This study focuses on adolescents because they have data available for a large cohort. I’m curious what one would find with adults.
I’m morbidly curious what the world’s various intelligence (espionage) outfits have attempted, studied, and concluded in terms of manipulating large numbers of people via the internet.
Many negative tropes I see repeated ubiquitously online make me think about mass demoralization, anger, hopelessness, etc.
I realize this may seem off topic to some, this is just where my mind goes when I see a title like this one.
Before considering deliberate manipulation you need to account for contagion and memeiness among the population by default. That's certainly a nontrivial phenomenon, and possibly so dominant that manipulation is no more than a sideshow.
Running HN has shifted my priors on this point because, at least in our little pond, claims of deliberate manipulation almost always turn out to be unsupported by data.
If that's the case then detectable (if a magnitude or two weaker) pulses of the same phenomenon should have followed the widespread availability and access to the printing press and perhaps the telephone.
Moral panics over communications technologies are nothing new. Certain types of people just like to performatively worry about anything that empowers other people.
“Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy?” wondered the Knights of Columbus in a 1926 meeting. “Does the telephone break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?”
Others worried that the inverse would occur—that it would be so easy to talk that we’d never leave each other alone. “Thanks to the telephone, motor-car and such-like inventions, our neighbors have it in their power to turn our leisure into a series of interruptions,” complained an American professor in 1929. And surely it couldn’t be healthy to talk to each other so much. Wouldn’t it create Too Much Information?
“We shall soon be nothing but transparent heaps of jelly to each other,” a London writer moaned in 1897. Others fretted that the telephone sped up life, demanding instant reactions. “The use of the telephone gives little room for reflection,” wrote a British newspaper in 1899. “It does not improve the temper, and it engenders a feverishness in the ordinary concerns of life which does not make for domestic happiness and comfort.”
Young ladies, some fretted, were at romantic risk. “The serenading troubadour can now thrum his throbbing guitar before the transmitter undisturbed by apprehensions of shot guns and bull dogs,” a magazine article in Electrical World noted. Scamsters loved the phone.
“It changed people’s ideas of social trust,” notes Carolyn Marvin, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and author of When Old Technologies Were New. We could no longer read someone based on face-to-face social cues.
> Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy?
Proven, the telephone (especially with integration of computer) has made men less active and more lazy. Obesity and media addiction skyrocketing. Cops called on kids playing outside.
> Does the telephone break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?
Confirmed. When I was a kid, we just went to a friend's house to knock to see if they wanted to play. Nobody does that anymore, and so much spirit of adventure has been lost. Everyone is glued to their pocket phones.
> it would be so easy to talk that we’d never leave each other alone. [...] Thanks to the telephone, motor-car and such-like inventions, our neighbors have it in their power to turn our leisure into a series of interruptions
Also confirmed. Constant addiction-engineered notifications from social media apps. Everyone always chatting. People are losing the ability to walk up to strangers and strike up conversation.
> Wouldn’t it create Too Much Information?
Sure did. First we had phone books to find peoples' contact. Then we got search engines and shift through websites. Now there's so much garbage most services just let it rot, and we're looking to AI to organize it all (good luck).
> the telephone sped up life, demanding instant reactions
Happened. There's no time for things to play out and integrate it anymore. It happens, it spreads instantly to all corners of the earth, and people suffer without having any time to ponder the ramification. Mental contagion is a real phenomena.
> The use of the telephone gives little room for reflection
Confirmed. Everyone is glued to their screens, avoiding deep and difficult conversations. The screen instructs them how to think, what to say, and especially what to buy.
> It does not improve the temper, and it engenders a feverishness in the ordinary concerns of life which does not make for domestic happiness and comfort.
Yup. People get so angry and worked up about social media. In particular, old single women of tiktok are convincing younger women to divorce their husbands over nothing, leading to lifetime of loneliness and misery. Half of all western women are projected to be childless and alone forever. Most of them will regret it.
> Young ladies, some fretted, were at romantic risk.
Dating apps have decimated romance. Ladies stuck on promiscuous hypergamy, "dating" a tiny percentage of men. Romance is the prime motivator for men to work hard, so this has far-reaching repercussions.
> It changed people’s ideas of social trust [...] We could no longer read someone based on face-to-face social cues.
People don't even interact face-to-face anymore, and when they do, they are clueless to cues as texting has none.
Besides the BS article, there is again some truth in the opinions expressed.
In general, the epigenetics express themselves at a rate almost double the baseline in homes where at least one parent is also suffering a disorder while raising the children, or there is some form of abuse. It is well documented, placing children in a low-stress stable environment with "normal" adoptive caregivers early in life can cut the expression of most disorders in half.
In terms of development, around 70% of your personality is who you were around as a child. It is not "contagious", but rather an aggregated developmental result governed by culture, social and financial stressors.
Interestingly, if you are intellectually gifted most will see a certain resilience to these challenges. However, sometimes a kid is just wired wrong (that other 1% no one talks about), and will pose a persistent issue for the entire community from an early age.
Governments have weaponized village idiots since the dawn of civilization, but in general most Scientists that study people tend to exclude the antisocial from their field given the horrific mistakes of the past.
I would recommend behavioral biology and abnormal psychology as electives in first year. And no, anyone under the age of 14 should not be on the public internet in my opinion, as at around 12 ones prejudices and values become your default bias.
I personally don't think Google should be monitoring the habits of children, or tagging people with electronic devices.
If you want conspiracy, there are too many to choose from... some fake... some plausible... some hilarious... and some horribly real. Have a wonderful day =3
You don't need the internet, it's been done for centuries. It is a derivative of mimesis which is biologically encoded colloquially as 'monkey see, monkey do'. You don't even need espionage to influence group think dynamics and mass hysteria. Want to start a stampede? Start running fast away from a group of people.
Trump is the poster boy for transmitting disinformation. The solution is to teach and promote critical thinking but that has been weaponized into 'do your own research' which conveniently neglects to do the critical thinking component that research requires.
Dr. John Calhoun did many experiments with mammalian behavioral shifts with population growth. Some seem upset by his works findings, but it does seem to predict developmental stages of aggression, the "Beautiful Ones", and cognitive deterioration in social mammals.
I would recommend getting out for an early walk everyday (especially when you don't feel like it), as spending too much time around news/catastrophe nonsense is bad for your health.
Have a great day, and I just found a surprise ice-cream cookie bar in the freezer I forgot about... hope your day gets that awesome too. =3
Dr. Calhoun's research, if you can call it that, has been roundly debunked due to flawed experimental design, lack of replication, anthropomorphizing, etc.
If you're interested in more up-to-date and relevant research on the sociological impact of the internet, I recommend checking out Sherry Turkle and her associates, or reading some stuff from RAND on psychological war, and then branching out from there. Jaques Ellul is also a more 'liberal arts' way into this field that I'm betting you'd enjoy.
"Psychological war" sounds very dramatic, but Ms. Turkle is a sociologist with a specialization in human personality study. Hardly qualified to be an evolutionary neuroscientist, but maybe she is a good therapist.
"Not my monkey... not my circus..." as they say... =)
Indeed, Dr. Calhoun had many peers with better resources to study the phenomena. I agree that his initial interpretation was unexpected, but the later data, several papers, and peer-review is likely of better quality. Note the film clip documents a follow up study done with "Rat Utopia" that covers several of the unanswered questions of whether ecological carrying capacity features.
Personally, when I last reviewed the work I was more interested in shifts in the rates of aggression in pseudo-tournament species. Yet my interests shifted to neuromorphic computing long ago, and unfortunately it is off-topic for this thread.
It’s interesting that “schizophrenia spectrum disorders” were the first to be correlated. That makes me suspect they aren’t measuring transmission at all. Given they account for the general population around the schools, it may be the classroom environment or greater awareness causing the differences. The latter was mentioned as a factor they couldn’t measure.
I'm extremely skeptical of this study because (a) the authors explicitly say they can't rule out greater awareness of mental disorders as being responsible for the difference, but then (b) they decided to go with their "transmission" theory anyway, probably because it makes for a better story.
To be clear, I have no idea if either theory is more likely for the data they examined. But I would have trusted this study a lot more if they had presented both options as equally plausible.
Awareness, transmission, what precisely is the difference? Sounds to me like mental health awareness campaigns are just another transmission vector.
Do we have any reason to believe that “mental health awareness” doesn’t CAUSE mental illness? To me, there’s a pretty direct line between the increase of mental health awareness campaigns and self-reported mental health. Usually this is framed in the framing “oh, the mental health issues always existed, and we just became aware of them, so things are better now since we can address them” and I am unconvinced. I mean, look at this study, eating disorders spiked, are we suggesting people secretly unknowingly had an eating disorder they only became aware of through social media? It’s nonsense!
I honestly and sincerely believe there is no reason to believe that the changes to mental health understanding have not been making people sicker and sicker every year for what somewhere around 2 decades now which is around when we saw things like suicidality bottom out. We’ve seen addiction and self-harm rising and let’s not forget eating disorders. Mental health is the only field of medicine I can name where outcomes have declined over the last few decades and I find the lack of scepticism to be well - insane!
> there’s a pretty direct line between the increase of mental health awareness campaigns and self-reported mental health
This seems like an obvious and intended result. I don't think this is suspicious. If you tell more people about something, more people will have words to describe it.
I think in your comment there are multiple places where you conflate reported mental health and actual mental health, for example saying mental health is declining. Is it declining, or are reports increasing due to awareness? The answer would be non-obvious, and even if mental health was declining, I suspect that other factors like declining economic outlooks for the average person would be more likely causes than "mental health awareness campaigns".
> Awareness, transmission, what precisely is the difference?
In the first one you see issues in yourself or someone else that you learn later match some diagnosis. In the second one you gain those issues that you didn't have earlier. I've been diagnosed and improved my life exactly because enough people discussed some symptoms that I could say "hey, that's the same as my problems! (that existed for decades before)"
I'm sure you could gain some issues, and empathic illnesses are a thing. But disregarding the difference here would be harmful.
There has been research into the fact that student Doctors often report symptoms to their own doctors of the diseases they're currently studying - a kind of psychological awareness temporarily manifesting as physical symptoms. Or the belief of physical symptoms. Sort of like the phantom phone buzz in our legs that many of us get occasionally.
These symptoms aren't actually the disease - just like our legs are not actually our phones.
> there’s a pretty direct line between the increase of mental health awareness campaigns and self-reported mental health
"Self-reported mental health" is very different from clinically diagnosed and treated mental health.
> I mean, look at this study, eating disorders spiked, are we suggesting people secretly unknowingly had an eating disorder they only became aware of through social media? It’s nonsense!
This is a nonsense line of thinking because "only became aware of" is not the mechanism. There is plenty of research out there about how social media actively changes mental and behavioural patterns - especially in young people - because that is what it is DESIGNED TO DO in order to increase engagement and revenue.
Changing your physical behaviour severely enough to become sick is a thing.
Changing your mental behaviour severely enough to become sick is a thing.
Mental health might be getting worse, but simply "awareness of mental health issues" is not the mechanism.
The title of this study is "Transmission of Mental Disorders in Adolescent Peer Networks". The "Meaning" section states "The findings of this study suggest that mental disorders might be socially transmitted within adolescent peer networks." I can't believe any plain read of that would imply they're talking about increased diagnosis of already-present mental illness due to greater awareness.
I don't care for the sensationalist title and interpretation by the authors. Awareness of mental disorders, application of knowledge to one's mental experience and symptomology, and to a much lesser extent, but probably real, assuming the identity of the disorder that your friends have assumed for themselves or were legitimately diagnosed with, is still not transmission of a disorder.
If you go to the same school, you are more likely to be from the same social and circumstantial strata, which may be a bigger factor in openness to diagnosis and development of mental issues.
Yes, and people who have a certain mental architecture tend to associate with others who have similar brains. ADHDers tend to have friends with ADHD at least partly because they are more forgiving of some of the challenges of having ADHD.
This study is junk. There is no dataset or study design that is feasible for untangling the complexities of "like minds attract" to allow for an examination of the memetic spread of psychiatric disorders.
I can corroborate this, with an oddly well timed recent event.
In school I had a large friend group, none of us were diagnosed (publicly) with anything. We spent a few years together and then all scattered across the country and did not particularly keep good contact.
Cut to a decade and a half later, I'm attending a good friend's wedding back in my home town at the beginning of this month. I was diagnosed very late with autism back in 2019, then at the celebrations I discover the vast majority of my friends have had their own either autism or ADHD diagnoses since we last saw one another. Our crew ended up somewhere like a 3/4 or a 4/5 with a diagnosis, from a group larger than 30.
If we were included in the study's population, would the authors have declared that we "transmitted" these conditions to one another?
Yeah this is an error people make about transgender people all the time. Parents say "my child started hanging out with a bunch of trans people and then they told me they are trans, but they never told me anything about this before so I think they became trans because of those people" and it's like, no the child was attracted to the group of trans people because something about that group resonated with the child, and having spent some time seeing their perspective they felt that transition would better resolve some internal tension they may never have understood or had words to express. Being friends with trans people didn't make the child trans, it just showed them a new perspective they had been seeking when they decided to become friends with those people.
Similarly, people with various mental health conditions may have some attraction to others in the same boat, as they can find mutual understanding, learn coping skills, and vent about the other people who don't understand.
You could just as easily say mountain biking is socially transmitted because all these mountain bikers are hanging out together.
> and having spent some time seeing their perspective they felt that transition would better resolve some internal tension
Thing is though, that during puberty there is a huge amount of internal tension as one's body goes through significant developmental changes. Especially for girls as they start to be sexualised by men. The idea that transition can be used to escape this makes for a tempting second option, and if there are peers who also think that way, it can be very encouraging.
We know that the number of detransitioners is on the rise, and their stories are very often along those lines. They became obsessively drawn to the idea of transitioning, often through social media and peers, and later, when they had the insights of adulthood and the obsession had faded, regretted what they'd done.
The problem is that transition isn't actually a change to the opposite sex, it just creates a poor facsimile at best, and the medical pathway of blocking puberty and taking cross-sex hormones causes irreversible harms to one's body. Loss of sexual function is a big problem. And of course, teenage girls who undergo mastectomy to affirm their idea that they should be boys, can't get those body parts back.
> We know that the number of detransitioners is on the rise, and their stories are very often along those lines
For some extra context on this comment "on the rise" still constitutes an absolute minority of those who transition, I believe somewhere between 5% and 8% -- and the most common reason given for detransition is due to lack of support, coercion or pressure from family and friends rather than transition regret.
"Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor. Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma."
Turban JL, Loo SS, Almazan AN, Keuroghlian AS. Factors Leading to "Detransition" Among Transgender and Gender Diverse People in the United States: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. LGBT Health
doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2020.0437
This article is useful because it explicitly mentions people often misconstrue detransition for regret, when that as a cause for detransition is considered uncommon compared to external pressure.
The reasons given for detransition vary by survey. In these two papers, lack of support was a minor reason amongst those surveyed:
Vandenbussche, E. (2021). Detransition-Related Needs and Support: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 69(9), 1602–1620. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2021.1919479
> The most common reported reason for detransitioning was realized that my gender dysphoria was related to other issues (70%). The second one was health concerns (62%), followed by transition did not help my dysphoria (50%), found alternatives to deal with my dysphoria (45%), unhappy with the social changes (44%), and change in political views (43%). At the very bottom of the list are: lack of support from social surroundings (13%), financial concerns (12%) and discrimination (10%).
Littman L. (2021). Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners. Archives of sexual behavior, 50(8), 3353–3369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w
> The most frequently endorsed reason for detransitioning was that the respondent’s personal definition of male and female changed and they became comfortable identifying with their natal sex (60.0%). Other commonly endorsed reasons were concerns about potential medical complications (49.0%); transition did not improve their mental health (42.0%); dissatisfaction with the physical results of transition (40.0%); and discovering that something specific like trauma or a mental health condition caused their gender dysphoria (38.0%). External pressures to detransition such as experiencing discrimination (23.0%) or worrying about paying for treatments (17.0%) were less common.
One major problem in fully understanding this phenomenon is that there is currently inadequate follow-up by gender clinics to collect data on detransitioners.
As the Cass Review notes:
> 15.50 Estimates of the percentage of individuals who embark on a medical pathway and subsequently have regrets or detransition are hard to determine from GDC clinic data alone.
> There are several reasons for this:
> - those who do detransition may not choose to return to the gender clinic and are hence lost to follow-up
> - the Review has heard from a number of clinicians working in adult gender services that the time to detransition ranges from 5-10 years, so follow-up intervals on studies on medical treatment are too short to capture this
> - the inflection point for the increase in presentations to gender services for children and young people was 2014, so even studies with longer follow-up intervals will not capture the outcomes of this more recent cohort.
The Review also noted the problem of clinics not adequately sharing the data they do have:
> 15.55 An audit was undertaken at The Tavistock and Portman GDC on the characteristics of individuals who had detransitioned. Most papers on detransition are based on community samples, and questionnaire reports, but this was a case series of 40 patients who had all been examined by a psychiatrist.
> 15.56 Findings from the audit were discussed with the Review. The time for people to choose to detransition was 5-10 years (average 7 years). Common presenting features and risk factors such as high levels of adverse childhood experiences, alexithymia (inability to recognise and express their emotions) and problems with interoception (making sense of what is going on in their bodies) were identified in the audit, and this audit would be informative for clinicians assessing young people with a view to starting masculinising/feminising hormones. The Review asked to have access to this audit in order to understand some of the qualitative findings, but the trust did not agree to this.
There is a gulf between the quality of the sources we're looking at here and I want to highlight it so it's not hidden behind links.
My supplied source in the GP comment is an n=27,715 cross sectional survey supplied to any adult who has transitioned in the past, it's not detransition specific and it's sort of like a trans census taken yearly.
Your first source is an n=237 online survey on a detransition specific website which did make any effort to verify if any of the poll answerers were trans at any point.
Your second source is an n=100 anonymous poll posted on social media. This could well have been a strawpoll on twitter.
The main discrepancy is that these have different survey populations.
Turban's study is based on an survey (which was also conducted online) of people who, for the most part, currently identify as trans, of which some had temporarily detransitioned in the past. Whereas Littman's and Vandenbussche's studies only surveyed detransitioners who no longer identify as trans.
What these suggest in aggregate is that these populations generally have quite different reasons for detransitioning.
The study I linked has 2200 detransitioners, an order of magnitude above the ~240 or the 100 you've referenced.
What the studies kind of suggest more is that if you pull your sample from somewhere like a detransition website you're likely to get a biased result which doesn't map to the sentiment of the larger population.
It's a carefully considered, in-depth and thorough evidence-based review of clinical policy from an independent expert group, led by an eminent paediatrician with decades of experience.
I'm baffled as to why you've decided it's an "unscientific hatchet job". Would you like to explain your reasoning?
Because they set an unrealistic bar by excluding all research which wasn't double blind, in the knowledge that there's barely any research you can perform on trans youth with that criteria that an ethics board will allow and there's barely any research anyone would attempt — because your blind is immediately nullified by the obvious continuing signs of puberty, or the obvious continuing signs of body produced hormones.
By doing this they have excluded the vast majority of the extant research, leaving what's essentially the most biased remaining sample.
Now add in the government of the UK's current attack angle on trans people, and Cass herself exclusively operating with anti-trans groups on social media.
> Dr Cass was asked about particular claims spread online about her review - one that "98% of the evidence" was ignored or dismissed by her, and one that she would only include gold-standard "double-blind randomised control" trials in the review.
> She said the 98% claim was "completely incorrect".
> A total of 103 scientific papers were analysed by her review, with 2% considered high quality, and 98% not.
> "There were quite a number of studies that were considered to be moderate quality, and those were all included in the analysis," she said.
> "So nearly 60% of the studies were actually included in what's called the synthesis."
> And on the "double-blind" claim - where patients are randomly assigned to a treatment or placebo group, getting either medicine or nothing - she said "obviously" young people could not be blinded as to whether or not they were on puberty blockers or hormones because "it rapidly becomes obvious to them".
> "But that of itself is not an issue because there are many other areas where that would apply," she said.
> "If you were doing a trial, say, of acupuncture, people would know exactly what treatment that they were getting."
You can of course confirm this yourself by reading the report and the systematic reviews commissioned to inform it, rather than listening to social media bullshitters.
Please try harder not to succumb to the strawman fallacy, you're arguing a point I didn't make.
The base truth is that the Cass review excluded a large portion of the research based on evidenciary standards which are higher than we'd apply otherwise.
Citing her Q&A with the Kite Trust is great but that doesn't undo the fact that she designed her review to exclude trans people as much as possible. There were zero trans clinicians, trans academics or even trans users of healthcare services included in any part of the study.
Within her purview for study quality she decided to include the work of a known transphobe who was caught out in 2018 posting essentially hate screeds on an anonymous twitter account[1] -- why was his work included but not a >> SINGLE << trans person could sit in on the review?
> You can of course confirm this yourself by reading the report and the systematic reviews commissioned to inform it, rather than listening to social media bullshitters.
And now I see why you decided to spin up a fresh account for this. I'm done, I don't believe in debate with people who mistake debate for online shitfling. Have a good one.
I'm directly addressing your claims, not arguing a point you didn't make.
You said:
> Because they set an unrealistic bar by excluding all research which wasn't double blind,
To which I replied with a BBC News article quoting Cass, which refutes this falsehood. While noting that you could also confirm this yourself by actually reading the publications you're so misinformed about.
The problem is that you'd rather listen to liars like Erin Reed and Alejandra Caraballo, who have apparently made it their mission to sow as much disinformation about the Review as they possibly can, and those who amplify their mendacious nonsense.
I mean, all you've been doing in this thread is further spreading their lies, and then doubling down when proven wrong. Are you really so in the thrall of these prevaricators?
Uninterested in a sockpuppet's views, sorry. If you're serious come back on your main and we'll discuss without all the creative attempts you've made to answer sentence A while ignoring sentence B.
You've know you've been called out on your bullshit and are attempting to deflect. That's fine, you can do that if you want. But there's really no point in continuing any sort of exchange with you on this, because it's very clear that you'd rather spread lies than discuss facts.
I don't think that your explanation leads to the conclusion that these things are not socially transmitted.
Mountain biking as a sport would not be possible for the average person without the community. Sure, someone could be, and had to be, "the first" MTBer, make knobbly tires, build a suspension, go without a trail, etc, but that sort of spontaneous "new sport discovery" process is not going to happen at anything like the rate that people are attracted (via social transmission!) to the existing sport with everything in place.
The question seems to be whether being transgender, or being a mountain biker, is something that can exist purely in the mind, in the absence of the ability to realise it.
In some ways it feels like an unanswerable question because normal gender roles are socially transmitted anyway, so we can't even say whether "being a man" exists in isolation.
> The question seems to be whether being transgender, or being a mountain biker, is something that can exist purely in the mind, in the absence of the ability to realise it.
Agreed. And we don't generally refer to mountain bikers like that, but we do for trans people. Equalizing the analogy, it would be "person who would enjoy mountain biking" and "person who would enjoy gender transition". I think this framing makes it easier to see as something that could already exist within a person.
Of course the truth is that whether someone would enjoy mountain biking or whether someone would enjoy transition is related to both social factors and pre-existing personality traits.
The real problem comes when we stigmatize people for having these traits or for deciding to do something about it.
I agree with what you are saying up until the last part because "traits" as a general term are not all positive.
As an example, we stigmatize, and should stigmatize, the behaviours of those who are attracted to minors, and that stigma likely does reduce the social transmission of those behaviours.
The question I think comes down to essentially whether one considers the results of acting on gender dysphoria to be "bad".
If it is bad, then the question then becomes, is it a net benefit to stigmatize transitioning - i.e. do the benefits in reducing overall gender dysphoria outweigh the costs to those who would have it regardless of social factors.
For me it seems to have some pretty significant downsides. Loss of fertility, permanent hormone replacement, surgeries, trouble dating and being accepted in society, never really "passing" unless you do it very early on, etc.
If it's the only choice for a given individual e.g. they'd feel terminally depressed otherwise, then sure, they should be able to do it. I wouldn't really call it good though, it seems like the best worst option.
Of course, if the stigma has no effect on rates of gender dysphoria then none of this makes sense because there is then no benefit in dissuading people from transitioning.
Well, I’m trans. Loss of fertility is mixed. Probably I could stop hormones for six months and still conceive. I might do that in the next few years but of course that would be disruptive.
I’m not going to have any surgeries, but those that do seem to be happy for it so that doesn’t seem to be a down side.
Trouble dating doesn’t fit for me. My dating life is massively better, in large part because I finally feel good in my skin and now how to look sexy.
I don’t make any attempt to “pass”. I’m a non-binary transfemme. My gender expression is all over the place. I’m just happier with hormones and the clothes I like. It’s more about not trying to be a “man” and just doing whatever, including hormones in my case. All the problems with passing come from places where society doesn’t accept trans people, and expects everyone to fit in to rigid gender roles. That’s not a problem with trans people that’s a problem with society, and in many places people have realized that it doesn’t matter if someone is wearing a dress and has facial hair, or whatever doesn’t fit normal gender roles. On analysis it obviously doesn’t matter, but some places need to catch up. In the San Francisco Bay Area, no one gives a shit. From the earliest most awkward moments of my transition, no one ever seemed to care and no one ever said anything.
And my life is so much better. I feel better. I feel sexier and more confident, and my dating life has exploded. Sex is so much better without heteronormative expectations. I got so tired of that sex life, and now I feel so may possibilities.
So yeah, when you understand the facts, stigma is anti-social behavior and acceptance is the best response.
I wish you all of the best in your life, but what you are describing sounds like a colossal pain in the arse to me.
I think that we are speaking at cross ends, as you are comparing life before and after transition, whereas I am comparing the lack of perceived need to transition vs the perceived need to transition.
That is to say, it seems clearly better to not be dysphoric in the first place, if that can be achieved. Especially considering what you describe!
I mean the fact that it doesn’t sound nice just means it not for you! That’s the whole point about being trans is that it’s an individual decision and most people won’t want to bother.
Also I never had dysphoria. Still I had been on this path for a long time, and after thinking about it for two years I decided to start hormones a few years ago. I’m so happy I did!
And sure, lots of people have dysphoria and it would be better if they didn’t. A great way to relieve dysphoria is to transition! That is literally the medically recommended treatment for gender transition. That or in mild cases therapy, and time.
But I transitioned because it seemed quite powerfully like something I wanted to try, and having done it I realized why I had been so interested, so adjacent to it for so long. Because it was right for me.
You’re clinging to a semantic distinction that is meaningless to me. I’m happy and I feel good, and your desire to simplify the meaning of gender transformation in to little boxes you can understand has no bearing on me or my life.
Counter point is that I’m an adult who started transition at 36, and I really wish I’d known this was an option when I was younger. I knew trans people existed, but only as the butt of jokes. I wish I had understood this to be a real choice when I was younger.
Who here has independently arrived at the conclusion that they must don the toga virilis[1] between the ages of 14 and 16? It's a difficult position to be in.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has an idea that because modern societies aim to be open to all religious/ethical ideas, it results in the atrophying of debating skills and the ability to intelligently critique things. This openness doesn’t result in a free exchange of complex formed opinions, resulting instead in a kind of formless relativism where people have a feeling that they disagree with something but lack the ability to do so.
In a very related way, I feel like the same thing has happened with regards to the focus on individualism and the individual identity, at the expense of group identity. People have become so obsessed with individualism that they forget how humans are still, additionally, a social species.
This results in the ignoring of how group social dynamics work, which means that it’s much easier for bad group behaviors to take root - no one thinks they’re important or even exist at all.
In other words, when we pretend that something doesn’t exist - but it continues to exist - we lose the ability to engage with it intelligently.
It may just be that I've shifted social circles as I've aged, or hell even that I've become cranky, but I've noticed a huge decrease in debating ability over the past 20 years or so.
I can't quite put my finger on it but I guess it feels as if labels, black and white thinking, and absurd levels of tolerance have proliferated as mind killing tools.
You must of never gone to University because in modern academic debating you have no intentions of conceding your position, you only do when it strengthen your argument, not when it weakens it. I think it is kind of antithetical to debating but it isn't about the truth it is about convincing the audience that your a more credible by presenting a more compelling argument to support your position.
The point I am making is not that people are unwilling to concede, I don't see much change in that, but that debate itself rarely happens.
It's far more common in my experience for someone to attempt to shut down debate with a label like racist or woke, or draw a connection to a political philosophy in an attempt to discredit, rather than actually try to give valid reasons for why I should adopt their position.
Back in University I found that to be far less common. Looking from the outside in it seems as if nowadays campuses have become much more reactionary.
I think your understanding of what the objective of an Academic debate is wrong. What you're referring too isn't a debate it is the Socratic method. The purpose of the Socratic method is to reach a (mutual) understanding and intellectual discovery. The purpose a debate is to persuade and win the argument. They differ significantly in their objectives, methodologies, and atmospheres.
I take the different stance the push to individualism has postponed apathy of Western society as a whole. Look at societies that are still highly nationalistic or collectivism they're either in-decline or being exploited by the West.
The power of individualism is it allows society to exploit individuals who're at the end of the population bell curve.
I don’t think individualism is entirely bad or even bad at all - the issue is the exclusive focus on it, as it leaves you unable to deal with the group social phenomena that will continue to exist regardless. And in the reverse way, societies that are too group-focused find themselves unable to deal with the phenomenon of individuals- see the USSR, for example.
IMO the societies doing the best globally have a solid balance between individual and group identity.
I agree how-ever you cannot be a individual within a collective how-ever a individualistic society allows people to voluntarily choose to balkanize along ethnic or cultural tribes. Which is your inherit statutory right as a individual.
The data basically says, if you have someone diagnosed with a mental health disorder in a class, it's more likely that other students from that class will be diagnosed with that mental health disorder later on.
Mood, anxiety or eating disorders and having 2 or more peers increases risk by 18%.
What about the following considerations:
1. Kids trying to pursue similar goals (applying to college, perusing sports or boys, playing video games late which causes sleep deprivation) are more likely to have similar side effects.
2. Knowing someone who has treated a mental illness successfully makes you more likely to pursue treatment - they counted diagnosis, and most had it within a year.
People that spend a lot of time together tend to transmit and share microbiome species.
I'm confident most illnesses, including mental, are rooted in our microbiome makeup.
Most with gut issues would likely agree with this because it makes it more obvious. Such as developing allergies, food sensitivities, skin diseases, mental issues, eye and hearing issues, hair loss, high blood pressure, diabetes, anxiety, etc after their gut has gone haywire.
I'm not sure how they jump from correlation to causation.
Like maybe having classmates who have a disorder means, just for a wild example, there's some contaminant in your local water (several have been linked to mental disorders), and that you're also drinking that water and that you may or may not be diagnosed with that problem for decades.
I also think it's possible that seeing people around you being comfortable acknowledging the ways their brain acts differently may make others more comfortable getting a diagnosis. To justify a conclusion this big I feel that you'd want clearly prove that it's not diagnosis that's contagious but the actual disorder.
> Increased risk remained after adjusting for an array of parental, school-level, and area-level confounders.
Is in the abstract. They literally removed confounding variables. The only variable I can think of is that they are more acute to self check due past experiences.
If you look further down in the paper, they mention the variables they adjusted for:
> [..] all models were
adjusted for sex, birth year, area-level urbanicity, area-level
morbidity, area-level educational level, area-level employ-
ment rate, school class size, school’s ninth grade size, parental
educational level, parental income, and parental mental health.
So a contaminant or other environmental factor that didn't correlate perfectly with those factors wouldn't be corrected for. How could it be, without knowing what it is?
I mean I'm not gonna pretend I read that whole paper (and I'd be surprised if any commenter did), a thousand papers like this get posted on HN every year and completely forgotten (by HN and academia).
Another thing I'm not sure about -- I think some schools intentionally group troublemakers/slower-students into similar classes either officially or unofficially. I'm not gonna read the whole thing and see if they're accounting for that.
Another weird thing is that "behavioral disorder" isn't contagious if there's 1 other person who has it, but IS with 99.9% confidence if more than 1 other has it. The whole chart of P-values seems a bit odd, tbh.
I don't mean to entirely discredit this paper, but what I've learned is that a lot of academics LOVE datasets that they download and analyze without ever meeting a single person in that dataset (it's the quickest way to get papers out). This CAN be useful, but it can also be garbage-in garbage-out. Over my career I've learned that data, like code, should be presumed broken until proven otherwise.
> I also think it's possible that seeing people around you being comfortable acknowledging the ways their brain acts differently may make others more comfortable getting a diagnosis
I’ve been willing to believe that, but thats not my current conclusion
I’ve been hanging out in “spiritual” communities, and there is a presumption that everyone there is “healing” from something, and many people are quite emotionally unavailable and emotionally damaged! I thought this was all peculiar and at first concluded that they were solely more comfortable acknowledging their flaws.
and then I went to play parties, where it was the total opposite: everyone is very emotionally available, equally aware of their attachment styles and mental differences as the spiritual crowd, without the odd problems and socialization issues.
Primarily associated with American shock jock Alex Jones and the so-called alt-right, fears of frogs being turned gay by hormones in water have nevertheless entered the mainstream, while gay frog memes are shared online by users from across the political spectrum. This article offers a genealogy of the gay frog. . .
Cursory search confirms that frogs do “turn gay” (change gender) in response to some types of environmental pollution and other environmental factors. Not some crank blogs either. Here’s Berkeley: https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
That would be a very large amount of 'local areas' with the contaminant no?
You could also argue that it could be that it's a quasar pointing at them which is causing it, at some point you have to use Occam's razor and say that the correlation and causation are, in fact, related.
Seems to be a bit of cope in the comments because of what these results would imply for certain demographics. Otoh, contagion of ideas like scientology, other cults and other maladaptive behaviours are completely accepted.
It could also suggest that mental disorders are a societal construction (a product of living in society) ... but there is also a push to do away with disorders anyway. For example, ADHD was adaptative in hunter/gather societies. But it is clearly maladaptive now for school kids (and some workers) so we medicate it.
The bigger problem is a lack of awareness of our emotional states and managing them. This leads to all sorts of major sociological problems.
Transmission? I mean, in the history of mental illness there have been many instances of psychiatric contagion. E.g. the laughing plague of 1962, the sleep sickness of 2010 in Kazakhstan, and I suppose you could say that 'suggestibility' is a form of transmission (the most famous case for multiple personality disorder has been said to be based on the suggestions of the treating physicians.) It's known that when there are celebrity deaths (caused by their own hands) an uptick in the average rate in the population follows media coverage.
The mind can make you ill. This much is uncontroversial in psychiatry. The flip-side is the mind can make you better. There is the classic concept of placebos. A story I recall comes from war times when doctors ran out of pain killers and administered saline instead. Just the presence of the doctors reassuring treatment was enough to bring about relief in the patient. This is in an instance where someone had a gun shot wound. So the placebo effect (and our belief) is strong enough that it can be on par with drugs like morphine. I'd say that this explains many cases of faith healers. They really are 'healing' the patient but not via any magical means.
The placebo effect is pretty fascinating but it gets even more twisted. It would seem that the effect can be observed even if the doctor tells the patient they're receiving a placebo. The doctor says 'I'm giving you nothing.' And the patient hears: well, you're the doctor, you know what's best. They feel relived in some way from that more than nothing. Effectively, the mind makes it real. Then you have things like classical conditioning being used to reduce highly toxic drug side effects. A toxic (but beneficial drug) can be conditioned with a stimulus (like a bell.) Then the dosage of the drug is reduced while the bell is sounded. The body responds as if it were given the full dose but without all the side effects. Really neat research.
I do think many unexplained illnesses could be the result of negative ingrained conditioning. I think a perfect example of physical effects caused by psychiatric symptoms is anxiety. People who have anxiety usually don't describe it all with emotional terms. They say things like 'my heart is racing', 'im breathing too fast', 'my muscles are twitching.' A person could go to a doctor for a digestive issue only to find out that they're just 'anxious.' If psychiatric contagion exists and psychiatric illness can cause physical symptoms. Then (what appears to be) physical illness is transferable. That's really intense if you think about it.
This is what a failed false flag regime coup attempt looks like in a third world country.
In our's, we get January 6th.
>What about videos being different?
The obvious juxtaposition between supposed "viral videos" and the organic ones. Now that art has been refined, MSM will cover organic ones as well - signal to noise, manufactured consent.
Kinda what a nation state would do.
>People are willing to debate and have a conversation but it seems that is not what you want.
The people cannot debate what the phone doesn't allow them to see.
Playing along by pretending there's nothing to mention is a step further than feeling you're not allowed to say exactly what you mean. That's the why.
Why aside, if you care about the subject either way you already know what he's talking about, and if you don't know then you likely wouldn't care.
He may be quite incorrect in his judgment of the subject, but, as demonstrated by the flagging, he's correct that he's not allowed to talk about it in many settings, including this one. There's a fair chance I'm not allowed to talk about him not being allowed to talk about it, either.
Correlation over causation. The study actually notes,
“One plausible mechanism is the normalization of mental disorders through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment when having individuals with diagnosis in the same peer network.”
Thus the study uses “transmission” in a specific technical sense of greater likely of diagnosis, not literally that you can catch a mental disorder from a peer where none existed before.
We're going to look back on therapy as a vector of mental disease rather than a cure. It's a weaponized mental virus. Like MRSA out of hospitals, the therapist is where you'll go get mentally ill.
I’m morbidly curious what the world’s various intelligence (espionage) outfits have attempted, studied, and concluded in terms of manipulating large numbers of people via the internet.
Many negative tropes I see repeated ubiquitously online make me think about mass demoralization, anger, hopelessness, etc.
I realize this may seem off topic to some, this is just where my mind goes when I see a title like this one.
Edited