Saw someone on Reddit the other day say they would never go to a funeral unless someone else specifically asked them to come in order to support that other person because funerals "have a bad vibe" and "made them sad". It feels like some people (millennials aren't immune either) feel entitled to only feel positive emotions.
If you're a consequentialist hedonist perhaps you have some sympathy for this view but probably even a hedonist can see the value in segments of negative emotion within a maximally rich and fulfilling life. And the selfishness of that is not something you would want to embrace if you place value on the feelings of others.
I think funerals are unironically a great example of an irrational social norm that exists due to random contingency and social intertia. There are cultures that exist that have happier social norms when it comes to death. Within our own culture, we could e.g. throw a party celebrating the dead person's life rather than a funeral. Also, burying people is the height of pointless historical contingency. We can just burn them rather than taking up precious land in an urban zone for burying something that will decay very quickly to the point it would be impossible to magically revive the body or it would be torture to do so. Although I agree the reasoning you stated is immature.
We could throw a party and sometimes we do! The last funeral I went to, by some Californians based in the PNW, had an absolute rager (well, a family friendly rager) after it. It seemed appropriate to me to have some solemn time and some cheerful time. A "celebration of life" is something you hear a lot these days especially in evangelical Christian circles ime (they like to emphasize they intend to see the deceased again soon!) nevertheless I think it's a bit emotionally disconnected not to incorporate opportunities for grieving within the process because you have just lost someone, even as you celebrate them.
I agree with this, and appreciate your pointing a finger at why this is bad (and not merely obnoxious): it sets a villainous frame around ordinary interactions.
One small complication, though, is that some of the terms that therapy has appropriated for itself originally came from everyday speech: "I'm anxious about that" or "that's depressing" once lacked their therapeutic (or anti-therapeutic?) cast. So asking folks to avoid them can feel like a reduction of the range of language we can use to describe experience.
Thank you. Excellent points! I'm glad I'm not the only one who's seeing it.
As a Gen Z'er who has been misdiagnosed with mental health issues I don't have, I can't stand therapy-speak. It blurs the line between what is clinically serious and what is normal, resulting in lots of instances of mis/overdiagnosis (i.e. regular introverts calling themselves autistic) and those with genuine issues not being taken seriously (i.e. a person with real anxiety getting brushed off when "anxiety" is percieved as normal nervousness over a school test).
I don't want to become someone who policies language for any slight microaggression (as too many in my generation do), and thinking about it, I don't think saying "I'm depressed my team lost the super bowl" isn't any worse of an expression that, "I'm so nervous this is giving me a heart attack." (Not that it makes therapy-speak any less annoying).
The issue is that the sheer excessive and constant volume of therapy-speak indicates a widespread misunderstanding of what is and isn't a medically diagnosable behavior. Nobody who uses the heart attack expression actually believes they are having one, but many likely believe they are "depressed" because the exact criteria of depression aren't well-understood. I've seen many vague things like writing poetry and "needing time a lone" being considered signs of autism. And I lived through being treated like every small thing I did was a sign of autism.
Claiming I'm autistic, though... It feels like it would be pretty insensitive to people with ACTUAL autism, people whose autistic symptoms extend far beyond needing time alone and being really obsessed with parody films.
I’ve seen roughly 50 of these articles and still never encountered any of these people in real life, despite fitting into the demographic where it should be most prevalent.
This leads me to suspect that at least some of these instances are actually people with legitimate grievances using the terms correctly and the recipients becoming frustrated and coping by saying that therapy speak is ruining everything.
I can attest to this. The only time I've seen someone use these terms in real life, they were very legitimately being gaslit and when they said they need to set boundaries and called the person out on the gaslighting, the response was something like "everyone's using these trendy terms these days" — an attempt to, once again, diminish them and make them feel crazy.
I agree that it's pretty rare (also Gen Z, recent college grad), but I've definitely heard it a few times. There are definitely real harms to exaggeration, and this is basically just a form of that, but it does feel like it gets more complaints and attention than it deserves.
Some therapy language is clarifying. Gaslighting is a real thing. It does not have to be a conspiracy. It is fairly common that people act in inexcusably insensitive or abusive ways and insincerely pretend they don’t understand why you are upset, try to maintain plausible deniability, or use it as an opportunity to explain why you are wrong.
This happens so much that it seems to be a basic pattern of human relations. Existing terms like passive aggression don’t capture the full flavor of it. Before I had the word to identify it, I did not fully recognize it and didn’t adequately defend myself.
I cant tell if your being facetious. Do you sincerely believe that " It [isnt] fairly common that people act in inexcusably insensitive or abusive ways and insincerely pretend they don’t understand why you are upset, [nor] try to maintain plausible deniability, [nor] use it as an opportunity to explain why you are wrong"?
I remember complaining about the millennials doing this. Probably it’s just a thing younger people do while figuring stuff out. If people read literature that uses older language for emotions and social interactions, maybe it goes away with time?
I remember complaining about the millennials doing this. Probably it’s just a thing younger people do while figuring stuff out. If people read literature that uses older language for emotions and social interactions, maybe it goes away with time?
Ironically, a good therapist wouldn't talk like this at all. If you were perseverating over some unpleasant future event, they would help you see how you might be "catastrophizing" (to use the CBT term), perhaps by going through all the things that could wrong, examining how likely they are, considering why they'll be survivable even if they do occur, and so on. A good therapist will also push many people to strive for *more* self-responsibility, as many people in therapy are probably sabotaging themselves and blaming it on outside forces. (Don't ask me how I know.) The people who talk this way are making themselves miserable by practicing what Jonathan Haidt calls anti-CBT.
I think you might be conflating two problems a) the terms themselves (not a problem), b) the misapplication of these terms to everyday situations / weaponisation of therapeutic language. Leave these very needed terms out of it.
Saw someone on Reddit the other day say they would never go to a funeral unless someone else specifically asked them to come in order to support that other person because funerals "have a bad vibe" and "made them sad". It feels like some people (millennials aren't immune either) feel entitled to only feel positive emotions.
If you're a consequentialist hedonist perhaps you have some sympathy for this view but probably even a hedonist can see the value in segments of negative emotion within a maximally rich and fulfilling life. And the selfishness of that is not something you would want to embrace if you place value on the feelings of others.
I think funerals are unironically a great example of an irrational social norm that exists due to random contingency and social intertia. There are cultures that exist that have happier social norms when it comes to death. Within our own culture, we could e.g. throw a party celebrating the dead person's life rather than a funeral. Also, burying people is the height of pointless historical contingency. We can just burn them rather than taking up precious land in an urban zone for burying something that will decay very quickly to the point it would be impossible to magically revive the body or it would be torture to do so. Although I agree the reasoning you stated is immature.
We could throw a party and sometimes we do! The last funeral I went to, by some Californians based in the PNW, had an absolute rager (well, a family friendly rager) after it. It seemed appropriate to me to have some solemn time and some cheerful time. A "celebration of life" is something you hear a lot these days especially in evangelical Christian circles ime (they like to emphasize they intend to see the deceased again soon!) nevertheless I think it's a bit emotionally disconnected not to incorporate opportunities for grieving within the process because you have just lost someone, even as you celebrate them.
I agree with this, and appreciate your pointing a finger at why this is bad (and not merely obnoxious): it sets a villainous frame around ordinary interactions.
One small complication, though, is that some of the terms that therapy has appropriated for itself originally came from everyday speech: "I'm anxious about that" or "that's depressing" once lacked their therapeutic (or anti-therapeutic?) cast. So asking folks to avoid them can feel like a reduction of the range of language we can use to describe experience.
Reminds me of “Conflict is not Abuse!”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conflict-Overstating-Community-Responsibility-Repair/dp/1551526433
This is the kind of article I followed this newsletter for. Excellent writing, thank you for broaching this topic.
Thank you. Excellent points! I'm glad I'm not the only one who's seeing it.
As a Gen Z'er who has been misdiagnosed with mental health issues I don't have, I can't stand therapy-speak. It blurs the line between what is clinically serious and what is normal, resulting in lots of instances of mis/overdiagnosis (i.e. regular introverts calling themselves autistic) and those with genuine issues not being taken seriously (i.e. a person with real anxiety getting brushed off when "anxiety" is percieved as normal nervousness over a school test).
I don't want to become someone who policies language for any slight microaggression (as too many in my generation do), and thinking about it, I don't think saying "I'm depressed my team lost the super bowl" isn't any worse of an expression that, "I'm so nervous this is giving me a heart attack." (Not that it makes therapy-speak any less annoying).
The issue is that the sheer excessive and constant volume of therapy-speak indicates a widespread misunderstanding of what is and isn't a medically diagnosable behavior. Nobody who uses the heart attack expression actually believes they are having one, but many likely believe they are "depressed" because the exact criteria of depression aren't well-understood. I've seen many vague things like writing poetry and "needing time a lone" being considered signs of autism. And I lived through being treated like every small thing I did was a sign of autism.
Claiming I'm autistic, though... It feels like it would be pretty insensitive to people with ACTUAL autism, people whose autistic symptoms extend far beyond needing time alone and being really obsessed with parody films.
Thank you for this. While some might, indeed, argue that takedowns of therapy culture are overdone, I'm always holding space for them.
Therapy speak is overused in therapy as well.
Talk therapy is phony anyways. It's not any more effective than the placebo condition of just talking to someone who's not a therapist.
I'll just comment to say I disagree with you, despite my first comment.
Excellent article except the part about using Chat-GPT ... would rather have read your impression of Jeffrey Dahmer using therapy speak.
I’ve seen roughly 50 of these articles and still never encountered any of these people in real life, despite fitting into the demographic where it should be most prevalent.
This leads me to suspect that at least some of these instances are actually people with legitimate grievances using the terms correctly and the recipients becoming frustrated and coping by saying that therapy speak is ruining everything.
Hmm, I have never actually had these phrases used against me, only heard them used against others.
I can attest to this. The only time I've seen someone use these terms in real life, they were very legitimately being gaslit and when they said they need to set boundaries and called the person out on the gaslighting, the response was something like "everyone's using these trendy terms these days" — an attempt to, once again, diminish them and make them feel crazy.
I agree that it's pretty rare (also Gen Z, recent college grad), but I've definitely heard it a few times. There are definitely real harms to exaggeration, and this is basically just a form of that, but it does feel like it gets more complaints and attention than it deserves.
Some therapy language is clarifying. Gaslighting is a real thing. It does not have to be a conspiracy. It is fairly common that people act in inexcusably insensitive or abusive ways and insincerely pretend they don’t understand why you are upset, try to maintain plausible deniability, or use it as an opportunity to explain why you are wrong.
This happens so much that it seems to be a basic pattern of human relations. Existing terms like passive aggression don’t capture the full flavor of it. Before I had the word to identify it, I did not fully recognize it and didn’t adequately defend myself.
For what it’s worth, never been in therapy.
No, gaslighting isn't a real thing. You're imagining it. You should probably see a shrink given the extent of your delusion.
I cant tell if your being facetious. Do you sincerely believe that " It [isnt] fairly common that people act in inexcusably insensitive or abusive ways and insincerely pretend they don’t understand why you are upset, [nor] try to maintain plausible deniability, [nor] use it as an opportunity to explain why you are wrong"?
I was making a joke.
Facetious isn't even a real world, stop trying to gaslight BB into adopting your language game that doesn't exist.
This post really just shows how college kids are over-relying on ChatGPT. It's really worrying how they can't write.
:)
This reminds me very much of this post from FDB: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/selfishness-and-therapy-culture
I remember complaining about the millennials doing this. Probably it’s just a thing younger people do while figuring stuff out. If people read literature that uses older language for emotions and social interactions, maybe it goes away with time?
I remember complaining about the millennials doing this. Probably it’s just a thing younger people do while figuring stuff out. If people read literature that uses older language for emotions and social interactions, maybe it goes away with time?
Ironically, a good therapist wouldn't talk like this at all. If you were perseverating over some unpleasant future event, they would help you see how you might be "catastrophizing" (to use the CBT term), perhaps by going through all the things that could wrong, examining how likely they are, considering why they'll be survivable even if they do occur, and so on. A good therapist will also push many people to strive for *more* self-responsibility, as many people in therapy are probably sabotaging themselves and blaming it on outside forces. (Don't ask me how I know.) The people who talk this way are making themselves miserable by practicing what Jonathan Haidt calls anti-CBT.
I think you might be conflating two problems a) the terms themselves (not a problem), b) the misapplication of these terms to everyday situations / weaponisation of therapeutic language. Leave these very needed terms out of it.