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

