And the feedback he appears to have gotten I find more interesting than anything he actually said himself - and it fits exactly what I am saying here. His listeners are commenting on his streams or writing into him saying pretty much every time "I had these thoughts and feelings and I did not know how to discuss them even within myself - and listening to what you taught about CBT/TA/OTHER put the words in place around which these otherwise nebulous things were given substance".

It is like the anti-1984 thing with Newspeak. There the idea was to remove words from the language. Not because removing the words magically stops people having feelings or thoughts. But because if those feelings or thoughts do not have words to coalesce around then it is significantly more difficult to action them or address them internally or ex.

So to return the thread to the OP - the issue for me with "Just talk about it" when people do not have the linguistic frame work to actually do it - is like telling someone with no legs to just get up and walk out.

I think you’re familiar with my opinion on the entertainer that is Blindboy, I don’t find him entertaining in the slightest, and it’s quite likely I too would find his listeners opinions far more interesting than the man himself, it really isn’t that hard to know when he speaks on economic and social issues, his knowledge of either subject is... limited, is putting it kindly. A far more interesting speaker and someone from his neck of the woods and all is Dr. Stephen Kinsella, all-round decent guy who hasn’t disappeared up his own orifice, it’s not just humblebrag when he says he has two PhD’s and still manages to make sense. He does, and he makes far more sense than Blindboy attempting to emulate Shakespeare’s Fool.

So to return the thread indeed to the OP - my issue with your suggestion that we give people a linguistic framework is simply misguided at best, and would serve no purpose for people who are dumb, as in unable to speak, and therefore a linguistic framework to them is indeed like telling someone anything when they can’t speak. Some deaf people are actually great listeners btw, actively observing, and by doing so, people who are dumb and deaf come up with their own ways of communicating their inner thoughts and expressing themselves. You may or may not understand them, but in order to know what they’re saying first of all, it helps if you can understand just how they’re communicating. You can only do that by listening and observing. You won’t do it by telling them how you want them to speak, even Picard had to learn that... eventually

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wzr74d7TI

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand the use of the term ‘broad’ in relation to the objectives of the program?

I understand that such a word lacks _any_ of the specifics that I am discussing yes. And that the use of such a term tells us nothing at all about the specific content of it. And when I look into the links you present on the topic the content of those links in no way contains any reference to the kind of things I am talking about.

So pretending I have linguistic issues that I do not - rather just talks past the majority of everything I have been discussing with you. If you want to pretend that my reference to the "Broad Objectives" means I only read them and nothing else in your links - you are welcome to engage in the pretence of course. But pretending would be all it is.That being said, of course I’m happy for you that you have found something which makes you happy. Or - at least - petty.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said I didn’t know what I was talking about? I said I had no interest in mindfulness. That should be easy to understand. The curriculum does exactly what I think you’re suggesting, but if you’re suggesting it doesn’t, then you’re going to have to be much clearer in exactly what you are suggesting

Your lack of knowledge and interest in the subject - or understanding what I have been writing - does not mean I have not been clear. Perhaps it is not clear _to you_ but that does not mean it is not clear _at all_. In fact it would be difficult to be any clearer without starting to talk at you like you were a child. Which I am happy to do. But perhaps a better approach to adult conversation would be rather than making vague and vacuous assertions about lack of clarity or content - you might instead try to probe with specific questions or inquiries. That is how adult two way conversation works. "in order to move the discussion forward".

Again however I have been very clear about the difference between what your links discuss - which is fundamentals of basic communications - and what I am discussing - which is about fostering communication on a specific topic. The Phone and Language Analogy is worth repeating here. Installing a communication channel being different from the protocols of what would be discussed over it.

Put more plainly a "broad" (since you are focused on the word) approach to fostering basic communication ability in children is a great thing. However that is only a foundation when it comes to giving them the linguistics and tools to discuss a given _specific_ topic. A topic that there is not just little but pretty much _nothing_ in your link referring to. Which is why I am saying the curriculum does not do what I am suggesting, despite your vague insistence that it does.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

12 weeks is certainly enough time to evaluate the efficacy of a program which is normally delivered over the course of 8 weeks

Which just highlights once again the fact I genuinely see no reason to think you know what you are talking about on this subject. 12 weeks is simply _not_ enough to evaluate the efficacy of a program based on "X" when in general the benefits of "X" are not observed until much longer periods than 12 weeks. To think 12 weeks is enough therefore is just to demonstrate you know little or nothing about the subject at hand.

I can give you a crash course in a few sentences however. Mindfulness Meditation practices are generally not - as many people often believe - about stilling the mind and thinking about nothing. Quite the opposite. What they _are_ about is not being a slave to being lost in thought and internal conversation the entire time - and being able to focus on some aspect of the present moment in such a way that if distracting thoughts or emotions arise you develop the ability to notice them and let them go on their way without their distracting you in the present moment.

The "arc" I discussed in the previous post where people think they are getting worse at it just when they are getting better at it - is because the main skill to be developed is even _noticing_ that you are getting lost in thought in the first place. Which most of us simply can not do. So when people start to get good at it - they notice they are getting lost in thought all the time - and perversely this leaves them thinking they are bad at it or just got worse. When in fact they have just reached the stage when they can really get going in the practice.

None of that in my direct experience or in reading books by Dan Harris, Jon Kabat-Zinn, or any comprehensive studies on the matter - happens within 12 weeks generally. It is very rare to see that level of progress in 12 weeks at all.

So no - a study focusing on people for 12 weeks is not going to give any meaningful or useful results on the topic really. Even if the study is focusing on the practice entirely rather than just a course with "elements" of the practice in it as the link in this thread was. In fact it is likely to be worse than useful. It is likely to give results that are positively misleading.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Work with the data you’re given - I see no benefit personally, is one data point; the other is that of my brother who is evangelical in his promotion of mindfulness as an effective tool that everyone should be using. I have no problem introducing my bias in saying that he’s doing the concept of mindfulness no favours by making it sound like nothing more than a slick ponzi scheme for some slick operators to take advantage of gullible shmucks, but that’s just my impression of his marketing skills.

Much like many or most forms of religion - many things sold as "meditation" are indeed money making schemes taking advantage of gullible scmucks. This is something people who promote the practice have to combat and undo as part of promoting what they promote. When you google simply the word "meditation" you get all kinds of woo nonsense and crap and evidence devoid claims being sold to people to make profit.

This is unfortunate - but entirely true. Quite often you even get it sold as a way to commune with god - usually using fancy sounding words to make it all sound much more than it is. For example a religious nut job on a forum quite similar to this talks about how he went from atheist to christian having communed with god during "Deep Meditation using bio feedback technologies".

Sounds wonderfully technical doesn't it? But "Bio feedback" means nothing more than a simple tool that helps you visualize some aspect of your own body. The most common one is a simple beeper that beeps with your pulse. So you can focus on your pulse as you meditate. A useful tool actually but quite nonsense when presented like someone manufacturing evidence for god out of it would want.

Practices like Vipassana however offer nothing - and make no claims whatsoever - that requires recourse to buzz words, fancy ideas, or claims made on the basis of insufficient evidence.

However as I keep saying we are in danger -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the school environment of course it’s a different story, and at least one expert has as you suggest cautioned against drawing any hard and fast conclusions with the limited data set that is currently available

- of focusing too deeply on the _single_ example I gave of meditation and making this thread about nothing but meditation. That common but unfortunate move that often happens on forums like this where people get uppity about the example offered rather than focus on the actual point being made. And as I keep saying mediation would only be _one_ example of _the kind_ of thing I would like to see formed and incorporated into our schools from an early age. And I would be in entire agreement with your appeal to Authority Oxford Professor as to being cautious about adopting it in isolation in our schools.

Rather I would see it as one tiny single element in a curriculum aimed generally at giving people tools and linguistics and ideas that I see no reason to think most people currently have - aimed at fostering and maintaining their own mental health and well being. Focusing on meditation alone or as a majority - as you appear to be doing in your responses to me - would be as useless to me as forming a "Physical Eduducation (PE)" curriculum that did nothing more than tell kids what a football is - or did nothing more than make them jog an hour every couple of days. I think we recognize in a PE that fostering Physical Well Being requires a general holistic approach to maintain that health. I think Mental Health is no different.

But your Oxford professor agrees entirely with me when you quote him as saying “There have probably been at least 20 studies now of mindfulness in schools, all of them small, all of them not designed optimally,” he said. That is exactly my issue with the "study" that was linked to earlier in the thread. It was too small - not enough people and only 12 weeks when 12 weeks is not even _remotely_ close enough to requirements. And it was not well formed at all - relying on poor self reporting measures and making rather poor assumptions about the differences - and their relevance - between the sexes.

Instead perhaps we should be looking at long terms results when stuff like that is integrated into a curriculum over a number of years. Or we can focus good methodology studies closer on the work people like Jon Kabat-Zinn do with it in "the Stress Reduction Clinic and the Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society at the University of Massachusetts Medical School" where massive benefits and progress have been claimed from the practices.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the benefits of it are only gained by people who are interested in it. People who are not interested in it will see no benefit, and because children only spend 20% of the calendar year in school, and 80% of their time outside the school environment, they are unlikely to gain the full benefits of mindfulness, which could be better delivered by parents who are enthusiastic about the idea.

You are asserting that suspicion without evidence however. I am not seeing any studies - nor have you offered any I note - that correlates or links interest in it with the benefits from it. Nor - I would point out - is being interested in it a requirement for much of what we put on our school curriculum. If it was - one wonders what a school curriculum would even look like. Would History, Geography, Irish, Maths even be there at all? What about religion? I certainly say no benefit _or_ interest in any student ever from my time in various schools of having that nonsense foisted on us.

I suspect you are just showing your bias here therefore - by applying standards to one subject that are not being applied or required of any others. Whereas my approach and position to it - regardless of any bias or ideas I have about the efficacy and benefit of such practices - would be to put by biases aside hold _all_ of them to the same standards where possible in a fair and reasoned manner.

And as I said if we did take that approach - and include things on a curriculum that actually have evidence and reason showing their benefit - I suspect some of the nonsense that might be dear and precious to you would find itself much further down the pecking order as to it's justification for being on a school curriculum than anything I am proposing should be there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re clearly not, as you’ve just wedged in religion out of nowhere. I didn’t bring it up, you did, but let’s stick to mindfulness for now.

That is a weak dodge by far. References to other elements - or citations of examples from other elements of the curriculum is in no way the same as not focusing on one area of it. Quite the opposite. Being focused on one area does not require one make _no_ references to any other part of it.

The point - dodged alas - being that if we are going to start rolling in standards of measurement that you are only applying here and not to anything else - then that is going to force a derail into discussion of the curriculum as a whole. Because we would be engaging in unfair cherry picking of standards which you apply to whatever you have personal issue with - but withholding it from everyone and everywhere else.

And "religion" is a perfect and warranted example of that rather than - as you simply pretend - being "wedged out of nowhere". Because if your personal bias towards something forms as "I simply see it as a waste of class time and something which should be taught to children by their enthusiastic parents is all" then it is perfectly warranted to point out that the nonsense taught under the guise of "religion" about virgin births and resurrections is every bit as much a waste of class time - and is just as valid to be claimed that it is something that should be left to "enthusiastic parents is all".

The one difference being that meditation can be shown to exist - and the benefits of it or not actually studied. The god stuff not so much and despite it being around in our society and curriculum _a lot longer_ than meditation practices - the evidence and data showing any benefit of it at all is thin on the ground. Somewhere hovering around non-existent in fact.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And again, let’s just stick to mindfulness for now.

And again, I see no reason to do that. It was one example of a much larger point and your focusing on the example rather than the point is interesting and telling. The entire point I am making is that there are potentially ways to address the concerns of the OP at the level of early school curriculum by introducing a program that is not there at all. A program that would build on the foundation of what you linked to already being there. And of the _many_ things that could potentially be on such a program Mindfulness Meditation is only one tiny and single element of it. Only one of the examples I have offered so far. That this one example has triggered you in some way is fine - but I see no reason why that means we are required to focus solely on it when the thread is not about that.

What the thread _is_ about is the idea that "Just talk about it is just not good enough" and I think that is 100% correct. It is not. And it certainly is not if we are not giving people the tools and language and concepts that would foster their even being _able_ to "just talk about it" in the first place.

And I simply do not see any of that - or any of my points - being addressed by you using a lot of individual words to tell us nothing more than you personally have no interest in one single practice. What relevance you think your personal interest has to anything here is cloudy at best.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have found that one can learn far more about oneself from listening and observing others, than one can ever learn about oneself on one’s own. That’s the utility of the importance of listening far more than one speaks. I didn’t say it was either/or, nor did I suggest they weren’t complementary. They are, and saying that one is more important than the other does not mean anything like I’m suggesting that we reinvent the wheel, but rather I acknowledge that language evolves, from Old English to Modern English to modern day Engrish (it’s big in Japan ). By the time you’ll have taught children the basics of the language of psychiatry and psychology (which itself is undergoing constant evolution), they’ll no longer be children you’re attempting to teach, but adults.

I genuinely have no idea what your point in this paragraph even is. Again you appear to be doing nothing more than making a blatantly obvious statement about _everything_ on our curriculum but in some way pretending it is a relevant or useful statement about the current topic. Clearly you think there is a point being made here - or you likely would not have typed it all - but I am not seeing what it is.

We teach a lot of things to children over the course of their schooling. Like Mathematics. And by the time we are finished teaching it to them - they are no longer children but adults. So what is your point?

The point for me is we have adults coming out of our schooling system with an alarming quantity of mental health issues and some people are telling them "Just talk about it". And we are telling them that despite at no point - in said schooling - giving them the tools and language and concepts to meaningfully discuss the topics we are demanding the "just talk about".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you’re familiar with my opinion on the entertainer that is Blindboy, I don’t find him entertaining in the slightest

Irrelevant. I am discussing the message and the effects of it - not the source. If you want to ad hominem the source by all means do but in general I will not be replying to that area of your posts.

Regardless of the source - what I observe in situations where people like his present these concepts and ideas to their audience - the result is the same. Which is that said audience feels enabled after having been given the new language and concepts to give substance linguistically to thoughts and feelings that were otherwise nebulous for them before. And this is a _good_ thing.

Now of course anecdote is not evidence - nor am I pretending it is - but anecdote _is_ a focal point for interest, potential, and further study. And there is a pattern there that indicates that potential benefits to mental health are there to be relatively easily obtained by finding ways to give those tools and ideas to people _before_ they develop mental health issues in order to pre-empt them before they arise or deal with them when they do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So to return the thread indeed to the OP - my issue with your suggestion that we give people a linguistic framework is simply misguided at best, and would serve no purpose for people who are dumb, as in unable to speak, and therefore a linguistic framework to them is indeed like telling someone anything when they can’t speak. Some deaf people are actually great listeners btw, actively observing, and by doing so

I have no idea what the reference to deaf or dumb people is meant to be here. It has nothing to do with my points in even the remotest way that I can see. And simply calling something "misguided" without anywhere in your post having explained how or why it is - is no better than remaining deaf or dumb on the issue either.

The simple core of my point has not been addressed. Which is that if you want people to "just talk about" an issue - but you have never given them the concepts or linguistics or tools related to that issue - then you are expecting more of them than you need to. If there is a benefit to be gained by having them talk about their issues - open up about them - or explore them - which I genuinely believe there is - then there is automatically a benefit to be gained by improving their ability to do so. And to not have them reinvent the wheel of the linguistics about that area before they do so when we can relatively easily install that in their brains early on for them.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I genuinely see no reason to think you know what you are talking about on this subject. 12 weeks is simply _not_ enough to evaluate the efficacy of a program based on "X" when in general the benefits of "X" are not observed until much longer periods than 12 weeks. To think 12 weeks is enough therefore is just to demonstrate you know little or nothing about the subject at hand.

I can give you a crash course in a few sentences however.

tax I don’t think you understand how an evaluation works. There is a given time frame, and you evaluate the program within that time frame. You don’t have the luxury of spending the kind of time you would like on it, because time costs money, and nobody really gives a shìte whether little Johnny can focus his locus and self-examine himself or any of the rest of it. Mindfulness is just shìt hot right now, CBT is just so last century.

When I say I have no interest in mindfulness, and you proceed to ‘give me a crash course’ I never asked you for and gave you no indication that I wanted it, that just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of self, and awareness of others, on your part. What you attempted to do is just ignorant, trying to force your ideology on me when you are wholly aware I have no interest in it. That’s exactly the kind of fundamentalist zealotry that frankly worries me about your sort. It’s quite disconcerting, and were I of a weaker mind, I might succumb to your overbearing recruitment tactics.

What the thread _is_ about is the idea that "Just talk about it is just not good enough" and I think that is 100% correct. It is not. And it certainly is not if we are not giving people the tools and language and concepts that would foster their even being _able_ to "just talk about it" in the first place.

You can rest easy tax, because we are indeed giving people the tools and language and concepts that would foster their being able to resist being taken in by fundamentalist zealots, and talk to each other in the first place rather than come off like fundamentalist zealots themselves.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

tax I don’t think you understand how an evaluation works. There is a given time frame

And I do not think you have any of the training or knowledge by which to make that evaluation. I am very much versed and educated in the methodologies of scientific studies and of the methods by which one can evaluate such work by others. I know all about how to write and read and interpret scientific studies. You are walking essentially into my field of play and telling me from the outside I do not know how the game works. Not clever.

The issue is that a given "time frame" is useless - and will produce useless data - if it is not congruent with the time frame of the thing being studied. And that is what _you_ appear not to understand about how evaluation works. If for example you were evaluating a drug that takes 12 weeks to be efficacious and your time frame of evaluation was 6 weeks - your results are likely not going to be useful.

With meditation practices the general learning curve is such that new practitioners do not tend to even get to the point where they can genuinely start learning the practice usefully for quite a period of time. It takes weeks to get people to the level they even notice the things they have to notice before implementing the practice. So studying the effects of teaching such practices for 12 weeks is about as useful as claiming to be a scientist of ice bergs when in fact you only ever observe or study the bit sticking up over the water.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t have the luxury of spending the kind of time you would like on it, because time costs money, and nobody really gives a shìte whether little Johnny can focus his locus and self-examine himself or any of the rest of it. Mindfulness is just shìt hot right now, CBT is just so last century.

But we do have that luxury and people are engaging in those kinds of studies. It is just early days yet. That _other_ people are doing short time scale studies with results that are not useful - and then for reasons that are still unclear to me jumping to conclusions in that paper other than the one actually studied (such as studying it in a college situation and then claiming conclusions for a school situation) - does not mean we can not or are not engaging in actually useful studies elsewhere.

But sure it is indeed an issue of poor funding. Often because people fund studies - or not - that they themselves do not understand. A 12 weeks study of something that likely takes 12 months to show any actual beneficial effects is not something that should have been funded or green lit in the first place. It was a poor choice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say I have no interest in mindfulness, and you proceed to ‘give me a crash course’ I never asked you for and gave you no indication that I wanted it, that just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of self, and awareness of others, on your part.

Nope. Quite the opposite. It shows that lack on _your_ part by thinking that you wanting it or requesting it is the measure by which another person should choose to offer it or not. It isn't. Nor should it be. The measure by which I should choose to offer it is my understanding of the subject - and how that informs me as to what would be beneficial to offer or not. And that is not true just of this conversation but _any_ conversation between someone who knows little or nothing about a given subject - and someone who does. Because it is the person who does who is in a better position to know what points or knowledge is best likely to be informative to the other party. And it "just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of self, and awareness of others, on your part" to not be cognizant of that fact.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you attempted to do is just ignorant, trying to force your ideology on me when you are wholly aware I have no interest in it.

Except no one is forcing anything on you. You are for example not in any way compelled to read this thread or reply to my posts on it. You are _choosing_ to do that entirely of your own accord. The entire opposite of being forced. The issue here is that your personal interest in the subject is - not at all relevant to the facts of the subject. And it is the facts of the subject - and how they relate to the OPs concerns - that are the _sole_ arbiter of what I will say on the thread and why.

The question for me is whether such practices and such modules in a curriculum will be beneficial - or will address the concerns of the OP. Whether some joe soap who knows little or nothing about the subject or finds themselves interested in it - could quite literally not be more irrelevant to - well - anything. And I think it just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of self, and awareness of others to even suspect it might be relevant. If it is of no interest to you - then simply stop discussing it with me. Problem solved.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly the kind of fundamentalist zealotry that frankly worries me about your sort. It’s quite disconcerting, and were I of a weaker mind, I might succumb to your overbearing recruitment tactics.

Except no one is trying to recruit you into anything. No one is being over bearing. And least of all fundamentalist or zealous. Quite the opposite. As I said myself already I would dismiss 12 weeks studies on the subject even if they 100% supported my position for example. No fundamentalist zealot I know of would do that. You are just getting pointlessly personal and insulting here for the sake of it really.

No what I want is for _no one_ (not just you and your biases here) to take anything I say seriously but in fact to notice exactly what I already said. That there is a wealth of anecdote here suggesting the benefits of these practices - but anecdote it not evidence but an indicator of what is worth studying. And we need more of that study. And many people are in fact doing just that. And I await the results of it with great anticipation. Because if my suspicions are well founded - we have a relatively easy and cheap practice that can show and produce wonderful benefits. Wonderful stuff if true!

But no matter how many times I point this put you keep moving to ignore it - that the focus on one single example from many is not useful here. For whatever reason meditation triggered you and you've focused on it almost solely. Whereas I am saying A) It was a single example from a few I offered and many more I could offer and I too - like you - do not actually want to see it implemented in isolation in schools either. I think it would be entirely pointless to do so. I think it would only show genuine utility and benefit if implemented only as a small _part_ of a greater more holistic mental health equivalent to PE.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can rest easy tax, because we are indeed giving people the tools and language and concepts that would foster their being able to resist being taken in by fundamentalist zealots, and talk to each other in the first place rather than come off like fundamentalist zealots themselves.

The name calling and ad hominem and insinuations are not likely to add anything to this conversation other than your unfortunate ongoing MO of trying to get moderators to step in and shut down conversations you do not like the direction of. A tactic that has unfortunately worked many times in the past. But I will not be joining you in the name calling or topic shifting. As I said the failures of communication have not been on my side here - and I have suggested ways to rectify it such as replacing vague assertions of not being clear - with an approach more inclined to specific questions aimed at things you feel have not been clear. You are not engaging in conversation in good faith here and now pretending this is my fault somehow.

_Again_ my concern with the OPs issue is that he is indeed right that merely demanding people "Just talk about it" is not "good enough". Because that approach assumes people have the language and concepts required to talk about it in the first place. And as I said your personal opinions about people like Blindboy aside - his recent forays into discussing mental health with his audience is a good example of what I mean that can not be dismissed merely by Ad Hominem on the source.

The effect we observe there is exactly what I describe. That people return with comments and feedback that the single most beneficial aspect to his speeches on the matter were that his listeners had these nebulous feelings and thoughts and the CBT - or TA - or other frameworks he afforded them gave them tools and concepts they were never given before - certainly not in their school curriculum - to give those things real form.

And once they had that - they were then in a position to action them or discuss them internally or externally - or in some cases even recognise background feelings and narratives and issues they otherwise were oblivious to.

And all of that is good stuff. Why would it not be? I certainly have not been shown any negatives related to it. And Meditation which you appear more obsessed with focusing on and being zealous and fundamentalist on the topic of than you are falsely trying to claim I am - is only a tiny part of what I think is the correct approach to pursuing those benefits.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope. Quite the opposite. It shows that lack on _your_ part by thinking that you wanting it or requesting it is the measure by which another person should choose to offer it or not. It isn't. Nor should it be. The measure by which I should choose to offer it is my understanding of the subject - and how that informs me as to what would be beneficial to offer or not. And that is not true just of this conversation but _any_ conversation between someone who knows little or nothing about a given subject - and someone who does. Because it is the person who does who is in a better position to know what points or knowledge is best likely to be informative to the other party. And it "just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of self, and awareness of others, on your part" to not be cognizant of that fact.

But none of that is fact tax, it’s just your opinion. You’re trying to justify your ignorant behaviour and your lack of consideration and lack of respect by trying to suggest I am somehow at fault for your choosing to impose your ideology on me when I had made it clear to you I had no interest in it. I am aware of it, and I don’t care for it, and yet you insist on giving this ‘crash course’ that I never asked for.

That’s ignorant, there’s no ad hom there. It’s just basic manners.

Again I have no interest in your MO of shifting this into personal attacks and personal insult. You are on your own with that one. I have no idea why you are making this personal. I am presenting facts here and calling them opinion rather than actually rebutting or engaging with them - is not going to make them go away. That I am _also_ offering opinion and educated guesses and projecting current facts into potential ideas is also clear. But that is a good thing - so let us not pretend otherwise there either.

For example it is a fact that practitioners and teachers of Mindfulness Meditation think the benefits show up only after longer periods of time. It is a fact that one of the goals of Mediation is to start _noticing_ when you are lost in thought or engaging in internal dialogue. And it is a fact that when many people get to the point where they are noticing that - and they know the goal in those practices is to _not_ be lost in thought and dialogue - they unfortunately take this as an indicator they are doing badly at it when in fact this means they are making important progress. And therefore it is a fact that a study only focusing on people who have been doing it for 12 weeks - and not even exclusively doing it but only doing things where it is a partial element - is not likely to throw up useable results. It is also a fact that the study claims to have studied people in college and then in the "conclusions" area of the paper claimed this had implications for teaching it in schools. And it is a fact that this is an assumption that one transfers to the other.

None of that is opinion - it is all fact. Why you think otherwise is not going to be made clear by you shouting "opinion" and running away.

It is also a fact that discussing specific concepts is made easier when one has the lingo or structures in which to discuss it. Therefore it is a fact that if we want to foster more open dialogue from - and with - people who have mental health issues or demand they "just talk about it" - that there is good reason to foster an environment where we give them those tools, frameworks, language and concepts.

You want to name call - accuse me of behaviours I have not engaged in - or invent a world where I am somehow forcing or imposing _anything_ on you - when I am in fact doing no such thing whatsoever in even the smallest way - is not going to change any of those facts or ideas. But giving you thinks you never asked for has nothing to do with manners as I said - but everything to do with knowing what is useful knowledge to impart on the topic.

On a relevant side not there is a Psychologist over on the AMA forum at the moment. You might enjoy the thread. I asked her about the topics we have been discussing on this thread. Her response was: "I think language is definitely an issue. When you think about a young infant, parents and caregivers use language constantly to help the baby understand what it's feeling. "Oh, you're crying, I wonder if you're hungry? Let's get you a bottle. No, not hungry? Maybe you need your nappy changed. Let's check" and so on. I think it goes back to my ideas in the post above yours about preventative intervention - give people the tools early. Mental health should be taught about from junior infants onwards, IMO. ".

Sound familiar?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But giving you thinks you never asked for has nothing to do with manners as I said - but everything to do with knowing what is useful knowledge to impart on the topic.

This goes to the very heart of the subject of the thread tax. I don’t think you just talking at me about mindfulness is good enough. You haven’t imparted any useful knowledge on the topic, because you don’t know what knowledge I would find useful.

You’ve waffled on at considerable length and not once do you appear to demonstrate any understanding either of mindfulness, or mindfulness in practice, or the effectiveness of mindfulness that you say you have been practicing for quite some time now. I can only come to the conclusion that you’re doing it wrong when you don’t appear to appreciate or demonstrate any understanding of mindfulness.

For all your talking about it, you don’t appear to put any of it into practice, but of course you’ll claim I’m not qualified to make that claim, and I am, because that’s exactly how your behaviour and your attitude towards others appears to me. Put it into practice yourself before you think you’re in any position to try and inflict your nonsense on anyone who hasn’t specifically asked you for it. Their consent is required first. That’s just basic respect for other people. That’s something most children learn before they ever even start school.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You haven’t imparted any useful knowledge on the topic, because you don’t know what knowledge I would find useful.

But again what _you_ find useful or what _you_ are interested in is not a measure for me. Nor should it be. What my knowledge of a subject informs me actually _is_ useful knowledge is. And so it should be. And remember this is a public forum not a private conversation. So I am doubley inclined not to be constrained by what you think your requirements are. But what I think will benefit _anyone_ following the conversation. I take a less personal approach to these conversations than others - and hence less inclined to get emotional or petty about them when engaged.

What is odd though is that the topic of the thread is about Mental Health and the idea of "Just talk about it" not being good enough. And my approach to that topic is that no - it is not good enough - and there are moves we can make to improve it. I exampled aspects of those moves one of which has triggered you to focus entirely on it - while not dealing with the point. But rather than address the core point(s) you appear to have chosen to focus almost entirely on the one aspect of it you claim to be the _least_ interested in. A very odd choice to make in my opinion.

I think - like the psychologist that I asked and quoted just above - that we need to look at giving people the tools and languages and concepts early to deal with their mental health issues and discuss them. And I think the earlier the better in order to combat gender diversity in the ability and/or willingness to actually engage with and discuss these topics. You spoke in your first post quite rightly as it happens on the differences between men and women there - and how we can not complain if women get more facilities if they were the only ones who spoke up and actually asked for them.

On the money stuff - but I notice those differences in dynamics between men and women. Much rarer between boys and girls. And whatever else the kinds of things I propose may or may not do - another potential I have not mentioned so far is to have boys discussing and addressing and being open about these things before the dynamic with men we have discussed takes hold. There we move from fact to opinion of course - before you feel tempted to point out the obvious. But it is not an opinion or suspicion from nowhere.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ve waffled on at considerable length and not once do you appear to demonstrate any understanding either of mindfulness, or mindfulness in practice, or the effectiveness of mindfulness that you say you have been practicing for quite some time now. I can only come to the conclusion that you’re doing it wrong when you don’t appear to appreciate or demonstrate any understanding of mindfulness.

Unfortunately this is also a common MO from you that is rather unhelpful - where you move to throw negative labels at a person or an idea without actually showing they apply. You have not actually actively rebutted or lets face it even addressed the understanding and knowledge of it I have presented - so merely saying I have no understanding of it without showing how or where that is evident - means you are just making noise for the sake of making noise.

But by all means show something I said about it - or the practice of it - or the effects of it that was wrong false ignorant or naive. Then your labels might stick. But simply shouting "You are wrong" and running off without showing what was wrong - does not make it wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For all your talking about it, you don’t appear to put any of it into practice, but of course you’ll claim I’m not qualified to make that claim, and I am, because that’s exactly how your behaviour and your attitude towards others appears to me. Put it into practice yourself before you think you’re in any position to try and inflict your nonsense on anyone who hasn’t specifically asked you for it. Their consent is required first. That’s just basic respect for other people. That’s something most children learn before they ever even start school.

None of that is at all true though - which is a problem. Not one single word of it.

Further you have popped out of nowhere this concept that something is being imposed or inflicted or forced on you in some way. That is a completely fallacious narrative. I mentioned _barely in passing_ something that appears to have triggered you. Then you entirely of your own volition have engaged with me in conversation about it. And now - having not had that conversation go the way you want - you are manufacturing this fantastical narrative about impositions and what not. Hardly - you can simply stop discussing it at _any_ time and no one is going to run out the door after you imposing or forcing anything on you. You are choosing to have it and then accusing others of forcing it on you. Wow. Just - wow.

But again you are making the value conclusions without the substance behind it. When you come out with a mere assertion "You have not put any into practice" and then run away without qualifying that - what is anyone to take from that? Other than you are just making things up out of ennui and flinging it about? What specifically have I not put into practice? Upon which do you base such an observation? What would the observation be - to your mind - if I had done so?

The difference here is I am not merely asserting knowledge of the subject - but discussing it to show what my understanding is. You on the other hand are not only _not_ doing more than mere assertion of knowledge of it while not demonstrating any - but moving to explain to us why you have no interest in doing so either. These two approaches are not comparable. And one certainly is easier to take seriously than the other.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But again what _you_ find useful or what _you_ are interested in is not a measure for me. Nor should it be. What my knowledge of a subject informs me actually _is_ useful knowledge is.

Of course what I find useful or what I am or am not interested in is not a measure for you because your whole way of thinking appears to place yourself at the centre of your own universe. It’s the perspective of a child.

I think - like the psychologist that I asked and quoted just above - that we need to look at giving people the tools and languages and concepts early to deal with their mental health issues

I think your critical faculties just upped and left the building tax that you would take it that an anonymous user on the Internet is actually who or what they say they are just because they agree with you. I have some magic beans you may be interested in.

And one certainly is easier to take seriously than the other.

Indeed they are, and when it comes to choosing whom I should take seriously, you’re still firmly in the ‘can be dismissed as a fundamentalist zealot’ category.

I’m done with your nonsense now.

Again with the insults and name calling - and inventing narratives and behaviours for me I simply am not engaged with. Though it is worth pointing out to you that there is a strong vetting procedure used in the AMA forum to prove people are who they say they are. Which I have _direct_ experience of given two of the writers there were there because of me and another boardsie who worked together to get them there. My critical faculties are just fine therefore - I just know stuff you do not on the subject.

You have decided to dodge the topic at this point - not one word of the above post is about the topic at all - and make this entirely personal, so I am going to be the bigger person and save the Mod the trouble, and respectfully end the conversation with you before he has to.

For anyone else interested in the topic however a quick summary of my points so far:

1) I do believe in the benefits of talking about mental health issues.
2) I can understand the motivation behind a "Just talk" narrative.
3) I can also understand however how that approach can be seen as the government or others trying to foist responsibility and even blame onto the victims themselves.
4) However the main issue I have with the "Just talk" narrative is it involves talk about issues we are not used to talking about. And many people do not have the language, concepts, structures, or ideas around which to formulate that discussion.
5) I think there are ways to improve that situation and _one_ of those ways I think is to make a more focused module in our school curriculum - as early as possible - to make maintenance of Mental Health as relevant as PE makes physical health. A world where after PE kids go into a class called ME perhaps? Who knows!
6) Meditation is one tiny aspect of what such a course would include in my mind - but an understanding of many conversation structures like CBT and Transactional Analysis and more would by heavy elements too.

Airyfairy12

I really dont understand why youre using mental health and the lack of services as stick to beat women with. You realise mental health issues effect women also and its equally hard for women to get mental health treatment? Theres no sexism here, ive been trying to get help for an anxiety disorder that left me house bound for nearly 4 years, ive had suicide attempts and depression my whole life. Its impossible for anyone to get help, not just men and im also sick of hearing those patronising adds and silly comments from people who tell anyone with a mental health issue to 'talk to someone' .. eh talk to who? psychotherapy is too expensive for most people, the waiting lists for free counselling are 6 months to a year long and youre only entitled to 6 weeks which isnt adequate for people dealing with a long term illness. The mental health services discriminate against anyone who cant afford to pay, it has nothing to do with gender.

Also who do you think is campaigning, marching, organising coffee mornings and demanding free cervical and breast checks? Women who are effected. The only difference between you and them is, they got up and campaigned for their rights instead of whinging about it. If you want change, get out and do something. Whats stopping you from organising a coffee morning or a march?

One eyed Jack

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I really dont understand why youre using mental health and the lack of services as stick to beat women with. You realise mental health issues effect women also and its equally hard for women to get mental health treatment? Theres no sexism here, ive been trying to get help for an anxiety disorder that left me house bound for nearly 4 years, ive had suicide attempts and depression my whole life. Its impossible for anyone to get help, not just men and im also sick of hearing those patronising adds and silly comments from people who tell anyone with a mental health issue to 'talk to someone' .. eh talk to who? psychotherapy is too expensive for most people, the waiting lists for free counselling are 6 months to a year long and youre only entitled to 6 weeks which isnt adequate for people dealing with a long term illness. The mental health services discriminate against anyone who cant afford to pay, it has nothing to do with gender.

I completely agree with what you said about the comparison to women’s health and welfare, it’s a silly comparison, but the point of the idea of suggesting that people talk to someone, is that it can be anyone, and it doesn’t need to be specifically about their ill mental health either. The whole idea is that through talking to other people, it’s good for a persons overall mental health, because humans are social animals, it’s what we do, it’s when we’re at our happiest - is when we’re surrounded by like-minded people whom we identify as just like us. The support of a community and feeling like belonging to a community has been demonstrated time and time again to improve mental health and well being. Think of it like herd immunity providing protection and prevention against ill mental health.

Also who do you think is campaigning, marching, organising coffee mornings and demanding free cervical and breast checks? Women who are effected. The only difference between you and them is, they got up and campaigned for their rights instead of whinging about it. If you want change, get out and do something. Whats stopping you from organising a coffee morning or a march?

Hmm, six of one, half a dozen of the other af. For many people, women who went and did just that were, and still are to a large degree, regarded as whinging. Generally anyone, regardless of their sex, who attempts to effect the status quo of the group, will be regarded by the minority as a game changer, and as a whinger by the vast majority who would prefer the status quo stay just as it is, because that’s what they’re comfortable with. The point is that only through effective campaigning does change come about, whereas whinging, while it actually has been proven to have social benefits in that it provides a shared experience for those people who have something to whinge about, and the byproduct of their shared whinging is that they draw comfort from it, it doesn’t actually effect anything external to the group.

Group think believe it or not can be both a good thing, and a bad thing, the only difference of course is perspective and whether the effects are either positive, or negative. Group think can be positive in terms of the social benefits it provides to all the members of the group as a whole (what some people would consider a ‘community’), and it can also be a bad thing in that it can tend to lead to stagnant thinking and the perception of an unwillingness to effect change, because there’s a comfort again in belonging to a group or a community, all talking to each other and sharing the same ideals and objectives for the kind of society they would wish for themselves and the people they care about, to live in.

Airyfairy12

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I completely agree with what you said about the comparison to women’s health and welfare, it’s a silly comparison, but the point of the idea of suggesting that people talk to someone, is that it can be anyone, and it doesn’t need to be specifically about their ill mental health either. The whole idea is that through talking to other people, it’s good for a persons overall mental health, because humans are social animals, it’s what we do, it’s when we’re at our happiest - is when we’re surrounded by like-minded people whom we identify as just like us. The support of a community and feeling like belonging to a community has been demonstrated time and time again to improve mental health and well being. Think of it like herd immunity providing protection and prevention against ill mental health.

I appreciate that its important to talk to people and be open about mental health but unfortunately allot of people dont have those social supports and even if they do, the vast majority of those supports wear thin as people generally dont like listening to negative talk, it brings them down and often times depressed people or anyone with mental illness can find themselves isolated with no where to turn.

Also keep in mind that mental health issues shouldnt be left for family and friends to sort out. I wouldnt go to my best friend with a broken leg and expect her to fix it, mental health is no different. Family and friends should be a support and aid you through difficult times but it shouldnt be expected of the general public to fix suicidal people nor should it be presumed that everyone around us is willing to help. Its an awful feeling when at your lowest your nearest and dearest turn their backs or worse still, kick you when youre down. Its true in that people show their true colours in times of difficulty. Dont underestimate how hypocritical people can be. The same people who run darkness into light events and post 'talk to someone' comments on facebook can often be the same people who turn their backs on people struggling. Most people say they care and theyd help their friends in need but when it comes down to it they dont really care, dont know how to help or have their own problems to deal with.

'talk to someone' is a total cop out, theres no substance behind that phrase, it also removes any responsibility from the health services to deal with mental health by putting the responsibility on friends and family while seemingly portraying a caring and considerate attitude towards mental illness when in fact it does the opposite. It sends people struggling running in circles trying to find someone to talk to, this contributes to further feelings of hopelessness and isolation.

Those 'talk to someone' messages, suicide walks and darkness into light events arent for people who have depression or mental health issues, theyre there for the sake of appearances and nothing more. We've had a suicide epidemic in Ireland for a number of years now, telling depressed people to 'talk to someone' clearly isnt working.

Hellrazer

Im going to give an opinion on this as a husband of someone who is a counsellor in the largest charity for suicide and the truth is the "talk to someone" message in my opinion does work. I disagree that its for the sake of appearances otherwise the likes of Pieta house wouldn't still be around this long.

Men in general are less inclined to talk about health issue although that has changed in the last few years.

We keep hearing about an "epidemic of suicide" but what we don't hear in the papers is the number of people that have went to someone and talked about it and not taken their own life.

The figures regarding the number of clients that pieta saw in 2017 are here for everyone to read.
https://www.pieta.ie/?/research/quarterly-stats/figures-for-2017/q1/

Roughly 1000 people pass through just Pieta every quarter last year and the suicide statistics run between 350-450 between 2001-2016 with fluctuations every year.

If you look at just Pieta house you can see that they see 4000 clients a year. So they have to be making a difference to the suicide rate especially if 4000 are presenting with suicidal thoughts or attempts each year.

Now from my own experiences. Two years ago my dad attempted suicide. He ended up in St James hospital under the care of a doctor that just wanted to medicate for depression.
He ended up going to Pieta for counselling and while he says the thoughts are still there having someone to talk to has ensured that he hasn't gone any further.
If pieta can bring those statistics down by even one person then talking to someone is definitely 100% having an impact.

One eyed Jack

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I appreciate that its important to talk to people and be open about mental health but unfortunately allot of people dont have those social supports and even if they do, the vast majority of those supports wear thin as people generally dont like listening to negative talk, it brings them down and often times depressed people or anyone with mental illness can find themselves isolated with no where to turn.

Also keep in mind that mental health issues shouldnt be left for family and friends to sort out. I wouldnt go to my best friend with a broken leg and expect her to fix it, mental health is no different. Family and friends should be a support and aid you through difficult times but it shouldnt be expected of the general public to fix suicidal people nor should it be presumed that everyone around us is willing to help. Its an awful feeling when at your lowest your nearest and dearest turn their backs or worse still, kick you when youre down. Its true in that people show their true colours in times of difficulty. Dont underestimate how hypocritical people can be. The same people who run darkness into light events and post 'talk to someone' comments on facebook can often be the same people who turn their backs on people struggling. Most people say they care and theyd help their friends in need but when it comes down to it they dont really care, dont know how to help or have their own problems to deal with.

'talk to someone' is a total cop out, theres no substance behind that phrase, it also removes any responsibility from the health services to deal with mental health by putting the responsibility on friends and family while seemingly portraying a caring and considerate attitude towards mental illness when in fact it does the opposite. It sends people struggling running in circles trying to find someone to talk to, this contributes to further feelings of hopelessness and isolation.

Those 'talk to someone' messages, suicide walks and darkness into light events arent for people who have depression or mental health issues, theyre there for the sake of appearances and nothing more. We've had a suicide epidemic in Ireland for a number of years now, telling depressed people to 'talk to someone' clearly isnt working.

Firstly, my sincere apologies for the length of this reply, but your post was worth a proper reply as opposed to a snappy comeback or outright dismissal!


I actually didn’t mean talking to people about mental health is important, it is of course but that’s not the way I meant it when I said talking to people is important. The way I mean it is just literally talking to people, and while people love talking about themselves (it feels as good as sex, apparently!), listening to people is from my point of view at least more important, because good communication goes both ways, and people are more inclined to talk to someone they know is prepared to listen, so as far as I’m concerned, listening is more important than talking. The thing is, when you’re listening to someone, it’s not even what they’re saying you should be listening for, but what they’re not saying, or what they’re not talking about. It’s true that if someone is known to spend most of their time talking about themselves and talking about the things that make them miserable, talking about their depression or ill mental health, then yes, people generally don’t want to listen to that kind of stuff, because it tends to make them miserable. The truism that ‘misery loves company’ is real. I absolutely agree with you then that not being able to talk about their ill mental health can be like a vicious cycle for people who want to talk about their ill mental health in that it can leave them isolated because nobody wants to listen to them talk about their ill mental health or depression (I draw a distinction between depression and other conditions and whether or not it causes people to suffer and whether someone is actually experiencing suffering, for a few different reasons which may become clearer later on).

I can see where you’re coming from when you say that mental health issues shouldn’t be left to family and friends to sort out, but I think the point of suggesting to people that they talk to someone is rather a preventative, than a curative measure, it’s also intended as a means of encouraging people to talk to help them cope with whatever assistance they may need before it becomes an issue which can be like a cascade effect on a house of cards (that metaphor may be lost because I don’t know do people even build houses out of playing cards any more?). The ‘broken leg’ analogy is fundamentally flawed as far as I’m concerned. If you had a broken leg, you’d call out from assistance from anyone before you’d specify that only the people who come to your aid must have the prerequisite knowledge to fix your broken leg, and with something like your mental health, often times you aren’t even aware your ‘leg’ is broken. For example, I knew I didn’t walk the same as everyone else from when I was a child (I used be called ‘Donald Duck’, ‘Long John Silver’, etc, any name associated with limping, I was probably called it at some stage). I didn’t go to a doctor because for me, as far as I was concerned, the excruciating pain I often felt was ‘normal’, I used tell myself it is what it is, just one of those things, and I learned to cope with it. I wasn’t aware I had congenital hip dysplasia until I actually went to a specialist, because even my GP missed it, even despite the fact that he had specialised in orthopaedic medicine. It never occurred to him because he’d no experience of it, because it never occurred to the paediatric nurses at the time who carry out a simple leg manipulation test to check that the bones are sitting properly in the sockets when all babies is born. I was just unlucky that they missed it. I say unlucky of course but the reality is that there was a failure in the process somewhere that caused the paediatric nurses to miss it.

You make the point that it shouldn’t be expected of the general public to fix suicidal people. Aren’t suicidal people themselves also members of the general public? I do get what you mean, but the point I’m making is that I don’t suggest that the general public are incapable of helping themselves. For example I’ve experienced suicidal ideation and what would nowadays be termed ‘intrusive thoughts’ since I was about three years of age (almost caused my mother to crash the car when I reminded her of the occasion as we were driving along the M7, she was shocked I could remember seeing my granny as she was laid out for the wake, three year olds generally don’t have such profound epiphanies. Of course my mother didn’t need to know why I could recall the occasion in such vivid detail). I turn 42 in a months time - November 19th - now immortalised by many more for it being International Men’s Day, nobody gives a shìt about my birthday, but I’m ok with that! ‘Intrusive thoughts’ btw? Makes for a nice euphemism at least.

That being said, I don’t know that I’d agree that people show their ‘true colours’ in times of adversity for other people, and I don’t think it’s as simple as ‘people be hypocrites’ because they aren’t making themselves available to you (not to you personally specifically, I mean to anyone who says that their families and friends have abandoned them or weren’t there for them in their time of need, etc). I’m almost 42 airy fairy with plenty of different life experiences under my belt - I’m under no illusions as to how hypocritical people can be, I’m even more aware of how hypocritical I can be. The point I’m trying to make in the nicest way possible is that depending upon other people in the first place was incredibly naive. You’ll say you would come to their aid if they needed it, but would you give them the help they think they need, or would you be more interested in giving them the help that you think they need? The point is - nobody can be expected to help someone who isn’t trying to help themselves, and the help people do try to provide, isn’t always necessarily the help people need. I wouldn’t be where I am now had it not been for a number of other people who have helped me to get where I am, but fundamentally - I had to try and help myself first, and other people had to see that I was trying before they could see that I was struggling. If people don’t see you trying, they’re not going to see you as struggling, and they’re not going to see you as someone who needs their help, they’re going to do the same as you - assume they can’t help you and that only someone who is generally qualified to help you can do so. If we go back to your broken ‘broken leg’ analogy - I’m not a GP, but if you break your leg I have the prerequisite knowledge to be able to set your leg until you can receive hospital treatment. It just doesn’t come up that often that I know how to do this, because I don’t live in an area where there is a high incidence of people breaking their legs. I do live in an area though where there are a high incidence of suicide. Unfortunately, I can only prevent issues either when I identify them myself, or when I’m made aware of them by someone who is not demonstrating any signs that they aren’t coping very well. I cope very well, and that’s why I don’t experience ill mental health as a result of a condition which I knew a long time ago isn’t like a broken leg, in that it isn’t fixable, but that I would have to learn to cope with living with it. I do, and quite capably so, but I’m not so naive to think that I could possibly deceive someone who is able to spot that I’m actively hiding certain tells, because I don’t want other people knowing that about me. It’s not because of any ‘stigma’ or ‘shame’ or anything else. It’s because as far as I’m concerned, I don’t want them having that information. It’s private. I prefer people to respect my privacy, as I respect their right to privacy. The thoughts of an ‘Open Society’ quite frankly have always scared the shìt out of me. I’ve got plenty I would rather didn’t become public knowledge.

I think when you say the ‘talk to someone’ message is a total cop-out, I don’t think that’s the way it’s intended. Sure, it doesn’t resonate with you and you can’t relate to it, so it means nothing to you, and you assume it would mean the same to someone else who isn’t you. I wouldn’t, and I also wouldn’t assume it would have the effect on anyone else that you imagine it would either. You’re literally catasprophising from your own individual and limited perspective. Do you think that contributes to your feelings of hopelessness and isolation? You don’t have to answer that. It’s a rhetorical question. I know if someone is feeling hopeless and isolated, that’s likely to colour their perception of how they view anything, including benign messages which aren’t meant to be applied at an individual level. The HSE are a public health body, they simply can’t have individualised, personalised national campaigns. They’re going to use what data is available to them to reach the highest number of people who need the least help, so that those people don’t become the people who need the most help and therefore require more resources than the HSE already doesn’t have. It was never and has never been about portraying a caring and considerate attitude to people who are experiencing difficulties with their mental health. It was always about cost-effective prevention, and one of the most cost-effective preventive measures when it comes to preventing people from experiencing difficulties with their mental health, is to encourage people to talk to someone.

When it comes to things like the darkness into light walk events and so on, well, I can understand where you’re coming from, and it’s a criticism I hear a lot, really, a lot! But the thing is, you’re assuming that they’re ‘just for appearances’, because they do nothing for you. You’re assuming other people’s motivations for doing them, when the reality is that you really don’t know anything about anyone else for certain. Sure, you can certainly make an educated guess based upon your experiences and perception and expectations, but you can’t possibly be so naive as to assume that because you’re honest with people about your mental health, they’re equally likely to be as honest with you about theirs, and their motives for doing anything. My wife came home from the darkness into light walk this year and her criticism was pretty much the same as your own (I don’t do it myself, no way you’re getting me up out of the bed at that hour of the morning unless you’re paying for my time!) - that everyone else there but her were doing it for appearances. I wasn’t going to be the prick that points out to her that I have no doubt there were other people there who saw her and passed judgement on her in exactly the same fashion, and these are the same people who say that they have nobody to talk to? I don’t wonder why, tbh. They make it obvious without ever talking to them.

It’s true that we’ve had a suicide epidemic in Ireland in some parts of the country for a number of years now. It’s more nuanced though than a lot of people make out, and correlating suicide with depression is just as often mistaken. They’re two separate issues and can present in very different ways. One can experience depression without ever being suicidal, and vice versa. I’m not just being pedantic when I say that. It’s an important distinction as it informs public policy and the way we treat the issue of suicide prevention and other mental health issues, in the same way as we treat issues pertaining to women and men differently. Sure, a broken leg is a broken leg that manifests itself in pretty much the same way in both men and women regardless, but their mental health in both men and women can manifest itself in many, many different ways, and it would even be just wrong then to assume that any one particular method could equally be applied to both men and women equally as though they are the same. Those kinds of assumptions can lead to people missing fundamental differences between the sexes. That’s why I’m not gone on any idea that regards women and men equally.

They’re not the same thing, clearly. Each person is unique, and so assuming one particular method or one size fits all, is as misguided as assuming that because one method doesn’t work for the person criticising it, it doesn’t work and shouldn’t work and won’t work for anyone else. I find that an entirely self-centred perspective which I don’t find particularly beneficial to people in my experience, and which can actually exacerbate their distress and their difficulties in maintaining their mental health. In the same way - people are encouraged to maintain their physical health. Repairs cost a lot more in the long run than regular maintenance.

iguana

I think that one of the most important things that needs to be done for the sake of male mental health is for a massive change in the way that boys are parented. (Obviously this won't help men who are already grown but it is extremely important for future generations.) I've read of studies that show that newborn infants are, on average, held to different levels of expectations on their behaviour based on their gender. Baby boys tend to receive significantly less physical affection from their caregivers. While neurologically boys tend to be more reliant on physical affection as their rate of brain maturation tends to be slower.

From my own perspective I've seen an awful lot of very damaging parenting of boys that's still seen as quite normal. My son is in an under 7s sports team and a few weeks back at a social meet-up a 5 year old boy very clearly got hurt. Nothing serious but something that would have caused him real pain. He sat on the floor, quietly holding himself. When his mother saw him she seemed pissed off and told him to "man up." Before a match a couple of weeks ago a 6 year old fell badly during the warm up and twisted his ankle painfully. He sat on the ground crying and the coach called out for someone who was with him to come over. His mum and grandad were standing next to me and the grandad went over. After a few minutes it was obvious that the boys ankle was all right and his grandad left him to go back to the warm up. When he came back the grandad scornfully told the mother that "the boy is too soft," and the mother agreed.

I've also noticed that once they pass the toddler/preschooler stage boys are often discouraged from more artistic activities like arts, crafts and dance in favour of competitive sports. If I take my son to any activities like that the ratio is often 10-1 girls to boys. I've seen threads on parenting forums wondering if it's ok to let a younger son do dance with his sisters as he loves it because there seems to be an assumption that dance is for girls. Yet at school or parties, boys love to do art or dance every bit as much as girls. Obviously it's not a black and white issue and a few occasions of harsh parenting and a diversion away from certain types of activity and into competitiveness aren't a guarantee of mental health problems in the future but I would be surprised if the expectation on boys to suppress their emotions and hide their pain even as very young children doesn't contribute to mental health issues in adult men.

johnnyskeleton

Supressing emotions and learning to deal with pain are different things. I can see how a child being forced to supress emotions can lead to problems, but learning to cope with pain and injury are important parts of growing up

Airyfairy12

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Supressing emotions and learning to deal with pain are different things. I can see how a child being forced to supress emotions can lead to problems, but learning to cope with pain and injury are important parts of growing up

True but telling men and boys to 'man up' or calling them soft is really detrimental to their emotional wellbeing. My friend was recently talking to me about her partner and their relationship problems, he bends over backwards for her but is stressed with work - she told me she wished he'd just 'man up' and 'be a man' - I was really taken aback by this. I hadnt realised how common it was for people to have this ridiculous expectation on men to just get on with things and show no emotion. As a society we need to create an environment which lets men know that its ok to feel sad, to cry and to talk about their emotions.

I wouldnt agree with boys receiving less physical affection but I do think theyre more encouraged to act out physically rather than emotionally and are also expected to bottle up their feelings and just get on with things. Its not healthy.

johnnyskeleton

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

True but telling men and boys to 'man up' or calling them soft is really detrimental to their emotional wellbeing. My friend was recently talking to me about her partner and their relationship problems, he bends over backwards for her but is stressed with work - she told me she wished he'd just 'man up' and 'be a man' - I was really taken aback by this. I hadnt realised how common it was for people to have this ridiculous expectation on men to just get on with things and show no emotion. As a society we need to create an environment which lets men know that its ok to feel sad, to cry and to talk about their emotions.

I kinda agree and disagree with this. Id be concerned that we dont go from one extreme to another. Obviously an intimate partner dismissing ones feelings is horrible, but I dont think the solution to this is that we change all of soceity to become focussed on public displays of negative emotion.

The solution, in the above example, on an individual level, is for him to communicate with his partner better. The solution on a general level is to learn to spot someone who is emotionally selfish and avoid getting into a relationship with her.

are also expected to bottle up their feelings and just get on with things. Its not healthy.

I'd like to read more about this because I dont think its necessarily not healthy. Bottling things up inside is a coping mechanism that works for some but not for others. I think someone can freely make a rational choice that they dont want to be a slave to their emotions and overcome them by strength of will. This is neither more nor less healthy than constantly expressing emotional positions, its just a different way of dealing.

professore

Deleted User wrote: »

We have Physical Education from an early age in our schools.

For a lot of schools this is utterly terrible.

c.p.w.g.w

I think there is another issue with men's health with regards Prostate exams. A member of the family was recently diagnosed with the disease, thankfully it was caught early and all signs are that he'll make a full recovery.

But his been going for his full MOT and his 56, his never had a prostate exam until his MOT earlier this year. His doctor never spoke about getting his prostate checked during his annual visits. Its only that the receptionist booked him in for it along with his regular checks that he got it done, and caught the cancer.

Why isn't there an free prostate check like there is breat check, or cervical screening.

Maxpfizer

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

Rant ahead:

Women get free breast and cervical checks, ribbons, marathons, public service ads , mobile clinics, marches, coffee mornings awareness campaigns and referenda for uniquely women's issues. For one of the biggest issues affecting men today all we get is "Just talk about it", the sentiment is good but it seems to remove responsibilty from the HSE and places it on the victims for not opening up and the victim's friends and family for not listening.

I'm lucky that I'm not suicidal but if the feeling were ever to creep up on me I don't think my friends would have the resources or skills needed to 'snap' me out of it. Do they seriously expect your average person to replace the role of medically qualified people ?

One of the main things about support for women in all of the areas you have mentioned is that a lot of that support has come about through academic research and activism.

So the academics identify an problem (30% of women are blah blah blah) and the activists in turn put pressure on society to implement programs or changes etc.

Go to society at large with "I'm a men's rights activist and I think we should..." and you will be derided.

For "men's issues" there is a large part of the discussion that basically boils down to "blame it on men".

The Patriarchy hurts men too!
Toxic Masculinity isn't just bad for women it's bad for men!
Men need Feminism!

There's not going to be much more than "just talk about it" and "if men would just talk more" until we can undo the idea that mens issues are mens fault.

Wasn't one of Blindboys solutions just "men need Feminism"?

Triceratops Ballet

Maxpfizer wrote:

Go to society at large with "I'm a men's rights activist and I think we should..." and you will be derided.

Women's rights activists were derided when they started too (they still are BTW) , as were gay rights activists and civil rights activists but they persisted and our world is totally different because of them.
If a cause has merit people will support it it may take time but it happens. If you don't start nothing happens.

I'm struggling to think of what you could finish that sentence with that would be derided
"I'm a mens rights activist and I think we should..."
Allow fathers greater rights and access to their children...
Tackle the issue of suicide in a meaningful way through x y z initiatives
Two examples, I'm sure there are plenty more, but if nobody speaks up about them in a productive way nobody gets heard.
The squeeky wheel gets the grease and all.

DEFTLEFTHAND

They apply the female mind to men.

Which doesn't work in general, 'just talk about it' ain't going to cut it with your average male.

Mental issues in men need to be approached at from an entirely different angle.

completedit

Just talk about it is the most meaningless load of ****ing waffle I've ever heard. Nobody gives a **** except your closest family if you're lucky and even still they don't get it. People can only talk about depression when it's some celebrity or public figure who doesn't know why they're depressed despite having 'it all', when it's just a regular person, people haven't a clue how to respond.