Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 304 posts

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#141

Post by 1dom »

pxc wrote: post #112
apples_oranges wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I neither like the taboo nor the opposite. Too much psychology talk in every day life, everyone is traumatised and has unresolved issues etc. That may be, but I wish we would handle it all more privately...

"Trauma" ultimately just means "severe injury" or something like that, doesn't it? We take it for granted that virtually no one will make it through life without ever sustaining a serious or enduring physical injury. Why is it so implausible to say that practically everyone can expect to eventually have to deal with at least one significant mental injury, too?

I think the reason why mental health is more public these days is because it wasn't talked about and addressed.

To extend you physical injury analogy: yes, people get physically injured. People break legs, and because of the focus and progress on physical injuries, they wear a cast for a few weeks, and then - for all practical intents and purposes - the injury never happened.

Because the same attention wasn't applied to mental health, I think people realised they were surrounded by the equivalent of people dragging themselves around on the ground because of a broken leg a decade ago that never got fixed. Why would anyone do that? Either because they don't know about the treatment, or because they live in an environment where the idea of getting treatment is seen as a bad or weak or shameful thing.

> Why is it so implausible to say that practically everyone can expect to eventually have to deal with at least one significant mental injury, too?

Just like we expect to walk down the street and see the occasional person with a plaster or bandage to handle a physical injury, if you accept we all have mental injuries, why do you expect to see them handled any more privately than physical ones?

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#142

Post by Fluorescence »

wiseowise wrote: post #68
apples_oranges wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I neither like the taboo nor the opposite. Too much psychology talk in every day life, everyone is traumatised and has unresolved issues etc. That may be, but I wish we would handle it all more privately...

> Too much psychology talk in every day life I'm curious to hear how often do you hear it in every day life outside of the internet.

Probably not what the parent is referring to, but there is 'therapy speak' and similar phenomena where a pop-sci bowdlerisation of professional practices or scientific theories become absorbed into the culture and change the way we express ourselves.

There is pathologisation which can be whimsical e.g. tidying/organising becomes OCD, studying becomes autistic or exaggerative e.g. sadness becoming depression, a bad experience becoming trauma or in order condemn e.g a political policy becomes sociopathic.

There is the way 'therapy speak' spills over into daily life e.g. your use of the work-kitchen must respect boundaries, leaving the milk out is triggering, the biscuits are my self-care etc.

There is also 'neuroscience speak' where people express their emotions in terms of neurotransmitters e.g. motivation and stimulation becomes 'dopamine', happiness and love become 'serotonin', stress becomes 'cortisol' etc.

It's just the way language and culture works and it now pulls more from science than myth and religion. New language might just be replacing older bowdlerisations e.g. hysteria. In the 'therapy-speak' cases, it's interesting how it often replaces more moralistic language and assertions about values that used be described in terms of manners, civility, respectability etc.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#143

Post by Joeboy »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #123
Joeboy wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this something that generally goes beyond school? The things that make you vulnerable change depending on what year and situation you're in. I can very much get behind the idea that you should consider whether your legacy sense of what makes you vulnerable is relevant to your current circumstances. I'm not so much behind the "freely dispense the rope people will use to hang you" version.

There's a lot of abstraction in this thread, but I would like to hear specifics. What are the exact vulnerabilities that we are talking about? From my side I guess I can say I frequently feel like impostor type of things or that I'm not doing enough. I won't mention that at work, but I definitely share those feelings to my partner. I would hate not being able to share something like that to my partner for instance. I…

When I was at school (and in the 20th century generally) admitting to anything outside traditional masculinity / heterosexuality made you vulnerable to physical / verbal attack. Which remains the case for a lot of people in the 21st century. If they want to be loud and proud then good for them, but I can understand it if they prefer to keep it quiet. Whereas, at least around me, now, I think you can come out as gay without too much concern for your physical safety.

Conversely, at my school you could be as overtly homophobic as you wanted with no consequences, whereas now you should probably be a lot more cautious if you harbour homophobic sentiments.

Talking about partners in particular, I've had partners I felt fairly safe sharing anything (most things anyway) with, and I've also had partners who would mine our conversations for any kind of viable ammunition. Which led to me being a bit more careful what I said. We can perhaps agree the first kind of relationship is better.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#144

Post by pxc »

tossandthrow wrote: post #132
pxc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trauma" ultimately just means "severe injury" or something like that, doesn't it? We take it for granted that virtually no one will make it through life without ever sustaining a serious or enduring physical injury. Why is it so implausible to say that practically everyone can expect to eventually have to deal with at least one significant mental injury, too?

Your view is representing a traditionally more masculine point of view. A more feminine point of view is that we should shield against experiences that lead to a trauma. What we want as a society is a democratic process, and it is heavily up for negotiation these years. It is completely fine. Personally, my core belief is that whatever we ultimately decide on, it counts for all equivalent regardless of their gender.

> A more feminine point of view is that we should shield against experiences that lead to a trauma.

I think that's true both for physical and psychological trauma! We should generally avoid preventable injuries and try to live and work with safety in mind.

All I meant is that the phrase "[almost] everyone has experienced trauma" doesn't seem that radical or extreme to me. It seems like common sense. (And it's not the same thing as "everyone is falling apart" or something like that.)

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#145

Post by mewpmewp2 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #138
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with "mental illness" is that I think in many cases it's the environment that is not suitable. In modern times we've created this environment that just doesn't fit all archetypes of people and those who it doesn't fit well with, we declare "mentally ill". There are obviously actual serious issues, but I believe a lot of it has to do with environment. It's not a clear illness like diabetes, etc. Fo…

I agree with this. One of the issues I face, with my family member, is that they can’t handle stress, well. I have found that we only advance, when we are outside our “comfort zone.” As long as everything is copacetic, there’s no need to improve. But a “comfort zone” is a “fuzzy” quality. Too far out, is “trauma.” Different folks handle discomfort and trauma, in a variety of ways. I do think our families and support…

Yeah, that's complicated. I guess from my own experience related to stress and going out of comfort zone what I can speak to is that I have trouble going out of comfort zone when I'm doing something I'm not interested in and when I feel like I have to pretend that I'm someone I'm not. E.g. normal social situations where I have to pretend that I have favourite food, favourite place to go, or I even know places. I zone out on 90%+ topics, and I can't understand why on earth people are talking about these things.

But if I'm passionate about something, I will be excited to present to a large audience, to go through things that you might consider going out of comfort zone, be competitive etc.

Now in school I had so many situations where I had to "be out of comfort zone" in things I wasn't interested in. Social situations I didn't enjoy. I left things to last minute, then stressed, lost confidence, massively. Eventually dropped out of high school.

Luckily managed to get a successful career going where I've been passionately moving forward, and this has massively boosted my confidence too. Now I'm a successful member of society, make quite a bit, pay taxes, etc, and can build the exact life that I want and works out best for me.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#146

Post by PaulRobinson »

apples_oranges wrote: post #41
tossandthrow wrote: post #2

> One of those taboo subjects was male vulnerability and mental health problems. (emphasis is mine) I would argue that still in 2025 this is an extreme and institutionalized taboo.

I neither like the taboo nor the opposite. Too much psychology talk in every day life, everyone is traumatised and has unresolved issues etc. That may be, but I wish we would handle it all more privately...

We're still working a lot of this out because it's actually a relatively new thing culturally - my grandfathers generation would never have talked about mental health at all - but what is pretty clear is that most people do not talk enough about this, and do not deal with mental health very well.

That does not mean we should all be talking to everybody about it all the time. I take stuff into a therapy session I'm not going to discuss anywhere else, because if I started talking about it at work, or even close relationships, I'm asking people without any ability to help me with it to just take it and work it out with me, and that's not helpful.

But at the same time, we do need to talk to people about it. And there are some toxic barriers we could do with addressing.

Men are not "meant" to cry or show vulnerability in almost all contexts in almost all cultures. That's sad, because while we don't all want men breaking down in tears when their coffee order isn't quite right, we also know it's healthy for men to acknowledge and process difficult feelings like grief and rejection.

While most people realise it's not OK to tell a woman she'd look prettier if she smiled more, few people see the hypocrisy in thinking it's OK to tell a man he'd be sexier if he was more confident. That causes problems I think we can all call out and name in modern dating culture.

According to some stats I just pulled up for the UK, surveys suggest that more than 75% of men report as having had mental health issues, but only 60% have ever spoken to another human being about it at all, with 40% of men stating it would have to be so bad that they are considering self-harm or suicide to talk to anyone, ever. This is horrible.

So, sure, perhaps we don't need to talk about Freudian analysis down the pub, and nobody at work wants to hear about you reconciling feelings about how you were treated as a child by members of your family, but please:

Most men need to talk to somebody about their mental health. And for many problems, that somebody needs to be somebody with the appropriate skills and abilities to help them with it.

If you're reading this, and think that might be you, please, for your own sake, go talk to a professional.

You might not gel with the first therapist, counsellor, psychiatrist or psychologist you speak to. That's OK, they won't mind if you say you want to try a few different people. You can find people who will help in your town, on video calls, on apps, all over. Just speak to someone.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#147

Post by flatline »

bear141 wrote: post #80
sho_hn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely does feel like every American I know "has a therapist", sometimes.

I used to think that therapists were ridiculous. But after having one for six or seven years now, I realize that it’s literally just someone you pay to help you be the happiest and best version of yourself. Maybe everyone doesn’t need that, but I don’t think anyone is inherently always the best version of themselves. What’s the point of not trying to be a little better?

I have been in therapy on and off through most of my life. There are parts of the process and the profession that are helpful. There are also parts that are paternalistic bordering on abusive. “Literally just someone you pay to the be happiest…” is a small part of the picture. I take issue with this view of therapy, and the idea that it is somehow a universal force for good that will benefit everyone.

I have met some pretty unhinged therapists - both as a client and socially. I won’t even go into the history of psychiatry and clinical care.

One of the questions I like to pose is, what are we doing as a society by sending so many people to therapy? What do these practices do at a large scale? And to all those who decry things like gun violence: if you think our current mental health system would somehow be able to address the larger ills of society if only they had more funding, I have some serious questions about your view of its overarching effectiveness, and the specific effects of these practices.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#148

Post by enlyth »

claw-el wrote: post #130

One reason I like CBS’s Elementary’s depiction of Sherlock (maybe more so than BBC’s Sherlock) is because how Elementary treats Sherlock’s mental health and addiction recovery as central to the character. As great as Sherlock is at solving cases, he still struggles greatly to handle his own mental health and addiction recovery, which makes him more grounded to earth.

Also why I enjoyed House which is basically modern Sherlock Holmes in a medical setting

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#149

Post by Cthulhu_ »

pxc wrote: post #112
apples_oranges wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I neither like the taboo nor the opposite. Too much psychology talk in every day life, everyone is traumatised and has unresolved issues etc. That may be, but I wish we would handle it all more privately...

"Trauma" ultimately just means "severe injury" or something like that, doesn't it? We take it for granted that virtually no one will make it through life without ever sustaining a serious or enduring physical injury. Why is it so implausible to say that practically everyone can expect to eventually have to deal with at least one significant mental injury, too?

The word trauma is weighty but has a very broad application. I think most people learn about it in the context of e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder (formerly known as battle fatigue, formerly known as shellshock) and associate it with veterans coming back from the war, but it basically applies to anything that have a lasting effect on people. Could be something like parents being emotionally unavailable, childhood bullying, etc.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#150

Post by erikerikson »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #62
tene80i wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a misuse - it’s exactly the intended meaning and it is perfectly common in mainstream usage. Allowing yourself to be vulnerable means you are indeed open to attack. But it is also a large part of emotional connection. The alternative is being a fortress - with all the relationship problems that entails. The very fact that you see vulnerability as “bad” is a perfect example of what that language is intended t…

Is vulnerable about letting people know how you feel or your weaknesses? What about letting people know how you feel and your weaknesses while not caring if someone judges you for it? Is that being vulnerable or not?

I would say yes. Your weaknesses, if truly shared are weaknesses which can be used against you to hurt you and thereby you are vulnerable to them. Further, even if you don't care about the judgment of others then you can still be harmed by decisions of and social coordination between people who judge you.

We agree, assuming self knowledge, that the judgments of others tell you about them rather than about you.

Post reply on HN