Thought I posted this but perhaps not---so I apologize if this was already posted. In listening to this podcast I found myself sometimes agreeing with Daniel. It most likely is because of my anecdotal experience with my then adolescent daughter. We had a truly horrible experience with psychiatry---. My daughter became very physically ill from the medication they prescribed. I kept trying to tell them that it wasn't working and was making her sick---they kept brushing me off with worried mother nonsense etc etc---until it was almost too late---it turns out my daughter was unable to metabolize the medication, thus, she was being slowly poisoned over a period of months---fortunate for her there was no permanent liver damage----needless to say, Hell will freeze over before we ever consult another psychiatrist. While I understand there are more clear cut cases for meds----the field of psychiatry and psychiatric meds leaves much to be improved upon---they see you as a prescription package and not an individual that may have great difficulties tolerating "miracle meds".
I listened to most of the podcast and found myself agreeing at times with Bari and at times with the author. I have an anecdotal experience with my daughter that makes me identify a lot with the author. I had to scream & jump up & down to get the psychiatrists to listen to me...that the medication they put my daughter on was causing more harm.....my daughter ended up getting very physically sick from the medication....turns out my daughter was unable to metabolize the medication...thus..she was being slowly poisoned over months...fortunately...no permanent liver damage...I can tell you ....hell will freeze over before I ever consult another psychiatrist.
We're all losing the ability to discuss hard topics respectfully with those we disagree with. Thanks for showing us the way. You were patient and thoughtful and well-prepared.
I enjoyed this podcast because it stimulated my thinking. It called to mind the riveting and eye-opening memoir of Elyn Saks, "The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness." I agree with the comment that this podcast needed the addition of someone with expertise in treating schizophrenia or other severe mental illness. Elyn Saks also would have been an excellent choice to provide both personal, medical, and jurisprudential perspectives. As with any medium, however, the constraints of time and space limit the breadth of reporting. Bari, I thank you for this thought-provoking podcast and I applaud the mission of your Common Sense substack. As someone else said, I would like to see more transcripts of the podcasts; sometimes I would like to skim through a topic because I do not have enough time to listen to all the podcasts.
I was disappointed in this discussion, despite its beneficent intent. How can you have two lengthy podcasts on this subject without engaging any psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of psychosis? Two errors that stood out that deserved rebuttal: 1) there isn't any evidence of anatomic markers in the brains of schizophrenics (actually, there is), and 2) pharmacological treatment carries unusually severe risk of serious adverse side effects (actually atypical antipsychotics are extremely well tolerated) and are of middling efficacy (actually, they are highly effective -- properly treated patients generally do very well). Don't take my word for it (I'm merely a retired physician who took care of many bipolar and schizophrenic patients for thirty+ years, but not a specialist)? Then bring on some bloody experts! The reliance in these podcasts on anecdote is maddening。
This is a fascinating discussion and excellent debate although at times you did speak across each other. But I actually agreed with him until you raised the realities of San Francisco, and he posed the question about whether institutionalizing in some hopefully better form “could be worse”.
My question is, worse than what? Where is the compassion and dignity in leaving women vulnerable to rape and violence while they sleep on the street? Or freezing to death in the colder cities like NYC or Philadelphia? Or dying of overdose, alone in a tent? That to me seems orders of magnitude worse than letting the “turkey prince” work through his delusion in a safe environment, as awful as it is to restrict and isolate a person. let him be a turkey, but do it where he isn’t at risk from the other turkeys. As with most progressive ideas they seem so nice in theory but fall apart in real life.
Virtually everyone has family with metal issues. This guy was kinda infuriating to listen to. My conclusion is that he can't come to any conclusions. There is no easy or universal answer to this spectrum of mental illness. Where do we draw the lines? Who is able to navigate sanity without drugs or who will kill themselves or others? No one can know that. Ultimately this discussion falls into the old adage that there is a thin line between genius and insanity. True and if everyone who ever suffered from mental illness was medicated then we'd probably be screwed as a culture. On the other hand maybe no Hitler either. So, nobody has any answers really and we likely never will. Pass that doobie, thanks.
Excepting Hitler wasn't "mad". He was wrong in his initial premises and so came to the wrong conclusions from them. Xtians, Jews, Muslims, Marxists, Democrats and the Wokistas are the same in that respect.
Great discussion - though I can’t say he changed my mind on the subject much at all. I think Bari’s point about him picking out anecdotes of “exceptional” people with mental health problems is a good one that he couldn’t really dispute.
Also - I’m surprised gun violence didn’t enter the discussion. The only common thread among shooters today seems to be mental health issues. I wish that tough subject had been asked: did the shooter at Uvalde simply need to “be seen” in order to not do what he did?
I enjoyed this. It left me wondering if he was more nuanced with his answers to you than he was in his book. I wonder if it would work to bring both people together in a single interview, not to debate, but to see if there is a set of points they can both agree on.
Bergner says we can punish criminal behavior by the mentally ill but who is doing that? Murder maybe but everything else gets a pass. Local governments cannot afford the cost of jailing them for “long” terms.
Which brings up another point. You get what you pay for and huge percentages of the mentally ill receive SSDI. Turn that spigot off after a conviction we’ll see some meaningful change.
Just a bunch of relativistic gobbledygook with no concrete answers other than "Get under the table"! Bari tried to keep him on point with direct questions and the guest failed to answer cogently.
The good news is that the day is coming when if you think you are Napoleon then you *are* Napoleon and your pronouns will be those appropriate the the Emperor of the French.
Ok, I was following along in agreement with points on both sides…but he lost me completely when he pronounced that “Eric Adams is not an exceedingly ‘woke’ mayor of New York…” whaaaaat?!
Good people of Substack I can be silent no longer. It’s “defecating” on the streets, not “defecting”. Defecting is what happens when you want out of China or Russia.
Are you suprised? The place is awash with folk who can't imagine why anyone would want to leave China or Russia; they simply wouldn't associate the meaning. /s
I was not really surprised that Daniel Bergner steered the discussion of dangers from a person with a psychosis and violent tendencies and lumping demographic groups into behaviors, based on their immutable phenotype. That substitutes the actual behaviors on individuals with the assumed behaviors of groups—which is exactly one of the characteristics of woke-ism.
The second issue I saw was changing the focus of the desire to help the individual to help ONLY the individual, ass we completely ignore protecting society from the behaviors of the individual, without assigning blame.
Another perspective offered was one where no authority would be notified, no matter what they indicate the person is willing to do. This sounds suspiciously like a situation where we wonder why the mass murderer was not stopped before killing people
Thought I posted this but perhaps not---so I apologize if this was already posted. In listening to this podcast I found myself sometimes agreeing with Daniel. It most likely is because of my anecdotal experience with my then adolescent daughter. We had a truly horrible experience with psychiatry---. My daughter became very physically ill from the medication they prescribed. I kept trying to tell them that it wasn't working and was making her sick---they kept brushing me off with worried mother nonsense etc etc---until it was almost too late---it turns out my daughter was unable to metabolize the medication, thus, she was being slowly poisoned over a period of months---fortunate for her there was no permanent liver damage----needless to say, Hell will freeze over before we ever consult another psychiatrist. While I understand there are more clear cut cases for meds----the field of psychiatry and psychiatric meds leaves much to be improved upon---they see you as a prescription package and not an individual that may have great difficulties tolerating "miracle meds".
I listened to most of the podcast and found myself agreeing at times with Bari and at times with the author. I have an anecdotal experience with my daughter that makes me identify a lot with the author. I had to scream & jump up & down to get the psychiatrists to listen to me...that the medication they put my daughter on was causing more harm.....my daughter ended up getting very physically sick from the medication....turns out my daughter was unable to metabolize the medication...thus..she was being slowly poisoned over months...fortunately...no permanent liver damage...I can tell you ....hell will freeze over before I ever consult another psychiatrist.
We're all losing the ability to discuss hard topics respectfully with those we disagree with. Thanks for showing us the way. You were patient and thoughtful and well-prepared.
I enjoyed this podcast because it stimulated my thinking. It called to mind the riveting and eye-opening memoir of Elyn Saks, "The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness." I agree with the comment that this podcast needed the addition of someone with expertise in treating schizophrenia or other severe mental illness. Elyn Saks also would have been an excellent choice to provide both personal, medical, and jurisprudential perspectives. As with any medium, however, the constraints of time and space limit the breadth of reporting. Bari, I thank you for this thought-provoking podcast and I applaud the mission of your Common Sense substack. As someone else said, I would like to see more transcripts of the podcasts; sometimes I would like to skim through a topic because I do not have enough time to listen to all the podcasts.
I was disappointed in this discussion, despite its beneficent intent. How can you have two lengthy podcasts on this subject without engaging any psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of psychosis? Two errors that stood out that deserved rebuttal: 1) there isn't any evidence of anatomic markers in the brains of schizophrenics (actually, there is), and 2) pharmacological treatment carries unusually severe risk of serious adverse side effects (actually atypical antipsychotics are extremely well tolerated) and are of middling efficacy (actually, they are highly effective -- properly treated patients generally do very well). Don't take my word for it (I'm merely a retired physician who took care of many bipolar and schizophrenic patients for thirty+ years, but not a specialist)? Then bring on some bloody experts! The reliance in these podcasts on anecdote is maddening。
This is a fascinating discussion and excellent debate although at times you did speak across each other. But I actually agreed with him until you raised the realities of San Francisco, and he posed the question about whether institutionalizing in some hopefully better form “could be worse”.
My question is, worse than what? Where is the compassion and dignity in leaving women vulnerable to rape and violence while they sleep on the street? Or freezing to death in the colder cities like NYC or Philadelphia? Or dying of overdose, alone in a tent? That to me seems orders of magnitude worse than letting the “turkey prince” work through his delusion in a safe environment, as awful as it is to restrict and isolate a person. let him be a turkey, but do it where he isn’t at risk from the other turkeys. As with most progressive ideas they seem so nice in theory but fall apart in real life.
Virtually everyone has family with metal issues. This guy was kinda infuriating to listen to. My conclusion is that he can't come to any conclusions. There is no easy or universal answer to this spectrum of mental illness. Where do we draw the lines? Who is able to navigate sanity without drugs or who will kill themselves or others? No one can know that. Ultimately this discussion falls into the old adage that there is a thin line between genius and insanity. True and if everyone who ever suffered from mental illness was medicated then we'd probably be screwed as a culture. On the other hand maybe no Hitler either. So, nobody has any answers really and we likely never will. Pass that doobie, thanks.
Excepting Hitler wasn't "mad". He was wrong in his initial premises and so came to the wrong conclusions from them. Xtians, Jews, Muslims, Marxists, Democrats and the Wokistas are the same in that respect.
Great discussion - though I can’t say he changed my mind on the subject much at all. I think Bari’s point about him picking out anecdotes of “exceptional” people with mental health problems is a good one that he couldn’t really dispute.
Also - I’m surprised gun violence didn’t enter the discussion. The only common thread among shooters today seems to be mental health issues. I wish that tough subject had been asked: did the shooter at Uvalde simply need to “be seen” in order to not do what he did?
Another common thread is that most mass shooters don’t have a relationship with their fathers. It’s totally unexamined.
I keep asking for transcripts as I see more and more podcasts only. Disappointing.
I enjoyed this. It left me wondering if he was more nuanced with his answers to you than he was in his book. I wonder if it would work to bring both people together in a single interview, not to debate, but to see if there is a set of points they can both agree on.
Bergner says we can punish criminal behavior by the mentally ill but who is doing that? Murder maybe but everything else gets a pass. Local governments cannot afford the cost of jailing them for “long” terms.
Which brings up another point. You get what you pay for and huge percentages of the mentally ill receive SSDI. Turn that spigot off after a conviction we’ll see some meaningful change.
Just a bunch of relativistic gobbledygook with no concrete answers other than "Get under the table"! Bari tried to keep him on point with direct questions and the guest failed to answer cogently.
The good news is that the day is coming when if you think you are Napoleon then you *are* Napoleon and your pronouns will be those appropriate the the Emperor of the French.
Ok, I was following along in agreement with points on both sides…but he lost me completely when he pronounced that “Eric Adams is not an exceedingly ‘woke’ mayor of New York…” whaaaaat?!
Good people of Substack I can be silent no longer. It’s “defecating” on the streets, not “defecting”. Defecting is what happens when you want out of China or Russia.
Are you suprised? The place is awash with folk who can't imagine why anyone would want to leave China or Russia; they simply wouldn't associate the meaning. /s
I was not really surprised that Daniel Bergner steered the discussion of dangers from a person with a psychosis and violent tendencies and lumping demographic groups into behaviors, based on their immutable phenotype. That substitutes the actual behaviors on individuals with the assumed behaviors of groups—which is exactly one of the characteristics of woke-ism.
The second issue I saw was changing the focus of the desire to help the individual to help ONLY the individual, ass we completely ignore protecting society from the behaviors of the individual, without assigning blame.
Another perspective offered was one where no authority would be notified, no matter what they indicate the person is willing to do. This sounds suspiciously like a situation where we wonder why the mass murderer was not stopped before killing people