Tea at Trianon: Pathologizing Ourselves

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Pathologizing Ourselves

From What Would Jess Say?:

This industry wants us to think we have mental health issues. The more of us are using the system, the more money they make.
The more acceptable the language becomes, the easier it is for people to identify with it, internalise it, and ultimately adopt psychiatric frameworks voluntarily. Not because the evidence has improved, and not because the science has evolved, but because the vocabulary has been redesigned to feel less threatening, less stigmatising, and more aligned with everyday human experiences.
The end result? Millions of people now describe themselves using psychiatric terminology, often casually, often inaccurately, and often in ways that encourage self-pathologisation. Everything from ‘my depression’ through to ‘I’m a bit psycho.’ Psychiatry wormed its way in, and now everyone is using the language - but let me ask you something?
Would you consider yourself insane? A lunatic? Would you call yourself sick in the head? Are you deranged? Are you abnormal? Disordered?
Or would you prefer to say that you have ‘mental health’?
Mmmhmmm. (Read more.)

The limits of expertise. From The Public Discourse:

When speaking with parents about the potential negative effects of social media on youth mental health, it would have been easy to present them with all the same graphs and social scientific studies Haidt shared. For instance, it would be easy to tell them that, on average, more than three hours a day on social media is statistically associated with a higher likelihood of depression among adolescents. This has been empirically demonstrated as more common for girls than boys, and for time spent on platforms such as TikTok (passive reception of videos) as opposed to Reddit (active engagement with words). The former Surgeon General’s advisory on the topic, another touchstone in the movement, is full of such evidence from the social sciences.

And yet herein lies immense irony. The highly technical collection and sharing of this evidence is predicated on the basic assumption that individual parents are otherwise ill-equipped to discern when their child’s engagement on social media has made them depressed (including the factors—age, sex, content—that make them most depressed). At the most extreme, studies that produce the “three hours” statistic presume parents don’t know their children at all and, further, that they must make decisions for their children based on the outcome of some statistical analysis based on data from kids that, paradoxically, are also unknown to them.

As I have experienced it, when one talks to actual parents, most (perhaps all) know that their child—this child, the one in front of their eyes daily, the one that they have intimately observed since their birth—is addicted to social media, and that it is bad for their mental health (among other parts of their life). Because it is their child, they know what their behavior and mood were like before they signed up for TikTok, and they can see firsthand the changes to their behavior and mood afterwards. There is no need for statistical controls or sophisticated computational models to help them discern this difference. Jonathan Haidt and company, while helpful, are not required. What is required, rather, is the courage and patience to look.

Further, from all the focus groups I’ve participated in, discussions about why this is happening to their child and what to do about it are best done with other parents going through the same experiences, as opposed to fully delegating this work to a remote social scientist who has no direct connection with the families reading his work. When these parents I’ve spoken with were allowed to openly discuss what social media were doing to their kids, the basic situation was quickly discerned, and some practical, ground-up solutions were often identified. No “evidence-based recommendations” are needed. Further, the kinds of solutions identified are rarely limited to mere “risk management practices,” (e.g., cut off TikTok after three hours) but tended toward environmental reform—the kinds of practices, policies, and cultural habits that can be changed to reduce the risk of this harm for those vulnerable to otherwise inhabiting a world constantly subjected to it (e.g., several neighborhood groups are bringing back landlines). The best part of any presentation I’ve given was when my presentation on “the evidence” stopped, and discussion between parents and teachers—the messy work of politics—began. I’ve seen it happen many times. (Read more.)