Therapy that Cannot Stand the Pain

In talking with some acquaintances and viewing videos of people who are clearly struggling to cope, I'm often distracted by their use of language that abstracts away from human-to-human conflict. Their focus has been repackaged into sterilized abstruse terminology. It's as though the emotions and suffering have been packed away into the basement and they are trapped upstairs in a nonstop web of psychological chatter that is facilitated by their therapists.

Freya India points out the increasingly common problem of therapy buzzwords in a communication to Ayishat Akanbi, a writer:

I’m very skeptical of therapy-speak, unconvinced it even helps us open up. More often I think it actually closes down our ability to have honest conversations.

But you got to the heart of what bothers me about it, the insincerity. If someone tells me about their “fearful-avoidant” attachment style or how they are learning to “hold space” for others, I find it hard to feel anything. But if they tell me about their hurt and heartbreak, or how they are trying to be less selfish, I’m listening. We are talking human to human now.

As you write, “We’re encouraged to describe even ordinary interpersonal conflict in the language of pathology and melodramatic categories. So we start treating every slight like persecution because exaggeration is the only way to make pain legible.”

But I’ve been wondering lately if two things are happening at once. On one hand, we have this therapeutic group-speak, this exaggeration of suffering. But on the other hand, I think we are also losing the ability to talk about actual pain.

The writer Samuel Kronen, in a piece about chronic illness, put it like this: “There still appears to be a lot of unrewarded suffering in the world and our culture can seem pretty cruel and callous toward the vulnerable…If anything, I think our screen-addled, instantly-gratifying, digitally-intoxicated culture actually makes people less sensitive and conscious of suffering in certain ways, contributing to a more casual cruelty.”

I think he’s right. We might pathologise ordinary feelings and exaggerate small slights, but we also seem unwilling to accept genuine suffering. We can’t seem to cope with it. It’s hard, for example, to have a sincere conversation about something like family breakdown. I hear so many young women talking about their attachment styles, about “reparenting” themselves and healing their inner child, but not so much about the pain of divorce. I think this is why, as a culture, we have ended up with so much therapeutic advice and so little wisdom. Because we aren’t speaking about our problems in any recognisably human way. Maybe we are trying to make things easier on ourselves. If you phrase your problem as “anxious attachment”, you need a therapist. If you phrase it as your parents’ divorce, you need a difficult conversation with your dad.

As I read India's email to Akanbi, I was reminded of a book I read in college: The Myth of Mental Illness (1961), by Thomas Szasz. I think Szasz overstated his case in his book, but he did draw necessary attention to whether metaphoric terms like "mental illness" been literalized to unduly justify psychiatry's authority, turning common problems of living into impenetrable diagnoses, often harming individuals by stripping them of agency and responsibility for their actions.

Continue ReadingTherapy that Cannot Stand the Pain

Does Treatment for People Who Claim to be Transgender Reduce Suicides?

?Would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son? Transgender activists would ask this question to incentivize parents to provide "gender affirming care" to their sexually confused children.

But is it true that medical interventions reduce the number of suicides?

Consider this excerpt from "ACLU Attorney Confesses: Transgender-Suicide Claim is a Myth." Arguing before the Supreme Court, the ACLU's Chase Strangio concedes that suicide is “thankfully and admittedly rare” among transgender-identifying people:

Unfortunately for Strangio, Justice Alito had done his homework. Citing the U.K.’s Cass Review, Alito observed that “there is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.”

Then came Strangio’s remarkable concession:

MR. STRANGIO: What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them.

However, there are multiple studies, long-term longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in—in suicidality . . .

Here, the ACLU’s star attorney on trans issues seems to be at odds with Solicitor General Prelogar, who had said that the “rates” of “suicide” among gender-dysphoric youth were “striking.” Strangio admits, under oath, that suicide is actually “rare,” and that the research purporting to demonstrate benefits from hormones concerns suicidality, not suicide. Strangio’s use of “admittedly” is also striking, as it suggests the attorney is aware that claims about suicide prevention through sex “change” are false.

Continue ReadingDoes Treatment for People Who Claim to be Transgender Reduce Suicides?

The Downside of Agreeableness

What is it to be (or not be) "agreeable"?

Michael Malice:

Michael Malice:

I score a zero or close to it on agreeableness Meaning, it makes little sense to me to say things or act in a certain way simply to accommodate others I view it as a form of dishonesty and long-term disaster If you are high-agreeableness, how would you explain it to me?

Question to Grok: With regard to the Big Five trait of agreeableness, what is the consequence of being extremely agreeable? What is the opposite of Agreeableness?

Consequences of Being Extremely Agreeable

ExtremeAgreeableness, a trait characterized by high levels of compassion, cooperation, and a desire to maintain harmony, can have both positive and negative consequences:Positive Consequences:Strong Relationships:

- Highly agreeable individuals are often well-liked, fostering trust and positive social bonds due to their kindness and empathy.

- Conflict Avoidance: Their tendency to prioritize harmony can de-escalate conflicts and promote group cohesion.

- Team Collaboration: They excel in cooperative settings, making them effective in team-oriented environments.

Negative Consequences:Difficulty Asserting Needs:

- Extreme agreeableness may lead to suppressing personal needs or opinions to avoid conflict, resulting in unmet needs or resentment.

- Vulnerability to Exploitation: Highly agreeable people may be taken advantage of, as they are less likely to confront manipulative behavior.

- Reduced Leadership Effectiveness: Excessive agreeableness can hinder decision-making or assertiveness, making it challenging to take charge in competitive or high-stakes situations.

- Neglect of Self-Interest: Constantly prioritizing others can lead to burnout or diminished self-esteem if their own goals are consistently sidelined.

Opposite of Agreeableness

The opposite of agreeableness in the Big Five personality framework is low agreeableness, often described as antagonism or disagreeableness. Individuals with low agreeableness exhibit traits such as:Competitiveness: Prioritizing personal goals over group harmony, often thriving in competitive environments.

- Skepticism or Cynicism: Being less trusting and more critical of others’ intentions.

- Assertiveness or Aggressiveness: Willingness to confront others, express disagreement, or pursue self-interest, sometimes at the expense of relationships.

- Lower Empathy: Less concern for others’ feelings, which can manifest as bluntness or insensitivity.

While low agreeableness can lead to conflicts or strained relationships, it can also be advantageous in situations requiring tough decision-making, negotiation, or standing firm on principles.

Continue ReadingThe Downside of Agreeableness

Gen Z and Gender Ideology by the Numbers

Excerpt from "Understanding and Saving Gen Z To Save America," by Scott Atlas:

Gen Z’s dysfunction is undeniable. They average nine hours daily on screens, over three hours on social media, eroding real-world connections. This fuels asocial behavior, surging loneliness, and poor mental health; only half favor personal over virtual interactions. Financially, they falter: 55% find homeownership harder, 44% struggle to secure jobs, and 55% see promotions as elusive, fostering underachievement. Employers note that 65% of recent college graduates feel entitled, 63% are easily offended, and 55% lack professionalism and work ethic. Mental health crises are rampant, with depression, anxiety, and hopelessness spiking, especially among liberal-leaning youth, driven by a victimhood culture amplified by social media.

With regard to Gender Ideology, Gen Z's staggering numbers suggest social contagion:

Gen Z’s psychological frailty sets the stage for unique vulnerability to social contagion, suggested by the explosion of gender confusion. Transgender identification among young adults surged from 0.59% in 2014 to 3.08% in 2023 – a 422% increase – with non-binary identities up 1260% and transgender men quadrupling (309%), driven by social media echo chambers and peer pressure. Gallup’s 2025 poll shows LGBTQ+ identification at 9.3% overall, nearly triple 3.5% in 2012, doubling in five years, with over 23% of Gen Z (born 1997-2006) identifying as such. The Williams Institute’s 2025 poll estimates over 724,000 transgender youth.

Continue ReadingGen Z and Gender Ideology by the Numbers

Social Contagion and Kayfabe: When 2 + 2 = 5

Fascinated by the ubiquitous occurrences of social contagion, where seemingly intelligent people start saying things that don't add up. I've documented hundreds of these things at this website, many of which are illustrated under the category of "Media Narratives."

Recently, a friend of mine gave me an old example that is rather strange and stunning, the case of Florence Foster Jenkins, and exceedingly bad singer who was enthusiastically praised in the 1920s through the 1940s. I'll quote a few passages about her from Wikipedia:

Florence Foster Jenkins (born Narcissa Florence Foster;[a] July 19, 1868 – November 26, 1944) was an American socialite and amateur coloratura soprano who became known, and mocked, for her flamboyant performance costumes and notably poor singing ability. Stephen Pile ranked her "the world's worst opera singer ... No one, before or since, has succeeded in liberating themselves quite so completely from the shackles of musical notation."[1]

Despite – or perhaps because of – her technical incompetence, she became a prominent musical camp cult-figure in New York City during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Cole Porter, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lily Pons, Sir Thomas Beecham, and other celebrities were counted among her fans.[2][3] Enrico Caruso reportedly "regarded her with affection and respect".[4]

The poet William Meredith wrote that a Jenkins recital "was never exactly an aesthetic experience, or only to the degree that an early Christian among the lions provided aesthetic experience; it was chiefly immolatory, and Madame Jenkins was always eaten, in the end."

Perhaps this is not exactly social contagion. Maybe it's better described as Kayfabe, the classic example being pro wrestling, but it seems to have widespread application in our dysfunctionally performative modern culture. Kayfabe [pronounced Kay-Fabe] is described by Grok as follows:

Kayfabe is a term originating from professional wrestling, referring to the practice of presenting staged events, characters, storylines, and rivalries as genuine or "real" to maintain the illusion for audiences.

It's essentially a form of suspension of disbelief, where wrestlers (and sometimes promoters) stay in character both in and out of the ring to preserve the fiction of the sport.

The word itself is believed to derive from carny slang (carnival worker lingo), possibly a Pig Latin variation of "be fake" or "fake," though its exact etymology is debated and dates back to the early 20th century in wrestling circles.

History and Usage in WrestlingIn the early days of pro wrestling, kayfabe was strictly enforced to protect the industry's secrets. Wrestlers would avoid being seen together in public if their characters were rivals, and they'd even use separate travel arrangements or fake injuries to sell storylines.

Breaking kayfabe—revealing the scripted nature of events, going off-script, or acknowledging the fakery—could result in fines, suspensions, or blacklisting. For example, in the 1980s and '90s, figures like Hulk Hogan or The Undertaker maintained their personas rigorously outside the arena.Over time, with the rise of the internet and "dirt sheets" (insider newsletters), kayfabe has become harder to uphold. The 1999 documentary Beyond the Mat and WWE's own "reality era" in the 2010s blurred lines further, leading to more meta-storylines where wrestlers reference real-life events.

Today, it's more flexible, but elements persist—like wrestlers "working" the crowd or media with in-character interviews.Broader Cultural MeaningBeyond wrestling, kayfabe has entered wider slang to describe any situation where people collectively pretend something scripted or artificial is authentic, such as in politics, reality TV, or corporate culture. For instance, it might apply to politicians maintaining a public facade despite behind-the-scenes deals.

It's about a tacit agreement to ignore the "fourth wall" for the sake of the performance.

Continue ReadingSocial Contagion and Kayfabe: When 2 + 2 = 5