#psychology

[typhlonectes]

[literaryvein-reblogs]

How would you go about writing someone with mental issues? Conditions like schizofrenia?

There is a lot of awful takes that essentially end up being caricatures while actual people wity the condition are often quite chill. It's difficult to do them justice while also not being able to fully understand how it is

Writing about Mental Health Conditions

Questions to Ask When Reporting on Mental Health

Is mental illness relevant to this story? If not, there is no need to mention it.

What is your source? Don’t rely on hearsay to report that a person has a mental illness. If you are reporting on a specific condition, make sure you are talking to a mental health professional to provide the facts. Mental health organisations like the APA can connect you with experts to discuss a wide range of mental health and substance use disorders, as well as the medications and techniques used to treat them.

What is the most accurate language to use? See below for advice about language that is specific and avoids derogatory terms.

Choose Your Words Carefully

The words you use to write about mental health are very important, and can help reduce stigma around mental illness if carefully chosen.

ONE. Focus on the person, not the condition. The basic concept is that the mental health condition (or physical or other condition) is only one aspect of a person’s life, not the defining characteristic.

Preferred: She is a person with schizophrenia.

Not preferred: She is schizophrenic.

TWO. Be specific. Mental illness is a general condition. Specific disorders are types of mental illness and should be used whenever possible (see below for a brief list and definitions of common disorders).

Preferred: He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder

Not preferred: He was mentally ill

THREE. Avoid derogatory language. Terms such as psycho, crazy and junkie should not be used. In addition, avoid words like “suffering” or “victim” when discussing those who have mental health challenges.

Preferred: She has a mental health illness. She has a substance use disorder.

Not preferred: She suffers from mental illness. She’s a drug abuser.

Common Mental Health Terms

The following are definitions of some of the most common mental health disorders. For more complete descriptions, consult Understanding Mental Disorders: Your Guide to DSM-5 or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Addiction - a chronic brain disease that causes compulsive substance use despite harmful consequences.

Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders - the overuse of alcohol or drugs leading to effects that are detrimental to the individual’s physical and mental health, or the welfare of others.

Autism Spectrum Disorders - a range of complex developmental disorders that can cause problems with thinking, feeling, language and the ability to relate to others.

Bipolar Disorder - (also commonly known as manic depression) is a brain disorder that causes shifts in a person’s mood, energy and ability to function.

Depression - a common and serious medical illness that causes feelings of sadness and/or a loss of interest in activities once enjoyed; it can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems.

Eating Disorders - illnesses in which people experience severe disturbances in their eating behaviors and related thoughts and emotions; anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder are the three main types.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) - an anxiety disorder in which people have recurring, unwanted thoughts, ideas or sensations (obsessions) that make them feel driven to do something repetitively (compulsions).

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) - a psychiatric disorder that can occur in people who have experienced or witnessed a traumatic event such as a natural disaster, a serious accident, a terrorist act, war/combat, rape or other violent personal assault.

Schizophrenia - a chronic brain disorder with symptoms that can include delusions, hallucinations, trouble with thinking and concentration, and lack of motivation.

Facts about Mental Illness

Misconceptions and myths about mental health are unfortunately common. The following are a few facts about mental illness in the United States, as well as key resources for the latest statistics on mental health:

In any given year, more than 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. has a diagnosable mental disorder.

One in 20 adults has a serious mental illness.

One in 6 adults has a substance use disorder (including alcohol use disorder).

Half of all chronic mental illness begins by age 14.

Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death for all ages and the second leading for people ages 10 to 34. It is more common than homicide.

Most people with mental illnesses are no more likely to be violent than those without a mental health disorder. In fact, people with a mental health disorder are at significantly higher risk of becoming victims of violence compared to the general population

Excerpted from The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH):

Write often about mental health challenges—the greater awareness generated about mental health, the more chance there is of helping people who have problems associated with these illnesses.

Let us know if you are looking for story ideas—we have lots of them and would be more than happy to share these ideas with you (you can find their contact details here).

We are asking for your help in reducing the stigma around mental illness including addiction because stigma is a huge problem for people living with mental illness.

We can accomplish this by dispelling some of the negative stereotypes that follow people who have mental illness such as: people with mental illness including addictions are all potentially violent and dangerous; are somehow responsible for their condition; and have nothing positive to contribute.

Labels matter. Don’t describe a person with a substance use disorder as a “heroin addict,” “drug user,” or “alcoholic.” Defining a person by their disorder makes the disorder become that person’s “master status”—the reader or viewer will only see the person as defined by the illness not by who they really are as an individual.

Help reduce stigma by not leaving the person out when describing an individual. When a person is called a schizophrenic, the reader will only see the disorder and conjure up mental images that are likely negative and stereotypical. The same can be said for a person who is called a “manic-depressive or a "depressed person.” Chances are they could be receiving treatment for these symptoms and are in fact not feeling depressed at all.

Exploring Mental Health in Fiction

As fiction writers, we take normal, everyday conflict and crank it up to a 10 to make our stories compelling.

In a mental health focused novel, it’s the absence of and quest for mental health that’s the meat of the story, the source of the conflict at its heart.

What drives the plot is not what happens in the story, but the interplay between external factors and the hero’s response to them.

There are dos and don’ts to writing about neurodivergence or mental illness that will make your characters and their struggles ring true—not flat and stereotypical.

Origin of Your Character’s Mental Health Issue. This can be rich in terms of your story creation. Even if you only hint at it in the narrative, as an author, you need to understand the root cause of your character’s struggle before you decide what the manifestation will be. Family quirks, trauma, relocation, immigration—all of these can impact mental health.

Your Own Past and Life and Family. The old write-what-you-know adage can prove fertile ground for character development.

Understand the Role Mental Health Will Play in Your Story. Is the story about mental illness? Based on something very familiar that you know well? Is the book set in a psychiatric hospital? Is the condition a side issue, a challenge that makes your protagonist’s life a little more complicated?

Be Accurate and Avoid Stereotypes. If you are not writing something autobiographical, drawing on your own personal experiences, make sure to do your research. Interview people, read articles by and about those with the psychological challenges you intend to feature. Make sure to keep it three-dimensional, even if your book is about being mentally ill. No one is just depressed or just anxious. No character is the sum of their quirks and ticks. Make sure any character with a mental health issue is well-rounded and interesting in other ways.

Don’t Be Afraid to Lean Into the Humor. Par for the course with mental health issues are misadventures, foibles, and overcorrects that can end in comically disastrous results. As long as readers can laugh with rather than at the mix-ups, it’s all good. In fact, if everything we wrote about mental health were tragic, if everything we wrote about trauma were traumatic, the work would be pretty hard to stick with as a reader or as a writer. Whatever story structure you employ—classic three-act, spiral, or what have you—a well-drawn main character is essential. The interplay between the self (Passenger B for example), her circumstances (air turbulence), and others in her life (the frightened son and the maddeningly calm Passenger A) creates conflict, obstacles to resolution. Your hero’s place on the mental health continuum gives her texture and relatability. Her mess-ups, embarrassments, and misunderstandings are what resonate for readers and make your work thrilling, agonizing, and yes—satisfyingly fun!

Characters with Mental Illness. The megalomaniacal CEO. The sociopathic killer. The suicidal teen. The anxious woman self-medicating with booze and pills while caring for her demented mother. As writers, we invite these characters into our stories because they are true-to-life and because their psychological problems invite curiosity and compassion.

To avoid stereotyping and caricature—and to keep your story believable—try these 5 strategies and tips:

Make the character relatable. Although common, mental illness is not the norm, so characters with such disorders, especially psychoses, are imbued with “otherness.” The writer must provide a way for the reader to relate to the character despite the illness and because of it. 

Keep the narrative front and center. Stories work best when they are spun around a person and a set of relationships, not an illness. Even “issues books” are successful only when the story focuses on what happens to a particular cast of characters. Mental illness can be debilitating and all-consuming, but it does not define a person. That job still rests with the writer.

Balance internal and overt symptoms and behavior. The internal world of a mentally ill person is fascinating but can readily overwhelm the reader. It doesn’t take pages of suicidal ideation, obsessive thoughts or internal word salad to deliver the message of an altered mental state. Go easy on the subjective "craziness" and opt instead to show how others are reacting (or not) to what is going on inside the ill person’s head. Also, not all mentally ill people have insight; they don’t necessarily know that their behavior and thoughts are abnormal. Obviously, if the person doesn’t realize they are ill, or if they become confused about it, then they might be an unreliable narrator. This can be a powerful tool but it is important to know upfront what relationship your character has with his or her illness, how that affects the interplay of external and internal worlds and the access others have to the character’s problems. It can be as complicated as you wish, but don’t leave the reader behind.

Specify the disorder, at least in your head. Generalized “craziness” does not exist. A mental illness can elude diagnosis, or have a complicated diagnosis, but as a writer, you should try to pinpoint the disorder, even if your character is never properly diagnosed. Why? Disorders are defined by specific behaviors and cognitive flaws, so the more you narrow down the diagnosis, the more you know about how your character might behave, feel and think. For example, mania is evidenced in several disorders, including bipolar disorder, drug-related disorders, and some sub-types of schizophrenia. Knowing the underlying problem has ramifications for your character’s other behavior, their prognosis, treatment, and whether the problem might have a genetic component.

Get the details right. For instance, relief via medication, if it comes, can begin after 2 weeks but the maximum effect can take 8 weeks. Details like this matter not just because they satisfy knowledgeable readers but also because spreading misinformation about mental illness does everyone a disservice. Mental health is a rapidly changing field, so ensure your information is correct for your time period. Terminology, diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis can be vastly different from one decade to the next.

Fortunately, there are resources at your disposal:

Consult the relevant version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), the official guide to mental disorders. The American Psychological Association updates it periodically, so use the one corresponding to your setting.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) is also an excellent resource;

Seek out mental health professionals and those who have first-hand experience with the disorder (patients and/or loved ones) to lend authentic details;

Visit online forums, but be discreet, respectful, and appropriately cautious.

As with all research, don’t rely on a single source.

The credibility of your story is worth the extra time it takes to gain a deeper understanding of your mentally ill characters.

Knowledge, profound knowledge, engenders respect and compassion, two traits we all could use more of, both as writers and as people.

Writing about Your Own Mental Health

Writing about mental health is one thing, but making yourself vulnerable and disclosing your own illness, especially a serious one, is another.

First-hand accounts, though, are essential in making this national discourse authentic and true to life.

Writing to explain your experience to someone else can help you understand it better as well, leading to additional closure.

Writing fosters personal sense-making, especially when you learn how to reframe your experience more positively.

Exploring meaning in your traumatic experience through writing can mark a turning point in your recovery.

Your increased awareness and articulation of feelings and thoughts can be beneficial to others who may be going through a similar experience.

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

Thanks for the question. This is important to write about. All the best with your writing!

[noosphe-re]

What, for you, is the association of black and dreaming? Black has depth. It's like a little egress; you can go into it, and because it keeps on continuing to be dark, the mind kicks in, and a lot of things that are going on in there become manifest. And you start seeing what you're afraid of. You start seeing what you love, and it becomes like a dream.

David Lynch, Lynch on Lynch, edited by Chris Rodley

[thepersonalquotes]

Even the most aware of us do not realize the infinite power we possess or the magnitude of the ability we have to create, transmute, and transcend.

Alaric Hutchinson, Living Peace

[elegantpersoncreation]

"Go where you are loved, appreciated, a priority, recognized, respected and valued without having to ask..."

[howtostartarevolution]

Well yes… with the little addition that psychologically most of all people want to be „good people“ and shaming in that sense is based on negotiating all the time what makes a person „a good person“. In that sense stopping bad behavior can also lead to good behavior.

Owning slaves? Shame on you! No, no, very bad person, we do not do that.

Segregating white and black people? No, bad, bad shame one you! Stop doing that!

Excluding women from education, positions of power other stuff? No, bad, shame on you. (Well, we are still in the process of changing what the norm of that is and how bad we find that as society. Same with Queer and Trans rights.)

Burning fossil fuel and ruining the world for everyone? No! Bad stop ruining the planet. Stop burning fossil fuels! (Guess if you stop doing that you have to look for better options, that’s what we want.)

I think that is why the universal declaration of human rights but also just the declaration of independence or other constitutional writings are really important. We have outlined agreements (that a very big portion of population) agree upon is Right and Good. So you can shame people when their action does not agree with this idea of how good people should be.

And yeah if you are like „Fuck human rights“ then you won’t be shamed. But it gives other people the right to say „You are not a good human“ and then everyone gets angry because they want to view themselves as good people. And some might actually think about their action and decide behaving differently might be actually the proper thing to do.

And well it all boils down to:

We have the widespread agreement that: „All people are created equal in worth.“

And then we have the competing idea of: „Some people are created better than other people.“

And *waves to human rights and constitutions* yes we have societal frameworks to shame people in treating people more equal. Most of social change (guess in the western world) the past 200 years has worked exactly because of that.

And yes… even the powerful and mighty usually want to think of themselves as good people. That’s why they frame their horrible politics and actions in terms that seem to make them good people. Even the villains want to be the heroes of their own story.

Not that anybody asked, but I think it's important to understand how shame and guilt actually work before you try to use it for good.

It's a necessary emotion. There are reasons we have it. It makes everything so. much. worse. when you use it wrong.

Shame and guilt are DE-motivators. They are meant to stop behavior, not promote it. You cannot, ever, in any meaningful way, guilt someone into doing good. You can only shame them into not doing bad.

Let's say you're a parent and your kid is having issues.

Swearing in class? Shame could work. You want them to stop it. Keep it in proportion*, and it might help. *(KEEP IT IN PROPORTION!!!)

Not doing their homework? NO! STOP! NO NOT DO THAT! EVER! EVER! EVER! You want them to start to do their homework. Shaming them will have to opposite effect! You have demotivated them! They will double down on NOT doing it. Not because they are being oppositional, but because that's what shame does!

You can't guilt people into building better habits, being more successful, or getting more involved. That requires encouragement. You need to motivate for that stuff!

If you want it in a simple phrase:

You can shame someone out of being a bad person, but you can't shame them into being a good person.

[moonkissedmel]

I'm looking for active blogs to follow!

If you post or are interested in this stuff, please like and I will follow you!

cats

birds

witchy stuff

wellness

ART (mostly earlier than 1950s)

history

archaeology

anthropology

paganism

BOOKS

nature

healthy weight loss

recipes

healthy fitness

whimsical aesthetic of all kinds

cottagecore

cottage/whimsical fashion

thrifting/upcycling

sewing

[pumpkinspiceseb]

A black cat gazes into the mirror - self awareness and identity reminiscent of Lacan's mirror stage

[obaewankenope]

There's also the fact that the phrase "I'm not going to hurt you" is viewed, primarily, through a physical lens of harm. As in, "I'm not going to hit you" kind of perspective. And that may be true, they won't hit you, but in relationships (any kind of relationship), sometimes the actual harm is not a physical action but a verbal or behavioural one. It's the "you're such a bitch" said in a bad mood, or a "come on, it's fine, it's not that bad" pressuring the rolls over boundaries and comfort zones without really realising it because whining as a kid got you your way with mom (sometimes, usually, maybe) and why change a tried-and-tested method ey?

We are raised by our parents and tend to model our romantic and sexual relationships on the dynamics we're most often exposed to. Hence "overbearing mothers" or the idea that the female partner is to be walked around carefully because "that's how we had to be with mom growing up". The reality is that, as children, as the offspring, we don't actually experience the actual dynamic of the relationship between our parents because we're not the main parties in it. We're observers or... well, in some cases, victims of it.

This means that when a guy or gal or neither-today-thanks goes into a relationship expecting the other partner to treat them how their mom or dad treated them as kids growing up, the relationship is already set up with such a false power dynamic that, on the other side as well, is also completely false and imbalanced because of us applying our experiences to the entire relationship dynamic and not adjusting for the change in our actual position in said relationship.

But in such a relationship we're not the kids anymore, we're the adults. We go from offspring who are There And Affected by the relationship to the consenting adults who Cause The Affects Instead.

This is one of the things that, I think, is responsible for so much of the "I hate my wife" and "my husband is just the other kid I have" and "housewife does all the cleaning and cooking and laundry even for husband because she's actually just mom to him as well" things we see coming up so often in society.

It's because people have an inaccurate understanding of the relationship they're not the main party of and the interactions between partners ends up a messy, flawed, oftentimes somewhat resentment-laden relationship. And it's all because we're not really taught take our own experiences, the experiential knowledge we gain from what we experience, and adapt it to a different position in the social dynamics we eventually end up in as we grow up.

Part of it is because of how we're socialised, as men and women in terms of the gender bias, and part of it is also because we're not really taught how to take our experiences and what we learn from them as apply them to different situations that require us to mentally shift our perspectives. The whole "walk a mile in their shoes" mindset basically.

When you enter a relationship as an adult you have power to affect it. When you witness your parents relationship as a kid, you're powerless to affect it. That's the difference.

If you're a teenage boy and you're trying to learn how to interact with girls the right way, one of the most important rules is that you can't treat your interactions with the women you meet in the same way that you treat your interactions with your mother.

If you were raised by authoritarian parents, it's very likely that you walked on eggshells to prevent setting them off. One wrong move and they became violent. You may expect that your interactions with your mother will model your interactions with other women.

But around other women, the roles are pretty much reversed. When you're around your authoritarian mother, you have to watch how you act around her in order to prevent setting her off and making her violent, while the worst she has to deal with is not getting her way. But when you interact with women who are your peers, they're the ones who are watching how they act in order to prevent setting you off and making you violent, and you're the one whose worst case scenario is failing to get your way.

When a woman is uncomfortable around you and feels like you're disrespecting her, she's not going to unleash her anger on you in the same way your mother does. She's going to be afraid of you. If a woman says that something you're doing is bothering her but she "doesn't sound serious", it's because she doesn't have the luxury of being able to safely sound serious in the same way your mother does. When your mother is serious, she can strike fear into you by just giving you a threatening look. But you could easily go your entire life without any other woman ever being able to strike fear into you the same way. It's important for you to learn how to take someone seriously without them being able to make you afraid of them.

[liberatingreality]

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.

Friedrich Nietzsche

[superxstarzz]

Could I get a mix of prince of light and heir of rage?

here you go!!!!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Parasocial Relationship

Parasocial Interaction (PSI) - semblance of interpersonal exchange whereby members of an audience come to feel that they personally know a performer they have encountered in mass media.

Parasocial Relationship (PSR) - generally defined as a relationship in which one member of the relationship isn’t aware of the other—e.g., a fan loves a celebrity, but the celebrity doesn’t know they exist. Not restricted to celebrities, PSRs also exist between people and fictional characters, whether portrayed by an actor or not.

PSRs tend to occur because of our natural tendency to link to others.

PSIs are thought to have a psychological effect similar to that of face-to-face communication.

Over time, PSIs with a performer may lead audience members to develop a parasocial relationship—a one-sided sense of connection with the performer.

The first examinations of parasocial relationships came in the 1950s, when psychologists tried to understand how television viewers reacted to the hosts, MCs, and TV personalities speaking to them directly out of the screen—a novel concept at the time.

It caused concern that viewers at home wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the relationships they had with a television personality and ones they had with “real” people— “victim[s] of the 'magic mirror'” as Richard Horton and Donald Wohl described in the 1956 paper.

The term parasocial interaction first appeared in the writings of American sociologists Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl in the 1956 article “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance.” The article describes how PSIs may gradually lead to the formation of a parasocial relationship.

Most theoretical work attempting to define and differentiate PSIs and parasocial relationships was published in the latter half of the 20th century.

Generally, modern sociologists and media theorists agree that the concepts are distinct but deeply related.

The Parasocial Interaction Scale, devised in the 1980s in order to better quantify PSIs and parasocial relationships, asks subjects to answer questions about both phenomena.

PSIs occur when audience members feel that they are actively interacting with a mass media personality.

Human brains appear to process PSIs in much the same way as real-life interpersonal interactions because of the novelty of technologically mediated encounters.

While people do recognize the artificiality of the media apparatus, their perception of PSIs causes a real psychological reaction.

PSIs are strongest when a media personality cultivates the illusion of interpersonal intimacy.

Certain genres, programs, and celebrities have purposely fostered such a sense of intimacy in their tone and setting.

For example, TV talk shows have their hosts directly address the camera as if in conversation with each viewer, creating the illusion of face-to-face closeness.

Situation comedies manufacture familial settings that viewers grow more and more accustomed to.

Certain podcasts and radio shows—especially those crafted around one or more hosts—adopt an informal tone resembling that of a gathering of friends.

As PSIs become increasingly frequent, many audience members enter into a parasocial relationship built on comfort, satisfaction, and commitment.

In contrast, Horton and Wohl posited, people whose encounters with mass media figures are infrequent may feel detached and even cynical when they do encounter those figures.

Indeed, the researchers suggested, audience members must tune in regularly and of their own volition for the relationship to become parasocial.

Such relationships bridge genre and style. In one key study, researchers found that commitment levels (measured on a scale used for interpersonal relationships) for viewers of both fictional and nonfictional television programs were predicted by how invested the viewers were.

Consequently, when a program went off the air, committed viewers experienced higher levels of distress, dubbed a “parasocial breakup,” than uncommitted viewers.

Audience members often have a parasocial relationship with the same celebrity without feeling jealous of one another; in fact, in many cases, sharing their dedication to a mass media persona brings people closer together.

While parasocial relationships can enrich your life, these one-sided affairs can also hurt you.

They won't love you back. "They're like fake food. They taste good, but they have no nutritional content and won't meet your needs. You need to love and be loved in return to thrive," social scientist and professor Arthur C. Brooks says.

They might contribute to loneliness and isolation if you rely on them too much. Loneliness and isolation are linked to increased risks of many chronic health problems such as depression, anxiety, dementia, and heart disease, and even premature death.

They might have a negative influence on you. Are you picking up unhealthy ideas from the people you follow? Brooks says this should be a special concern for parents whose kids have parasocial relationships: The messages kids glean might be at odds with your values — perhaps because they are controversial political or adult themes.

Two red alerts:

Ask yourself if you're too attached. For example, are you skipping dinner with friends because you prefer watching a TV show with a character you care about and want to connect with?

Be wary. "If someone is trying to brainwash you, saying, 'I'm your friend, you can trust me,' that person is using a personal social bond to get you to do something — like vote a certain way," Brooks says. He points out that social media stars try to establish parasocial relationships with followers to get more clicks and make money. "That's what the new economy is all about — monetizing parasocial relationships on a mass scale," Brooks says.

A PSR that starts with healthy boundaries, can turn sour when a mob mentality forms, resulting in harassment.

PSRs are natural and not inherently unhealthy.

But, as Stever says, “Anything that can be true about a regular social relationship can be true about a parasocial relationship. Are they positive? Can they be good for us? Absolutely. Can they be negative? Can they be toxic for us? We all know examples of that.”

Sources: 1 2 3 4 ⚜ More: References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[scottguy]

When you're feeling anxiety, keeping one's mind busy leaves less neurons left to worry. Video games can give you relief from the stress of anxiety.

Many modern video games fall into the open-world category, giving players vast, detailed worlds to explore – and a new study shows these expansive digital playgrounds have benefits for our mental health. Researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Graz in Austria asked more than 600 postgraduate students about their experiences playing open-world games and how these sessions left them feeling. They found these video games – including The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild – significantly boost cognitive escapism (taking breaks from thinking about real life), relaxation levels, and overall mental well-being.

Continue Reading.

[alexandraisyes]

Chat what if I opened a blog to talk about psychology specifically (and maybe move my disability kitties there) and also just about like my experiences as someone with ASPD and the difficulties and differences I’ve noticed etc. and also a little space for other people to talk about their experiences with their disabilities and disorders

[ikillbassists]

Inspired by me feverishly studying psych in between watching Hannibal episodes all day