Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
T
he
most
common
misconception regarding
mental
health
is
the
pervasive idea that you can address
it by simply exercising willpower.
According to a Texas survey, about
40 percent of people believe that
depression is a lack of willpower.
Similarly, I have had countless
short-sighted conversations with
my friends, family members and
even Uber drivers who render
medical and therapeutic assistance
irrelevant
by
contending
that
depression or obsessive compulsive
disorder can be combated with
tenacity, as if individuals who
seek treatment aren’t trying hard
enough. These individuals — who
are not mental health professionals
— believe themselves to be doctors
at the mere suggestion of mental
health
and
begin
diagnosing
themselves and others. When we
hear the phrase “heart disease,”
no one ever declares themselves a
cardiologist or diagnoses everyone
they know with cardiovascular
diseases. Yet, when it comes to
mental illness, one that involves
another organ — the human brain
— we all presume credibility to
offer unwarranted easy solutions,
such as “just pull it together” or “try
calm.com.”
I recently had an argument
with my cousin when he jokingly
mocked my harrowing experience
with clinical depression in high
school by calling me “weak” and
then describing his “depressive
episode” when he was upset with
the outcome of the 2018 general
elections in Bangladesh. We must
eliminate such insidious inanities
in mental health conversations
and educate ourselves. J Raymond
DePaulo, professor of psychiatry
and behavioral sciences at Johns
Hopkins University School of
Medicine, has stated, “‘Stressful’
life events can lead to depression in
some people and discouragement in
others. One is an illness, the other is
a natural response to misfortune,”
and we must learn this crucial
distinction.
Contrary to the erroneous
belief that individuals with
mental illness are weak and do
not have the willpower to fight,
I have always tried hard and I
have persevered. No matter how
much I meditated or worked
out, I could not concentrate and
multiple times I could not sleep
for even a minute for up to five
days in a row, but not a single
person was aware of my pain. I
concealed the scars of my self-
inflicted injuries and I went to
class every single morning. In
sophomore year, at my lowest
point, when I realized I was on
the verge of death, I fought every
part of what was happening in my
mind and dialed 911 myself and
was immediately hospitalized
for an attempt to commit suicide.
Seeking help to find a will to exist
in this world was my willpower.
From my experience, I have
noticed that people often conflate
depression with ordinary sadness,
anxiety disorders with impatience,
attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder with casually zoning
out in class, bipolar disorder with
mood swings. As Maria Yagoda
wrote in her essay in Broadly, “I
exercise, I eat fruits … I do all the
things that people suspect will
cure me of depressive episodes,
which they mistake for sadness
… and I still need pills.” Likewise,
when I tell individuals that I take
Adderall for ADHD, as prescribed
by my doctors, they insist they
also have ADHD but can function
without medication, — tacitly
hinting I am weak because I take
pills. The unsolicited declaration
that you have been through the
same amount of misery but you are
stronger than those who receive
treatment reflects grave ignorance
about mental health.
These
misinterpretations
demonstrate our inability to accept
mental illness as a biological,
chemical
imbalance.
The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
for
Mental
Disorders
defined
mental illness as “a behavioral or
psychological syndrome or pattern
… the consequences of which
are clinically significant distress
… that reflects an underlying
psychobiological
dysfunction.”
In other words, mental illness is a
biological issue and, just like any
other physical illness, it requires
intervention that often includes
medication.
But
psychiatric
medication
is
another
aspect
of mental health that is heavily
stigmatized.
The universal distaste for
medication as treatment for mental
health is the reason why I eschewed
psychiatric help for years, why
many of my friends prefer to suffer
alone and potentially why Kanye
West has publicly announced
stopping his medication for bipolar
disorder, without a doctor’s
recommendations.
Even
the
term “pill-shaming” has been
coined
to
hypothesize
the
widespread shame attached to
psychiatric
medication.
The
societal mentality that those
who take pills are “weak” was
stated as a prevailing factor for
people to abandon their medication.
The
narrow-minded
presumption that mental illness
is choice or a temporary state
of mind you can handle with
positivity, yoga and a couple
of breathing exercises is the
reason why I chose to quell
my horror and added another
layer of pressure on myself
when my life was hanging by a
thread. A study mentions that
clinician Julie Hanks has said,
“Believing that someone can
control their illness isn’t just
unhelpful; it ‘may create another
layer of pain or shame when the
person suffering fails to make
themselves feel better.’” A 2004
report by the World Health
Organization stated that between
30 and 80 percent of people with
mental health concerns never
receive mental health treatment.
Clinical psychologist David Susman
analyzed the report and stated that
fear and shame, lack of insights and
feelings of inadequacy were some of
the main reasons behind people not
seeking help.
On the brighter side, Edmund
S. Huggins accounts his own
clinical experience and concludes
that mental health treatment does
“improve symptoms and quality of
life by about 20 to 40 percent for
most patients.” I strongly believe
that if I had reached out for help
earlier, high school and college
wouldn’t have been so difficult for
me, because my life significantly
improved once I started the
appropriate
medication.
But
psychiatric care is undeniably tricky
and dysfunctional. Improving the
accessibility for mental health care
is also a topic worth debating.
Medications from pharmaceutical
powerhouses are suspicious and
it took me a plethora of different
psychiatrists
and
multiple
different combinations of Ritalin,
Lexapro, Xanax, Clonazepam,
Trazodone, Zoloft, Wellbutrin,
Ambien,
Seroquel,
Lamictal
and Benadryl (I might even be
missing some) to find the regimen
that works for me. I have many
concerns regarding the lengthy
process of getting help, but that is
for another column.
First, we must accept the
medical and biological component
of mental health because to deny
it is to sustain the delusive notion
that mental illness is a period of
heartbreak one can will their way
out of. Though it can be flawed,
medical treatment is a necessity for
many individuals: It can address
symptoms and prevent relapses.
Research shows that depression
has nothing to do with being
lazy and weak and that therapy
and medication can precipitate
recovery.
A
depressed
person
cannot simply force themselves
to be happy because often times
they cannot even control their
source of happiness when they
are experiencing a shortage of
dopamine, the neurotransmitters
that regulate emotions, especially
motivation and reward.
We must understand that
mental illness does not indicate
personal failing in any way because
it has nothing to do willpower. We
have to stop pushing individuals to
fight a debilitating disease that is
not in their own control because
this pressure has cost many lives. A
2018 study published by Psychiatric
Services and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention concluded
that untreated severe mental
illness is a significant factor in the
rising suicide rates in the United
States. Thus, in order to save lives,
we must implore individuals going
through a rough time to reach out
to a counselor and psychiatrist
because it can ease their pain and
make their lives more livable.
Ramisa Rob can be reached at
rfrob@umich.edu.
ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN
Illegitimate resistance
T
he arrangement of powers
between lawmakers and law
enforcement can seem very
simple in the abstract. Lawmakers
make the laws, and law enforcement
enforces those laws. In practice,
this relationship can be a bit more
complicated. Politics and personal
convictions muddy up an otherwise
clear delineation of authority.
In Washington state, authority
has been muddied up beyond
mere complication. Sheriffs in a
dozen counties have committed
to stop enforcing the expansive
gun control law I-1639, passed in
November by state referendum, at
least until courts have decided on
its constitutionality. Genuine, yet
still illegitimate, the Washington
sheriffs’
principled
resistance
illustrates
a
larger,
troubling
ideology of extremist Second
Amendment interpretation.
What should first be made
clear is that the sheriffs in question
are not unaware of the moral
dilemma posed by their actions. On
one hand, there is the duty of law
enforcement to carry out orders as
they are given. This expectation
is what enables us, as citizens, to
trust that laws are worth the paper
they are printed on. As Attorney
General Robert Kennedy pointedly
remarked to white Georgians in
1961, on the subject of federally
mandated school desegregation,
“… (M)y belief does not matter
– it is the law. Some of you may
believe the decision was wrong.
That does not matter. It is the
law.” Washington state’s current
attorney general, Bob Ferguson,
has similarly reminded the sheriffs
that “as public officers, (their) duty
is to abide by the will of the people
(they) serve, and implement and
enforce the laws they adopt.”
On the other hand, society
does well to ensure that law
enforcement still maintains its oath
to high principle. It is reassuring
to have our laws enforced by real
human beings, and not by blindly
loyal androids devoid of moral
conviction. Whichever of these
conflicting commitments the 12
sheriffs prioritize, in this case,
is aptly laid out by Grant County
Sheriff Tom Jones: “I swore an
oath to defend our citizens and
their constitutionally protected
rights. I do not believe the popular
vote overrules that.”
In essence, the actions of
the sheriffs then constitute a
rule departure, or the deliberate
decision by authorities to not
properly discharge their duties
as their office requires. Are such
acts inherently wrong? Recent
American history would have us
lean toward the affirmative. From
Southern whites who resisted
federal civil rights legislation to
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis
and her infamous refusal to issue
marriage licenses for gay couples,
public
officials
supplanting
professional loyalty with personal
judgment have generally been
overruled swiftly and without
lasting repercussions.
Yet, the protestors do not likely
view themselves in such light.
To them, such dissidence is for
the ultimate good of the people,
whose liberty is secured by strong
gun rights and thereby threatened
by the referendum. Intelligent
individuals could debate endlessly
on the merits of this abrogation
of traditional legislative power. In
this case, however, one needs only
to look at the sheriffs’ purported
justifications for dissidence to
see that they are, indeed, wrong
to
disobey
the
Washington
referendum.
By reasonable standards, the
actual policy measures put forth
by I-1639 are wholly acceptable.
The law raises the minimum
age to purchase semi-automatic
rifles from 18 to 21, and requires
those purchasing them take a
training course, pass an enhanced
background
check
and
wait
10 business days before their
purchased rifle can be delivered to
them. What is at all unreasonable
about a state requiring its residents
to be of responsible age and
capacity to own guns? How about
a state ensuring guns are not sold
to those with dangerous pasts or in
unsound states of mind?
To those propositions, a truly
reasonable gun enthusiast would
not balk. Guns are powerful
implements, so requiring gun
owners to prove they are generally
responsible and capable is far
from the radical imposition these
sheriffs have decried it as. Yet
preventive measures such as these
are often lamented by Second
Amendment extremists as futile
— as one of the participatory
dissidents, Sheriff Bob Songer
of Klickitat County fatalistically
explains, “Bad guys are going to
have guns regardless.” Songer
may find it shocking that banks
still enclose their cash in vaults,
a truly useless protection against
robbers who could seemingly “get
in regardless.”
In addition to putting forth
entirely reasonable public safety
measures,
I-1639
successfully
avoids imposing undue burdens
on responsible gun owners. It does
not categorically ban any type of
firearm, and thereby protects the
existing gun protections of all
Washingtonians above the age
of 21. Those who would invoke
traditional definitions of the
American militia in decrying
this age increase would be
hard-pressed to explain why a
militia comprised of Americans
aged 17 and up is impinged by
gun purchase limits set at 21
years of age, but not at 18 years
of age (as is the case in most of
the country). And, even though
the law prevents 18 to 21-year-
old
Washingtonians
from
owning semiautomatic rifles, a
host of other firearms are still
purchasable for hunting or home
defense.
Yet it is perhaps in one of
I-1639’s other provisions that
the core of the problem is best
illuminated. The law, in addition
to these measures, establishes
penalties for those adults careless
enough to leave their firearm in
the reach of children and burglars.
Here, the state is attempting to
reduce the risk that irresponsible
gun owners leave their weapons
vulnerable to theft or improper
discharge.
By
imposing
regulations for safe storage of
firearms, it is protecting both the
property and loved ones of firearm
owners who would otherwise not
know better. Likewise, several of
Washington’s sheriffs appear to
be protecting their citizens from
what they believe to be misguided
instincts. These sheriffs’ views on
state authority, however, provide
shaky ground for their subversive
stand. That these views are highly
problematic and faulted make
them even more inadequate.
Washington Attorney General
Bob Ferguson is right to call his
officers back to attention.
RAMISA ROB | COLUMN
Mental illness is not a lack of willpower
Y
ou have probably found
yourself in the same
position a number of
times: dying to listen to music,
but unsure of exactly what
you want to listen to, so you
pull out a favorite playlist and
hit shuffle. But what does the
shuffle button actually do?
What does it mean to shuffle
through
songs?
How
do
your imaginations of shuffle
actually align with the reality
of how it functions? What can
this tell us about psychology’s
infusion
with
consumer
technology?
Originally,
I
thought
shuffling was a randomizer
that gave you as random a
song as possible. For a while,
this was how most shuffling
programs
operated,
but
streaming services like Spotify
started receiving complaints
that the shuffle button was not
random enough. For the coders
at
Spotify,
this
complaint
was perplexing, as their code
was based on the Fisher-
Yates Shuffle, which is often
considered to be one of the best
algorithms for randomization.
The people over at Spotify had
a meeting and tried to dissect
what the problem was. Their
answer came down to an issue
of human psychology. Imagine
that someone flips a coin: If the
person got heads five times in a
row, on the next flip the person
would expect to get tails because
they have already flipped heads
so many times. Of course, the
rules of probability tell us that
on the sixth flip, the chances
of getting heads or tails is the
same, as it is not influenced by
the previous flips. But how does
this relate to a Spotify playlist?
Imagine that you are using a
“truly random” shuffler and you
hear “Gold Digger” by Kanye
West. When you hit shuffle
again, your expectation is that
you won’t hear “Gold Digger,”
but of course the probability of
hearing “Gold Digger” is the
same as any other song in the
playlist.
Spotify realized that people
didn’t want “true randomness,”
but rather the human expectation
of what should be random. So
they recreated their algorithm
based
around
clustering.
The essential idea of the new
algorithm is that when people
shuffle music, what they really
want is an equal spread of artists
and genres over the course of the
listening experience. If someone
has a playlist with Kanye West,
Prince, Lou Reed (who knows
why you would), that person
would not want to listen to 10
songs from the same artist in a
row. Instead, they would want
about three songs from each
artist over the course of the ten
songs.
For lovers of Apple Music,
don’t worry — they have also
adopted a similar mechanism of
somewhat non-totally random
shuffling.
Yet,
despite
this
intensive manipulation of the
algorithm and how it aligns
with the human psyche, I can’t
help but find myself frustrated
with the shuffle button. It often
seems like songs deeper into the
playlist don’t get played, and for
some long playlists, I do want
to hear the same song twice
in a listening session. What’s
interesting about this is that
it would be easy for Spotify to
offer users the ability to select
from different types of shuffling
in the settings. Yet there is no
customization feature, on any
platform, for how the shuffling
works.
While a certain part of me
wants to reject the idea that
tech companies like Spotify
have the ability to understand
how the human mind perceives
randomness, I must admit that I
would not want to hear the same
song twice in a row on a shuffle
playlist. Yet I still find myself
feeling like the current algorithm
is not random enough. It feels too
calculated and cautious.
All of this manipulation of
how shuffling works is indicative
of a much larger trend going on
in the tech world. Often times,
tech companies are viewed as
providing us with products that
serve a function that seems to
exist in a semi-objective way.
Technology often hides under
science’s guise of objectivity.
For
example,
the
order
of
Google search results, how your
newsfeed (on any social media
platform) is created, and even
the infrastructure necessary to
make the internet function is
all hidden, obscured and made
to seem a basic necessity rather
than a privilege.
Tech companies no longer
design their products to solve a
problem, such as finding a piece
of information. Their aims have
extended much further. Now the
information must be presented
in
the
prettiest
and
most
convenient way possible. Much
of the consumer tech world is
dominated by design decisions
that attempt to profit off the
functions of the human psyche.
Shuffle play is a “fake random”
button that manipulates how
our
brains
function,
which
underscores a more interesting
story
about
what
makes
consumer tech succeed.
REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN
How does shuffle actually work?
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Reed Rosenbacher can be reached
at rrosenb@umich.edu.
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.
All of this
manipulation of how
shuffling works is
indicative of a much
larger trend in the
tech world
Seeking help to
find a will to exist
in this world was
my willpower