Blog – Tidbits of Audacity

October 28, 2025October 15, 2025

The Forgotten Half

A Book Review: “Of Boys and Men” By Richard Reeves

Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men enters into a cultural conversation that has long been muted, if not actively resisted… the struggles of men and boys in modern society. The book, in many ways, is revolutionary for its willingness to state the obvious. There is a crisis among males. Educationally. Psychologically. Socially. Reeves’ arguments invite both appreciation and scrutiny, particularly when viewed through a psychological lens. While he successfully highlights the scope of the crisis, his solutions raise important questions about the interplay of biology, culture, and politics in male development. Here, I propose both praise and criticism of this book.

Institutionalized Developmental Delay

Reeves begins with education, pointing to staggering trends that show boys falling behind at nearly every level of schooling. Fewer men enroll in and graduate from college. They remain at the highest risk of dropping out compared to any other measurable group. Some of this decline has been masked by well-intentioned initiatives aimed at supporting women in higher education. But Reeves notes the imbalance of scholarships and assistance programs that overwhelmingly (and sometimes only) target women.

A particularly striking statistic is that 23% of boys are categorized as having a developmental disability. This label is almost statistically impossible. The deeper question is whether the educational system itself is maladapted to the developmental trajectory of boys. In other words, is it really the boys who are delayed, or the institutions failing to accommodate the normal variations in male development? Reeves and I share the sentiment that it is the educational system that is “delayed.” Developmental psychology shows that boys, on average, mature later in self-regulation, impulse control, and executive function. A rigid, one-size-fits-all educational model pathologizes these differences rather than supporting them.

I love the “redshirting” idea. Reeves’ practical recommendation that boys should be “redshirted”, or held back a year before starting school, aligns with this developmental reality. It recognizes that maturity is less about chronological age and more about calibrating behavior to fit social demands. Psychologist Erik Erikson once described adolescence as the crucible where identity and role confusion collide. Boys may simply need more time in that crucible, and institutions must adapt rather than expect conformity to artificially compressed timelines.

Social Decline and Family Instability

Beyond the classroom, Reeves highlights how boys and men are disproportionately harmed by family breakdown. In 1970, just 11% of births in the U.S. occurred outside of marriage. Today that number stands at 40%. The psychological consequences are profound. Children raised without stable father involvement face increased risks of behavioral problems, school failure, and emotional instability.

Importantly, Reeves distinguishes between race and gender in discussions of intergenerational mobility. While black and white women raised in poor families experience similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility, the same is not true for men. Revealing that the struggle is fundamentally male, and less racial. This observation forces a reframing of inequality. Many of the struggles chalked up to racial disparities are in fact gendered and disproportionately affect boys. The family unit, when fractured, appears to hit men the hardest, possibly because male identity is often more externally anchored, shaped by roles, responsibilities, and expectations that dissolve when fathers are absent.

Despair, Suicide, and the Meaning Crisis

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Reeves’ book is his treatment of despair. Male deaths from despair (suicide and overdose) are 3x higher than female. While male deaths from suicide alone are 4x hgher than female. Men account for 70% of opioid deaths in the United States. In suicide attempt notes, words like “useless” and “worthless” are repeated with haunting regularity. These are not just personal tragedies, they are societal symptoms.

Psychologically, despair emerges when meaning collapses. Viktor Frankl, the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, argued that humans can endure almost any suffering if they retain a sense of purpose, echoing the sentiments of Nietzsche. Men who perceive themselves as unnecessary, whether socially, economically, or relationally, are particularly vulnerable. The erosion of traditional male roles (provider, protector, leader) leaves many men lost. Reeves’ book resonates as a warning. Neglecting the psychological needs of boys leads to men who no longer see themselves as essential to the fabric of society.

Biology, Masculinity, and the Politics of Pathology

Reeves is careful to address the biological underpinnings of masculinity. Testosterone, he notes, does not trigger aggression but amplifies it. This distinction matters. Aggression itself is not pathological. It is a natural drive that, when tempered, becomes assertiveness, competitiveness, and protective strength. The problem is not masculinity, per se, but the inability to regulate and channel masculine impulses into socially constructive forms.

Reeves criticizes the American Psychological Association (APA), which has published guidelines that largely ignore male realities while emphasizing female experiences. This reflects a broader cultural trend. Natural aspects of masculinity are pathologized, particularly on the political left, which often denies biological sex differences in favor of purely social explanations. From a psychological standpoint, denying biology is not only unscientific but harmful. To help boys and men, we must recognize their biological realities rather than pretending they do not exist.

Where Reeves Misses the Mark

While Reeves is strong in diagnosis, his prescriptions falter in later chapters. In his attempt to “balance” criticism between left and right, he ends up diminishing legitimate concerns. For instance, he offers a dismissive opinion of Jordan Peterson’s work on social hierarchies and gendered career preferences, despite strong empirical backing. He offers no empirical refutation. Only opinion.

Reeves suggests that men and women would choose diffrent careers if the stigma were deceased. His interpretation of the Su and Rounds¹ study doesn’t hold up against other research. For instance, one study that shows that in more egalitarian societies, gender differences in occupational preferences actually widen.² And another study that found that in very egalitarian communities, when controlling for education, occupational class position, age, social and family status, and income, differences among genders were vastly different.³ In other words, freedom reveals difference rather than erasing it.

Given the statistical likelihood of gender preferences in more egalitarian nations, we can’t dismiss this but maybe we can capitalize on the individuals in each gender that cease to represent the majority and lean on this faction to help close certain gender job-force gaps. Men high in neuroticism, who are also high in empathy, would do well in HEAL jobs. Like women who are more practical and less prone to neuroticism would do well in STEM jobs. Though the majority will not prefer these, those who will can help bring nuance to these occupations.

Reeves also entertains the idea of equality of outcome, which is an inherently socialist notion that undermines individual merit and autonomy. Quoting Margaret Mead as an authority on gender equality may not be the best idea, given that contemporary psychology and economics have moved far beyond Mead’s cultural anthropology. Equality of outcome is not only impractical but psychologically corrosive, as it requires group A remove something from group B without their consent, and give it to group C. That will never work in America.

The Role of Government: Help or Hindrance?

You already know the answer to this. But Reeves goes on to advocate for policy solutions such as legislating more male teachers and expanding paid parental leave. While well-intentioned, these proposals risk repeating the failures of affirmative action. Institutionalizing discrimination in the name of equity. Psychologically, boys need mentors and role models. Mandating male teachers through policy undermines organic, voluntary solutions. Similarly, paid leave initiatives, while attractive on the surface, raise serious economic questions. Reeves never explains how such programs would be sustainably funded, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden.

The deeper problem is that government has historically failed to solve cultural and psychological crises. The federal government will never be a viable solution to any problem in our country, outside of national security, federal banking, and housing the homeless. They have proven through history, time and again, to be the worst solution to any problem. The crisis of boys and men is rooted in family, community, and culture. These are arenas where government intervention tends to distort rather than heal. Psychologically, meaning is cultivated locally through fathers, teachers, mentors, and peers. Not bureaucratic decrees.

Toward a Psychological Renewal of Manhood

Despite disagreements, Reeves deserves recognition as one of the few public voices daring to raise the alarm about the plight of boys and men. He’s a pioneer. A revolutionary. His book contributes to a conversation that is long overdue. To move forward, psychology offers several points of guidance:

Boys must be given time and space to mature without being pathologized.
Masculinity must be acknowledged as biologically grounded and potentially virtuous, not inherently toxic.
Family stability is critical. Without fathers, boys face developmental deficits that no government program can repair.
Despair is not simply a matter of economics but of meaning. Men must be shown that they are needed.

Reeves reminds us that the boy is always present within the man. Psychological maturity means the boy is still alive within us but is no longer in charge. He’s tempered, integrated, and directed toward purpose. Our challenge, as a culture, is to stop treating that boy as defective and start guiding him toward manhood.

Conclusion

Reeves’ Of Boys and Men is a bold and necessary work, one that illuminates the depth of the male crisis with clarity and urgency. Where he falters is in solutions. Reeves too often yields to fashionable political narratives or relies on government prescriptions. But in identifying the problem, Reeves has accomplished something vital. He has given voice to the silent epidemic of male despair and decline. Psychologically, the task ahead is monumental. Create a society that nurtures boys into men who are not just functional but flourishing.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

1 Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. 10.1037/a0017364

2 Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412)

3 Bihagen, E., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender differences. Poetics, 27, 327–349

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer

October 28, 2025October 26, 2025

Another Disorder Habituating Drugs: A.D.H.D.

When Normal Behavior Becomes Diagnosis

I recently read an article on how ADHD is underdiagnosed. I won’t share the article or author, for obvious reasons. I’m not interested in putting this guy in the line of fire. He’s doing genuine work, with the goal of helping. And as Michael from Passion Pit recently stated, we can disagree with respect, especially if someone is genuinely trying to help those suffering. To be clear, I am not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist. I am a mental health counselor. This is the perspective from which I write.

The author said he would address:

How science proves underdiagnoses
Why ADHD is more prevalent now
Concerns about medication for treatment of ADHD

What I Can Agree On

Some of what he laid out made sense and is likely to be true. For instance, he stated ADHD is 74% heritable. I have no reason to doubt that. This places the heritability of ADHD almost as high as height (80%) and much higher than depression (35%-40%). He gave stats on stimulants, both the lack of findings that they are terrible for you and what happens when some don’t take them. For the most part, I can understand and buy this. This still lines up with a recent article I read that states it is possible for ADHD to be real and true, but to also be overdiagnosed.

The Author’s Diagnosis of Underdiagnosis

He continued with “science” that “proves” ADHD is underdiagnosed. I was left wanting. For instance, he relied on Adderall to determine diagnose prevalence. He said that 41 million Adderall prescriptions were written in 2023, severly lower than those diagnosed. He stated that 8.8% of adults had ADHD. Then linked a CDC report that showed that 8.8% of girls between the ages of 3-17 had ADHD. The latest data we have on adults diagnosed with ADHD is 6%, or 15.5M adults. There are approximately 31 million girls between the ages of 3-17 in America. 8.8% of that is 2.7 million. Let’s take the 15% of boys diagnosed (which I highly question this validity), which is 5.4. million boys. Combine that with the 2.7 million girls, and the 15.5 million adults. That’s 23.6 million people diagnosed.

Therefore, 41 million Adderall prescriptions is severely higher than diagnosis. But let’s assume he means that the 41 million is total but that one person gets 12 prescriptions per year (as he alludes to in his piece), which is also doubtful because they write refills into the prescriptions, not new prescriptions. Then it’s 3.4 million people of the 23.6 million diagnosed with ADHD who are taking Adderall.

Ok, that’s lower. But this doesn’t account for other medications used and behavioral treatment. And to suggest that behavioral treatment isn’t enough is patently false, I can tell you from personal experience. So we’re left wondering, is it one prescription, 4, 6, or 12 prescriptions? Most are 90-day refills. By that math, it would mean that almost half of those diagnosed with ADHD are taking Adderall. So that’s “severly low?” They all must be taking adderall to be considered normal?

But this is where it all takes a severe turn for me. He never addressed:

Suppression of science
Increase in prevalence
Means of calculating underdiagnosis other than Adderall

Supression of Science

It is pretty widely known that the freedom of science is under attack. More and more reports come out each year of studies that get suppressed when they fail to meet a predictable, Marxist ideology (Soh, 2020). If the study, in any way, misaligns with identity ideology, regardless of the fact that these are objective findings, the study is suppressed, and the authors are cancelled and sometimes fired. Just ask James Nuzzo. As an unfortunate result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust science is presenting all angles of an issue.

Increase of Prevalence

Next, this article, nor any article I’ve ever read has accounted for the sharp and distinct increase in diagnoses in the last 25 years, and especially in the last 10 years. The only explanation is “we missed it all this time.” Which does not hold up. So in 1998, 6.9% of children were diagnosed with ADHD, and in 2023, over 12% of children were diagnosed with ADHD. It doubled because we just “missed it” all this time? Or did it double because in 1994, the DSM-IV broadened the diagnosis for ADHD, which coincidentally sent a few pharma reps to Cabo on a private plane. I know, anecdotal and not causation. I get it. But the coincidence is remarkable. And much more plausible than “we just missed it.”

Underdiagnosed or Overmedicated?

Here’s another part missing from the “underdiagnosed” club. Even if they’re right, medication isn’t always the answer, and is a problematic solution on its best day. My bonus son came to me the other night and out of the blue said, “You know, I feel like I still have ADHD, but I know how to handle it, keep the symptoms at bay, and control my impulses now after all of the things you’ve taught me. I feel… normal” You know what this says? That it isn’t merely neurological, and maybe not even mostly neurological. It is behavioral. Which means the solution is often behavioral. So what did I teach him? I’ll give you two examples.

Example 1:

When I came into his life, he was 8. When he had something to say, he’d start yelling it in the next room as he was approaching the room he knew his mother was in. I consistently stopped him in his tracks, made him go back into the other room and reenter the room, quietly looking to see if anyone was already talking, refrain from interrupting if they are, and restate what he wanted to say. It took nearly 2 years for this to take hold of him. But he eventually got it. We created a new standard, consistently required him to meet this standard, and over time, he did. They’re Capable!

Example 2:

My bonus daughter has a 4 year old son who simply “can’t sit still.” So he and I, along with another daughter are at a restaurant. He gets on top of something and I tell him to get down. He looked at me like, “who are you?” I tell him again. He still doesn’t get down. I go pick him up, carry him to my seat, and sit him next to me. I tell him he’s not getting up again. He states his disapproval. I set a consequence if he continues. He stops… for 20 MINUTES STRAIGHT! We sat calmly and had a typical conversation. This means, he was capable, but he was never held to this standard. The food comes out, he’s fine and starts telling me how much he loves cheese. I said, “Don’t we all, my man!” They’re Capable!

Conclusion

I am open-minded. I am willing to learn. And I want to be challenged. But if the best you have is that the usage of Adderall is the “scientific proof” of underdiagnosis, forgive me if I’m not convinced. In my experience, both as a father and my clinical experience, behavioral adaptations to most symptoms indicative of societal ADHD still work better than medication. I know because I’ve witnessed it and treated it, personally. I’d now like to get back to talking about things like how pineapple should never be put on pizza.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Soh, D. (2020). The end of gender: debunking the myths about sex and identity in our society (First Threshold Editions hardcover edition. ed.).

October 24, 2025October 28, 2025

The Gospel of Fake Compassion

A Sermon On the Mount of Ideology, Where Truth is Blasphemy

Highlights From One of His Recent Posts:

Empathy

So, you might be sitting here watching folks shrug off the death of another and saying, “How can you lack empathy? How can you lack understanding?” And I am asking you the very same question. How can you lack empathy and understanding for those whom he harmed?

I would even go so far as to say that having such empathy is good in a sense, it means you aren’t as vile as he, a man who couldn’t find empathy at all for anyone, and actually demeaned empathy as weakness.

Empathy is dangerous. That was his stance. That is my stance. That is psychologist Paul Bloom’s stance. That is Jesse Prinz’s stance, the professor of philosophy at the City University of New York. Empathy can never play a role in decision making. Especially major decisions, like policy. See what I mean here, here, and here. This isn’t new.

Charlie Kirk spent his life vilifying people.

Wrong. He said, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens.” He vilified ideas and policies, never people.

He turned their parents and siblings against them.

Another lie. What he actually said: “If You Don’t Fear Your Parents, You Don’t Fear God! Honor your parents.” – Kirk

Gender

He made using the restroom a battleground.

Kirk was in no such business. He refused to bow to the Marxist ideology that compels speech. He refused to repeat a lie that sex is not biological, there are more than two genders, and that kids, who can’t figure out how to tie their own shoes should be able to choose their gender and begin mutilating their body.

Race

He called Black people less than human.

There is zero evidence of this quote. The closest you’ll find is: “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

In context, what he was saying was that affirmative action, which directly and openly discriminates against white people and Asians, was the only way they could have gotten into college, based on their own admissions. Another way I know this wasn’t about race was because he was referring to democrats. He did not refer to Carol Swain, Candace Owen, or Kimberly Klacik. Why? Because they were republicans. This was not about race to him. It was about discrimination. Against whites and Asians.

2A

In the wake of school shootings, he told parents that their children dying in the hallways was a necessary casualty of protecting the Second Amendment.

Not even close. Here’s the full quote:

I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

In context, he said that we, as a society, have made decisions on cost-benefit analysis; cost vs. reward. Every year, 50,000 people die in car accidents. We have decided that those 50,000 deaths are worth the cost to receive the benefit of having vehicles at our disposal to enhance our lives. One life is too many, but we know there will be car deaths, yet we still don’t ban cars. The same can be said of guns. There will be no such era of zero deaths from guns. We have decided that some deaths are worth the cost of the benefit of being able to protect ourselves. First against a tyrannical government. Next against people who wouldn’t abide by a gun law under any circumstance.

Words ≠ Violence

-He fomented young people to become violent so that he could hide behind his words and demand nuance
-Countless people have lost their lives to the violent rhetoric of Charlie Kirk
-Charlie Kirk was a White Christian Nationalist who promoted hate and violence

Can we acknowledge that the word countless immediately comes with a fact-check symbol. Especially when the number is actually zero. Words are not violence. If words are violence, then violence is a valid, acceptable, and necessary means to suppress such words. Therefore, words ≠ violence. If words are violence, then correlation = causation. But it’s not. Plenty of people hear things that upset them and don’t shoot a guy for it. This means that some are capable of self-control and others aren’t. Which means this is an internal human condition. Not some axiomatic call to action.

Quick Conclusion on the Right

In the aftermath of his death, the Christian Nationalists were quick, without any proof, to lay blame at the feet of the trans community

This part is true. Christians, republicans, conservatives everywhere jumped to this conclusion that the trans community had something to do with this. That, by itself, was reckless and reduces creditability. However, they were right. Even so, they were right too soon. The shooter was in a relationship with a trans female (a dude- for those of us who struggle with double negatives). And this could end up being something as simple as a man (a cowardly boy, really) defending his love. But the jump was irresponsible. Valid point.

Monk goes on to discuss Trump’s comments at Kirk’s memorial. Donald Trump? Why are we bringing a dumb, irresponsible comment by Trump into this? TDS at its finest.

UK or US?

It is already happening now in other parts of the world. The mere attempt to protest is landing folks in handcuffs. We are watching our fundamental rights being stripped away from us.

Here he says “other parts of the world” followed by “we” are watching rights being stripped from “us.” So is it us or other parts of the world? Other parts. It’s not happening here. So he must be UK-identifying. Maybe he’s Transnational.

What is happening in UK and Australia will not be happening here. If it does, it will be because they figured out a way to disarm every gun-owning citizen in the country. Good luck. We have the 2^nd amendment for this very reason. To resist a tyrannical government.

Freedom of Speech

I need you to understand that what I have written here today will likely be read at my own sentencing someday, when they justify ripping me away from my children simply because I wrote words, asked questions, and openly challenged the narrative of my government.
I am begging you to do this now, because very soon, those voices will be silenced, and the only thing that you will be able to hear is propaganda being pumped by the mechanisms created and endorsed by the man you are demanding that they mourn.

I will fight and die for his right, your right, anyone’s right to say these things in open discourse. I will stand against suppressed and compelled speech at any turn. This will never be a thing in this country. Not without a fight they’ll never forget. Having said that, this statement is merely fear-porn. Meant to stoke an emotion that cannot be backed by evidence. Nothing more. Do better.

They have lacked empathy at every moment from Columbine to Sandy Hook, but are now feigning shock that no one can mourn the wicked.

First, I’d hardly call 22 million people “no one.” The difference here is that Kirk was killed because of his beliefs. What he said. The spoken word. And when that child aimed his gun, he was aiming at viewpoint diversity. He was aiming at the right to free speech. He was aiming at every Christian and every white person that is tired of being the subject of blatant racism, mockery, and discrimination in the name of “progress.” This makes the claims of comparing this to school shootings baseless.

Immigration

Listen to the hurt and pain and reality from those whom Charlie Kirk wished to see deported, arrested, and executed.

On record, Kirk is quoted as saying that people who are here illegally and committed crimes should be deported. Read that again. Here illegally and committed a crime. This is why empathy is so dangerous. This is the same emotion that led people to fall in love with Ted Bundy and others like him. When you’re empathizing with someone, you put on blinders, apply a spotlight, and shut out the rest of the world, including good judgment and common sense. And here it is on display. We are empathizing with those who are here illegally and committed a crime over those who are here legally and have not committed crimes. That’s as close to insanity as one can get without saying that sex is not biological.

Unilateral Violence?

Make no mistake, they will suddenly find the motivation to stop violence. But they will use violence to do so.

Here are some names of those who used violence in the name of justified retribution:

Tyler Robinson – Kirk’s killer. Dating one with Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
Robert Westman – Minnesota Christian school shooter. Suffered from Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
Audrey Hale – Nashville Christian school shooter. Suffered from Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
Thomas Crooks – Attempted assassination of Trump. Likely suffered from a schizotypal disorder or MDD.

Conclusion

As you see here, feelings have bulldozed facts into submission. The facts are plain: Kirk said aloud what countless Americans quietly believed. He wanted fairness. He wanted an honest, level playing field. No racial handouts. No college admissions based on anything other than merit. That’s not unreasonable. And it’s not new. Thomas Sowell has been saying it for decades.

Kirk wanted freedom from compelled speech. The right not to parrot rhetoric he didn’t believe. He stood by the science of sex and biology. Truths humanity has understood, validated, and lived by for centuries.

Yes, Kirk stumbled. He went about it clumsily, made mistakes, and sometimes undercut his own cause. But to twist that into “he called for violence,” or “he encouraged racism,” or “he was fine with children dying”? That’s not just dishonest, it’s malicious. On a generous day, it’s intellectual cowardice. On a darker day, it reeks of Cluster B theatrics, psychotic distortion, and a sadistic Marxist project that thrives on smearing rather than understanding.

Name-calling is always easier than introspection. It takes no courage to sneer, but it takes discipline to ask: Where might I be wrong? or Where might another perspective be just as valid? Some can’t manage that. They can’t fathom why the whole world doesn’t fall in line with their view. So they elevate feelings above facts, emotion above evidence. Forgetting that policy is meant to serve the majority, not the loudest 1% screaming from the rooftops.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer

October 21, 2025October 15, 2025

Silencing Kimmel Means Silencing You

When Private Companies Do the Government’s Dirty Work

This is a mini-post addressing Kimmel’s suspension and return to ABC.

When you read this list, what do you think of?

Joe Rogan
Ted Cruz
Clay travis
Ben Shapiro
Candace Owen
Tim Dillon
Andrew Schulz
Rand Paul
Mitch McConnell

I can guess your thoughts:

Conservative. You’d be right about all except 1.
Republican. You’d be right about all except 2.
Politically motivated. You’d be right about all except 3.

You ready? They all condemned the suspension of Kimmel and praised his return. Wait… why?

I could not, for the life of me, understand why people on the right were happy Kimmel got suspended. It made no sense.

After watching Roseanne get the ax, Gina Carano get bounced over a tweet, and Trump get banned from Twitter. And millions of verified shadow-banning conservative posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all through Covid.

If this is on your memory, why, for the love of the man down by the river, would you enjoy Kimmel’s removal for speech? This is exactly what you used to get fired up about.

The primary reason that list of people stood in solidarity about this issue is because they remember. If the FCC has that kind of control, we are all doomed. Unfortunately, this isn’t new.

There have been a few Supreme Court cases involving private companies acting on behalf of the government, but one of the more important ones happened to be in my area. Brentwood high school, in Brentwood, TN, sued the TSSAA, the primary governing body for high school athletics in Tennessee. They sued declaring that the TSSAA had acted on behalf, or in place of, the government. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and Brentwood High won.

The ruling was that the TSSAA had acted on behalf of the government, thereby removing its protections as a private company and becoming subject to government regulations and policies.

What does this have to do with anything? When Twitter, FB, and IG were removing conservative posts, we now know they were doing so at the request of the federal government. Which makes them acting on behalf of the government and subject to first amendment protections of citizens.

Meaning, they can be sued for violating First Amendment rights.

So this concept isn’t new. The government keeps trying to dip its feet in the private domain masking as private companies that do their bidding. And it’s usually aimed at conservatives. But this time it hit Kimmel. Here’s the problem, if they are willing to take out Kimmel, you’re next. Regardless of your political affiliation.

You better hope the federal government doesn’t continue to be in the speech suppression business. Because if you open a history book, you’ll see where this ends up. And it’s catastrophic.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer

October 15, 2025October 15, 2025

Comfort for Moms, Chains for Kids

My Response to PsyPhi’s article “Maternally Induced Autism”

This article is a response to an article brilliantly written by PsyPhi. I want to deliver my perspective from the counseling room. The article addresses what Bitar has loosely labeled, Maternally Induced Autism. I kind of like Maternally Associated Mimicry of Autism (MAMA). But that’s the jokester in me coming out.

They’re Extra Special

More context: this young lady is sweet, well-meaning, and genuinely a good person. A little insecure. Tries to impress you often. But overall wants the best for everyone. So why would this good mother enjoy this diagnosis? This is where it gets good. I asked her just that.

“What about the diagnosis do you like?”

Her response:

“I think it makes him extra special.”

The error here is suggesting that he is not extra special without the diagnosis. She already stated his elevated cognition in certain arenas. And he is uniquely made. There is only one him. This alone should ensure he is special.

Altruistic

Though she didn’t allude to this, another reason mothers enjoy the diagnosis is the mother is now viewed as particularly altruistic. “Look how good I am!” Some mothers need external validation to feel good about themselves. Like their character needs to be on display to ensure a) those who mistreated them were wrong about them or b) no one will find out just how deviant they really are. Those are very different women, but I’ve met them both.

Extra Sympathy

And yet another reason mothers enjoy the diagnosis is they are viewed with extra sympathy for their struggles and suffering as a parent of a neurodivergent child. This wreaks of undiagnosed Cluster B symptoms, as PsyPhi pointed out in their article.

Labeling

Another aspect of the subject of Maternally Induced Autism worth pointing out is that labeling usually hurts the child as much as it helps, sometimes more. Research shows this:

Labeling children creates anxiety (Yang et al., 2015).
Labeling children worsens mood and reduces motivation (Mukolo, Heflinger, & Wallston, 2010).
Labeling children increases loneliness, isolation, and reduced self-esteem and confidence, thus greatly affecting their social relationships (Prizeman, Weinstein, & McCabe, 2023).

Men & ASD

Lastly, Bitar covered the paternal void exacerbating claims of neurodivergence. Studies show that children with fathers not in the home but who are directly engaged in their lives are better off than fathers in the home but either absent (due to various reasons like overworked or uninterested) or prevented from engaging in paternally instinctive roles (Coakley, 2013). The father’s absence itself contributes to ASD symptoms, through a lack of rough play, risk taking, and teasing, which produces emotional resilience (Kogan et al., 2018), as Bitar noted in this earlier article.

Based solely on this data, it is quite plausible that paternal presence indeed is a protective factor against misdiagnosis or predatory clinicians who need a new vacation home.

This is what I see in the counseling room. Avoidance. Denial. And accepting diagnosis for reasons other than science. Labels handed out like candy soothe adults, not children. My hope and my challenge is that more of us will stand up against these hollow mainstream narratives. Children’s lives are at stake, and no mom’s comfort should outweigh the truth.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Coakley, T. M. (2013). The influence of father involvement on child welfare permanency outcomes: A secondary data analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.023

Kogan, M. D., Vladutiu, C. J., Schieve, L. A., Ghandour, R. M., Blumberg, S. J., Zablotsky, B., Perrin, J. M., Shattuck, P., Kuhlthau, K. A., Harwood, R. L., & Lu, M. C. (2018). The Prevalence of Parent-Reported Autism Spectrum Disorder Among US Children. Pediatrics, 142(6), e20. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-4161

Mukolo, A., Heflinger, C. A., & Wallston, K. A. (2010). The stigma of childhood mental disorders: a conceptual framework. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(2), 92–103; quiz 198. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-201002000-00003

Prizeman, K., Weinstein, N., & McCabe, C. (2023). Effects of mental health stigma on loneliness, social isolation, and relationships in young people with depression symptoms. BMC Psychiatry, 23(1), 527. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04991-7

Yang, L. H., Link, B. G., Ben-David, S., Gill, K. E., Girgis, R. R., Brucato, G., Wonpat-Borja, A. J., & Corcoran, C. M. (2015). Stigma related to labels and symptoms in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 168(1-2), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2015.08.004

October 7, 2025October 7, 2025

Forgiveness is a Decision

This is a response to a recent article by Aly Dee: The Gospel of Cowardice: How Cheap Forgiveness Weakens the Church

Just my thoughts:

There is a lot of good stuff here. Particularly the “Turn the other cheek” part. It was a power shift. By turning the other cheek in that era, you shifted power from the aggressor to you without doing much. The aggressor was left with a dilemma, strike with the “unclean” hand (left hand) or open hand, which implied equality in status. Or nothing and show weakness. One slight move shifted the entire dynamic.

Strength under control is also a good theme here. A man should be capable of danger and wise enough to know when to and not to use it.

I’d like to provide a little nuance here on two main points.

Evangelical Protestantism
Forgiveness

Evangelical Protestantism

“Evangelical Protestantism is the worst form of Christianity available today.”

This is hardly accurate. But when speaking in absolutes, accuracy is rarely found. It’s hard to call a movement that is bringing people to Christ by the thousands that had given up all hope in being forgiven for the atrocities they’d committed in their life the “worst form of Christianity available today.” The worst place for deep spiritual growth? Maybe.

But remember, the people that who are entering these domains often believe, truly believe, there is no hope for them. They believe they have made entirely too many serious mistakes to be forgiven by a perfect God. Not realizing it is in His perfection where the ability to forgive resides. They enter at the request of someone they know, believing there is no way God can love them. Then they hear otherwise and everything changes. I cannot possibly tag them with “worst.” Not even close.

I’d dare say the worst form of Christianity today are the denominations being willfully blind to obvious scriptural instruction for the sake of identity over merit and making sure no one’s feelings are hurt. Starting with the Presbyterian church. That’s the worst form. Absolute false prophets dressed in robes adorned with crosses.

Forgiveness

“Forgiveness isn’t really something reasonable to foist on someone mourning a fresh assassination, whether it be Charlie Kirk’s widow or American Christians who have been persecuted and attacked by Leftists for nearly a decade.”

I totally agree that it isn’t reasonable to push forgiveness onto someone in pain. I also believe that while it isn’t reasonable, it is possible. Because it is a choice. When Erika Kirk chose to forgive her husband’s killer, a few things happened and a few things didn’t happen.

What didn’t happen:

She didn’t forget
She didn’t accept this guy into her life or public discourse
She didn’t stop hurting

What did happen:

She removed the weight of justice from her shoulders onto her creator. It’s natural for us to want justice and harbor anger. She relinquished that.
Forgiveness spread like wildfire
Tim Allen forgave his father for the first time
Thousands were driven to Christ as a result.

“I have found that the greater the offense, the harder it is for a person to reach forgiveness.”

I agree that, in one sense, the greater the offense, the longer it takes to embody human forgiveness. But in another sense, not really. Why? Forgiveness is not a feeling. It’s not an emotion. It’s a decision. Divine forgiveness is what we are called to, which we can’t fully understand. Therefore, we need to act on it before we fully understand it. Often in scripture, God called his people to act first and understand later. He understood that action drives behavior.

The story of Moses is one. Three times, Moses is in the presence of God and comes back to deliver God’s word. Two of them, the people state in response, “We will obey.” The last time, they said, “We will obey and then we will understand.” Erika’s choice was a decision. Not a feeling. She chose to act now and heal as she goes.

So I think there’s a balance, which seems to be the undercurrent of Aly’s post, which I respect and appreciate. We can forgive and not restore. They’re not the same. Letting go of the sting while ensuring we don’t lay down and accept evil as normative can be attained.

Lastly, the reason I know we will never be the UK? They’re facing these struggles for a reason. The same reason we once triumphed against overwhelming odds. This country was not built on submission. From the very beginning, we fought as if survival itself was on the line. That spirit, born in the Revolutionary War when an outnumbered people refused to bow, still runs in our DNA. We fight for what we know is right, in the face of cultural deviance. This is why we’re seeing revival, now led by Gen Z!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

September 16, 2025September 14, 2025

Gen Z’s Breaking Point

When Sanity Snaps Back

Recently, Dr. Keith Campbell laid out the plausibility of the Strauss and Howe generational theory and where we are sitting currently as a society (I highly recommend following Dr.

W. Keith Campbell. He’s a distinguished social psychologist, the good kind, who often points out zeitgeist applications from the social lens).

I linked Dr. Campbell’s Substack post, but the short version is, there are four “turnings” in a generational cycle that last approximately 80-100 years:

High: 1^st turning. Institutions become strong. More uniformity and solidarity. Think post WWII.
Awakening: 2^nd turning. Push back against institutions. Greater individualism. Typically accompanied by an increased spiritualism and cultural change. Think of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.
Unraveling: 3^rd turning. Strong distrust of institutions. Fragmented culture. Think of the shift from the 1980s to the early 2000s.
Crisis: 4^th turning. Societal upheaval. Unity around survival.

Throughout history, when things turned, the turning was led by the younger generation. Here are some examples.

When The Younger Generation Steps In

Post-1960s Backlash: After the cultural revolutions of the 1960s and early 1970s (civil rights, antiwar protests, sexual liberation), a significant segment of the younger generation in the late 1970s and 1980s shifted toward more conservative values. Many became disillusioned with counterculture excesses, instead prioritizing family, law and order, and what they saw as a return to traditional values. This shift fueled the rise of the “Reagan Revolution” and the Moral Majority movement.
Victorian Reaction: After the upheaval of the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, full of radical politics, individual expression, and challenges to traditional authority, the Victorian generation turned sharply toward discipline, propriety, and family values. Emphasis on the nuclear family and social order echoed throughout society.
Interwar Period: In Europe, after the chaos of World War I, some young people rejected the liberalism and experimentation of the early 20th century. They gravitated toward movements that emphasized national strength, order, and family stability. Some of these movements took darker turns, but the pattern of rejecting “decadence” in favor of tradition and authority was clear.
Silent Generation: Coming of age after WWII, the Silent Generation in the U.S. largely rejected radical experimentation in favor of conformity, stability, and family life. They emphasized career, law, and traditional family structures, especially after the upheavals of the Great Depression and global conflict. Their focus on suburban family life and “the rules” is an example of a generational pivot back to order.

Cultural Disillusionment

You have to ask yourself, why are the Gen Zs upset about Kirk’s passing? Why do they care? I don’t remember caring about politics when I was their age. So why now? Perhaps it’s

The numerous people saying that men can play in women’s sports.
Or watching mentally ill classmates bring a kitty litter box to school.
Or seeing that there’s more mental health awareness than ever before in our history, and their classmates are still un-aliving themselves at alarming rates.

Whatever is currently being tried is not working.

Maybe they reached a tipping point. They watched what clearly appeared to be insane. But the adults were saying it was normal. So they trusted them. Until they didn’t. Something in them clicked. They realized, that’s not anywhere near normal. The 17-year-old boy attending his sister’s volleyball game watched a boy claiming to be a girl take over the game… one too many times. They saw one too many kitty litter boxes at a high school.

They have moved from confusion to certainty that authority figures are wrong. They grew up being told to trust the experts, the administrators, the professionals. But then they saw reality contradict the narrative, whether in sports, classrooms, or mental health. The more the grownups insisted, “this is normal,” the louder something inside them whispered, “No, it’s not.” That inner voice is where revolutions begin.

The Turn

They’re responding to a cycle where truth feels like it’s been sacrificed on the altar of feelings, and the pendulum is swinging back. They see that hyper-emphasis on sensitivity and victimhood hasn’t reduced suffering (suicide rates & depression) but has increased it. So they pivot toward strength, family, and reality-based living. Every generation reaches a breaking point with the culture it inherits. For Gen Z, it’s the moment they realized that more “awareness” hasn’t made their friends less suicidal, that endless sensitivity hasn’t made their schools safer, that pretending doesn’t make something true. They’re not cynical about truth, they’re hungry for it. And they’re tired of this “normative” zeitgeist. To them, there’s nothing normative about it.

The Martyred Catalyst

Maybe someone like Kirk poured fuel on an ember that they didn’t even realize they had. Maybe Kirk, like Peterson, called them up to greatness, and it registered deep in their souls. The message resonates not because it’s novel, but because it validates the quiet suspicion that they weren’t crazy after all. When Kirk spoke, Gen Z didn’t just hear an argument, they heard confirmation of what they’d already seen but were afraid to say. That validation turns private doubt into public conviction. It transforms a scattered sense of “something’s off” into a shared movement.

It appears the Fourth Turning is reaching its end. And Gen Z isn’t sitting this one out, they’re saddling up. Ready to drag truth back into the public square. History says the First Turning, the rebuilding, the High, waits just a few years down the road. But before we get there, the storm will rage stronger. Institutions will shake, lies will scream louder, and the pressure will test everyone. And that’s exactly why Gen Z matters.

When you see them stand up against insanity, when they refuse to bow to nonsense, don’t just nod in approval. Cheer them on. Thank them. They are the ones who will carve order out of chaos, who will carry family, faith, and reality into the next era. They’ve seen the madness, and they’re not buying it anymore. Gen Z will be the ones to plant their feet, guard the family, and make normal great again.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

September 12, 2025September 12, 2025

Mind-Molders and Life-Savers

It’s Where We Draw the Line

Excuse me for another pop-up post, but the newest events called for it.

If you weren’t aware of the absolute institutional ideological Marxist capture before this week, you’re aware now. It is nothing short of Cluster B-infused moral decay. But before we get too deep, let’s clarify.

Free Speech

I am a free speech advocate. I disagree with almost everything Harry Sisson ever says. But I will openly defend his right to say it. I believe people say hateful, hurtful, and harmful things on the internet. Hiding behind their keyboard shield like the snakes behind comedy and tragedy masks. But I fully believe in their right to say it. In fact, I want them to say it. So we can all see who the tyrants are. Who the psychopaths are. Who the Cluster-B RCT candidates are. I want you to speak so I know what is out there.

Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts every Tuesday.

Following the election of Trump, a shift began to take place. People all over the political spectrum were beginning to agree that the far left had gone too far. We had to find normalcy. Peaceful dialogue. Common sense. Biology needed to mean something, especially in sports. Merit meant something, especially in the workplace. With the assassination of Charlie Kirk, not only did that sentiment not soften, it just got louder.

L: Haley Kreidel— Nashville 911 emergency dispatcher; R: Laura Sosh-Lightsy— MTSU Assistant Dean

Death Celebration

There’s a zombie-style apocalypse of people celebrating the death of one man who stood for civil discourse without violence. Reread that sentence and let that sink in. As

Lou Perez said so well,

“I have come across people who believe that

It’s OK to murder you if you express opinions they disagree with and
You should not be able to own a gun to defend yourself against people who believe it’s OK to murder you for expressing opinions they disagree with.”

I did not agree with everything Kirk said, nor how he said it. But I agreed with the fact that we should have more civil discourse without violence.

I am not a fan of “cancel culture.” Never have been. Never will be. People should not lose their jobs over comments made. For years, people have been losing their jobs over saying something pro-American or pro-Western. For instance, schoolteacher Warren Smith conducted a Socratic thought experiment with a student. When he suggested that the student think through facts before assuming and claiming that J.K. Rowling was hateful, and after the student came to his own realization through, what counseling calls Motivational Interviewing, Smith was fired. This should have never happened.

Exceptions To the Rule

However, there are clear exceptions to this concept. One basic exception is economic. If you own a business or provide a product and speak in contradiction to your clientele, expect to be cancelled. Ask Tractor Supply, Harley-Davidson, or the Dixie Chicks. It’s simply not a good business move.

But maybe the more important example is professions where you are either a mind-molder or a life-saver. Educators, first responders, therapists, just to name a few. More recently, here’s a list of professionals who are mind-molders or life-savers and have been removed from their position:

Toledo fire and rescue firefighter, “Wish the guy was a better shot…”
Nashville 911 dispatcher
Assistant Dean of Students, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU, where I am proud alum)
Teacher, Greenville County School District, South Carolina
Executive Assistant to Vice Chancellor of Development, University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)
Staffer at Ole Miss

Life-Savers

Now ask yourself, if your life was on the line, would you want to worry about dying due to a MAGA hat or Harris/Walz T-shirt? Think of it this way. A firefighter in Toledo rushes into a building, sees a man bleeding out and has the chance to save him. When he sees the MAGA hat, he thinks to himself, “One less scumbag.” Then “fails to stop the bleeding.” Comments about being happy a man died for his beliefs make it entirely plausible someone would do this on the job. Or how about the dispatcher in Nashville?

Dispatcher (D) 911, what’s your emergency?
Person (P) someone is trying to break into my house screaming something about my Trump flag on my porch!
D: Ok. Stay on the line and we will get someone there.
Then the dispatcher thinks, “Another MAGA down!” And simply doesn’t send anyone out but pretends she does. Or waits so long, the assailant enters and kills them.

Mind-Molders

The other side is mind-molders. I firmly believe that any educator who trains a person what to think, rather than how to think, should not be educating anyone. There is simply no place for that. This includes teaching someone that they should be republican, democrat, conservative, or liberal. Educators should not be teaching anyone that they should espouse these ideals, but rather that they should learn how to see all sides and explore these ideals. For instance, if you believe it was OK for Kirk to die because he was homophobic or transphobic, do you also feel this way about the Palestinians? Because they are very open concerning their stance on these issues. That is exploring all sides.

Or my industry— counselors, coaches, and therapists. I firmly believe if you say something publicly acknowledging the desire for another’s death, you should lose your license. How can you claim to care for people, advocate for people, and help people achieve stated goals if you are calling for the death of those you don’t agree with? It goes against every code of ethics in the industry. Which one’s you ask? Let’s look at a fellow Substacker’s comments— who happens to be a therapist.

Listen, these MFkrs call for the death of INNOCENT humans on the DAILY.
I will start calling for THEIRS. We don’t have to be some f*ing version of “peaceful”. WE ARE AT WAR.

IT IS OK TO CELEBRATE THE DEMISE OF NAZIS
IT IS OK TO LAUGH AT POWERFUL KARMA
IT IS OK TO ADMIT YOU HAVE ZERO FEELINGS ABOUT MURDERED FASCISTS
IT IS OK TO TELL PEOPLE TO SHUT THE F**K UP WITH THEIR SELF RIGHTEOUS BULLS**T

Directly from the mouth of a therapist. Here are some codes she violated:

A.4.b. Personal Values. Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. A statement wishing death on someone clearly shows imposition of personal values, and is inconsistent with respect for client autonomy
A.4.a. Avoiding Harm. Counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm. Publicly calling for someone’s death is a form of speech that may create an unsafe, hostile, or discriminatory environment for clients with different views.
C.5. Nondiscrimination. Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination against clients, students, or supervisees based on political affiliation, beliefs, or ideology.
NASW 6.04 Social and Political Action. She obliterated this one.

So yeah, I firmly agree with the investigations, unpaid leave, loss of license, and firing of these individuals that show little to no human decency. I don’t want this type of moral infection to be in mind-molders or to have an impact on life and death. Go be a politician. They say hateful things every day and no one cares.

Stay Classy GP! (In the face of classlessness)

Grainger

September 10, 2025September 10, 2025

I’m Defending My Values Without Apology

The Age of Passivity is Behind Us

Today, I agreed with people I rarely agree with. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Candace Owen, and many others. We all agreed that the attack on Kirk as senseless, unfathomable, vile, and evil. I even saw the statement, “Charlie Kirk and I have never agreed on one thing, except that everyone has the right to free speech and should not have to die for that.”

The shooting of Charlie Kirk has shaken the country and parts of the world. But you have to ask yourself why? People get shot all the time. And he was just a young, family man living the American dream. So why did this rattle the country and get polarizing political opponents all in agreement?

Because he was civil. Because he sought to have civil discord with those he disagreed with. Because he never once called for violence. Because he stood on convictions and could intelligently articulate them. Because he made the bold statement that the country cannot move forward until people who disagree have genuine, difficult conversations with the goal of understanding each other, in hopes we can find shared fundamental ideals to live our lives around.

Some want to be angry. And that’s a warranted response. “They hit us, we’ll hit back harder.” Unfortunately, Kirk would never have approved of that. He, like Dr. Martin Luther King, always declared to conduct peaceful interactions only. They both declared that violence was never the answer. So if not violence, then what should be my response? Well, first, I’m not about to tell you how to respond to a tragedy. But I will say the age of passive conviction is dead. The time for sitting back, wishing the psychopaths would pipe down and the problems would vanish, is over.

We’ve stepped into a new era. One that demands we give voice to our convictions. When something feels deeply wrong, silence is no longer an option. As the saying goes, “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” I’m not calling for misbehavior. I’m calling for courage. The kind of vocal, unflinching fortitude that protects values that you will defend.

What I Will Defend

I’ll defend my right to free speech. Along with that freedom comes the right to reject compelled speech. I will not be forced to call you anything I don’t want to. I will not be forced to call you a kitty cat because you feel like one today. I will not be forced to accept that you are using diagnoses as crutches to justify oppositional behavior. Especially in the counseling room.
I will defend ideas around biological sex.
I will defend family values and the obvious benefits that come with it.
I will defend men and boys.
I will defend girls, being that I’m a girl dad.
I will defend being a good person in every situation.
I will defend my right to carry.
I will defend integrity. Doing the right thing even when no one is watching and no one will find out.
I will defend ideas surrounding the benefits of religiosity. An upward aim at an ineffable telos. And my right to practice of such an aim.
I will defend a woman’s right not fear being around a man. That being around men should be the safest place for women to be. Therefore, men should work harder to be that guy.
I will defend stronger penalties for sexual offenders, particularly against children.
I will defend making the federal government smaller and smaller.

I will stand on convictions. And I will no longer be quiet. I will no longer sit back and hope things change. I will work to be the change I want to see. I will set this date as the day I defended values. The values that this country was built on: Faith, Freedom, and Families with strong men. Without apology. You can’t avoid being offended. And I won’t dance around your feelings. If your feelings get hurt, that’s your problem, not mine. If I belligerently set out to harm you, different story. Anyone that knows me knows that’s not my speed. But I’m not worried about your feelings anymore.

Defended Concern

I’m worried about the child that doesn’t know how to tie his shoes but somehow knows he was born in the wrong body, set up for castration because he has a mother with Cluster B-style FDIA. I’ll defend that.
I’m worried about the males that are told they are toxic just for being male, leading to committing suicide 4 times more than females. The ones that hear they are the problem. The ones that are targets of victim blaming. Like the ones who said it is Kirk’s “fault for being shot because he is so divisive” (This was on a major news network). I’ll defend that.
I’ll never sit on a train and watch a man stab a woman to death and do nothing. That man (really he’s a little child) in Charlotte would likely have been carried away in a zipped-up bag had I been on that train. Because I know the justice system won’t come through. I’ll defend that.

If Kirk’s shooter wanted to wake people up, he just did. Just not the people he hoped would wake. There are certain people in this world that I have never agreed with, not one sentence. But I will defend their right to say it.

Lastly, Kirk was right. He was right to be on a mission to get people in disagreement to talk. To sit, civilly, and discuss opposing ideas about how to achieve, what is mainly a shared goal: Human flourishing. But until we relearn the lost art of speaking with conviction without violence and without theatrical rage, brace yourself. That same gut-sinking feeling you had watching the Kirk video will sit on repeat, like a curse we refuse to break… #becausetribalism.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

September 9, 2025September 3, 2025

The Dark Side of Creativity

When the Gift Consumes

There is something that they all have in common, and it’s not just what you think.

September is Suicide Awareness Month. No better time to talk about such a horrific epidemic we find ourselves in. Before you bounce right out of here thinking this is going to be too heavy, I won’t go into those types of details. I intend to address a specific facet of suicide – creative people. Yeah you, Substacker, writer, visual artist, musical artist, culinary artist, you are who I’m talking about. I am who I’m talking about. To ignore our inclination toward suffering is to invite it to govern, rule, and ultimately destroy us from the shadows.

With the relatively recent suicide death of Anne Burrell, I began digging a bit deeper into literature that reflected the connection between creativity and an increased proclivity to suicidal ideation (SI). And what I found was, at the very least, alarming.

Culinary World

In the culinary world, it is a very fast-paced, high-stress, and at times, toxic environment in which to work. High demands are flying at them in a rapid-style fury. The consequences often include imposter syndrome – a feeling like they don’t belong because they’re not perfect. Such perfectionism undermines what joy the industry could bring. Additionally, intense environments, camaraderie masking dysfunction, long non-social hours, and high-pressure expectations in kitchens contribute to mental strain among highly creative chefs.

Notable Losses to Suicide in the Culinary World

Homaro Cantu: Chef, inventor, restaurateur
Anne Burrell: American chef and TV host
Anthony Bourdain: American chef and author

Entertainment

Then there is the entertainment industry, particularly the movie business. Acting requires deep understanding of other people. Deep levels of emotional empathy, experiencing emotions as if they are happening to you even when they are not. They are tasked to portray an array of emotions, attitudes, linguistic styles, physical attributes, and more. Often, what one finds in this industry is they spend so much time being someone else that they do not know who they are. This lack of identity often produces confusion. The industry also produces isolation because of being harassed by media and fans. Confusion with isolation is a lethal mixture.

Notable Losses to Suicide in the Entertainment Industry

Robin Williams
Margot Kidder
Dana Plato

Literary Landscape

Now to most of you reading this. Writers. You. Me. Writing involves a thought process that requires deep, intrinsic exploration. When you explore that deeply, you find things you forgot about. You find a mental box that was stashed away in hopes it would disappear, but it hasn’t. Writing also involves feeling another person’s depth of emotion. Writing displays this emotion, whether through a fictional expression, a self-help offering, or a liturgical grounding, with an aim to better the psyche through simplicity and ritual. The mind goes on an adventure, and the creative process fosters it in hopes it discovers some treasure trove of depth to unlock great mysteries that plague us.

Notable Losses to Suicide Among Writers

Ernest Hemingway
Yasunari Kawabata
Albert Camus
Pulitzer Prize winner Sylvia Plath (The “Sylvia Plath Effect” is a concept that poets are more susceptible than other creative writers.
(Please note that the first three are Nobel Literature Prize winners)

There’s one thing they all have in common, neuroticism. In psychology, the Big Five personality scale is the most widely used and cited as the most reliable method for understanding personality. The Big Five is comprised of Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN). Standard knowledge within this discipline will tell you that on average, conscientiousness is an excellent predictor of success, agreeableness can have positive correlations with anxiety, and women score higher in all five personality traits, including neuroticism. But what does that have to do with creativity?

Research on Creativity and Neuroticism

(Peters et al., 2018) Neuroticism not only increases suicidal ideation (SI), it also significantly increases actual suicide. This same study found that men are particularly at greater risk of SI if they are unmarried, recently unemployed, or recently divorced.
(Brezo et al., 2006) Neuroticism and openness to experience showed elevated risk of suicide. More specifically, extraversion had the strongest negative correlation to suicide and social introversion had the strongest positive correlation to suicide.
(Blüml et al., 2013) Neuroticism and openness to experience showed elevated risk for suicide, especially in females. In males, extraversion and conscientiousness were significant protective factors against suicide.
(Preti et al., 2001) People involved in creative professions have suicide rates three times higher than those in other professions. As far as the three domains mentioned here, in a study reviewing suicides, 84% of the total suicides in creative professions were literary professionals.

To be clear, Correlation ≠ Causation. There is not a guarantee of someone creative having high levels of neuroticism. Also, neuroticism doesn’t reliably predict creative achievement, but highly creative people often score high in neuroticism. Creative individuals, particularly in artistic fields like writing, acting, music, and culinary arts, frequently score high on neuroticism, especially when combined with high openness to experience, which is a reliable predictor of creativity.

While neuroticism alone does not predict who will become a successful artist, writer, or chef, creative people, especially those who channel personal emotion into their work, tend to be more neurotic than average. This is the conundrum for people like us. Creativity often arises not despite emotional instability, but because of it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So what do we do about it? If I know someone is going to push me, I can brace for it and find ways to lessen the impact, hoping I don’t fall. Knowing that we are prone to this is a good step toward mitigating the effects. Think of fire. If I walked into your living room and set a fire on your coffee table, you would not be very happy about that. But if I walked about eight feet over and started one in the fireplace, you’d be fine with it. Why? Because it’s contained.

If we learn to control the force of our creativity, guiding it rather than becoming enslaved by it, we discover its true brilliance. Creativity, when unbounded, can blaze out of control like a wildfire, consuming without discernment; yet, when given structure, direction, and purpose, it becomes illumination rather than destruction. To harness creativity is not to diminish it, but to transform it into an ally. One that uplifts, builds, and heals. In this way, we honor the gift without surrendering ourselves to its tyranny. We partake in its radiance while refusing to be undone by its flames.

This comes through calibration. Community. Conversation. The antithesis of isolation. Isolation leads to being on the lists above. Please, for all that is beautiful, do not let your creativity be the very thing that annihilates your potential to better the world around you with your gift. Guess what? I hoped you gained something from this, but I wrote that entire piece to me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Blüml, V., Kapusta, N. D., Doering, S., Brähler, E., Wagner, B., & Kersting, A. (2013). Personality factors and suicide risk in a representative sample of the German general population. PloS One, 8(10), e76646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076646

Brezo, J., Paris, J., & Turecki, G. (2006). Personality traits as correlates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completions: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 113(3), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00702.x

Peters, E. M., John, A., Bowen, R., Baetz, M., & Balbuena, L. (2018). Neuroticism and suicide in a general population cohort: results from the UK Biobank Project. BJPsych Open, 4(2), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2017.12

Preti, A., De Biasi, F., & Miotto, P. (2001). Musical creativity and suicide. Psychological Reports, 89(3), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2001.89.3.719

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good coffee after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Coffee