Posted on

The Forgotten Half

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

In case you missed some recent articles:

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

Posted on

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

To Fix Him, We Must Remember Him

A bit about the writers first.

D.J. Houtz is an author, specializing in short stories, poetry and the spoken word. As he states, “I consider myself a modern day renaissance man. I write, I paint, I craft. I am willing to craft, I am willing to learn, I am willing to discuss.” He holds a certification in Musical Theatre Performance from the American Musical and Dramatic Academy & Conservatory of the Performing Arts in New York City.

Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He is currently nationally certified in nutrition, wellness, and professional life coaching. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 6 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.

Together they share a love for the arts as well as the vital strengths that man present to society. This is a co-authored call to action for redefinition of what it means to be a man.

During a recent conversation, I had a friend tell me that what appears to be the largest void, change, gap, in the proper comprehensive definition of manhood, had been solved centuries ago. In other words, to solve the future epidemic of what it means to be a man, one need only to look back. I’ll let D.J. Houtz tell you himself.

Houtz

The Unraveling of the Self-Made Man

Man, manhood, manpower. Historically speaking “Man” has been defined as a mix of both biological and social roles. But when has the image of man shifted? When has it been less acceptable to hide your emotions and play the more dominant role?

From the caveman up until the biblical times, man had two roles, provide and defend. Go out to gather resources to help your family and community but be able to defend your people at costs when the time comes. In the times of chivalry, the ideal image of the man was the Knight. Abiding by vows and promises to your king or suffer the consequence of dishonor. The renaissance man, the peak of the image of men in society, in my opinion, was the well-rounded. He was the swordsman, the craftsman, the painter, the poet. He was emotional, dominant, faithful. Not just the one trick show but the jack of all trades. Even if he wasn’t the master of everything, he was that go-to man to get anything done. Man was independent.

A great shift happened during a major time in history. The industrial revolution. This global movement to more efficient and stable manufacturing process was only the start of the downfall of the image of man. As major events across the world sparked war and terror, the man was left as just a shell of its former glory. Man now needed to be a part of a group, club, or movement to be heard. The feeling of independence was now just a thought on paper. Without realizing it, the ability to think and do for yourself was being taken away. As technology advances, many more manifestations of the independence of man were being stripped.

Modern day, we are all guilty of using screens for different purposes. But a major role in the downfall has been using these screens to do for you what you could have done yourself. In the article “Masculinity at the End of History”, Matthew Gasda made an incredible point.

“Today, male adolescence largely lacks that primitive, self-organizing spontaneity.”

By using the instant gratification of being online, we lose the very fundamental bit that made us man. Gasda went on to say,

“American manhood has essentially become schizophrenic: historically determined on one hand and socially deconstructed and defenestrated on the other. Unless American masculinity can historicize itself, it will remain in a state of non-crisis, unable to claim the meaningful, productive aspects of its heritage and unable to explain how it got to where it is.”

We are no longer doing things ourselves. Our images are more of comparison rather than independence. We’ve lost the ability to bond with fellow man. Society and technology has been making it more difficult for this image of man to have independence. We’ve turned into a race of wanting to do better because it makes you look better rather than to do better, which results in being a better person. I firmly believe we, as man, need to stop looking at a screen for comparison or gratification and start looking at a mirror for reflection and independent thinking.

Grainger

The Death of the Well-Rounded Man

I am convinced Houtz is onto something. In the article, Gasda maintains that in crisis, man is useful:

“Masculinity is desperate for a crisis. It is docile, unsure, and formless. At most, it is at the germinal phase of crisis, lacking a catalytic agent to propel it to its full-blown state, which at least can be registered and reckoned with. After all, crisis implies that something is happening, that something is at stake. The uncatalyzed proto-crisis, or the noncrisis, of American masculinity is repressed, unexpressed, yet omnipresent.”

Men were increasingly defined by their professions rather than their ability to embody a wide-ranging cultural literacy. Where once the ideal was to be well-rounded, the emerging economy rewarded being highly skilled at a single trade or technical field. Practicality overtook polish.

The world wars accelerated this shift. Millions of men returned from battle with a new sense of masculinity rooted in survival, hard work, and providing for families. After such trauma, pursuits like poetry or painting could seem frivolous, even indulgent. Strength, reliability, and productivity replaced artistry as the cultural expectations of men. By the 1950s, the American man was often pictured in a gray flannel suit, devoted to his career, his paycheck, and his role as provider, not as a patron of the arts.

This narrowing of culture deepened with the rise of mass media and consumer culture. Men were encouraged to show expertise in sports, cars, or business, but far less often in literature or music. The arts were increasingly feminized in American imagination. Ballet and painting were “for women,” while sports and mechanical skills were “for men.” The well-rounded Renaissance ideal, once admired, now felt distant.

In today’s digital age, specialization has only intensified. The pressure to achieve in specific careers or niches leaves little time for cultivating broader cultural or artistic skills. Men may know every statistic about their favorite sports team or every nuance of a software language, but far fewer could discuss a symphony, compose a poem, or sketch a landscape.

In losing the total man, we replaced it with, “Real men don’t cry” and “I don’t need anyone’s help. I got this by myself.” Both are patently false claims. It’s a balance. I talk about that here: Emotional Homeostasis.

This dichotomy reflects today’s struggle among men. To be emotionally intelligent, men must pull towards the totality and wholeness that is man, not merely the one-trick pony of “Look at all my cars.” The self-made man, complete with nuanced, well-rounded culture, has been replaced by the expert, the technician, the narrowly competent worker. As Houtz noted, the real man, the comprehensive man, as Jason Wilson calls it, has left the building.

We stand at a crossroads. If we want men to be equally valued in love and in labor, admired for their minds as much as their drive, we must return to what once made them whole. The pursuit of science, the appreciation of art, the reading of literature, the making of music, and the wrestling with philosophy. They are the lifeblood of true masculine depth, and without them, manhood itself withers.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

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
Posted on

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.).

Posted on

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.

In case you missed recent posts:

Here is the article I’m responding to.

I recently (this week) had a conversation with a client. She discussed her child’s autism. This young client has developed a sense of trust in me, and we share a strong therapeutic alliance. As Hannah Spier, MD recently noted, such alliances are often emphasized, sometimes even more than the tangible improvements in clients’ lives. While this observation is true, establishing a therapeutic alliance remains a necessary foundation before introducing interventions, techniques, or strategies aimed at fostering meaningful change. They don’t care how much we know until they know how much we care.

As we discussed her child’s autism, she shifted her tone suggesting that she didn’t like her child’s diagnosis because she doesn’t want her child treated any differently because of his diagnosis. I asked her how severe his symptoms are. She basically stated that he doesn’t look you in the eye, doesn’t do well in school, is particularly smart in certain areas, but is in all standard classes. All behavioral, and less likely neurological.

I asked her how she would feel if they were to find out that he does not indeed have ASD. She looked scared when I said that. She shifted:

“Well I think he probably has Asperger’s.”

I retorted:

“But you said you wanted him to be treated like everyone else, implying you did not like him having a diagnosis. But then you said you think he may still need a diagnosis.”

This screamed something to me. She enjoys the diagnosis. But why? I have found that there are three primary reasons mothers enjoy diagnoses of their children:

  1. Their kid is extra special
  2. They are viewed as altruistic
  3. They are viewed with extra sympathy for their efforts and suffering

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

Posted on

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

  1. It’s OK to murder you if you express opinions they disagree with and
  2. 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.

Or

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

Posted on

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
Posted on

The SSRI Exit Plan

The Anxiety Cure You’ve Never Heard Of

For obvious (and unfortunate) reasons, I see many people who struggle with anxiety. I want to cover a couple of things about anxiety that hopefully with help.

Anxiety is a Good Thing

First, anxiety is a good thing. Yep. You read that correctly. It wasn’t a typo. Anxiety is a good thing. It drives us to focus on a difficult task ahead. That feeling you get when you are about to go on a first date (yes, the one where you feel like need to get to a bathroom fast)—anxiety. The feeling you get when you’re about to go on stage—anxiety. The feeling you get when you are about to a take a test—anxiety. All driving us to be our best.

Daily Anxiety

Next, there is daily anxiety. Worry that our neighbor is going to mow his grass onto my driveway. Worry that I may hit traffic on my way to work, knowing I can’t afford to be late again. This may surprise you, but the counseling/therapy industry has pathologized this. That really makes no sense, but it’s true. This is not a clinical issue. This is a Tuesday.

Social Anxiety

Then there’s social anxiety, which is the most common. Very possibly from being nursed by devices. We haven’t had to look up from them, so when it’s time to react in real time, where we can’t backspace or just hit “block”, we freeze. Social anxiety has a fairly simple fix. When you are in a social setting, find someone to talk to and immediately start asking them questions about themselves. People love talking about themselves. Also, self-consciousness and absolute misery are difficult to distinguish on a mental health questionnaire. So asking them questions takes the focus off of you, relieving your anxiety symptoms rather quickly.

Clinical Anxiety

Then there’s clinical anxiety. This is debilitating. You can’t go to the mailbox without fear. Going to a public place is almost out of the question. You can’t hold a job or a solid relationship because of your crippling anxiety. We often turn to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) to relieve us of this fear and anxiety. Here’s the problem. These medications do the job, but they trim your range of emotion and they rewire your brain to need them. This dependency is not healthy.

Possible Solutions

[This is not medical advice] I’m going to give you a method that I have used for every client that has expressed a desire to come off of SSRIs. And so far, we’re batting 1.000. It hasn’t missed. This regimen needs to be practiced every day for at least 21 days consecutively.

  1. Circadian Rhythm: Wake up at the same time every day. This helps release neurochemicals into your brain that were being withheld because of the unpredictability. It doesn’t matter that much when you go to bed but wake up at the same time every day for at least 21 days consecutively.
  2. Protein: Consume some form of protein within 30 minutes of waking. The protein is going to help absorb some of the release on insulin if an anxiety trigger hits, preventing a hypoglycemic reaction. It doesn’t even matter what type of protein. Just take some within 30 minutes of waking up.
  3. Walking: Walk like you’re late for at least 30 minutes per day at least 3 days per week. This sends proper blood flow to the brain, which helps everything from anxiety to dementia.
  4. Saffron: I use a saffron gummy that also has vitamin D in it (this can be found at Walmart as well). Head-to-head, Saffron has been shown to have similar effects of SSRIs, but without the restriction of range of emotion.1234
  5. Omega 3: consuming some form of Omega 3 will help reduce blood pressure, brain development, help in managing depression, and help protect against cognitive decline.

Caution

So far, it’s working. There are obvious risks with this. Let me share a couple. First, your body may react differently to saffron. Highly rare, but possible. So pay attention to your body and act accordingly to what’s right for you.

Here’s the big one. The first 3 days of coming off of SSRIs will be very difficult. Be in a safe environment. Inform those closest to you that you are doing this. Be ready for an emotional rollercoaster for 2 or 3 days. For most, by the time you get to day 3, things start to lift. And by the end of the first week, you feel better than ever. Then it lifts from there. This is what I have seen in every client.

I hope this helps. Thanks as always for supporting my work.

Stay Classy GP! (← God’s People)

Grainger

References

1 Saffron for depression: Noorbala, A. A., Akhondzadeh, S., Tahmacebi-Pour, N., & Jamshidi, A. H. (2005). Hydro-alcoholic extract of Crocus sativus L. versus fluoxetine in the treatment of mild to moderate depression: a double-blind, randomized pilot trial. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 97(2), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2004.11.004

2 Saffron for depression: Akhondzadeh Basti, A., Moshiri, E., Noorbala, A. A., Jamshidi, A. H., Abbasi, S. H., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2007). Comparison of petal of Crocus sativus L. and fluoxetine in the treatment of depressed outpatients: a pilot double-blind randomized trial. Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry, 31(2), 439–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.11.010

3 Saffron for MDD and GAD: Ghajar, A., Neishabouri, S. M., Velayati, N., Jahangard, L., Matinnia, N., Haghighi, M., Ghaleiha, A., Afarideh, M., Salimi, S., Meysamie, A., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2017). Crocus sativus L. versus Citalopram in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress: A Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial. Pharmacopsychiatry, 50(4), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-116159

4 Saffron for post partum depression: Kashani, L., Esalatmanesh, S., Saedi, N., Niroomand, N., Ebrahimi, M., Hosseinian, M., Forooghifar, T., Salimi, S., & Akhondzadeh, S. (2016). Comparison of Saffron versus Fluoxetine in Treatment of Mild to Moderate Postpartum Depression: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Pharmacopsychiatry, 50 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-115306

Posted on

Don’t Look: Boys Are Struggling

The Inequality We’re Not Allowed to Acknowledge

Some may notice that I’ll write about children, parenting, biblical issues, church issues, relationships, and some current events. But you may notice that I tend to lean towards and often revisit issues of men’s health. It’s not that men are more important than women, couples, and children. They’re not. It’s not that men are smarter or dumber than women. IQ levels have remained rather steadily similar across cultures and time. It’s because while the whole world is willing to talk about the help that women (rightly) need, such as areas of attempted suicide or breast cancer, no one is addressing the growing problems that plague men and boys. The conversation is very one-sided. I’m not asking for the side to switch, just to show both sides.

Awareness and Budget Comparisons

Take a look at breast cancer awareness vs. male suicide awareness:

  • Breast Cancer Awareness: Saturated, normalized, well-funded, and embraced by culture (I have two Breast cancer awareness bands on right now)
  • Male Suicide Awareness: Underrepresented, stigmatized, and critically lacking in broad public engagement.

Or maybe we can look at how many new cases of breast cancer vs. new cases of prostate cancer there are each year, and the correlating federal health budget for each:

  • New cases: Prostate cancer new cases are about 91% of breast cancer new cases (255,395 vs. 279,731). 
  • Federal health budget: Prostate cancer funding is roughly 78% of breast cancer funding ($319.8M vs. $410.5M).

Or we could look at federal health budgets for breast cancer vs. male suicide. You’ll see that male suicide is 90% of the total deaths from breast cancer. But the budget for male suicide is < 1% of the budget for breast dancer. Dr. Richard Reeves might call that a Gap!

Any way you view it, it’s a problem. And many are rightfully calling it a crisis. Surely those in academia are seeing this and doing their part. Certainly they have an avenue to bring awareness to this issue and are willing to do so… right?

The Chance For Exposure

Ladies and Gents, step right up. I present to you Exhibit A! The reason I write about men and boys’ issues. I have had hope that the Association for Psychological Science (APS) wouldn’t be so ideologically captured. And for the most part, compared to the American Psychological Association (APA), they’re not. It’s rather difficult to be more ideologically captured than the APA. But here, with exhibit A, we see the blatant move to turn their heads and act like the elephant really isn’t so big. “Maybe if we just ignore it and pretend the elephant isn’t there, it will just go away.” Well, I’m sorry to report, it won’t, because of people like me.

The article is titled, “Science Counters Education Inequality.” In this article they cover educational gaps in society. They covered SES gaps, race gaps, and differences in STEM, reading, and math. They noted, “Women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.” And even while highlighting math, they said, “They’re normally as skilled as boys or even better. The only issue is that they tend to be even better at reading even if they’re good in mathematics.” Every paragraph illuminated ways in which we should close gaps for girls and women. How we should be working towards girls advancing, and the issues that women face. They covered educational inequality—for females.

The Real Inequality

If you’ve read anything I’ve written, you already know where I’m going. They obviously ignored some keys points. They ignored that:

  • There is a hiring bias in favor of females in STEM.1
  • While there is a small gap in favor of boys in math, boys are an entire grade behind girls in English.2

Which gap is larger, a slight lead, or an entire grade behind?! They saw gaps in education among race, STEM, and SES, but outright refused to acknowledge the largest gap in the U.S. and the world in education, gender.

The gender gap in education is the largest of any other demographic comparison on earth. Boys are significantly behind in many areas. Possibly as a result of:

  • Feminized classrooms, calling boys who can’t sit still dysfunctional and in need of a diagnosis. Boys are wired to seek, risk, find adventure, and test boundaries. Sitting still simply isn’t what they are wired to do.
  • Maybe it’s because of a teacher bias in favor of females.3
  • Perhaps it is society’s paradoxical nature, condemning what it quietly perpetuates, insisting that boys suppress their struggles, “Figure it out” and “Get over it”, as if their pain were a nuisance rather than a need.

Regardless of the cause, the reality remains unmistakable: men and boys are in crisis. The evidence is undeniable. Yet when the APS was handed the chance to confront it, they turned their backs like cowards. As if moral responsibility were optional. As if truth itself could be banished by refusing to look at it. But truth doesn’t vanish; it waits, patient and unyielding, exposing the cowardice of those who pretend it’s not there. They had a moment to choose courage over comfort, and they chose comfort. I shouldn’t be surprised by their retreat. But it’s possible the lingering surprise is proof I still expect more from those who claim to seek truth. They didn’t just miss the mark, they threw the target in the trash. If Dr. Richard V Reeves were there, he’d be white-knuckled and asking what on earth they were thinking. Scratch that, he wouldn’t have to ask. We both know they saw the opportunity, recognized it for exactly what it was, and still, intentionally decided to parade out Exhibit A in willful blindness.

I guess they believe if they just go ostrich-style, we will just shut up. Well, they severely underestimated my stubbornness.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

1 Honeycutt, N., Careem, A., Lewis, N. A., Jr., & Jussim, L. (2020, August 18). Are STEM Faculty Biased Against Female Applicants? A Robust Replication and Extension of Moss-Racusin and Colleagues (2012). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ezp6d

2 Reardon, S. F., Fahle, E. M., Kalogrides, D., Podolsky, A., & Zárate, R. C. (2019). Gender achievement gaps in U.S. school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2474–2508. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219843824

3 Terrier, C., & Terrier, C. (2020). Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 77, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101981

Posted on

Therapy is Broken and I’m Not Playing Along

Seven Clues the Counseling Industry Has Lost Its Mind

I’m playing basketball when the referee makes the worst call I’d ever seen. This particular ref was known for being terrible. I just shrugged and began calling out our next defensive formation. The ref gave me a technical foul (this is bad in basketball). While that ref had a reputation for being terrible, I had a bit of a reputation too, for being a hot head. This led me down a path to consider what basketball would be like if the refs weren’t terrible. So guess what I did. Yep, I became a ref. And 18 years later, I don’t regret it. I’ve been able to referee high school, college, and minor league pro basketball all over the country. And I love it. But I got into it because of the severe deficits I saw and hoped to become good at it in order to pave the way for other younger refs coming in.

I still ref, but that’s a side hustle. It’s my “self-care.” I’m primarily a counselor. And one of the primary reasons I got in was because of the deficits I saw in the industry. There were so many incongruencies I could see from my everyday experiences that I had to get in and figure out what was going on.

Here are seven things I’ve noticed that have gone wrong in counseling, along with my advice to professionals about how to put them right:

  1. Over-emotionality
  2. Assuming there’s a diagnosis
  3. The client is viewed as an annuity
  4. Validation at all costs
  5. Rumination
  6. Weather Man Syndrome
  7. Feminization

1. Over-Emotionality

The counseling industry has overemphasized the need for feeling. I’m not negating the validity of feelings. I’m suggesting that when making decisions, feelings are the last thing that should enter your mind. Rationality, practicality, who all these decisions will affect, these need to enter your mind. How you feel can help guide at times, but feelings alone are a terrible decision maker. If you make a decision based on a feeling, when the feeling changes, the decision changes with it. This explains why people who get married because of passionate desires get divorced fairly early in their marriage. They married because of a feeling. Then when that changed, their decision to be married did too. Anyone who has been married for any amount of time knows that the early feelings of infatuation in marriage go away relatively quickly.

How It Should Be

Acknowledge and address feelings. The counselor should give them their proper weight. Feelings detect, guide, and lead us to dangers to be aware of as well as opportunities to take advantage of. A counselor should hold that in juxtaposition with rationality and allow the client to experience this new perspective.

2. Assuming diagnosis

It is obvious that certain fashionable conditions are over-diagnosed (and drugs are over-prescribed for them). I’m not making light of these conditions, and I’m not suggesting they don’t exist. I’m suggesting that 14% of all boys in America between the ages of 5-17 do not ALL have ADHD. How is this diagnosis up from 9% just recently in 2015? Because it’s not actually true that more boys than ever have ADHD.

Boys are wired to run, risk, explore, and seek adventure, more so than girls. Boys are more physically active during recess: 22% as opposed to 10% for girls. And because we don’t know what to do with that, we pathologize it for 3 reasons:

  • That makes the parent not feel so bad about their kid
  • It helps the teacher out because she doesn’t know what to do either
  • Someone receives a kickback from big pharma for recommending medication.

How It Should Be

Not everyone needs a diagnosis. It’s ok to be rambunctious, and rambunctious kids don’t need to be labeled “too hyper.” You can be socially awkward and not be labeled neurodivergent. Then there are the iatrogenic effects of diagnoses; when the act of diagnosis or treatment causes “the condition” itself. We give these kids a diagnosis, they realize they’re “not normal”, and the rumination begins. This causes more problems than the original symptom they came in with. I’ve seen it. It’s devastating. And medication should only enter the conversation as a last resort, not a first option.

3. The client is viewed as an annuity

Too many counselors are seeing too many clients for way too long. I realize that not everyone can benefit from Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), but many can. Here’s the problem—this doesn’t pay for that trip to Cabo. It only pays for a trip to Costco. I know counselors who are seeing clients who have been with them for more than 2 years. This should be rare, but it’s not.

How It Should Be

I have yet to achieve this, but my goal is to be able to tell a client on the first session approximately how many sessions this will take to achieve their stated goals, with relatively good accuracy. Clients need an end game. They need to know hope is around the corner. Bringing them in for more than a year for the same issue doesn’t provide hope. It provides the practitioner enough money for an all-inclusive vacation.

4. Validation at all costs

This one is prevalent. Counselors are encouraged to validate at all costs. The client comes in and says her family doesn’t accept her because she now identifies as a kitty cat. We are now to validate her feelings as rational, sane, and beneficial to her overall health. Nope. I can’t. I won’t be mean. I won’t be overly contrarian either. But I won’t be telling that client that her “identity” is normal and that everyone around her is nuts. Not happening.

How It Should Be

If you are my client, what I will validate is that you are hurting. I will acknowledge the confusion you must be experiencing. I will help figure out where the confusion started and provide scientific evidence for why this confusion doesn’t have to debilitate you, then help you recognize it and begin to reframe your mentality. Counselors should not be validating falsehoods for the sake of the client’s feelings.

5. Rumination

At times, a counselor will let a client ramble on about all their problems without any direction towards healing. This is not therapy. This is rumination. Problems need to be dealt with in a structured environment to move towards healing; endless rambling about problems is not healing. The client doesn’t even realize this is happening. They just come in thinking, “I’m supposed to talk about my problems, so here I go.” And the counselor just lets them deliver unfettered rumination.

How It Should Be

It is the job of the counselor to be the professional. The counselor needs to interject when discussion turns into self-indulgent rumination. This can be done without confrontation. We just turn our focus to a point the client just made. We zero in on something he said that will lead us to a core cause, and that helps us address the symptoms. Move towards healing. Not rumination.

6. Weather Man Syndrome

Counseling has become prey to Weather Man Syndrome. I can be wrong about everything I tell you and there’s little to no consequence for me. Misguided counselors end up like the proverbial weather man who gets it wrong at least half the time while everyone still treats him as an accurate authority. Iatrogenic effects are as prevalent in mental health as they are in physical health. But there are warning labels on pill bottles. Counselors don’t come with those. We call it “informed consent”, but that’s not a real warning. We as counselors can do some real damage and so many are out there just throwing noodles against the wall hoping they make enough money to afford their favorite Airbnb this fall.

How It Should Be

There should be clear warnings of the possible side effects of receiving mental health counseling/therapy. Digging up old feelings is dangerous for some. We must be careful. Talk about this up front.

7. Feminization

I could write an entire article about this alone. I’ll just say this; we have gotten to a place where the normative experience for clients is a totally feminized one. This approach alienates half of the couples who walk into our offices, particuarly for couples counseling. The wife feels great about this. The husband looks at his watch every 5 minutes hoping we get out of there before the game starts. Why?

  • Women communicate to relate.
  • Men communicate to exchange information.
  • Women process negative emotion face to face through social communicative relation.
  • Men process negative emotion side by side through action and honor, allowing them the time to form the words needed to communicate the necessary information. A man will hear bad news and go fix a lawn mower he will never use and can’t actually be fixed.

So when a couple comes in and is expected to relate face to face, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when it doesn’t work for the man. There’s more to therapy than talking face to face.

How It Should Be

When I see men, I get them to do activities with me. We throw darts, putt on green strips in the office, maybe go outside and throw football. Then they open up. We must make counseling spaces inviting for men if we expect them to begin speaking to counselors about their problems.

Conclusion

Therapy doesn’t have to be stigmatized and it doesn’t have to be experienced as distressing. For individuals who have had unsatisfactory therapeutic experiences, I encourage continued engagement with other clinicians. Maybe you haven’t found the right therapist; maybe there are more competent practitioners who are more effective. There are others like me who are willing to address patient needs with cognitive empathy, constructive challenge, evidence-based science, and common sense. The tiny handful of us still willing to say out loud that there are only two sexes get slapped with the “iconoclast” label. Fine. Say what you will. But I won’t pander or lie to clients, and neither will any professional worth the title.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger