I've had quite a bit of experience with therapy, and from my experience it is mostly a quack profession. In my experience mood stabilizers and therapists are a band-aid that is mostly about getting you hooked and dependent and compliant.

Managing your mood, maintaining focus and purpose is tremendously difficult - I can attest. I've had ups and downs, tried a bunch of methods, and watched my peers and family struggle. I really believe that the recommendations I made are better for most people than therapists and mood enhancers.

Having said that - if therapists and mood drugs work for you, I applaud you. Try everything and do what works for you.

Note: mood/focus/purpose is not mental illness - it is part of normal human experience. Real mental illness - schizo/paranoid/anxiety stuff - can literally kill and requires chemical/medical intervention. But most people don't have hard-core mental illness, and I believe most would get more benefit from diet/temple/gym/sports league than a therapist couch.

I already commented, but I'll make one more point here: I don't disagree that there are a lot of steps you can take to improve your mental health: exercise, diet, etc definitely help. The problem though with saying most of the problems people have just require them to focus is that no one can measure other people's internal struggle/pain. We don't have _really_ objective tests on this yet, we have inventories where you check a box. Because of this, it honestly comes down to what someone can handle.

So this is the problem: I totally agree, if those things you said work for you great, but saying that most people don't have hard-core mental illness is really bad is really bad to say. In a world where it's already hard for people to come forward that have this problem saying something like this is going to push people into the dark more - telling them that causes thought patterns like: "well, most people don't have this, so I probably don't, it's really unlikely, and you know, my friends have down periods too, I bet they've cut themselves before, it's probably fine".

I know from experience.

PLEASE don't tell this to people, don't promote this line of thought, don't promote anything like this. If you want to communicate what I think you're trying to say, maybe this is a better way to put it:

"For me, I've found exercise and diet have helped me feel better, but if someone feels like things are out of control they should see a doctor and see where they should go."

"saying that most people don't have hard-core mental illness is really bad is really bad to say."

But it is true - most people struggle with ups and downs but don't have hard-core mental illness.

For you, drugs and therapy help. Wonderful! Do what works for you.

Just because something is true does not make it useful or good to say, depending on how it is presented. If you said "most people with chest pain don't have heart trouble, they should just lay down and get the hell over it" that is probably not something useful and promotes people ignoring problems. If you, on the other hand, say something like "chest pain isn't always bad, and most chest pains won't be a heart attack, but you should always treat something that potentially serious seriously" that is not bad.

My concern is not that you are saying something not true, my concern is that what you're saying is dismissing what is potentially a serious concern, and that people with these problems should not have more obstacles insofar as other people saying they probably don't have problems.

There is a huge stigma around this already - throwing up more information telling people to ignore their problems is not helping anymore than telling people with chest pain to "man up" helps them. It took me a lot of time to get over the fact that everyone around me told me I didn't have a problem, and a lot of things in my life that were really bad could have been avoided if I had not had people saying exactly what you're saying.

Tone policing and speech repression are what contribue to stigma. Are your feelings hurt because I won't phrase things in a way that pleases you? Too bad. Oversensitivity makes things worse, not better.

You might claim that lexicalscope is being oversensitive [0], but others might claim that your arguments lack substance and/or evidence.

I read lexicalscope's argument as one of pragmatism; We'd do well to lower the barrier to entry for those that truly need help, many of whom are likely to already be underestimating their suffering and/or minimalizing their problems.

There is also the fact that research does not show diet and exercise to have curative properties with regard to mental illness - not to mention that those affected are in many cases genuinely unable to do some of these things.

Also, we known what contributes to stigma [1], and it ain't "tone policing and speech repression".

AFAIK, poor nutrition/eating habits and lack of exercise may contribute to poor mental health, but you cannot eat or train your way out of a crisis (although diet and exercise are factors in a healthy lifestyle, which I'd imagine would help maintain mental health).

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques

[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1489819/

What don't you get about 'in my experience'?

I read lexicalsope as trying to control my speech, and to deny my own true experience.

The only "in my experience" i can find is one followed by generalizations about medication and therapy (or maybe it just reads that way to me.)

  "In my experience mood stabilizers and therapists are a band-aid that is mostly
  about getting you hooked and dependent and compliant."

The sentence reads as if you're inferring what mood stabilizers and therapists ARE (in general) from your personal experience.

If you were talking about either:

a) your experience; e.g. "I think they were trying to get me dependent (for reason X)" or "During my treatment, I found that medication didn't help me to overcome my problem. Diet, exercise and focus, however, did (and here's how I attempt to prove the causal relationship)"

OR

b) general knowledge; e.g. "Research shows [citation needed] that diet and exercise shows curative properties with regard to some disease" or "Medication and therapy is all about fostering dependence [citation needed]."

I'd have no problem.

You also state that

  "I really believe that the recommendations I made are
  better for most people than therapists and mood enhancers."

Which I can agree with, if you mean most people in general, as they have no need for treatment. Therapy and psychiatric drugs have, however, been demonstrated time and again to yield better treatment outcomes for most people with mental illness (i.e. diagnosed disorder.)

So I guess what I don't get is how you think your claims and allegations and are justified.

As far as I can tell, no one is denying your experience. We are, however, saying that your experience is probably not generalizable, given what is known. The way I see it, lexicalscope is obviously saying that while it is true that "most people don't have hard-core mental illness", we should avoid inadvertently instilling the "it's probably nothing"-attitude because this leads to people ignoring warning signs/not getting help, especially given that it is already happening with the current lack of knowledge and stigma surrounding mental illness. Were the situation different, this would not be such a big deal.

In short, their issue is with the likely result of what you suggest.

Expertly put and exactly what I'm trying to say - thank you.

"maybe it just reads that way to me"

Bingo. WRT your speech coaching: give it a rest. IMHO tone policing and silencing is harmful and help give rise to stigmas.

Well, help me understand what you mean then.

I'm not sure how "stabilizers and therapists are a band-aid that is mostly about getting you hooked and dependent and compliant" can be construed as something specific to your situation.

You claim to speak specifically about your experience first, but then state that you think what apparently worked for you is "better for most people". You really can't have it both ways.

Also, no one is tone policing (nor commenting on your tone at all), but suggesting there might be repercussions from a specific way of framing the issue for people; This criticism can hardly be called silencing.

I'm glad what you've described previously have worked for you, but you are plainly incorrect in claiming that it is the best approach for most of those affected by mental disorders - which is what people are taking offense with in this thread.

That conclusion is specious and unfounded, and if you'd like I can cite some studies to the contrary if you'd like to discuss more offline. It isn't about what pleases me, it's about decreasing stigma around mental illness. It's not about oversensitivity it's about not increasing stigma. Those are not the same thing. It's actually a pretty bad argument tactic to assume anyone that disagrees with you is "oversensitive".

Also, I'm not saying you can't say what you're saying, I'm saying if you do you're contributing to the stigma and hurting people. If you don't care about that, then fine, say whatever you want - but my previous assumption was that you didn't understand, not that you just didn't care, but if you really don't care, then we have nothing more to discuss - you just don't give a crap if you hurt people in these situations, and that's fine.

Edit: To put it another way: we've tried the "tough love grow thicker skin" approach forever, and it hasn't worked - it has created the stigma - saying people just need more of it doesn't make sense.

In my experience, direct words and direct action are much more effective than sensitive hand-holding. Your experience is different. I have no problem with that, and I encourage you to do what works best for you.

Fair enough - you're free to say whatever you want of course, and I'm not trying to tell you what to say or not to say, just be aware that what you say may have unintended consequences for others - my point was only to try to explain what those consequences might be in this case to you. Thanks for discussing.

First of all, I'd say it's a bit much to claim that psychotherapy is a quack profession [0] - even if you've had some negative experiences with it yourself.

I'd rather say that if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness, and you are able to keep it in check or feel that you're making progress using only diet and exercise (no cognitive or behavioral tricks, for instance), I applaud you.

Exercise is moderately more effective than no therapy in for reducing symptoms in cases of mild depression [1], but that's it (as far as I know). I'm sure you belive in your recommendations, but as research literature and experts of various fields disagree with your opinion, I don't.

As for your note, I'm not sure what you mean about "hard-core mental illness", and the whole "chemical" thing is debatable [2] (i.e. "chemical imbalance" is in many cases not the complete truth), but no one is conflating mental illness with the moods and regular ups and downs of life. Real mental illness (i.e. diagnosable disorders) is what I am talking about, at least.

[0]: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-13324-001

[1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004366...

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model