A campaign to challenge dangerous Blue Monday nonsense while raising money for better mental health awareness. In practical terms, think of this as a Blue Monday 'swear jar', of sorts
Plan is, any time someone (online connection, celeb, organisation, media platform etc.) publicly mentions, and therefore tacitly endorses, Blue Monday, they can be sent the link, which explains why it's harmful nonsense, and encourages them to make a donation to @Rethink_
So, if interested, please do save the link and share with anyone who legitimately mentions Blue Monday on the dreaded day itself
If they genuinely care about people's wellbeing, they'll donate. If they're just exploiting it for profit, they won't. Either way is telling, I guess
You can also donate yourself, to help cancel out harmful mental health myths cynically propagated by unrepentant opportunists
This might all amount to nothing, but I figure it's worth a punt. I have to endure this every year, might as well try and do some good with it
Credit for this should go to @iamjamesward, by the way. I'd never have had the savvy to come up with this by myself
"If you're under 25 your brain isn't fully developed, so you can't be trusted to make informed decisions"
I'm seeing this a LOT lately, especially today. And it's utter guff, based on hearsay, misunderstandings of neuroscience, or wilful ignorance.
Why? I'll tell you why
/1
Firstly, the whole 'your brain stops developing at age 25' thing is spurious anyway. The original studies that came up with this figure, they just didn't include any subjects over 25. So that's when the data... stopped.
But that doesn't really mean anything.
/2
Saying 'the brain stops developing at age 25' because you didn't study anyone older is like saying "Olympic sprinters are only capable of running for 100m".
I mean, they *clearly* can go for longer. That's just when the race ends. It's not the same thing.
/3
TW, obviously, as this is a very dark subject in many ways
Also, I am in no way maligning or undermining the valid concerns of a grieving, angry mother.
But there's a strong risk of doing more harm than good here
/2
@LBC First, there's this
Maybe 15 years ago, this would have been feasible. But now? You'd be depriving millions of young people of a huge chunk of their social lives and autonomy. And insisting 'It's for your own good' will likely breed even more resentment
@Rethink_ It's a drum I've banged often, but it's still pertinent
Mental health 'awareness' is an important first step, but it's not an end point. And for too many, being aware of/acknowledging mental health issues is taken to mean the problem's dealt with
Being part of an online community where everyone is open and honest about their #MentalHealth is great. Often essential. But that doesn't mean everyone enjoys a similar situation. Indeed, the majority seemingly don't.
/3
For the record, I don't (as far as I or anyone else knows) have ADHD
But I have many individuals, who I value greatly and/or who are very close to me, who have recently been diagnosed ADHD, and you'd better believe I'll go to the bat for them in any context
/2
Some may jump on this as a way to discredit me, to dismiss my critique of the #Panorama#ADHD investigation. Because I should, after all, be totally impartial, not influenced by defending people I care about?
How did you get access to a 'Leading NHS consultant', mate? The vast majority of people dealing with (potential ADHD) have to wait years for such a thing. Surely you didn't just jump the queue by flashing your BBC credentials?
/1
Also, minor point perhaps, but if the OPENING PARAGRAPH of your prominent piece for the highly respected national broadcaster is already promoting, by accident or design, an 'Online mental health assessments aren't valid' view, that's potentially MASSIVELY damaging
Was recently asked which scientific 'myth' I'd like to see banished forever
Obviously, given my field and output, I had to choose 'we only use 10% of our brains'
A common moan, sure. But it's not just a silly thing that leads to shoddy movie plots. It's worse than that
/1
For one thing, the origins of the 'we only use 10% of our brain' notion are unclear. But analysis suggests it came about *at least* a century ago. Believe it or not, our understanding of the brain has improved by orders of magnitude since then
/2
And that's assuming that the 10% of the brain myth stems from valid contemporary 19th/early 20th century science. But there's no conclusive evidence for this. At best it arose via word-of-mouth distortions or misunderstandings of scientific findings at the time
/2