Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

281–290 of 304 posts

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

#281
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Being frustrated with something at work and having somebody to rant about it with is one of the pillars of any friendship. Your friends can do the work of listening, empathising, reassuring and then helping you get past it and enjoying the beer, game or barbecue you're at. That's cool, I agree.

Having deep feelings of inadequacy and bringing that to the friendship at every opportunity is asking that friend to help you with those feelings, they probably aren't equipped to do that in all sorts of ways.

As with most things, it's a spectrum, not binary. Some friends would love to help you overcome childhood trauma, but most will not. Your partner may be able to help you deal with the way that family member behaves, but quite often, that's your thing, not theirs, deal with it. A work colleague might be able to support you when a co-worker is being a jerk, but might not have the skill or ability to help you manage your feelings or deal with that behaviour.

A therapist is trained to help you with those things your friends, family and colleagues can't. More specifically, they are trained to help you figure out what you are going to do about it.

Sometimes, when we talk to people about problems, we're "giving them the problem", as in, we want them to tell us what to do about it, or to actually do something about it. They often can't or won't do that - it's your thing. Therapists won't take it either, but they'll help you manage it as your thing.

A friend who is just there to listen, that's different, if the ask is just to listen and be somebody to talk to, sure, most friends have that ability and skill, and are happy to do so. But there's a lot of stuff people go through where that isn't enough, and asking those same people to do more is probably not going to work.

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

#282
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this is the general insanity of today’s world, today’s leaders would be laughed at as weakest of the weak in vast majority of human history, just absolute weakest men imaginable are “leaders” now…

There is a saying in wealth management - ‘the first generation builds it, the second generation preserves it, the third generation smokes it’.

It’s hard to not see that playing out in a large sense society wise right now, if we assume the first generation was the post WW2 folks, and the wealth was the post-WW2 economic benefits from the US not being bombed into the Stone Age like most of the rest of the world - and if anything, being the only major economy still standing.

Where exactly you draw the lines generationally is of course up for debate. But we’re starting to have to relearn a lot of hard lessons now that the post WW2 (and depression) generations understood as basic table stakes.

And it’s not because people today are ‘weaker’ per-se. Rather, they’ve lived a (relatively) comfortable life. That generally leads to not having to learn the hard lessons (or being so miserable) that they do the hard things required to build that society. And there is no free lunch. And it was never ideal, then, or now, and will never be ideal in the future either.

But it can be better if we put in the work and take the risk.

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

#283
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, a large portion of these replies feel like some pretty clear cut projection. It’s impressive.

Yes, it's projection for sure. A large number of men appear to need validation from women. Pathetic. I guess from an evolutionary perspective it had to that way. Men who didn't need that validation worked themselves out of the gene pool.

It depends on the degree.

Completely ignoring what everyone thinks and doing your own thing is a good way to get in a very dangerous situation from a basic-life-needs perspective. And with women being a bit over half the population, saying ‘fuck it’ to what half the population wants, especially if you’re picking fights with them, is quite dangerous - even if they are not 100%.

But you know who can handle dangerous, and doesn’t need validation from the population (in that form) to get what they want and have their needs met?

The actual king.

It’s a high risk, high reward (potentially) strategy. Better be good (and actually strong) if you want to not need to be liked.

What I think we’ve been seeing play out is entire generations of men who learned that the best strategy was to be liked by women so the women would do all the work to support them. Which seems to have worked quite well for many of them for awhile.

But now people are burning out, and the ‘easy wins’ from the prior approach (or just lifestyle creep/inflation!) is causing more real and visible difficulty - and the situation is indeed getting more difficult. We even have clear predators showing up and operating in the open, with no one stopping them.

There needs to be more than just vibes and following the rules for things to work out now, and a different approach is needed.

We’ll see what ends up shaking out, eh?

One thing is clear though - if society won’t accept someone stepping up and punching someone in the face or worse (even if it is to protect them), you’ll eventually end up with a bunch of predators who will do whatever they want without fear taking advantage of society.

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

#284
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. What are you talking about here. "Historic male persona" differs between periods and places, but anger, friendships and happiness are basically always parts of it. Odysseus "weeps" and "cries". The whole romantic era was about overly emotional, passionate and sensitive guys.

Homer predates the stoics by several centuries, so that makes sense. Though I do think Homer does make a solid case of traditional male ideals being fairly emotional, and this is something that persists to modern day. Achilles in particular spends half the Iliad sulking in his tent, and the other half making shish kebabs out of the Trojan army on a tireless revenge-rampage where he's so goddamn angry he picks a fight…

Even if it was written post-peak-stoic-era (it wasn’t), you still would probably not find many historic ‘stoic men’ as primary characters in a drama such as the Iliad. They would tend to be either scenery/setting, or somewhat uninteresting.

for good reason.

They are typically not very dramatic, and do the right thing - even in difficult circumstances. That is anti-drama.

They are the ‘good dads’. The strong leaders who make sure the right things actually happen. Etc.

They are not perfect, or superhuman. They can’t change the tide of a tsunami. But they do tend to make sure their family (and anyone who will listen to them without making their primary mission difficult!) also get to high ground at the right time.

If society actually listens to them, society might even build a high enough sea wall that the Tsunami doesn’t even destroy the city. That one is rare, however.

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

#285

> 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.

Right. Even here in HN I was arguing with someone who has the hot take that “more conservative leaning men have less mental health issues than liberal and left leaning men and I don’t think we do enough to think about why exactly that might be and what those liberal men could do differently”, and got very angry when I suggested that maybe the reason for that was that conservative men were less likely to seek help or…

I agree that there is some support that working with your problems create them.

As written in a sibling thread, I am mostly concerned with the relative visibility of issues as that creates equal opportunity.

The implication of not focusing on men's issues is that we can not focus on women's issues either.

Good luck fighting for that.

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

#286
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you think a large empire is the epitome of success. People have a tendency to look at the cruelest warriors of history and think that is success. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon are not something to emulate. They were successful by causing horrific pain to a lot of people.

Pure misandrist nonsense. You could have picked Hitler or Stalin to at least have half a point. Napoleon spread enlightenment values that benefitted generations that came after. Julius Caesar took civilization across a continent. Deng Xiaoping was leader during Tianenmen Square but brought more people out of poverty than anyone else in history. Being great means being able to do some things others do not like because…

Sounds to me more like the winners writing the history. In other words, bullshit.

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

#287
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of these aren't people talking about mental health problems , but preconditions for mental health. That's your problem?

Seems like we both agree that psychological language can be common in everyday offline life, such as at work for a large company. I don't have a problem with it, not sure where you got that from.

You're ignoring the subtext of the comment above yours.

> 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...

Their problem isn't with the language itself, but how it is handled in public. That point doesn't really translate if you pivot to creating an environment conductive to mental health.

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

#288
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC Sherlock also slowly morphed him into a less empathic version of the Doctor from Doctor Who.

But I did like how it started with Watson joining him to get a hit of adrenaline and not deal with his soldiering past. Was a great scene. Also, re: Dr. Who, Moffat gonna Moffat

It's definitely one of those pieces of media that is extremely frustrating because of how close it came to being an all-time great adaptation. Moffat needed somebody in the writers room with him to tell him 'no' sometimes.

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

#289
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing. To be clear, I don't doubt that there are people that would make a problem out of a history of mental illness. But, it's definitely not everyone and someone with such a history shouldn't be discouraged to get out there and be open about it. Or, at least I'd like to see this stuff talked about without stigma.

I have a nephew with bipolar. He has chosen to “go public” about it, on LinkedIn. His reasoning, is that it helps remove the stigma. He seems to be doing fine, but he also has a very good background, and a lot of advantages, not available to others (I come from a fairly Ivy League family, and my sister has a lot of resources). For myself, I have been in Recovery from drug addiction, for over 45 years. I was once a Ve…

Have you seen a change in these attitudes?

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

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion and in this context the common striped-down-to-its-consistent-core usage is taking the actions that expose one's inner/core emotional space/thoughts/feelings. FWIW I would agree that this doesn't have to be a true vulnerability in the dictionary or any other sense. I think many people talk past each other a lot without knowing it with this word. There is a lot of diversity in specific semantics so good…

Do you think there's something that you are intentionally hiding from your therapists that might make you vulnerable? Or it's just, that you don't have enough time to give full overview into yourself? I've gone to therapists and many different ones through my whole life too. Maybe in the past I had times when there were some things I might have not told them, but I feel like I'm pretty stream of consciousness now. I…

> Do you think there's something that you are intentionally hiding from your therapists that might make you vulnerable? Or it's just, that you don't have enough time to give full overview into yourself?

Nothing hidden. Hiding from anyone feels pointless and would leave me even more alone. I would need to live in a shell/shadow of myself and have to do a bunch of work to keep track of the boundaries - exhausting waste! Part of it is that I am a very odd primate. I had life circumstances that had me separated from most people followed by an existential crisis at 8 with no adults that could even start to discuss or support me through it. That led me off into lots of weird spaces and problems (and problem definitions) that I've been working on since then. My struggles mostly have to do with how humanity undermines and underperforms while dragging those attempting better down. I often try to enlist therapist's creativity to help solve subproblems but having a forum to discuss these things is itself relieving.

I'm with you about being able to just speak one's mind. Living your values and in a positive economic outcomes oriented manner is a pretty bullet proof strategy but it assumes a certain amount of physical and economic safety. A lot of people get stuck in the "social intrigue" pattern/asynchronous information building suboptimal strategy. I spend a lot of time trying to invite people to join and give them the tools and supports that make it plausible.

> e.g. corporate environments

Yeah, I've kinda washed out of all the horsecarp that happens in those. After 20 years and lots of success I still enjoy the work but the people ruin it for me. I'm planing a transition to farming. These social patterns destroy industry performance but it seems locked in on them.

> What does giving up control exactly means?

One always, outside of dystopic electrode or mind control ray scenarios, retains exclusive control over their connected neutral infrastructure but in having attachment to values we can feel induced into tradeoffs we would otherwise reject. Becoming attached to a life partner can cause shifts in your priorities and gives up control of priority updates, at least partially, to an uncontrolled entity. Lies told, being stuck in abuse patterns, and many other factors can create adverse dynamics and all these are risked. Similar risks can manifest in a business or investment decision. Even the accumulated knowledge, increase communications efficiency, and shared experience of any long term relationship becomes an asset that can exert control. Usually a worthwhile risk and trade-off.

The problem isn't gendered, that's just a distraction to keep us distracted warring against ourselves. Not to ignore the gender associated norms that lead to gender correlated adverse outcomes inside of a societal system that reflects and countersolves these. The problem is the distributed defection status and the challenges of social coordination coupled with social knowing not scaling.

However, I kinda ignore your last bit. I think you are saying "isn't the submission to satisfying the external the problem?" I believe it is a problem but it's paired with the collaboration can lead to far better outcomes factor. Society puts a lot of effort to make us dependent and through it dependence subservient. On the platform of society some attempt to get us to enslave ourselves (and others) to the whims of those same. Through such tangles, we all lose and pay dearly, living underperforming lives in an underperforming existence.

Post reply on HN