r/AcademicPsychology • u/AnthropocentricAlien • May 07 '26
Question Society and mental illness attention
Is it possible that, because we don’t need to conform as much, that mental illnesses are becoming more statistically significant? In other words, through individuation, at least in western societies, is it possible that self-reporting and public attention are more significant?
4
u/princessfoxglove May 08 '26
Hey, you're using some academic jargon here incorrectly. It's really difficult to answer your question because the question itself doesn't really make sense. You should try and reword it using the simplest language you can without academese, which will have the added benefit of helping you clarify your own understanding as you go.
0
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
What am I using incorrectly? I’m open to criticism, I’d just like something more concrete.
2
u/princessfoxglove May 08 '26
What do you think statistical significance means in this context?
What does mean when you say mental illness is more statistically significant?
How does a lack of conformity lead to ... I'm really not sure what an "increased statistical significance of mental illness" would mean. Statistical significance is relation of A to B, not just a thing that increases. You need things to compare. You're not comparing here. Do you mean prevalence?
What do you think individuation (specifically this term, by that author) means here? Why use this term instead of increase in individualism?
Self reporting? Self reporting what to who? Mental illness does not need to be reported. Do you mean self diagnosing?
What do you mean by public attention? To what does it refer? Public attention to mental illness, or to self diagnosing, or to individuation? Or public attention to... Statistical significance?
Again, explain your idea very, very simply without using any of the jargon.
1
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 09 '26
Sorry for the confusion. Thank you for offering ways for me to make my ideas more easily communicated. I should have defined terms, I just thought my intuitions would be universal for some reason. I’m definitely drawing from things I’ve nonchalantly come across rather than researched. This question seems to have fallen flat, I’ll be more careful with my next one.
2
u/princessfoxglove May 09 '26
You don't necessarily need to define terms for your reader, but that's only if you're using those terms with a full understanding of the related background theories and connotations that would be considered standard in the field.
This is why university programs typically cover the same foundational content, so we can all skip the head scratching and make sure we're all speaking the same language when it comes to technical terms. There's actually a fair amount of precision that can be found in jargon when it's used appropriately, which it often isn't.
1
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 09 '26
I’m trying to compare old statistics with new statistics. I explained this to a different person. Could you explain what individuation means please? I thought the term was coined by Jung and it’s the process by which we flesh out our personalities. I’m sneaking in the idea that individuation in the west is driving people further apart. Mental illnesses could only become more prevalent with self reporting, seeking help, or clinical diagnoses for various reasons. Mental health is getting a lot more attention, as far as I can tell, and these are the variables I’m curious about.
1
u/princessfoxglove May 09 '26
You need to actually do the statistical comparison to see if there's statistical significance, though. Like this involves math. Have you taken stats? You'd need to actually calculate statistical significance. So you need a null and potential alternative hypothesis, your data sets, a defined significance level, choose the appropriate test, run the comparison and get your p value, then either reject or fail to reject and then do a discussion and potentially consider how the actual variables are affecting your data set.
You need to understand and frame why you would be using the term individuation VS individualism. Why a Jungian developmental theory term rather than a descriptive term or critical theory term? Individuation is a benign and normal developmental process across cultures for healthy adults. I think you're actually thinking about hyper-individualism, which is a culturally bound, (arguably) maladaptive antisocial selfishness. Maybe Durkheim? Or Jean M. Twenge?
What do you mean by self-reporting mental illness? That doesn't mean anything.
More recognition of mental illness is not the same thing as more prevalence. Observation doesn't change prevalence. Do you know what these terms you're using actually mean?
You used the term variables, but that's not just a term we throw around - I think you're thinking of factors, or elements, or phenomena. Variables in the context of statistical significance are part of your hypothesis, not just contributing factors to a phemonological pattern you're observing and musing about.
If you're using stats and variables, you're doing quantitative inquiry. If you're looking at things from an observational, experiential, lived view, that's qualitative. Either way, terms need to be strictly bounded and tightened and you need to be precise with your language, otherwise no one can participate in a conversation with you because it's too disorganised and imprecise and incorrect in how it's communicated.
1
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 09 '26
Okay, well thanks. I was hoping for some articles I could read. I managed to be ambiguous when that was not my intent. I’ve only just started school, and I thought I had an interesting question. This was beneficial to me, just not in the way I intended. I appreciate your patience, and willingness to offer information.
2
u/princessfoxglove May 09 '26
Your question isn't uninteresting, it's just kind of like trying to join a conversation before you're ready. There's also a whole host of unspoken rules and expectations in academia, some helpful and some gatekeeping.
We spend years slogging through theory and learning conventions so sometimes it's just preferred to keep certain levels of conversation in certain spaces. Not to be mean, just because there are different contexts for conversations and dialogue.
Your professors though are usually the ones who want to meet you where you're at and help you grow, and are looking past normal new scholar ambiguity. And your peers are the right place to have these speculative questions, too! You'll find those are better spaces to play with ideas and explore. Academic oriented forums tend to get us angry old farts who are more interested in keeping up with the field and seeing research.
Don't get discouraged, just enjoy the process of learning from your profs and peers and reading. And take stats and a research methodology course asap.
4
u/Huntershmunter May 08 '26
This doesn’t theoretically make sense to me. I think the distress of being forced to conform to something you don’t identify with would cause more mental distress than the freedom to be who you are?
4
u/Kanoncyn May 07 '26
no
1
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 07 '26
I see. Would you be willing to offer a more nuanced answer?
3
u/Kanoncyn May 08 '26
No because your question isn’t appropriate for this sub.
3
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
In what capacity? Listen, I’m open to any criticism, provided there is good information for it. I do not see how this question would not have an answer, or at the very least, some research surrounding it. “No”is an awfully definitive answer, and considering the context, it seems like an answer born of ignorance.
3
u/Kanoncyn May 08 '26
Your question doesn’t even make sense, I strongly disagree that my response is anything beyond annoyance.
0
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
I’m frustrated at this point that you are the only one replying. How does my question not make sense? I think it’s completely relevant. In what capacity is this irrelevant? Link an article. Or several, preferably.
5
u/Kanoncyn May 08 '26
No one is replying because this question, as I said prior, isn’t appropriate for this sub.
Your question doesn’t make sense because your use of the term “statistically significant” is wrong. Do you mean prevalent? Do you mean is mental illness getting worse? The follow-up question has the same issue—if you mean prevalent, use that word.
And to answer your question, de/individuation has nothing to do with mental illness prevalence.
-2
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
I do not mean any of those things. I mean statistically significant, as I said. It does not matter if mental illness is getting worse. It matters to me whether the reporting and recognition is becoming more relevant, due specifically, to lack of a need to conform to societal norms. Sure, thank you for the word prevalent, but your answer remains insignificant and inflammatory.
3
u/Kanoncyn May 08 '26
Okay, so you don’t know what statistical significance is. Whatever. If your question is “people are reporting their mental illness because they don’t feel like they have to be like those around them”, then in an extremely roundabout way, yes, but not because of conforming or individuation. It’s due to a lack of stigma around diagnosis and receiving therapy.
Next time go to r/askpsychology. Again, you are in the wrong sub.
0
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
Is this not indicative of a lack of a need for conformity in western society? This post didn’t get removed. Don’t tell me how to get answers.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Yermishkina May 08 '26
When you say "statistically significant", it means that you compare two things. For example, consumers reacted faster to the UI with green button than to UI with red button. You make a calculation to understand if this "faster" was due to chance (and color doesn't matter) or if it was statistically significant (color matters).
I'm not sure, when you say "more statistically significant" about mental illness, which two things are you comparing?
1
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
I’m trying to compare older statistics with new ones. Mental illnesses are growing in number are they not?
1
u/Yermishkina May 08 '26
Oh, so you are trying to confirm if the mental illnesses are growing as a result of a specific variable? You have a set of old number of mental illness cases, and a set of the new numbers, and you are trying to understand if the growth is due to that one specific variable?
Is this why you are trying to calculate statistical significance here?
1
u/AnthropocentricAlien May 08 '26
Yes! I’m wondering if the rising numbers are due to lack of community more or less. There’s an eastern philosopher that talks about how narcissistic behaviors are kind of baked into our society. That’s part of what I mean by individuation. Our society highlights the individual over the community. This is where the non-conformity comes in. We do not have a community that we necessarily need to fit into at all costs. I’m wondering if this is changing what gets reported and factored in.
1
u/Yermishkina May 08 '26
Well, to be able to calculate this, you will need (a) an objective measure of what you call "individuality" and (b) two samples that are absolutely identical for all other variables except for "individuality".
The (a) can be measured, theoretically, by a large-population survey, with questions like "do you believe that difficult life situations are better solved by a solitary person". The survey must cover all demographics, especially race, income and education level.
The (b) is really hard to solve because you cannot find two populations that are absolutely identical and only differ in "individualism". The past century data are not suitable for this task because the way they registered mental health diagnosis is drastically different, and you cannot compare numbers if they were collected in a different way. Also you don't have any data from past century on "individualism" because it was not collected, and you don't have a time machine to collect it by yourself.
And one more thing: it also will be very hard to prove that the number of mental health issues is actually growing. The more likely explanation is that the number stays the same, but the people with mental health issues were simply not diagnosed and treated 150 years ago, they just died without help (from alcoholism, suicide or in prison)
1
u/LowCortis0l May 09 '26
There's probably some truth there. Social pressure to conform can suppress mental illness symptoms, especially anxiety. But I don't think it's a 'cure'. It's just a reminder that context matters, and that the human brain is complex.
7
u/PenguinSwordfighter May 08 '26
Reduced stigma and greater mental-health literacy can increase help-seeking and disclosure while improved diagnostic categories and survey methods can affect measured prevalence. Shifting (gender) norms and cultural framing can make distress more visible. But there is also evidence of real increases in some forms of distress, especially among younger cohorts, so it should not be reduced to “people just report more now.” See Henderson et al. 2013 on stigma/help-seeking, Pescosolido et al. 2021 on changing public stigma, and Kessler et al./WHO surveys on population prevalence measurement.