u/gintokireddit

I recall my dad going to at least one work Christmas party (I sat outside), and I worked in one call centre for a short time that had monthly (non-obligatory) nights out, which I thought was cool. I've worked in public sector places that said they don't do Christmas parties any more.

My guess is when they do regularly happen, it's not only fun for some people, but increases the chance of colleagues becoming friends or partners (I definitely know a few people who made all their friends at their workplaces). Life connections are all about probabilities and more social opportunities means more probability of connections.

I was talking to a mental health worker on the phone, about what people online say people need to be good enough for relationships, and that amongst other things (eg socioeconomics, skilled hobbies) and that high EQ/EI is one of them, but that it doesn't make much sense as for example abusive people or those who don't attend to their partners have partnerships and that I've lived with men who were at a level where I wouldn't think I'm good enough (basically guys with no hobbies and who acted like slobs). She said something about them feeling good enough and that confidence might be what women mean when they say emotional intelligence. To which I said, narcissists are very confident but aren't emotionally intelligent and I don't think confidence means emotionally intelligent.

So when people think of emotional intelligence, is it just another word for confidence or higher levels of self-entitlement?

I thought it was more like reading others' emotions (cognitive empathy), feeling others' emotions (affective empathy), being able to identify what you yourself are feeling, why you're feeling it, being skilled at increasing or decreasing your emotions (so not overwhelmed, but not dissociated), having an idea of how what you do could affect another's emotions (of course, this is going to be based on experience, not purely "intelligence"), being able to think of multiple explanations for another's behaviour.

Someone can be confident without paying any mind to others or without really understanding others.

"Social skills" is another thing that doesn't seem to EI to me. Because while EI can help social skills, surely someone could have dimensions of EI, but also have anxiety for example, or could be from a different culture and thus not know the local social rules. Someone who has great social skills working in retail, might have poor social skills in a corporate CEO environment. In that case, the difference isn't aptitude, but a lack of experience to have learned from.

I see people claim therapists don't build your life for you, instead they point you in the right direction. However, I've found that they don't even want to point you in a direction. They don't want to give you ideas of what to do, but just listen to you talk about what's lacking in your life and then never offer suggestions of how to address that lack. Erikson’s life stages of psychosocial development predict that the more stages a person misses, the more future psychological difficulty, grief and despair they'll experience, so if my job was to improve people's mental health or prevent future poor mental health, I'd be looking at maximising the chance of people having what matters in life, rather than hoping they go and do that research themselves (what did people do before the internet or before textbooks became available?) or get lucky enough to come across the information in their daily lives. I would be giving people ideas of what things are necessary (for example, to become good enough for others) and ideas of practical steps they could take, then either they go and do it and report back, or if they try and something stops them from executing it (such as their own organisational skills, mental health issues etc or external barriers like socioeconomic factors, transport or whatever) first looking at addressing that barrier if possible, or finding a workaround. It's insane that all this mental and intellectual load is carried by the client, because of the non-interventionist ideology found in mental health. If the goal is mental wellbeing, and we know particular life circumstances are needed for mental wellbeing, then it follows good mental health practitioners will focus on helping to create those circumstances, rather than prioritising whatever approach they've been told to take (I've been told before, by a 10-year professional, something like "it's difficult for me because I've been told by other people not to give advice").

I literally told my therapist what helped me in the past, and a lot of it was basically learning ideas of what I wasn't aware of, or dispelling incorrect beliefs about myself or the world - but it came through luck or informal means, like movies, tv shows, reading psychiatric textbooks, reading online space and happening to see how others live. For example, I discovered that some couples don't hate each other because of a chance conversation with a colleague who happened to be getting married soon (when I asked him if he was glad, because for my normal was it's the end of your life), I discovered people aren't all racist (and constantly viewing me racially) from having interactions with different people who treated me differently and more inclusively than how racist people did, I discovered how much of my abuse was abnormal through happening to get the opportunity to observe and be shocked by how much other kids got away with and again later from hearing celebrity stories and being surprised by the public reaction considering what I'd consider normal to be something abnormal, I discovered that I was underrating myself in some regards by chance interactions or opportunities to do things at work etc, that I came up with my own ptsd protocols, that my BDD went away through my own methods (noticing "flaws" in others who were considered fine by others, that I'd judge harshly in myself) and chance positive interactions with others. And I explained I could've made 8 years of progress in a few years with someone else being willing to illuminate these things or give advice/guidance. The whole point is to get guidance and identify my incorrect beliefs, and to build a normative life.

The irony is advice supposedly can build dependence, but a lack of other interpersonal connections is what causes the dependence, so guidance towards building that is what prevents or ends the dependence on the therapist. An abusive partner or parent cuts off their victim from other connections, which make them more dependent. A supportive person would do the opposite, and help to build connections. And a therapist is not so powerful they can compensate for a lack of life quality with a weekly appointment - it's absurd for them to think talking to them is going to be enough for a fulfilling life, rather than building the client towards a fulfilling life. To quote my therapist, the support won't last forever - which is the exact reason why it needs to be used to build a long-term life.

One of the things that actually helped me the most was my therapist self-disclosing some activities she did in the past (she mentioned she'd go to reading groups, knitting groups or board game groups and not really talk to anyone, or not talk to anyone much) because it inadvertently gave me ideas or revealing she made most of her friends at work because it aligns with her values but her husband made most outside of work because his job is more for money (maybe her husband has a better idea of how to be proactive). I once spoke to a much younger professional who gave real-life examples of her attempts to make friends (eg what she said or they said, how she decided who to invite based on prior interactions, what she invited them to), but it would be better from the therapist since they're further along in life.

I was astounded to see it's £39k (expected £30-32k). Considering it was about £27k only 10 years ago, at which time £40k was considered a decent experienced management salary.

On 39k I imagine the median full-time worker - while renting - can quite easily save up to buy a house outside of London, without huge frugality required?

Now it's summer, I occasionally see women wearing cool, colourful patterned co-ords (where the top and bottoms have the same pattern ) and was wondering where get the same for men? Not a suit, but like a long sleeve top with a colourful pattern and then trousers with the same pattern.

I believe talking nearly exclusively so much to a therapist and other mental health professionals is affecting my conversation style, to be more focused on talking than on me authentically asking questions about the other person's interests, thoughts etc.

Because therapists don't give advice on where to go and talk to new people or how to broach conversation more often with new people (the closest advice I've had is that they made all their friends at work over their decade in the industry, which won't apply to me), the longer spent in contact with them, the more the conversation pattern is being distorted. Because I can't talk to the professionals about their interests, ask them how they are etc, as this crosses boundaries and most of the time isn't welcomed. They're allowed to show care and interest in me, but I'm not really able to show care and interest in them, because of the nature of the relationship. And as they don't give much advice on new contexts in which to frequently talk to others (rather than simply doing physical hobbies alongside them. My social hobbies (commercial dance and mma) are physical, with very little talking time - not to mention I'd like other avenues, because injuries or age can easily affect the ability to continue physical hobbies.

Lonely meaning those without friends, family, children, a partner.

Why do you for example see bullying survivors who are then also alone, be happy?

Why do companies (including those in the psychology sphere) have policies against verbal abuse for example, if happiness comes from within? Surely any words shouldn't affect their happiness?

First off, I'm not talking about "you can't help someone who doesn't want help". The reason I'm asking this is precisely because I googled and that's all that came up. Which could be an algorithm thing, or a reflection of culture somehow (people coming up with excuses for not helping others).

I'm talking about feeling you can't help enough to actually fix something for someone you care about, or even just for societal problems that affect people you aren't particularly close with.

Inspired by a friend having family with health problems and feeling helpless. To me, if they're able to be around or in communication (being around in-person is preferable since not every aspect of human connection can be done digitally, despite what champions of social media "connections" say), but not possible if they're far away). But of course, that doesn't change the reality of not being able to do enough to pass the threshold of making the problems go away.

I cannot count the number of times I've been asked "what do you want help with?" or "what do you think would help you?" and have answered that I'm looking for advice on steps towards having a normative life and illumination of how this happens for others, judgement of what my flaws are and what is needed for me to improve on (for the sake of social esteem), as well as different local ideas of where to meet people and how to be proactive. I must have repeated this about 20 times to one person. When they ask "what would help you?" they seem to only be interested as long as the answer fits their laissez-faire ideology of simply providing "emotional support" but not actually giving people information for them to move forwards. They've told me straight up this is how they've been trained - they are mostly trying to give "emotional support". I'm not looking for "emotional support". Nobody dies and on their deathbed thinks "I'm so glad that a therapist was paid to have conversations with me for a few months" - clients, just like therapists themselves, want to have personal human connection, economic stability and enjoy life in normative ways. Genuine mental health help would be moving people towards that in the most effective way possible or to cope with what they don't have - at the moment, it's only the latter. In fact, it's not even proper coping, because it's reliant on the ongoing "emotional support" of a professional, which is temporary so isn't a long-term coping mechanism or coping philosophy.

It also isn't "empowerment". If a person tells you what would help them, and you have the ability to do it (plus are paid to learn about what would help people) and you refuse it, it's not empowerment. The question of "what would help you?" becomes a dishonest one as the answer is only listened to if it fits into the laissez-faire approach of so-called "empowerment" by a lack of consciousness-raising and actionable ​advice.

There's a saying of teaching a person to fish being better than giving them a fish. But it seems in mental health the approach is to do neither and instead just listen to the person talk about not having any fish.

Perhaps there's also some underlying moral beliefs driving them - the belief that laissez-faire is moral and everyone should figure everything out for themselves, and also the moral belief that they haven't themselves benefitted from having a normative past, particular people around them to learn from either by observation or direct teaching and therefore that those who lack that knowledge are in that position because of having a higher degree of personal, internal failings than the professional themselves.

I see therapists justify, and have it said IRL too, that they're reluctant to give advice because if the advice has a negative/undesired outcome or doesn't work, it could damage the therapeutic relationship (ignoring all other reasons there may be for not giving advice, since it's not what I'm talking about).

However, a failure from the advice isn't really a total failure. It's still intel that that particular path didn't work, so that it can be taken off the table or adjusted. And the failure might still lead to exposure to something else, if not the intended outcome. For example, I've been seeing someone for 6 months, and in that time I've mentioned repeatedly not knowing where to meet potential friends, or steps to proactively go from being around people to talking, and from talking towards friendship (and as an adult, being proactive is important because the windows of opportunity are smaller - you're not a schoolkid surrounded by peers 8 hours a day, 38 weeks of the year). And add in socioeconomic hurdles (lack of money, or work/commute schedules clashing with potential socialising activities) or injuries (for physical hobbies) to being able to go to the same hobbies reliably (for me it'll usually be a few months, then needing to stop for a long time). This is as someone who's struggled to find friends, and entered adulthood with no friends as a survivor of coercive control (ie allowed out the house 3 times a year to see friends, generally not allowed out, not allowed to choose own clothing, no phone for over a year, no bank account until my 20s when I escaped etc) - and only had one local friend from school to get back in contact with (my school was in another town), who is now a good but very unreliable friend (ie no contact in months/years, not a reliable communication or meet up option).

Several months ago, I called the NHS mental health helpline several times, seeking information or referrals. Usually it wasn't useful, but one time the nurse said to talk friends and family for support - it's the classic MH professional assumption of this being a part of everyone's life. I told her I don't have any to talk to. They were slightly patronising, initially saying "do you go outside? You can't sit inside and expect to make friends" - to which I replied just being outside won't make you friends (obvious, but to highlight the vagueness of the advice. Speaking as someone who for a long time would go outside, walk around town, then go home and as someone who's been homeless before - which necessitates being outside all day). I also added that to regularly be in social situations costs a lot of money.

HOWEVER, they said I can go to a pub and look at the list of events they have on, or go to pub quizzes and not need to spend money on alcohol. Now, was this PERFECT advice? No; it could be where I live the pubs are full of old people, and she didn't know I'm a minority and it could be I live somewhere where pubs are full of racist people. My therapist herself raised to me that a person online or on the phone giving advice is missing a lot of context that could make their advice not applicable to you (eg demographics of local pubs).

After a few weeks of looking, I attended some pub quizzes with my friend. We concluded they're an awful way to meet new people - and that it would have been even worse if I'd gone on my own. But I was glad to get to proactively try something, rather than being stuck doing nothing, and glad to experience a different possible aspect of life, strike it off the list of socialising options, and it had the side effect of being an excuse to see my friend more regularly and find out about establishments in my town. And through it I found a monthly board game place's quiz, which is a little more suited to talking to new people. So while the advice was poor and failed in its primary aim, it was much better than nothing.

On the other hand, the therapist hasn't given a single suggestion of where to meet people, besides saying they met all their friends at work because their job aligns with their values. Or any advice around ways to try to broach conversation or turn positive conversations into something less fleeting. If I got some advice and it fails, unless I get lambasted or physically beat up, I'm not going to hold it against them, because I've asked for the advice. Ironically I'm more likely to get annoyed by some of the cognitive advice I'm given, since I've not asked for it as much. I'm looking to improve my quality of life - rather than just learning to be psychologically skilled to cope with a low QoL. It seems like to get some actionable ideas I basically have to beg them. I don't want to be looking online for advice, since it's like Icarus flying near the sun - it's very tough to search for advice without reading nonsense (eg invalidating, simplistic, the blind leading the blind or that goes against my values) or going down rabbit holes. I want advice from someone who lives where I live, knows me, and has more familiarity with a normative life, or who can just be one personal voice to help cut through all the noise.

There's this idea that a hands-off approach (what I'd call laissez-faire) is empowering to the "client". However, I do not find it empowering. If you read Van Der Kolk's books, Traumatic Stress and Psychological Trauma, he recommends teaching about social situations to combat learned helplessness in abuse survivors. This is pretty obvious to me - to give people some specific actions to focus on, and increase the chance of positive outcome; I thought of it several years ago, so it was vindicating to see an expert recommend it. There's also the later chapters of Dana Becker's book The Myth of Empowerment, which critique this hands-off approach (particularly for those from minority backgrounds, or survivors of abuse) and the paradox of how clients are supposedly empowered, yet if they use that empowerment to ask for something more prescriptive, it's rejected.

Drug addiction tends to come about in two ways I'm aware of: one is that some drugs are so highly addictive that taking them only a couple times can bring on addiction in some people (eg crack, heroin) and the other is it being used to self-medicate some life problem, such as trauma, anxiety or to improve performance for life. However, non-drug pathological coping mechanisms also exist.

Drugs are expensive. Most of my working life, there's absolutely no way I'd have been able to afford to do drugs regularly. Drinking daily would be doable, but again cost would be a deterrent.

Then there's the social connection aspect, for drugs. As drugs are illegal, they require a good social network to find them. I'd also say some subsets of those with the worst mental health are not going to get drugs (eg agoraphobics, those with trauma that makes it unlikely they'll go around asking about drugs).

For those in unstable housing (to deliver to) or without computer access, deliveries from the dark web isn't a good option. The initial amount of research and technical setup time required (buying crypto, finding vendors) is prohibitive for anyone working long shifts or commuting far.

There's the privilege of freedom. If I think of who was doing drugs as a teen, it was kids with quite permissive parents. Kids who are victims of coercive control (speaking from experience) for example are not going out and getting drugs, as they have to earn their freedom later in life (so by definition, the other kids who have this freedom with less effort, are privileged in comparison).

I also remember the kids doing the most drugs were on the richer side. My one friend who ended up with a big drug problem had permissive, well-off parents (he was the wealthiest of my friends). Those who were doing drugs in young adulthood were living with their permissive parents, which gave them the disposable income.

I don't consider lower socioeconomic drug addicts privileged compared to the middle income, but in most cases it requires a decent bit of privilege to be doing drugs regularly enough to get addicted, rather than using cheaper coping mechanisms. The exception would be those who have parents who do or sell drugs, or those who end up trafficked as teens.

Possibly an obvious, but unpopular to acknowledge opinion.

I've often seen claims the bar for men (in dating) is very low. The implication being it is too low, compared to the bar for women.

However, women, including many feminists (eg on twox), expect men to pay on the first date and consider it a deal-breaker if he doesn't pay, as for them it's a sign of him not being committed enough, or ironically a sign he won't do his equal share of housework.

Of course, dates cost money. Whether it's a coffee, or a mid-level restaurant meal, they cost money. And paying for this requires more disposable income than not paying for it. For example, for a man to go on dates with four women in a month, this requires them to be able to afford four separate dates where they foot the bill. This far outweighs the cost of any additional, necessary costs a woman spends on getting ready for a date, beyond what they already spend; eg makeup - most men do not think a woman needs to wear extra makeup for a date - if they asked her out, they already think she looks fine.

This means, to date as frequently as women do, men must meet a higher financial bar than for women. This is either through a higher salary, or through economic savings such as living with parents, or living with housemates. Take a man and woman on the same salary, both renting and with little disposable income. The woman can be dating right away, whereas the man will need to get a better-paid job first, or work more hours.

NHS assessment a decade ago. Failed it, because she (psychologist) wasn't sure I quite met the threshold. I definitely understated some difficulties, and overstated some functioning (eg I remember saying I read about various topics, but in reality I was reporting my wishful thinking/ambitions). Also an only-child from an abusive home (including medical neglect), so childhood evidence sources weren't really there.

Several years later on the RtC pathway and diagnosed (also had more years of life mishaps and experiences, such as more job losses). After diagnosis I waited 10 months for titration, but had to stop it as I was going through an eviction, which was a lot of stress (later rough sleeping, still in crappy accommodation, though I could definitely be doing titration. NHS would be better, since I figure it's easier each time you move GP, and you can attend the Recovery College ADHD class).

However, RtC diagnosis was rejected by the NHS team. All in all, been 10 years since I first went to a GP about possible ADHD. Even a couple of third sector MH professionals who I haven't mentioned ADHD to have asked me if I have it after talking to me about my difficulties.

The other irony is that the LMHT discharged me, telling me to go to the neurodevelopmental team since they decided my issues were more on that side (that's a whole other issue. The fact that massive amounts of childhood abuse can be disclosed in one LMHT appointment, and the next time their staff see you, they ask about none of it and go for the ND angle, because it's any excuse to get you off of their workload).

After that, the ND team told me they don't consider my RtC (Psy-UK) to be enough evidence. This was about 6 months ago. 6 months isn't a long time on its own, but it is a lot when you add all the time up.

Is the only option to go back to a GP and request another RtC just for titration?

Miss? Is this offensive if they're married?

Ma'am? "Mam" means "mum" in some parts of the UK, like Merseyside and Wales.

Madam? Sounds sarcastic or is used to tell someone off.

Eg maybe for Gen Z it's mullets, loose trousers and tattoos. Enamel pins that say something quirky. Some sort of dyed hair (this signals both being alternative, but also disposable income, along with having a job which permits dyed hair). Another seems to be going to independent eateries, coffee shops, independent cinema.

For millenials, tattoos (maybe some particular style. Eg they're not sailor tats). Maybe a certain type of job. Enamel pins. Probably a history of being a patron of local independent businesses (ie disposable income at a young age, typically through parental support). Perhaps having had an emo phase.

For Gen X, I'm not sure it diverges much from conservative status symbols - superficial status symbols likely aren't as important at this age as for younger adults/teens, as people are less likely to be looking to build social circles and relationships and therefore need to signal less to others.

Ie the number of routes going to lots of different places in a small area. Eg 80% of a county being reachable within a 5 minute walk to public transport, versus only 20%. Something like "route density"? "Route-dense public transit"?

How about the frequency with which area X is served by public transport to area Y (by any combination of different bus, tram, train etc routes that go between the areas. Not the frequency of just one route, but all the routes connecting area X and Y)?

"Talk to everyone" is the #1 advice I see on how to meet people and find a partner. I'm 100% sure from looking around that IRL, not everyone who is married is a social butterfly who talks to everyone. I know of people who aren't like that and are partnered or married. In reality not everyone becomes the most outgoing person. It seems like that's optimal, but it isn't realistic for everyone to be that person, but it's the advice given. Seems a little like answering "how to be successful at wrestling" with "be the most athletic person in the room", when there are other ways to go about it if that's just not the person you are - sure it's the ideal attribute to have, but not everyone can be the most athletic, and likewise not everyone can be the most outgoing because people have natural propensities.