I've been to therapy and always haven't had a lot of successful results. Mostly since I didn't have the clinical versions of what they normally treat, so it be long-drawn-out deep conversations that felt like the fix leaving the office... Then I got home and the perspective was basically gone.
Dr.K has been such a breath of fresh air and been so real about how some people could use coaching vs a therapy. Where you do have an issue, but it isn't clearly on the DSM-5 approach or drastic enough to approach it as such.
Following his content has helped me understand my ADHD and anxiety so well that I feel like I'm in control for the first time. Where his explanations though through corny gamer analogies have me the most happy and productive I've ever been.
Where Dr. K's ''solutions'' are just usually more work you have to do and how to learn it on your own effectively, it's not a quick fix or some philosophy. The solutions are basically: this is how your brain most likely works, here's how to plan around it in broad strokes, do your best to be consistent to that plan, and let neural plasticity will do the rest of the work for you.
> I've been to therapy and always haven't had a lot of successful results. It would be long-drawn-out deep conversations that felt like the fix leaving the office... Then I got home and the perspective was basically gone.
I had a lot of trouble with talk therapy as well. There seemed to be a focus on "acceptance" and coping. Wanting to eliminate a symptom was seen as running from the cause. I felt expected to play a role within the office. And disagreement was being difficult, which meant I didn't really want to "dig in" or was an indication of some deeper issue or trauma. "Ah I see you don't want to talk about your mother. Interesting." So should I indulge them in their curiosity simply to appear "normal"?
> The solutions are basically: this is how your brain most likely works, here's how to plan around it in broad strokes, do your best to be consistent to that plan, and let neural plasticity will do the rest of the work for you
I so often tried to extract this information from therapists. I remember specifically saying, "Yes, I know it's _ok_ to be anxious, but sometimes I don't want to be. Sometimes you want to be the person in the room people depend on, and a jittery coward can't be that person. How do you plan for the inevitable anxiety? How do you push to achieve despite some hurdles?" I think a lot of folks cope fine with their mental health. But they still need help achieving their goals or putting limits on the worst aspects of their personality.
I've had the same issue, and out of the many therapists I've seen only 1 was effective. Many people have trouble finding decent therapists, and I could go on for hours about bad ones - e.g one who went through the DSM, starting with the 'A's, trying to find a diagnosis that fit well enough.
The one who I had some success with also said I needed 'coaching' moreso than therapy, and taught me about cognitive-behavioral therapy. Which is a simple process of conditioning your own thought processes to be more productive and healthy.
If I had to do it again, I personally wouldn't go through the trouble of trying to find a good therapist. Luckily I think cognitive-behavioral therapy is something a competent and self-aware person could absolutely learn and practice on their own(I'm sure I'm breaking some rule of psychology by saying that though).
Dr. K is awesome - he makes a lot of mental health discussion more approachable and accessible. He's super smart and really into evidence-based approaches. I saw him give a lecture on the neuroscience of addiction once that I could only follow because I studied neuroscience. I've done a fair amount of therapy and still have learned things from his streams - he really has a talent for teaching.
I think just reaching young guys who have trouble sharing their thoughts, feelings, difficulties with anyone is really huge. There are a lot of young male gamers who are struggling and spend huge amounts of time gaming because they don't know how to deal with mental health problems or even things like social anxiety or low self-esteem. And he's encouraging people to take care of themselves and find / work with mental health professionals.
He doesn't strictly stick to evidence-based approaches. I don't know if he does it in his clinical sessions but on many of the more casual streams (which are often presented as if it were a session despite the ample disclaimers that it's not) he is constantly promoting Indian mysticism and explaining psychology principles through the lens of various Hindu belief systems.
I can't wait for the guide w/ the FF style tech tree where you learn about diff branches of psychology. Really Hope they turn it into a game on Steam. Teens are going to download it and be much more engaged with their mental health
I haven't kept up lately but his talk with Sweet Anita showed me how little I understood about Tourette's based on popular media. Some of his streams have been very educational for me.
Dr K is great. His community uses the phrase "AoE healing", fun video game references like that are pretty common and seem to connect to the audience.
I'm not sure that the fear mongering over whether his interview streams are therapy or not is useful. I can see why licensed professionals might be wary of new techniques, but requiring that everyone get 1-1 therapy doesn't seem to be scalable enough to meet modern needs; and maybe an preview of what therapy can be like is enough to get some to go.
He replied to that personally, let me try to repeat his argument (I cant find a link). He argued that giving advice to other people is completly accepted if the advice doesn't come from a mental health professional. (You'll find plenty youtube videos on how to "overcome procrastination") However having the better understanding of the mind that a professional has can't lead to worse advice, so he too should be accepted giving it.
Whether there is an inherent danger of talking to an psychiatrist in this interview format for the interviewee I don't know, but given the amount of disclaimers he's putting out there it seems save to me.
There's nothing wrong with a professional giving advice. The danger is in a professional giving advice and not accepting the liability for malpractice harms that comes with their professional license.
According to the article, he told a guy his life was empty (in an attempt to help him, of course) and the guy later died by suicide. It could have been completely unrelated, but I don't think it's just fear mongering.
That said, I didn't like the article much, and only want to stand up for the other people who were quoted in the article.
I had never thought people might blame Dr. K for his death until I read the article. The man attempted suicide in the past before ever talking to Dr. K, his friends and family said he was constantly at risk of going through with it again despite going to multiple therapists, and after speaking with Dr. K he said the conversation was helpful to him. Blaming Dr. K for one conversation with him half a year before he was finally successful with the suicide feels to me like blaming a doctor for being unable to save someone with a chronic condition after seeing them once in the ER.
As an unexpert observer it made me uncomfortable when Dr. K suggested Byron's life purpose was to create Everland (an online computer game). It seemed risky to encourage a suicidal person to put all of their eggs into a basket that was likely to fail. Maybe it was the correct move though and seriously troubled people just need any light on the horizon.
That said I generally appreciate his content, even if it's a bit formulaic/Tony Robbins-esque (who I also like):
1. Casual smallchat with someone, expertly sniffing out any trauma they might have.
2. Expose the trauma, causing strong emotional reactions in the participants and the audience.
3. Offer general advice, some practical and some spiritual. Reject bullshit excuses from the participant.
4. Everyone feels positive from picturing a brighter future/getting something off their chest.
I'm not doing that. There are too many factors going into whether someone survives having severe mental health problems or not. But I am saying it's not fear mongering to take a look and see whether this is causing people not to get the help they need, by providing some lower hanging fruit that seems like it might be just as good. You might be doing some mongering of your own by suggesting that I'm blaming Dr. K.
Sorry, when I wrote my comment I didn't realize you might think I was implying you feel that way. That wasn't my intention. I was trying to call out a perspective in the article that I hadn't considered before (but that I ultimately disagree with for the reasons I stated).
No problem. I borderline was, I guess. Sorry for suggesting you were mongering, I added "might" but it was still not very nice.
I thought some more and don't think Dr. K can be blamed at all because Byron felt he had already tried a lot of what conventional medicine provides, so he was very open to Dr. K making any attempt to help him. Maybe it did help him some. I worry that Dr. K might get in the way of someone seeking professional help but I don't think it happened here.
Just to add some context in this particular case, Byron had seen many different recommend and self sought doctors over his life. Dr. K. in both private paid sessions and the public interview styled on his Twitch channels. Unfortunately Byron was a very sick guy. Fortunately (?) with the majority being public over the years a lot of people had an insight to how mental issues can arise and hide which brought a lot more attention to it within the gaming community.
There has also been other streamers that have taken his public talks into a deeper private session or gone to see other doctors after realising that they have things to be talked about and resolved.
For whatever it’s worth, working on something (usually computer game development) is the only thing that has ever pulled me out of a depression. I think feeling like something is your purpose, vs. needing that thing to succeed publicly are different things.
A bit off-topic but I haven't always been super happy with NPR's reporting recently.
The most eyebrow-raising moment: there was one front-page article published around the time of the election with a headline including a quote like (iirc) "We're in a real civil war". A headline like that just seems designed to spark violence. (BTW, they did later change the title to something less inflammatory)
You know, I understand some people disagree with the insinuation here, but down voting really shouldn't be used like this. There was nothing inflamatory, ill intended, or outright wrong with anything in the comment. Seeing downvotes for unpopular opinions gives me a bad reminder of how reddit's voting meta evolved.
Rather than going straight to meta by decrying downvoters, a better way to rescue unfairly (in your opinion) greyed out comments is: 1. upvote it yourself (which I'm sure you did) 2. reply to it engaging with its content. This could be simple agreement, or even better, acknowledgement of a good argument, good phrasing, or interesting/under-addressed perspective.
Sometimes, the model of your engagement can speak more to how you think others should act than stating your opinion explicitly. At least that's where you should start. There be dragons in meta, don't invoke the dragons if there's still another way.
I used to watch Twitch a lot during the pandemic to get a preview of game content. But as of 4-5 months ago, my interest for this platform has waned. It just became this "clout chasing" monster to me, and really turned me off from the platform.
On the surface, Dr. K's channel is a good way to talk about mental health. But I feel like most people would just take advantage of his audience and try to make up situations to get sympathy and thus lead to follows, subscriptions, and/or direct donations.
Yeah. It’s turning into Instagram and tiktok, etc.
There’s certainly interesting stuff here and there. But more and more of it is just vapid, contemptible people with nothing to contribute to society looking for attention and money by catering directly to the attractors that work best on humans.
Hasn't Twitch always been that way? It's been my impression that streamers are a bit more nuttier compared to the average Instagram influencer or TikToker since most of them have to grind videogames while talking to their computer for 12 hours each day before being gaining enough of a following to set their own schedule.
Dr K is the type of thing we need more of when people say things like “we need to support mental health more”. I don’t even think his content is particularly good or helpful yet his fostering of a community and overall message of normalizing taking care of your mental health is praise worthy.
Twitch is a weird place, the parasocial dynamic has become so mixed with the gamification of twitch via subscribers. It is kind of gross and I agree with the other poster here, it eventually turns you off. I really wish things like sub counters and goals would be banned. Yet, twitch is run by complete morons, seriously the worst run platform I have ever seen. It has become super corporate, partnering with shady companies like cashapp, promoting garbage content like slots and soft core cam girls who use it as an advertising platform for their onlyfans. Meanwhile the “good content” is just an in group of content leeches who got lucky.
Dr K proves how much power a streamer has over fostering a positive community. The community is a reflection of the streamer regardless of how much effort they put into building it. Many streamers ignore this and complain their community is toxic. It is a shame twitch doesn’t give a shit about the community it is building anymore.
I found DrK's discussions quite by accident and I was shocked at how often he's able to tease out an insight that cuts deep.
This might not apply to on HN, but if you're part of a subgroup where you feel like you suck/incompetent/no-good/etc just listen to some of these interviews and you'll likely learn something or at least open up
Here's an instructive example-- young man from intensely-competitive Singapore slipping behind and comparing himself to his super successful friends.
Throwaway line @ 27:00 ("I don't think you are your friend. You're not one of them. I think the harder you try to be them, the more you will miss out on who you are"): https://youtu.be/Xxb-HovgjjM?t=1620
I've watched Dr K and his discussions. They are a kind of positive cold reading - allowing the other to do the talking and join the dots with subtle suggestions. Similarly with the audience, many people benefit.
It's primarily entertainment though, we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking we are privileged to a private therapy session but see it as a kind of wholesome entertainment.
I have found Dr K's interviews and videos to be profoundly helpful on a personal level. He and his guests have touched on issues that relate closely to my own experiences and several times I've come away with concrete changes in perspective and ideas for action. I guess you could call that "entertainment", but I don't see it that way and I don't switch to one of his videos when I just want to be entertained.
Definitely the sort of psychiatrist the modern-era needs. I appreciate the treatment of the underlying emotions separated from the technology. You will experience envy with or without social media, it seems naive succumbing to the oft repeated advice, "just delete it".
I'm really looking forward to his forthcoming healthy guide on mental health [0]. After really struggling with very tepid therapy experiences and trying to read myriad books to "fix myself", the content he's already produced and the sneak peeks of his guide really seem like this will finally click.
It seems like what Dr. K is doing is the real-life (and modernized) version of the Frasier Crane show.
I can definitely see the value of a service like the one Dr. K provides... helping to destigmatize psychiatry and provide mental health help to the gamer community. Though I am sure the article is right that there are some potential ethical issues since Dr. K isn't truly providing therapy to anybody.
I've watched Dr. K a few times, and one on hand I'm sure he helps a lot of people and he genuinely seems to care about his viewers/'patients', so overall he's a net positive in my mind.
But I do get very annoyed personally because it seems like he often makes a lot of assumptions/judgements early on and leads the person he's talking to into agreeing with his original assumption, as opposed to continuing to listen to the other person and keeping an open mind. He'll often ask the same question over and over with different wording until he gets the answer he's expecting, or will just put words in the 'patients' mouth until the patient half-heartedly agrees.
Again, therapy is very hard, and Dr. K is much more suited for it than the majority of therapists I've interacted with, from what I can tell. Some of the ones I've met just absolutely should not be allowed in that profession.
Not directly the same as the Dr. that engages, and disclaimer I do not know this space personally very deeply, but from a lot of friends that have streamed a good bit it can be more toxic at times than not. Mental health generally in the US is an under talked about thing, and there is a lot of stigma around it.
Streaming seems to only make much of the already existing issues potentially worse. For twitch or others, they don't take much of an active role in ensuring creators are taking care of from that perspective. For mental health to be a priority it seems like that piece needs to be separate from the business of stream as much as you can or your missing out on $$$.
While it's early https://altair.tv/ is one that jumps out at me as an early but interesting take.
>Mini's talking to Kanojia — Dr. K, as he's known to his fans — about how she's suffered depression, low self-esteem, and panic attacks all her life. The thousands of people watching this on the live streaming platform Twitch offer a steady flow of heart emojis and condolences in the chat box.
It has been my experience that it's safer for women to open up about mental health challenges than it is for men. Online at least, it seems that men are treated pretty poorly when they begin to open up about issues like these. Mental health issues affect everyone, but I wish we could try to be equally receptive to people regardless of their identity, especially since it is young men who tend to lash out in very violent ways when mental health issues go unchecked.
Turning a mental health emergency into a public spectacle for entertainment is so utterly American and corrupt. It sickens me. There is nothing heartwarming about profiting from the misery of others.
>There is nothing heartwarming about profiting from the misery of others.
He is profiting from helping alleviate misery of others. I don't see what's bad about it, given that's exactly how therapists make money.
Saying that he is "profiting from the misery of others" is so disingenuous, as if he is the one who creates that misery or facilitates it. Neither of which are the case.
He is a supposed mental health professional, and he turns the misery of others into entertainment, without any regard for what happens to his "patients" afterwards.
Jesus Christ what shitty and inaccurate things to say. But just for some background, he had many different doctors throughout his life including Dr. K. in both the public streams and private sessions. Friends included were helping and watching him. He was getting a lot of help from different circles but unfortunately was a very sick guy.
Blaming a single person for any suicidal persons death is such a shallow and ignorant take.
Even if logically two statements are the same, the implication or tone can be important. There are media reporting guidelines on suicide e.g. the Samaritans in the UK provide one, as do the WHO and CDC.
I think "took their own life" makes it sound more deliberate. I think it varies how deliberate it is. "Died by suicide" doesn't add anything to the word suicide except for pointing out that the person died. This lets people more easily update their understanding of suicide.
I'd prefer "died by their own hand" to "took their own life" but some might get hung up on the word hand. "Died by suicide" is my preferred phrase, though.
I think that's quite fair, thanks for the response.
I personally don't read into any of the nuances of the different phrases, so for me they are directly equivalent. I suppose if I were a writer, I might pay more attention to the phrasing.
I guess as defined in my own vocabulary, suicide is always deliberate, or else it would be an accidental death caused by the victim.
All of these phrasings have the exact same connotation for me, too. None paint any different picture or make me feel any differently. Seems people have a need for there to be preferred language for anything sensitive.
Interesting how everyone in this sub-thread has a different preferred term.
I think I prefer "killed himself/herself". I think this doesn't whitewash what it really is. "Took their own life" can theoretically sound kind of romantic and poetic to some people. "[X] killed himself" makes it clear what the implications of the actions and effects are, without adding any sort of moral or legal judgment (e.g. "committing" implying committing a crime).
It's jarring - which a professional news outlet may not want to come across as - but I think it should be.
The idea of "died by suicide" is that it presents it as more like succumbing to a disease, not blaming the deceased. It puts the focus on loss of life, not the taking of life.
Not quite analogous, but if someone has epileptic seizure and falls and cracks their skull and dies, we don't says they threw themselves to the ground, even though their own brain caused them to go off balance and fall.
I think "died by suicide" is a good phrasing; I'd prefer that to "took their own life" or "committed suicide".
But, yeah, as you say, that's not a good analogy. Barring a scenario like extreme drug influence or a total psychotic fugue, suicide is still generally an intentional or mostly intentional act, even if it may be an impulsive one. If you shoot and kill someone in a crime of passion, you're absolved of some blame, but not all of it. It may be the potentially deeply regrettable intentions of someone who's in a very bad state of mind, but unfortunately a lot of decisions a lot of people make fall into that category.
For me, the important bit is the clear, grave consequence ("killed"). My goal isn't to suggest blame should be put on anyone. I don't think such a term would work in English, but if there were something like "were killed by themselves" or "auto-killed", I would've said that, instead.
My intention was to just prevent sugarcoating it and hopefully slightly reduce the chance that a suicidal person might read it in an abstract or idyllic way. "Died", "passed away", "life taken", "perished", "succumbed", "departed", "deceased", and even "suicide" just don't have the same gravitas as "killed". I know that's partly because "killed" implies intentionality, but I think it's also because it also encompasses the visceral act of it truly happening. And the word itself has a visual and verbal harshness to it. It's not just that they were here and now they weren't; they were killed.
> "The more overwhelmed I'd feel the more I'd play video games. And the more I'd play video games the more overwhelmed I'd feel. And it turned into a vicious cycle," he said.
Well, it's obviously time to stop (playing). Better fight your problems in real world.
What the parent to your comment means is that video games is serving a purpose such that you cant just "stop." You have to figure out what purpose its serving and find another way of achieving that. A better version of what they're trying to say is telling an alcoholic to "just stop drinking." Yes, if they can do that it would be good advice, but the problem is that they cant stop. So, ultimately that advice doesn't lead to results.
I wasn't meaning to stop cold turkey, there is a whole process to quitting addiction. Sometimes people need to be pointed at what is causing the issue and then help on how to get out of it.
I don't know this persons case but some of the people I knew really needed the problem stated for them to truly acknowledge it. My close friend had a video game addiction and refused to see it as a problem.
Dr.K has been such a breath of fresh air and been so real about how some people could use coaching vs a therapy. Where you do have an issue, but it isn't clearly on the DSM-5 approach or drastic enough to approach it as such.
Following his content has helped me understand my ADHD and anxiety so well that I feel like I'm in control for the first time. Where his explanations though through corny gamer analogies have me the most happy and productive I've ever been.
Where Dr. K's ''solutions'' are just usually more work you have to do and how to learn it on your own effectively, it's not a quick fix or some philosophy. The solutions are basically: this is how your brain most likely works, here's how to plan around it in broad strokes, do your best to be consistent to that plan, and let neural plasticity will do the rest of the work for you.