The outside world

I suddenly had a eureka moment. I realised my idea of the "outside world" was all wrong.

For some time I've been feeling a bit depressed about the state of the outside world with all its horrors and brutality and inhumanity.

Then it came to me that actually I know next to nothing of the outside world. It's so complex and intricate and enormous that I can't possibly know more than a minute fraction of it.

I might think I know all about (for example) climate change or the polar ice cap or deforestation but I'm kidding myself.

Even what I do know is mostly what the media tells me. And that's often highly suspect. Firstly they only tell us what they think is important, secondly they put their particular slant on it, and thirdly they sensationalise everything. Which means even that tiny bit of knowledge is very unreliable.

So what I refer to as the "outside world" is either a heavily filtered media offering or my own mental picture of the outside world. Neither of those is anything but a sketchy idea of the real thing.

In which case feeling depressed about the outside world is irrational because I'll never have a complete picture of it, and I'm therefore feeling depressed about something that's mostly unknown and unknowable.

So I should stop feeling depressed about the "outside world" and save my dejection for something manifest and tangible.

Simples!

It could be worse

It always annoys me when people don't take other people's difficulties seriously but casually dismiss them on the basis that "others have it so much worse."

How often do you hear someone saying that X shouldn't be depressed or anxious or distressed because they have a great life compared to people in other countries who have real problems to worry about, like drought and famine and earthquakes and civil war. They should consider themselves lucky to have such minor problems.

But those problems aren't minor to the people coping with them. Severe psychological blocks that interfere with your life and your relationships need to be properly responded to and not dismissed out of hand.

It all assumes a sort of "league table of suffering" in which one person's suffering is rated as low down the table and someone else's suffering is way up at the top. As if X's suffering is not true suffering but Y's suffering is the real thing.

But suffering is suffering. Is my desperate grief over the loss of a loved one any less important than the misery of an earthquake victim who has lost her home? To an onlooker, one might seem less significant than the other, but to the person concerned their distress might be totally overwhelming and incapacitating.

Certainly I'd be pretty pissed off if I was severely depressed and someone said to me "Oh, you're not really depressed, Nick. You're simply not the type. You're as tough as old boots. Just give yourself a good talking-to and you'll be fine." Which would be about as helpful as a kick up the bum.

Rush to judgment

I'm a lot less judgmental as I get older (or I like to think so at any rate). I was horribly judgmental when I was young, only too ready to condemn other people's behaviour and tell them where they were going wrong. Everything seemed so simple, so cut-and-dried, I never doubted those instant judgments I flung at everybody.

Why were people depressed? There was no need to be, they just lacked a more positive attitude. Why were people so hard-up? Surely they could manage their finances a bit better and be nicely solvent? Why were people addicted to fags or alcohol? Couldn't they just control their cravings instead of giving in to them?

Nowadays of course remembering such sweeping opinions makes me cringe with embarrassment at my bottomless ignorance. My total unawareness of how other people think and feel and cope with life was breathtaking. Clearly I'd spent too much time with my parents' favourite reading matter, the Daily Mail.

Luckily decades of exposure to the realities of people's behaviour have demolished all those glib pronouncements and made me much more reluctant to pass comment on someone else's situation.

I can finally recognise the infinite complexities of other people's personalities, the tangled morass of needs, obligations and commitments their daily existence confronts them with, and all the myriad twists and turns of their life so far, and I realise I have barely a clue why they're the way they are or why they do what they do.

Now I just want to listen to people, to hear their own explanations of why they went downhill, why their lives went wrong, why they're struggling to cope. No sweeping judgments, no self-righteous homilies, just a sympathetic ear and the desire to understand the roots of their predicament.

You never know, I might even learn something.

Ten questions

I was intrigued by the ten questions Jenny Woolf posed to her blogmates. So here are my answers, for what they're worth.

1. If there's one chocolate left in the box, do you have to eat it, or can you leave it sitting there?

I could leave it for years. I'm very strong-willed when it comes to food.

2. What do you want to remember most of all, if you survive to be very old?

My trips to Australia, all the fun times with Jenny, walking in the Mourne Mountains.

3. Would you enjoy being a very rich and famous celebrity?

No. Being pursued everywhere by the paparazzi and demanding fans would be a nightmare.

4. What piece of music do you personally find most emotionally moving?

There are so many, from Mozart's Piano Concerto Number 21 to Goldfrapp's Black Cherry album.

5.  How do you deal with depression, anxiety and bad times?

I never get depressed for longer than half an hour, but anxiety is my middle name. I've tried many many ways of controlling it but nothing works for very long.

6. What do you love doing that bores everyone else stiff?

Grinding coffee, washing up, chopping vegetables, washing my hair.

7. Did you ever encounter an inanimate object that seemed to have a will of its own?

Shoelaces. They knot and unknot whenever they feel like it.

8. What is your very favourite hotel or restaurant?

The San Cassiano Hotel in Venice. It's on the bank of the Grand Canal.

9. Do you think prisoners who have committed particularly vile crimes should be segregated in jail for their own safety?

That's for them to decide. Long-term segregation can be very psychologically damaging.

10. What do you wish you had known when you were 18?

I wish I'd known a lot more about sex!

(There was an eleventh question about the photos in her post, but since you can't see them....)

Young and fragile

It's disturbing that there are internet sites inciting young people to take their own lives and advising them on how to do it. Experts say they know of at least 30 suicides in which the internet has played a major role - not to mention attempted suicides.

But what should be done about these sites if anything? Should we respect free speech whatever the subject and whatever the possible results? Should such sites be closed down? Should they be forced to include links to organisations with a different point of view?

The British government are so concerned they are urging internet service providers to veto "harmful or distasteful" suicide sites, and to provide automatic links to bodies like the Samaritans or ChildLine giving advice on depression and emotional problems.

They're also looking at the existing laws to see if they're strong enough or if they need to be updated.

It's a thorny issue. Once you start interfering in the content of websites and saying what is or isn't acceptable, where do you stop? Even if some young people are impressionable or emotionally fragile, it is right to block off anything that might influence them for the worse and say they're not even allowed to see it?

Just about any website can have a bad influence on people if they are susceptible and interpret what it says in an unintended way. If only a very small number of people might be vulnerable, is it justified to take such draconian action? And if someone wants to commit suicide, shouldn't they have the right to do that anyway?

But I'm not happy with this classic liberal free-speech argument, the idea that anything goes and it's up to the individual to take responsibility for their feelings and actions. A caring society has to protect people at risk and ensure their safety and well-being, rather than leaving them to their fate.

There are already thousands of measures protecting young people from harm and exploitation, and a good job too. I think the government is right to urge safeguards and precautions.

We shouldn't freely allow people to encourage those in emotional difficulties to take an extreme solution, if there are other courses of action that might enable them to sort out those problems and turn their life around.