Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Should universal basic income be used as an antidepressant?
Johann Hari knows that mental health is really a social issue.
- Johann Hari believes we need to treat universal basic income as an antidepressant.
- In his book, Lost Connections, he writes that 65-80% of people on antidepressant medication are still depressed.
- Instead of treating depression as a chemical imbalance, we need to look at the social causes really driving it.
In 2015, a team of researchers led by Brett Ford at the University of California, Berkeley (now at the University of Toronto), asked a seemingly simple question: Can you consciously make yourself happy? Populations in Japan, Russia, Taiwan, and the United States were studied. It turns out that you can will yourself into happiness—except if you live in America.
As the team writes,
"This pattern of results suggests that a culture's degree of collectivism may play a role in shaping the correlates of pursuing happiness."
In his book, Lost Connections, Johann Hari discusses this landmark study with Ford. The differences between individualistic cultures like America and collectivistic societies, such as Japan, China, and South Korea, have long been investigated by social scientists. Time and again, the latter produce better outcomes in terms of happiness, well-being, and life satisfaction. A question has long been hanging in the air: Why isn't America more like these countries? Surely, the richest nation on the planet should be able to provide for its citizens' mental health.
I've written about this difference before, and the criticism I receive tends to trend political—communism versus democracy, socialism is evil, etc. On that front, let's consider South Korea's response to the coronavirus pandemic. The constitutional democracy reported its first case the same day as the United States, yet the country was able to flatten the curve within weeks. That's what happens when a functional government immediately intervenes, tests as many people as possible, and puts restrictions in place on day one.
Meanwhile, our miracle never happened. An unprepared government might be the major problem, but public health issues are multivariate. Here's where the social distinction matters. In South Korea (as in China), citizens honored the restrictions because they knew that the orders were in the best interest of society. Meanwhile, in freedom-loving America, a "liberty rebellion" was recently held in Idaho, while across the country pastors call for the faithful to gather. Some Floridians even want beaches to open.
Depression and anxiety: How inequality is driving the mental health crisis | Johann Hari
Reports from Italians and South Koreans and Chinese tell us that sheltering at home is hard. These videos also reveal something important: The citizens know their compliance serves a greater good, protecting their health care workers, elderly, and immunodeficient peers. Over here we're experiencing an uptick in anxiety and depression. This isn't surprising in a culture that's all about the individual.
Depression is Hari's wheelhouse. He went through the ringer trying to fight it with prescription meds. In the process of conducting research for his book, a number of uncomfortable truths emerged. Namely, that the normal course for fighting depression—SSRIs and SNRIs—isn't working. They never really did, at least not in the long term. Reporting on extensive research on antidepressant medication, he writes,
"The numbers showed that 25 percent of the effects of antidepressants were due to natural recovery, 50 percent were due to the story you had been told about them, and only 25 percent to the actual chemicals."
In 2010, journalist Robert Whitaker came to the same conclusion: It's the environment, dummy. The problem is that the story of a chemical imbalance is easy to grasp. Complex social dynamics—income disparity, racism, verbal and physical abuse, gender discrimination, technology addiction—are cognitively taxing, though these are the real drivers of depression. "The medicine clearly doesn't fix a chemical imbalance in the brain," he writes. "Instead, it does precisely the opposite."
Hari writes that between 65-80 percent of people on antidepressants continue to be depressed. Clearly the drugs aren't working. What then to do? You have to address the root problem. Let's start with income disparity so that the citizens of the richest nation in the history of Earth can pay their rent. Perhaps, as Hari recently suggested, we should try universal basic income.
"The single biggest thing that will affect people's anxiety is not knowing if you're going to be thrown out of your home next month or how you're going to feed your children. And I think there's an element of cruel optimism in telling a country of people living paycheck to paycheck that they should be responding to the anxiety they're experiencing this moment primarily by meditating and switching off the news. That's not going to solve the problem. The single most important thing that has to be done to deal with people's depression and anxiety is to deal with the financial insecurity they're facing."
Bottles of antidepressant pills named (L-R) Wellbutrin, Paxil, Fluoxetine and Lexapro are shown March 23, 2004 photographed in Miami, Florida. The Food and Drug Administration asked makers of popular anti-depressants to add or strengthen suicide-related warnings on their labels as well as the possibility of worsening depression especially at the beginning of treatment or when the doses are increased or decreased.
Photo Illustration by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Rather socialist of him, but really, the "we can't afford this" argument aimed at everything our administration can't monetize has always been wrong. It's getting dangerous out here, and it's not clearing up.
Hari isn't denying that there can be biological and genetic causes of depression. As he argues in his book, we completely overlook the social causes. Decade after decade, the American social structure has been fragmenting more and more. Our close relationships are shrinking. A million online friends will never replace the one person you can call at midnight to work through troublesome thoughts with.
Depression isn't a brain malfunction. That might be a result, but it's rarely the cause. Rather, Hari writes, it's "an understandable response to adversity." Right now, we're collectively trying to manage the most widespread adversity in generations. Pretending that you can slay that dragon yourself will only get you burned.
The first level is individual: strengthen your social connections. This might prove difficult at this particular moment, but framing this challenge as a societal issue is going to serve you better in the long run than taking it personally. Of course, none of this is easy. We've been raised to believe that each one of us can be our own brand—a rather lonely occupation. Humans are social animals. We need to honor that.
The second level requires participation in our democracy, which means voting for representatives that champion concepts like health care for all and UBI. This nonsensical argument that we can't pay for it while a tiny percentage of the wealthiest citizens pay little to no taxes is ludicrous. In Lost Connections, Hari reported from Berlin's low-income neighborhood of Kotti, where rent hikes were driving lifelong residents out. Conservative Turkish immigrants, German hipsters, and the owner of a gay club, usually wary of one another, came together to fight back. Not only did they win (not every victory, but some important ones), they were bonded by their shared sense of community. Many became friends.
Hari notes that El Salvador, which happens to be among the world's poorest nations, has canceled every citizen's rent and utility bills for the next three months. "If El Salvador can do it," he says, "America can do it." It will require, as he writes, rethinking what medicine actually is.
"An antidepressant...isn't just a pill. It's anything that lifts your despair. The evidence that chemical antidepressants don't work for most people shouldn't make us give up on the idea of an antidepressant. But it should make us look for better antidepressants—and they may not look anything like we've been trained to think of them by Big Pharma."
If you want to fight depression and anxiety, you need to change the story you tell yourself. As a society, we need to empower everyone so that they can climb the bottom rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs—ensure everyone's health and provide enough financial support for basic needs—and encourage group participation instead of espousing the bootstraps rhetoric. It's not rocket science and it's certainly not modern psychiatry. It's common sense.
- What Happens When You Give Basic Income to the Poor? Canada ›
- COVID-19 accelerates automation and the need for UBI - Big Think ›
- How the chemical imbalance theory of depression damages patients - Big Think ›
- If depression isn't caused by a chemical imbalance, how do we treat it? - Big Think ›
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work