Astrology, Mental health and the Economics of Well Being
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Ultimately can the mental health system single-handedly address the concerns of inequality and economic access in society?
Around 75 per cent of the Indian population lives in rural areas, but their access to quality mental health care is limited and traditional approaches continue to be in use. The shortage is to such a large extent that there are only 0.7 physicians per 1000 population and only one psychiatrist for every 343,000 Indians. While over the years the mental health sector has seen major developments, like the 2017 mental health care act. This act establishes equal access for all citizens, to avail government-run or funded mental health services in the country. However, it does not bridge the gap in society as the majority of the population remains deeply unaware or unable to access these services.
While the uncertainties of the pandemic brought mental wellbeing to the forefront, the national budget for the sector dropped, making this an issue of human rights. This accessibility to services is further corroborated by the recurring financial expenses of medications and frequent visits to government clinics. The cost of sessions is steep and a single session is not ideal. Spending exorbitant amounts on healthcare is a burden most families can’t afford leading to debt. In the absence of insurance and healthcare schemes and provisions, therapy remains a luxury to many Indians.
Economic struggles are only one of the causes of this discerning gap in the mental health sector. Barriers caused by sexuality, gender, caste and religion also play a major role in mediating people’s perception and access to therapeutic services. The persistent stigma surrounding mental health, especially in India continues to be a hindrance to seeking help. The supernatural inhibitions and disparity in knowledge across communities only create more confusion. The notion that mental well being is an optional expense is popular, even though the country’s population is in a dire state. Data collected in a WHO report found that nearly 15 per cent of Indian adults need active intervention for one or more mental health issues.
The population disregards the very prevalence of such mental disorders and more than often finds it fruitless to receive treatment. Some who are open-minded fail to afford the hiked fees that therapists in urban settings charge, leaving them with no option. While for years Indians attributed the systemic weakness of the mental health system to the people’s attitudes, a 2016 survey showed more than 42% of people have positive attitudes toward mental wellbeing and treatment. While the skeptics remain, these underprivileged sections of society too struggle to gain the accessibility they deserve.
This is where astrology, tarot card reading and other spiritual practices, have created a market for themselves in the well-being industry. The sceptics, and those from poor socio-economic backgrounds resort to these local and easily accessible ways of coping, to instil the faith they so desperately need. Astrology is a layman’s substitute for therapy, or for some even a supplement when they cannot afford extended periods of treatment. Visiting a local astrologer in many ways breeds the self-awareness one would expect from a session in therapy. These practices even hold certain similarities to actual psychotherapy settings, in the way they define, and alleviate aspects of one’s personality and behaviour.
Very often one simply needs an explanation, or an answer to the ‘why’ no matter how scientifically rooted that response truly is. Astrologers impart a level of faith, that things will get better. For those in rural areas, struggling to provide the bare necessities to their family affording therapy is impossible, so their local psychic, astrologer or pandit becomes their anchor during emotional duress. Tarot cards and other practices primarily focus on the future and act as a guide point for how to deal with the things ahead. For a farmer coping with anxiety, access to anti-anxiety medication is strained, and so is therapy. His best bet remains to consult his next-door jyotish about his burdens.
A famous clinician Caroline Hexdall in an interview said that “ Part of the popularity of astrology and tarot today has to do with their universal nature”. With growing technology and the pervasiveness of social media, people can gain easy access to self-care and astrology resources. Apps and web pages provide daily tarot cards, zodiac signs readings and astrological predictions for people, and almost serve the purpose of a therapist. Is reading the lines on our palm, and checking the alignment of the stars enough to cure the mental illness they undergo? Is it a solution or a quick fix as a consequence of an ignorant healthcare system?
Several studies have also shown the deteriorating effects of depending on astrology. Cases of worsening and onset of depression, anxiety and personality disorders are common for those who use astrology as more than just a temporary coping mechanism. It also becomes a source of losing control, as every feeling is attributed to fate and destiny, instilling a sense of helplessness. Ultimately can the mental health system single-handedly address the concerns of inequality and economic access in society?
Maahira Jain is a third-year student at Ashoka University studying Psychology and Media studies. She is a movie buff and is extremely passionate about writing and traveling.
This article is republished from OpenAxis under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Managing [E-word] Dysfunction Reactions
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
We had several requests pertaining to veganism, meatless mondays, and substitutions in recipes—so we’re going to cover those on a different day!
As for questions we’re answering today…
Q: Information on [e-word] dysfunction for those who have negative reactions to [the most common medications]?
When it comes to that particular issue, one or more of these three factors are often involved:
- Hormones
- Circulation
- Psychology
The most common drugs (that we can’t name here) work on the circulation side of things—specifically, by increasing the localized blood pressure. The exact mechanism of this drug action is interesting, albeit beyond the scope of a quick answer here today. On the other hand, the way that they work can cause adverse blood-pressure-related side effects for some people; perhaps you’re one of them.
To take matters into your own hands, so to speak, you can address each of those three things we just mentioned:
Hormones
Ask your doctor (or a reputable phlebotomy service) for a hormone test. If your free/serum testosterone levels are low (which becomes increasingly common in men over the age of 45), they may prescribe something—such as testosterone shots—specifically for that.
This way, it treats the underlying cause, rather than offering a workaround like those common pills whose names we can’t mention here.
Circulation
Look after your heart health; eat for your heart health, and exercise regularly!
Cold showers/baths also work wonders for vascular tone—which is precisely what you need in this matter. By rapidly changing temperatures (such as by turning off the hot water for the last couple of minutes of your shower, or by plunging into a cold bath), your blood vessels will get practice at constricting and maintaining that constriction as necessary.
Psychology
[E-word] dysfunction can also have a psychological basis. Unfortunately, this can also then be self-reinforcing, if recalling previous difficulties causes you to get distracted/insecure and lose the moment. One of the best things you can do to get out of this catch-22 situation is to not worry about it in the moment. Depending on what you and your partner(s) like to do in bed, there are plenty of other equally respectable options, so just switch track!
Having a conversation about this in advance will probably be helpful, so that everyone’s on the same page of the script in that eventuality, and it becomes “no big deal”. Without that conversation, misunderstandings and insecurities could arise for your partner(s) as well as yourself (“aren’t I desirable enough?” etc).
So, to recap, we recommend:
- Have your hormones checked
- Look after your circulation
- Make the decision to have fun!
Share This Post
-
Creatine’s Brain Benefits Increase With Age
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Creatine is generally thought of as a body-building supplement, and for most young people, that’s all it is. But with extra years come extra advantages, and creatine starts to confer cognitive benefits. Dr. Brad Stanfield shares the science:
What the science says
Although 95% of creatine is stored in muscles, 5% is found in the brain, where it helps produce energy needed for brain processes (and that’s a lot of energy—about 20% of our body’s metabolic base rate is accounted for by our brain).
In this video, Dr. Stanfield shares studies showing creatine improving memory, especially in older adults—and also in vegetarians/vegans, since creatine is found in meat (just like in our own bodies, which are also made of meat) and not in plants. On the meta-analysis level, a systematic review concluded that creatine supplementation indeed improves memory, with stronger effects observed in older adults.
Dr. Stanfield also addresses the safety concerns about creatine, which, on balance, are not actually supported by the science (of course, always consult your own doctor to be sure, as your case could vary).
As for dosage, 5g/day is recommended. For more on all of this plus links to the studies cited, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Creatine: Very Different For Young & Old People
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Guava vs Passion Fruit – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing guava to passion fruit, we picked the guava.
Why?
There aren’t many fruits that can beat passion fruit for nutritional density! And even in this case, it wasn’t completely so in every category:
In terms of macros, passion fruit has more carbs and fiber, the ratio of which give it the slightly lower glycemic index. Thus, a modest win for passion fruit in this category.
In the category of vitamins, guava has more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, B9, C, E, and K, while passion fruit has more of vitamins A, B2, and B3. A clear win for guava this time.
When it comes to minerals, it’s a little closer, but: guava has more calcium, copper, manganese, potassium, and zinc, while passion fruit has more iron, magnesium, and phosphorus. So, another win for guava.
Adding up the sections makes for guava winning the day, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Fruit Is Healthy; Juice Isn’t (Here’s Why)
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Why Everyone You Don’t Like Is A Narcissist
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We’ve written before about how psychiatry tends to name disorders after how they affect other people, rather than how they affect the bearer, and this is most exemplified when it comes to personality disorders. For example:
“You have a deep insecurity about never being good enough, and you constantly mess up in your attempt to overcompensate? You may have Evil Bastard Disorder!”
“You have a crippling fear of abandonment and that you are fundamentally unloveable, so you do all you can to try to keep people close? You must have Manipulative Bitch Disorder!”
See also: Miss Diagnosis: Anxiety, ADHD, & Women
Antisocial DiagnosesThese days, it is easy to find on YouTube countless videos of how to spot a narcissist, with a list of key traits that all mysteriously describe exactly the exes of everyone in the comments.
And these days it is mostly “narcissist”, because “psychopath” and “sociopath” have fallen out of popular favor a bit:
- perhaps for coming across as overly sensationalized, and thus lacking credibility
- perhaps because “Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)” exists in the DSM-5 (the US’s latest “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”), while psychopathy and sociopathy are not mentioned as existing.
You may be wondering: what do “psychopathy” and “sociopathy” mean?
And the answer is: they mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Their definitions and differences/similarities have been vigorously debated by clinicians and lay enthusiasts alike for long enough that the scientific world has pretty much given up on them and moved on.
Stigma vs pathology
Because of the popular media (and social media) representation of NPD, it is easy to armchair diagnose one’s relative/ex/neighbor/in-law/boss/etc as being a narcissist, because the focus is on “narcissists do these bad things that are mean to people”.
If the focus were instead on “narcissists have cripplingly low self-esteem, and are desperate to not show weakness in a world they have learned is harsh and predatory”, then there may not be so many armchair diagnoses—or at the very least, the labels may be attached with a little more compassion, the same way we might with other mental health issues such as depression.
Not that those with depression get an easy time of it socially either—society’s response is generally some manner of “aren’t you better yet, stop being lazy”—but at the very least, depressed people are not typically viewed with hatred.
A quick aside: if you or someone you know is struggling with depression, here are some things that actually help:
The Mental Health First-Aid You’ll Hopefully Never Need
The disorder is not the problem
Maybe your relative, ex, neighbor, etc really is clinically diagnosable as a narcissist. There are still two important things to bear in mind:
- After centuries of diagnosing people with mental health maladies that we now know don’t exist per se (madness, hysteria, etc), and in recent decades countless revisions to the DSM and similar tomes, thank goodness we now have the final and perfect set of definitions that surely won’t be re-written in the next few years or so ← this is irony; it will absolutely be re-written numerous times yet because of course it’s still not a magically perfect descriptor of the broad spectrum of human nature
- The disorder is not the problem; the way they treat (or have treated) you is the problem.
For example, let’s take a key thing generally attributed to narcissists: a lack of empathy
Now, empathy can be divided into:
- affective empathy: the ability to feel what other people are feeling
- cognitive empathy: the ability to intellectually understand what other people are feeling (akin to sympathy, which is the same but with the requisite of having experienced the thing in question oneself)
A narcissist (as well as various other people without NPD) will typically have negligible affective empathy, and their cognitive empathy may be a little sluggish too.
Sluggish = it may take them a beat longer than most people, to realize what an external signifier of emotions means, or correctly guess how something will be felt by others. This can result in gravely misspeaking (or inappropriately emoting), after failing to adequately quickly “read the room” in terms of what would be a socially appropriate response. To save face, they may then either deny/minimize the thing they just said/did, or double-down on it and go on [what for them feels like] the counterattack.
As to why this shutting off of empathy happens: they have learned that the world is painful, and that people are sources of pain, and so—to avoid further pain—have closed themselves off to that, often at a very early age. This will also apply to themselves; narcissists typically have negligible self-empathy too, which is why they will commonly make self-destructive decisions, even while trying to put themselves first.
Important note on how this impacts other people: the “Golden Rule” of “treat others as you would wish to be treated” becomes intangible, as they have no more knowledge of their own emotional needs than they do of anyone else’s, so cannot make that comparison.
Consider: if instead of being blind to empathy, they were colorblind… You would probably not berate them for buying green apples when you asked for red. They were simply incapable of seeing that, and consequently made a mistake. So it is when it’s a part of the brain that’s not working normally.
So… Since the behavior does adversely affect other people, what can be done about it? Even if “hate them for it and call for their eradication from the face of the Earth” is not a reasonable (or compassionate) option, what is?
Take the bull by the horns
Above all, and despite all appearances, a narcissist’s deepest desire is simply to be accepted as good enough. If you throw them a life-ring in that regard, they will generally take it.
So, communicate (gently, because a perceived attack will trigger defensiveness instead, and possibly a counterattack, neither of which are useful to anyone) what behavior is causing a problem and why, and ask them to do an alternative thing instead.
And, this is important, the alternative thing has to be something they are capable of doing. Not merely something that you feel they should be capable of doing, but that they are actually capable of doing.
- So not: “be a bit more sensitive!” because that is like asking the colorblind person to “be a bit more observant about colors”; they are simply not capable of it and it is folly to expect it of them, because no matter how hard they try, they can’t.
- But rather: “it upsets me when you joke about xyz; I know that probably doesn’t make sense to you and that’s ok, it doesn’t have to. I am asking, however, if you will please simply refrain from joking about xyz. Would you do that for me?”
Presented with such, it’s much more likely that the narcissist will drop their previous attempt to be good enough (by joking, because everyone loves someone with a sense of humor, right?) for a new, different attempt to be good enough (by showing “behold, look, I am a good person and doing the thing you asked, of which I am capable”).
That’s just one example, but the same methodology can be applied to most things.
For tricks pertaining to how to communicate such things without causing undue resistance, see:
Seriously Useful Communication Skills
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Gravitas – by Caroline Goyder
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
A no-nonsense guide to (more than!) public speaking that isn’t just “tell jokes in your speech and imagine the audience naked”.
Because this isn’t just about speech-writing or speech delivery, so much as giving you important life skills. The kind that weren’t taught in school, but that nevertheless make a huge impact on success… whether you’re giving a presentation or hosting a party or negotiating a deal or just attending a social event. Or making a phonecall, even.
Whereas a lot of books of this kind treat “the audience” as a nebulous and purely responsive passive crowd of extras, Goyder does better. People are individuals, even if they’re all facing the same way for a moment. She works with that! She also teaches how to deal with not just hecklers, but also simply those people who sap your confidence and find fault with you and anything you do or say.b
Bottom line is: if you for whatever reason communicate with people, and would like them to think better of you, this is the book for you.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Is alcohol good or bad for you? Yes.
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This article originally appeared in Harvard Public Health magazine.
It’s hard to escape the message these days that every sip of wine, every swig of beer is bad for your health. The truth, however, is far more nuanced.
We have been researching the health effects of alcohol for a combined 60 years. Our work, and that of others, has shown that even modest alcohol consumption likely raises the risk for certain diseases, such as breast and esophageal cancer. And heavy drinking is unequivocally harmful to health. But after countless studies, the data do not justify sweeping statements about the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.
Yet we continue to see reductive narratives, in the media and even in science journals, that alcohol in any amount is dangerous. Earlier this month, for instance, the media reported on a new study that found even small amounts of alcohol might be harmful. But the stories failed to give enough context or probe deeply enough to understand the study’s limitations—including that it cherry-picked subgroups of a larger study previously used by researchers, including one of us, who concluded that limited drinking in a recommended pattern correlated with lower mortality risk.
“We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.”
Those who try to correct this simplistic view are disparaged as pawns of the industry, even when no financial conflicts of interest exist. Meanwhile, some authors of studies suggesting alcohol is unhealthy have received money from anti-alcohol organizations.
We believe it’s worth trying, again, to set the record straight. We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.
It’s important to keep in mind that alcohol affects many body systems—not just the liver and the brain, as many people imagine. That means how alcohol affects health is not a single question but the sum of many individual questions: How does it affect the heart? The immune system? The gut? The bones?
As an example, a highly cited study of one million women in the United Kingdom found that moderate alcohol consumption—calculated as no more than one drink a day for a woman—increased overall cancer rates. That was an important finding. But the increase was driven nearly entirely by breast cancer. The same study showed that greater alcohol consumption was associated with lower rates of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma. That doesn’t mean drinking a lot of alcohol is good for you—but it does suggest that the science around alcohol and health is complex.
One major challenge in this field is the lack of large, long-term, high-quality studies. Moderate alcohol consumption has been studied in dozens of randomized controlled trials, but those trials have never tracked more than about 200 people for more than two years. Longer and larger experimental trials have been used to test full diets, like the Mediterranean diet, and are routinely conducted to test new pharmaceuticals (or new uses for existing medications), but they’ve never been done to analyze alcohol consumption.
Instead, much alcohol research is observational, meaning it follows large groups of drinkers and abstainers over time. But observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect because moderate drinkers differ in many ways from non-drinkers and heavy drinkers—in diet, exercise, and smoking habits, for instance. Observational studies can still yield useful information, but they also require researchers to gather data about when and how the alcohol is consumed, since alcohol’s effect on health depends heavily on drinking patterns.
For example, in an analysis of over 300,000 drinkers in the U.K., one of us found that the same total amount of alcohol appeared to increase the chances of dying prematurely if consumed on fewer occasions during the week and outside of meals, but to decrease mortality if spaced out across the week and consumed with meals. Such nuance is rarely captured in broader conversations about alcohol research—or even in observational studies, as researchers don’t always ask about drinking patterns, focusing instead on total consumption. To get a clearer picture of the health effects of alcohol, researchers and journalists must be far more attuned to the nuances of this highly complex issue.
One way to improve our collective understanding of the issue is to look at both observational and experimental data together whenever possible. When the data from both types of studies point in the same direction, we can have more confidence in the conclusion. For example, randomized controlled trials show that alcohol consumption raises levels of sex steroid hormones in the blood. Observational trials suggest that alcohol consumption also raises the risk of specific subtypes of breast cancer that respond to these hormones. Together, that evidence is highly persuasive that alcohol increases the chances of breast cancer.
Similarly, in randomized trials, alcohol consumption lowers average blood sugar levels. In observational trials, it also appears to lower the risk of diabetes. Again, that evidence is persuasive in combination.
As these examples illustrate, drinking alcohol may raise the risk of some conditions but not others. What does that mean for individuals? Patients should work with their clinicians to understand their personal risks and make informed decisions about drinking.
Medicine and public health would benefit greatly if better data were available to offer more conclusive guidance about alcohol. But that would require a major investment. Large, long-term, gold-standard studies are expensive. To date, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health have shown no interest in exclusively funding these studies on alcohol.
Alcohol manufacturers have previously expressed some willingness to finance the studies—similar to the way pharmaceutical companies finance most drug testing—but that has often led to criticism. This happened to us, even though external experts found our proposal scientifically sound. In 2018, the National Institutes of Health ended our trial to study the health effects of alcohol. The NIH found that officials at one of its institutes had solicited funding from alcohol manufacturers, violating federal policy.
It’s tempting to assume that because heavy alcohol consumption is very bad, lesser amounts must be at least a little bad. But the science isn’t there, in part because critics of the alcohol industry have deliberately engineered a state of ignorance. They have preemptively discredited any research, even indirectly, by the alcohol industry—even though medicine relies on industry financing to support the large, gold-standard studies that provide conclusive data about drugs and devices that hundreds of millions of Americans take or use daily.
Scientific evidence about drinking alcohol goes back nearly 100 years—and includes plenty of variability in alcohol’s health effects. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, alcohol in moderation, and especially red wine, was touted as healthful. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that contemporary narratives suggest every ounce of alcohol is dangerous. Until gold-standard experiments are performed, we won’t truly know. In the meantime, we must acknowledge the complexity of existing evidence—and take care not to reduce it to a single, misleading conclusion.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: