This is a mess of a contribution and not up to MIA standards. I believe this article should be removed.
The author contradicts herself by initially critiquing the pathologization of emotion, only to claim that emotions are always exaggerated, unhelpful, and mistaken. Many MIA readers seek to recover from, and potentially escape, real survival experiences. Trauma often involves disassociation from crucial emotions that provide attentional drives, allowing individuals to perceive danger and seek or negotiate their own safety. Healing typically involves recognizing real dangers or harm that have occurred or are ongoing, and restoring emotions to their vital role in perceiving and consciously attending to potential dangers to prevent them from escalating into harm.
The tenor of MIA is to recognize that mental health is social. By assuming that emotion is always “mistaken” and has nothing to offer, this article perpetuates the systemic denial of the social and contextual threats many people face daily.
While this article may resonate with those who experience significant distress out of sync with their situation, perhaps struggling with anxiety, it does not foster mutual understanding to privilege the experiences of those with anxiety over those who have experienced or are experiencing real survival threats. That some emotional distress is out of proportion to actual survival scenarios does not mean all emotions are mistakes. As commenter Jansen aptly states, “I think it would make much more sense to take the opposite maximalist position and accept that emotions are almost always basically ‘true’ because they relate not to actuality but to possibilities.” I could not agree more. Neither delusion nor deficit of survival distress is resolved through “taming.”
This article falls short of MIA’s standards for guest blogs, lacking both lived experience and critical scientific insight. MIA, as I see it, fosters understanding between lived experience, clinical practice and theory, and neuroscience. Neuroscience consistently emphasizes that cognition cannot exist without emotional presence. Such an article challenging the value of emotion could be an opportunity for discussion and clarity if the author was not making such bold claims to authority. The preamble perhaps dupes Mad In America into publishing this puffed-up branding piece by starting what seems like on-topic critiques of psychiatry. The author fails to disclose her business interest in promoting ‘Animal Theory’ as a form of DBT, a significant omission that calls into question the article’s intent. I do not see the value of publishing this article here, as it promotes the naive confusion around emotion that MIA typically seeks to dismantle through good science, reason, and lived experience. While MIA states that “opinions are the writer’s own,” accepting a submission such as this that condones uncritical and grandiose claims to authority undermines the objectives and spirit of MIA.
In other words, scam alert! This article does not belong here. It does not disclose its commercial intent and condescendingly puts forward an ideology that does not open up conversation but instead fosters solipsistic dismissal of the lived experiences readers come here to understand.
This is a mess of a contribution and not up to MIA standards. I believe this article should be removed.
The author contradicts herself by initially critiquing the pathologization of emotion, only to claim that emotions are always exaggerated, unhelpful, and mistaken. Many MIA readers seek to recover from, and potentially escape, real survival experiences. Trauma often involves disassociation from crucial emotions that provide attentional drives, allowing individuals to perceive danger and seek or negotiate their own safety. Healing typically involves recognizing real dangers or harm that have occurred or are ongoing, and restoring emotions to their vital role in perceiving and consciously attending to potential dangers to prevent them from escalating into harm.
The tenor of MIA is to recognize that mental health is social. By assuming that emotion is always “mistaken” and has nothing to offer, this article perpetuates the systemic denial of the social and contextual threats many people face daily.
While this article may resonate with those who experience significant distress out of sync with their situation, perhaps struggling with anxiety, it does not foster mutual understanding to privilege the experiences of those with anxiety over those who have experienced or are experiencing real survival threats. That some emotional distress is out of proportion to actual survival scenarios does not mean all emotions are mistakes. As commenter Jansen aptly states, “I think it would make much more sense to take the opposite maximalist position and accept that emotions are almost always basically ‘true’ because they relate not to actuality but to possibilities.” I could not agree more. Neither delusion nor deficit of survival distress is resolved through “taming.”
This article falls short of MIA’s standards for guest blogs, lacking both lived experience and critical scientific insight. MIA, as I see it, fosters understanding between lived experience, clinical practice and theory, and neuroscience. Neuroscience consistently emphasizes that cognition cannot exist without emotional presence. Such an article challenging the value of emotion could be an opportunity for discussion and clarity if the author was not making such bold claims to authority. The preamble perhaps dupes Mad In America into publishing this puffed-up branding piece by starting what seems like on-topic critiques of psychiatry. The author fails to disclose her business interest in promoting ‘Animal Theory’ as a form of DBT, a significant omission that calls into question the article’s intent. I do not see the value of publishing this article here, as it promotes the naive confusion around emotion that MIA typically seeks to dismantle through good science, reason, and lived experience. While MIA states that “opinions are the writer’s own,” accepting a submission such as this that condones uncritical and grandiose claims to authority undermines the objectives and spirit of MIA.
In other words, scam alert! This article does not belong here. It does not disclose its commercial intent and condescendingly puts forward an ideology that does not open up conversation but instead fosters solipsistic dismissal of the lived experiences readers come here to understand.
Report comment