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

251–260 of 304 posts

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

#251

Post by watwut »

zozbot234 wrote: post #81
triceratops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see any vilification of women. Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability. It's how they bond with other women, who make up the bulk of their friends. Men's experiences with other men, the bulk of their friends, often make them wary of being emotionally vulnerable. Hence, naturally, a disconnect when a man and a woman are establishing a relationship.

Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability, but typically not from the males in their lives. There is a significant disconnect between average women and genuine male emotions, and males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first and foremost precisely to bridge that gap and then allow the 'sharing' to occur unimpeded, though still in a somewhat controlled way.

Are men expected to do so? Male anger is more tolerated then female anger. Also, if you look at men who are popular or get far, they are super emotional - Trump, Musk, Tate heck even Vance and Hengensberg.

Emotions driven males are cultural and political leaders literally now.

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

#252

Post by lazide »

watwut wrote: post #248
lazide wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice how I never said what you are disagreeing with, and if you read what I said, your question is answered?

I had no question. You also do not know what historical stoicism as a philosophy and behavior was, but I assumed actual historical stoicism was not the point. My point was, you made up "historic stoic persona" based on conservative ideology. Not as something that actually characterized historical manhood.

Haha, Marcus Aurelis is very disappointed.

Tell me what I made up, eh?

The point of stoicism is to make your own decisions and be able to chart your own life by following principles you believe are just - in large part by avoiding being controlled by emotional reactivity/manipulation.

Not to cut out emotions all together, but to not be driven by them. Especially when someone is trying to induce them in you.

This often comes across as ‘stone faced in the face of extreme emotion’ - but doesn’t mean the person isn’t feeling them. Rather that they are not letting themselves be driven by or controlled by them in the moment, if they do not serve a useful purpose for them.

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

#253

Post by lazide »

watwut wrote: post #249
triceratops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see any vilification of women. Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability. It's how they bond with other women, who make up the bulk of their friends. Men's experiences with other men, the bulk of their friends, often make them wary of being emotionally vulnerable. Hence, naturally, a disconnect when a man and a woman are establishing a relationship.

OP blamed women for supposedly complaining that men dont open up. Men simultaneously have natural friendships with other men, but it is women fault men do not open up. Por op, women are at wrong when they want men to talk (which is outrageous ask), but also cause of men not talking. Which includes men not talking to other men, which is also fault of women.

Never did I say such a thing at all.

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

#254

Post by squigz »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #146
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...

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 no…

This is a brilliant comment.

I'd like to elaborate on something you touch on briefly:

> 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.

> that somebody needs to be somebody with the appropriate skills and abilities to help them with it.

I think there's an important line to walk here. I think it's important everyone (men and women) are able to talk about their feelings and experiences with their friends - but I don't think the goal needs to be "helping work it out". Just sharing and listening can be liberating, can help ease the road to talking to a professional, and can help others see that others struggle too.

There is a tendency in conversations of any sort to be always searching for a "solution" or an "answer", instead of just listening.

(There's a lot of nuance here in choosing when to share, etc, but I just wanted to talk a bit about it)

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

#255

Post by squigz »

zozbot234 wrote: post #214
squigz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I seek emotional support from someone so disconnected from their emotions they can't show more than a "modicum" of vulnerability? How could I trust someone's resilience when they don't show they've been through things that built that resilience, and demonstrate it? How can I trust someone who so closely monitors how much and what sort of emotions to show to me?

Why are you assuming that someone who sensibly refrains from overly impulsive behavior wrt. showing their emotions (this is what "self-monitoring" ultimately means: we all do it in all sorts of social contexts, and it's a normal part of being a healthy, well-adjusted person) must necessarily be "disconnecting" from them altogether and lacking in emotional resilience?

If you manage to "self-monitor" all the time, and never show more than a modicum of vulnerability, that seems very disconnected to me.

Perhaps 'disconnected' is the wrong word, but what I mean is that emotionally healthy people feel their emotions and express them, not just hold them at arm's length and pick and choose which to feel and express.

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

#256

Post by zozbot234 »

squigz wrote: post #255
zozbot234 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you assuming that someone who sensibly refrains from overly impulsive behavior wrt. showing their emotions (this is what "self-monitoring" ultimately means: we all do it in all sorts of social contexts, and it's a normal part of being a healthy, well-adjusted person) must necessarily be "disconnecting" from them altogether and lacking in emotional resilience?

If you manage to "self-monitor" all the time, and never show more than a modicum of vulnerability, that seems very disconnected to me. Perhaps 'disconnected' is the wrong word, but what I mean is that emotionally healthy people feel their emotions and express them, not just hold them at arm's length and pick and choose which to feel and express.

On the contrary, part of being a well-adjusted person is learning how to express any emotion in a gradual and controlled fashion, without letting it dominate your behavior in dysfunctional ways. As the ancient philosopher Epictetus famously put it: "If anyone were to deliver your body in public to whomever he wished, that any passer-by might do as he liked with it, you would certainly be angry and indignant. But that you should then set your mind at the mercy of all the world, to be troubled and disturbed whenever anyone should happen to revile you--are you not ashamed of that?" In a way, this is at essence the underlying tension that's inherently in play whenever someone advocates for "vulnerability".

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

#257

Post by squigz »

zozbot234 wrote: post #256
squigz wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you manage to "self-monitor" all the time, and never show more than a modicum of vulnerability, that seems very disconnected to me. Perhaps 'disconnected' is the wrong word, but what I mean is that emotionally healthy people feel their emotions and express them, not just hold them at arm's length and pick and choose which to feel and express.

On the contrary, part of being a well-adjusted person is learning how to express any emotion in a gradual and controlled fashion, without letting it dominate your behavior in dysfunctional ways. As the ancient philosopher Epictetus famously put it: "If anyone were to deliver your body in public to whomever he wished, that any passer-by might do as he liked with it, you would certainly be angry and indignant. But that…

I don't see how being emotional vulnerable means letting your emotions "dominate your behavior in dysfunctional ways"

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

#258

Post by bear141 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #155
bear141 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The main issue is that therapy is expensive, and it's very middle-class to have the money to afford one long-term like that. Working class people have had to suck it up, or (preferably) have a good support network themselves. While I am inclined to agree that most people would benefit from having a professional to talk to, it'd need to be economically viable as well. But we're seeing this happening in real time; on t…

You are definitely right about the financial barriers. I’ve struggled to find one every time I have switched or lost a certain insurance coverage too so there is a shortage even if you can afford them.

I’m inclined to think chatGPT would probably be good enough for therapy basics and could help people that have never encountered them, but would probably become much worse after needing any specialized help. Online platforms like BetterHelp are complete trash and just make the therapist and the person feel hopeless.

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

#259

Post by bear141 »

flatline wrote: post #147
bear141 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh I was oversimplifying for sure and like most things in life it is very dependent on who you are and what type of therapist you have(lcsw,psychiatrist,psychologist,practicing RN, etc), also just the views and opinions of the people involved will vary greatly on the outcome.

I’ve had plenty of bad experiences which exacerbated my hopelessness but overall I feel I’ve found help when I most needed it.

I think the introductory things in almost any form of therapy will help people, after that it gets much more complicated and it’s up to the individual to find something that fits or decide it’s not for them.

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

#260

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

andersonpico wrote: post #46
lazide wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad. Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaining. And being less ‘emotionally connected’ is valuable when people use that connection to exploit or hurt you. A very common experience for many men. That people (especially women) then complain you won’t open up to them is a riot in those situations because it…

> (especially women) It's always about that isn't it? Not getting the reaction you want, vilifying your interlocutor, then run crying with fingers in your ears screaming "lalala I didn't want it anyway" and declaring yourself a stoic is really indicative of the type of people who in the present day call themselves stoics. This whole thread is just a long-winded version of redpill discourse, people who can see past mi…

>> (especially women)

>It's always about that isn't it?

>How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.

If I were to hazard a guess: he said it in the passing. You read into it a little too much.

Post reply on HN