This has made me think about cases where poor impulse control and symptoms of mental health issues are intertwined. For example, I've known a couple of people with bipolar disorder who have to keep a special lock on their credit cards, because " diastrously poor impulse control" is a symptom of mania. I've also, in depressed moments, spent irresponsibly from a place of having a worse-than-usual ability to engage with the future - when I can't access a feeling of caring what happens tomorrow, or next month, or next year, it's too easy to spend money I shouldn't. But I've also seen what you're describing, which is people treating irresponsible spending as a form of self-care, even getting defensive when it's suggested that it's not very, uh, careful.
I do think it's become too easy to blame impulsivity on these things and then treat it as immutable. If you have bipolar disorder, you maybe gotta have that lock on your credit card and someone in your life who will recognize when it needs to be activated. If you're prone toward depression, you have to be able to recognize that your short-term thinking is, in itself, a short-term problem. I think your post gets at a desire to have it both ways: To be able to lay one's impulsivity at the feet of something immutable, but in so doing, to deny one's own agency in preventing the same problem in the future.
My main worry with mental health is peer influence or social contagion. There's a lot more discussion of anxiety, depression, autism, and others than there used to be, plus a lot more people identifying with these ailments. I worry that we're seeing a "pink elephant" effect. Tell people not to think of a pink elephant and that's the first thing that will pop up in their heads. When we tell people to think about anxiety, depression, etc, people might start realizing (or fabricating) things that weren't there in the first place. I've never worried that I feel under the spell of a Kitsune. That's not because society suppresses me from doing so, it's just because it's not something I would have even considered.
I'd like to run some experiments where we will tell young people that depression and anxiety are fake. Maybe we tell them it's a debunked pseudo-science made up by 20th-century eugenicists. Or tell them it was a colonial concept forced upon indigenous people. It would reduce the identification, but would it reduce the amount of anxiety and depression that people feel? I think it would, but I don't say that with a high degree of confidence.
Of course, I don't think it's 100% made up. But I don't think it's 100% real the way Hammer seems to. I see some complicated mix of real, neurological issues and some woo-ish excuse-fodder. I don't know the solution. But I think we've gone from stigmatizing mental issues too much to accepting them at face value too much.
Very interesting article! I’m reminded of a man I knew back in the 80s who loved gambling. He would introduce friction at the racetrack by taking cash only--no credit cards or ATM card. Once his cash was gone, he went home. (Or if he actually won anything, he’d take his wife out to dinner.) I always thought this was a smart way to handle it, and maybe our culture needs to raise kids with strategies for leashing their impulses to resist the frictionlessness of the online world.
Then again, it will be interesting to see whether Ozempic and other semaglutides makes this whole problem go away. People on the drug are seeing their addictive behaviors--not just around food, but also with gambling, shopping, drinking, etc--just vanish. I find it fascinating to think that much of this behavior, which we have always moralized, may be a simple matter of hormones.
I'm a big fan of Ozempic et al. There will be some initial stigma about people not doing it the right or natural way (no doubt from people who use equally unnatural things like air conditioner, running water, and written language), but it's going to help a lot of people avoid their vices. I've been critical of a lot of new technology being either financial voodoo, not really technology, or not really useful. This, however, is huge.
This is especially interesting for my hometown: Las Vegas. I haven't worked on the strip since 2019, so I don't know if anything is changed. Back then, at least, we noticed that young people don't gamble as much. Whenever we had a concert that attracted young people, gambling revenue tanked for the night. This isn't much a short term problem, but in 20-30 years we could have way too many slots/tables for the actual gambling demand. That's going to lead to a very different strip, focused on unique experiences, shows/concerts, food, and whatever else brings young people in.
This has made me think about cases where poor impulse control and symptoms of mental health issues are intertwined. For example, I've known a couple of people with bipolar disorder who have to keep a special lock on their credit cards, because " diastrously poor impulse control" is a symptom of mania. I've also, in depressed moments, spent irresponsibly from a place of having a worse-than-usual ability to engage with the future - when I can't access a feeling of caring what happens tomorrow, or next month, or next year, it's too easy to spend money I shouldn't. But I've also seen what you're describing, which is people treating irresponsible spending as a form of self-care, even getting defensive when it's suggested that it's not very, uh, careful.
I do think it's become too easy to blame impulsivity on these things and then treat it as immutable. If you have bipolar disorder, you maybe gotta have that lock on your credit card and someone in your life who will recognize when it needs to be activated. If you're prone toward depression, you have to be able to recognize that your short-term thinking is, in itself, a short-term problem. I think your post gets at a desire to have it both ways: To be able to lay one's impulsivity at the feet of something immutable, but in so doing, to deny one's own agency in preventing the same problem in the future.
My main worry with mental health is peer influence or social contagion. There's a lot more discussion of anxiety, depression, autism, and others than there used to be, plus a lot more people identifying with these ailments. I worry that we're seeing a "pink elephant" effect. Tell people not to think of a pink elephant and that's the first thing that will pop up in their heads. When we tell people to think about anxiety, depression, etc, people might start realizing (or fabricating) things that weren't there in the first place. I've never worried that I feel under the spell of a Kitsune. That's not because society suppresses me from doing so, it's just because it's not something I would have even considered.
I'd like to run some experiments where we will tell young people that depression and anxiety are fake. Maybe we tell them it's a debunked pseudo-science made up by 20th-century eugenicists. Or tell them it was a colonial concept forced upon indigenous people. It would reduce the identification, but would it reduce the amount of anxiety and depression that people feel? I think it would, but I don't say that with a high degree of confidence.
Of course, I don't think it's 100% made up. But I don't think it's 100% real the way Hammer seems to. I see some complicated mix of real, neurological issues and some woo-ish excuse-fodder. I don't know the solution. But I think we've gone from stigmatizing mental issues too much to accepting them at face value too much.
I’m with you. It’s tough when these are real, recognizable things, AND they’re subject to a kind of magical thinking in current society.
I’d love to see those experiments!
Very interesting article! I’m reminded of a man I knew back in the 80s who loved gambling. He would introduce friction at the racetrack by taking cash only--no credit cards or ATM card. Once his cash was gone, he went home. (Or if he actually won anything, he’d take his wife out to dinner.) I always thought this was a smart way to handle it, and maybe our culture needs to raise kids with strategies for leashing their impulses to resist the frictionlessness of the online world.
Then again, it will be interesting to see whether Ozempic and other semaglutides makes this whole problem go away. People on the drug are seeing their addictive behaviors--not just around food, but also with gambling, shopping, drinking, etc--just vanish. I find it fascinating to think that much of this behavior, which we have always moralized, may be a simple matter of hormones.
I'm a big fan of Ozempic et al. There will be some initial stigma about people not doing it the right or natural way (no doubt from people who use equally unnatural things like air conditioner, running water, and written language), but it's going to help a lot of people avoid their vices. I've been critical of a lot of new technology being either financial voodoo, not really technology, or not really useful. This, however, is huge.
This is especially interesting for my hometown: Las Vegas. I haven't worked on the strip since 2019, so I don't know if anything is changed. Back then, at least, we noticed that young people don't gamble as much. Whenever we had a concert that attracted young people, gambling revenue tanked for the night. This isn't much a short term problem, but in 20-30 years we could have way too many slots/tables for the actual gambling demand. That's going to lead to a very different strip, focused on unique experiences, shows/concerts, food, and whatever else brings young people in.