Some thoughts on our mental health crisis

Another interesting extended article in the Globe today, this one by British psychiatrist Sami Timimi, who specializes in treating children and teens. It seems to some extent to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom and zeitgeist on mental health.

Timimi seems skeptical of the reported levels of mental health problems in Western society, and particularly of the anecdotal reports and claims of individuals. It seems like everyone knows someone who has "mental health issues" these days, whether it be depression, anxiety, autism, ADHD, PTSD, or sometimes combinations of several of these. Like me, Mr. Timimi is questioning the validity of some of these claims, self-diagnoses and even professional diagnoses.

It's almost cool among young people (and their parents) these days to have a mental health condition or two. Even younger children (and certainly their parents) are well-versed in psychological lingo, and sprinkle their conversations with phrases like "the spectrum", "masking", "neurodiversity", "chemical imbalance", etc, with gay abandon. The ease of self-diagnosis using Dr. Google doesn't help, nor does the well-intentioned empathy and compassion about mental health in modern Western society.

Timimi sees this as evidence, not so much of psychological liberation and literacy, as of the tentacles of what he calls the Mental Health Industrial Complex worming its way into the minds of the masses. 

It seems indisputable that the prevalence of diagnosed conditions like depression, anxiety, autism and other mental health conditions, particularly in youth, has snowballed in recent years, and studies reveal a much greater number who see their mental health as "poor" or just "fair" compared to a few years ago. But, at the same time, investment in mental health treatment and research has also surged, and the stigmatization of mental health conditions reduced so mcuh that it is almost considered glamourous amongst some cohorts (like teenage girls). 

So, is the increased attention paid to mental health just not helping, or is it actually making things worse in some respects? Mr. Timimi has his suspicions that the latter may be happening, something he calls the "Treatment Prevalence Paradox". It's a brave move to say so openly, and he risks being ostracized by his own profession. 

He even goes so far as to suggest that the diagnosis of mental health issues, even by trained professionals, is so subjective as to be next to useless. For example, if he tells a patient that "depression is the presence of persistent low mood and negative thinking", that is little better than saying that a pain the head is cause by a headache.  And, unlike with other aspects of healthcare, even once a diagnosis is arrived at, there is rarely a causal agent that can be objectively identified, or even an obvious path of treatment to follow. His frustration with his own profession is palpable.

As for the battery of treatments and drugs offered by the Mental Health Industrial Complex, Mr. Timimi is equally scathing. Rather than rushing for a psychological assessment and medication, he has these thoughts: 

• Don't rush. Being able to tolerate, live through, and even find meaning in, low mood or anxiety is maybe a sign of resilence, not a marker of a disorder. So, don't jump into panic mode and look for an immediate professional diagnosis.
• Don't try too hard. Try not to critically compare your children with others and put pressure on them to conform. They may just be different.
• Don't fear emotions. Expressing (sometimes extreme) emotions and changing emotions is part of the process of growing up, and not a sign of psychological imbalance.
• Don't be controlling. Instead of looking for things that distress you about your child, try looking for things that you like instead.
• Don't obsess about concepts. Constantly using psych-speak like "meltdown" and "masking", and engaging in amateur diagnosis, might just increase your anxiety (and theirs!) about your child's mental health.

Brave and thought-provoking stuff. Mr. Timimi is saying, yes, arm yourself with knowledge, but don't obsess too much about your child's mental health. Sometimes they are just sad or worried; they don't necessarily have depression or clinical anxiety, and they don't necessarily need intervention or treatment.

Where we are with quantum computing

A lot has already been written about the burgeoning field of quantum technology, but a three-page "Field Guide to Quantum Tech" in the Business section of today's Globe and Mail is as good a summary as I have see of what quantum technology is, its promise and its challenges, and where we are with it (we, the World, and we, Canada). 

Thankfully, you don't need to know the details of quantum theory to understand its potential. Suffice it to say, quantum mechanics, the theory,  was developed in Europe in the 1920s, and it was so revolutionary that we are still trying to come to grips with it a century later. Despite its difficult concepts - Schrodinger's cat, spooky action at a distance, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics", all that - it has proven to be a remarkably robust and comprehensive model of our real-world physical reality.

The main technology envisaged for quantum technology is quantum computing. At its simplest, while a conventional computer uses billions of microelectronic switches to manipulate the 1s and 0s ("bits") that computers use for even their most complex operations, a quantum computer can take advantage of "qubits", which may be in the form of tiny superconducting circuits, ions trapped in electromagnetic fields, or beams of light orientated in different ways. What makes them special, though, is that, according to quantum theory, they can exist in two possible states (á la Schrodinger's cat), so that they can represent 1s and 0s, but also a mix of both. Under QM, particles can be in more than one place at the same time, and can act as though they are connected even when separated by large distances.

When many qubits are linked together, they can make quantum computers incredibly fast, capable of calculations that would take conventional computers literally millions of years to complete. Not all computer tasks can be accelerated in this way, but potential applications include cryptography (the current model of RSA cryptography, derived by multiplying together two massive prime numbers, would be child's play for a quantum computer - that's also part of the challenge it represents), but also modelling financial risks, optimizing traffic flow or factory production lines, simulating the behaviour of molecules to discover new medicines or better batteries, unspecified military applications, and many other things we probably haven't even thought of yet.

That, at least, is the promise. However, qubits are hard to work with. They typically have to be isolated from the slightest disturbance, often in cryogenic facilities to minimize vibrations and maintain them at temperatures colder than deep space. In order to be "fault-tolerant", quantum systems need to dedicate many more (orders of magnitude more) qubits to protecting and keeping a check on those doing the actual calculating.

Challenges notwithstanding, many, even most, countries are ploughing oodles of money into quantum research (China, of course, is way out in front), and many important breakthroughs have already been achieved. Big hitters like IBM, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Nvidia are investing heavily, although new discoveries (quantum leaps?) are just as likely to come from startups like Quantinuum, IonQ, PsiQuantum and Rigetti Computing in the USA, Photonics, Two Small Fish Ventures, D-Wave Quantum and Xanadu in Canada, or any number of lavishly state-funded outfits in China.

Either way, quantum computers are currently still far from operating at a commercial scale. We may be 5-10 years away from that, or it may be decades. It's not clear when quantum tech might yield big returns, or if it EVER will. A US government competition aims to determine if reliable and cost-effective quantum computers can be developed by 2033, which is seen as a moderately ambitious date (although don't be surprised if that competition gets cancelled by the anti-science Trump administration).

Canada is considered a reasonably major player globally, even if the financial investment in the country is small compared to players like Japan, Britain, USA, Germany, and of course China, whose quantum research and commercialization commitments almost matches the rest of the world combined. Within Canada, quantum research is mainly located in hotspots like the Kitchener-Waterloo- Cambridge triangle in Ontario, British Columbia's Lower Mainland, the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec, and the university of Calgary in Alberta.

Even if AI continues to develop to the extent that it too can immensely speed up numerical calculations and simulations, as some suggest, quantum computers can't be ignored, even if only because they have to potntial to render conventional cybersecurity obsolete. Some warn that encrypted data is already being harvested by nefarious agents for later unlocking by quantum computers.

And computing is not the only application the quantum revolution is affecting: the quantum sensing sector is already up and running. For example, quantum effects can be used to improve our measurement and modelling of the Earth's magnetic field, which is crucially used by navigation systems and smartphones. 

Quantum information systems are also already in use for communication and surveillance. For example, there is a form of quantum radar that can spot interlopers without revealing its own presence like conventional radar systems do. Countries across the world are exploring other military potentials for quantum tech.

Quantum stocks took off in 2024, thanks to some high-profile advances in the technology, and many private investors are keen to get in early for the Next Big Thing. In fact, as happened with AI, some analysts are warning that we are probably already in bubble territory, as people are investing on hype alone, without a deep understanding of the technology involved and its potential pitfalls.

We are still coming to grips with artificial intelligence (AI), learning what it can do, dealing with its abuse. It seems a stretch to be thinking about quantum technology too. But it is coming, either slowly or all of a sudden, and we need to be ready for it. 

Charlie Kirk's killer was not a card-carrying Democrat

MAGA Republicans are making the usual knee-jerk reactions and assertions that the shooter of far-right influencer Charlie Kirk was a Democrat, with many of them calling for bloody revenge and even the "end of democracy". I mean, it stands to reason right? Kirk was a rabid and extremely contentious right-winger; his killer must therefore be a rabid leftie, no?

Well, just as the attempted assassination of Donald Trump last year was not perpetrated by a disgruntled Democrat, neither was Kirk's more successful assassin an extreme-left firebrand Democrat. 

22-year old Utah resident Tyler Robinson is not Democrat, or even particularly politically active. His last voter registration was back in 2021, and public records show his political agitation to be "none". He also comes from a conservative family, although one family member asserted that "Robinson had become more political in recent years". But, still, this is a not a rabid extreme-left partisan we are talking about. 

This, of course, was not enough to stop Donald Trump from doubling down on the partisan rhetoric: "We have radical left lunatics out there, and we just have to beat the hell out of them". The next day: "The radicals on the left are the problem, and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy." This, of course, is the Trump approach to bridging divides, and calming potentially violent escalation.

And just so we know who we are talking about here, Charlie Kirk was a highly controversial figure with some pretty extreme right-wing views. 

• He was strongly anti-gay and -trans rights, and encouraged students to report university profs who embraced "gender ideology". 
• He was a strong supporter of gun rights and against gun control, and once publicly opined, "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment" (pretty ironic, in retrospect). 
• He strongly opposed diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and affirmative action, and believed the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake and that Martin Luther King was an "awful" person. 
• Despite supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza, he was vocally anti-Jew, believed in the "replacement theory" conspiracy, and thought that all Jews were  involved in anti-white activities.
• He was anti-Muslim even more than anti-Jew, calling Islam an existential threat to America.
• He was a climate change denier, arguing that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and that it is not important anyway.
• Just about the only thing Kirk was not against was free speech, although he was less supportive of free speech for leftists.

So, this is the person who Donald Trump called "Great, even Legendary". Maybe the views recently espoused by a University of Toronto prof about Kirk are extreme, but, make no mistake, he was not a nice guy, and it's no surprise he made a whole boatload of enemies in his short time in the glare of American media. 

The backlash has already begun, though, even here in Canada. A Manitoba cabinet minister was called out by the Conservative opposition and forced to publicly apologize for calling Kirk racist, sexist and transphobic, and a "white nationalist mouthpiece". That is not virulent and offensive in the way that the UoT prof's comments were, that is just stating facts, and Kirk - a noted proponent of free speech - will have had much worse than that to his face.

Brazil's Supreme Court less corrupt than America's

I've not often had much confidence in Brazilian politics, although current President Lula does seem to be somewhat of a calming and civilizing influence. Now, though, Brazil has shown itself head and shoulders above the USA, at least in terms of judicial ethics (not a very high bar, to be sure).

A panel of Brazil's Supreme Court justices has had the cojones to sentence ex-President Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in jail for plotting a military coup after losing the 2022 election. Bolsonaro was quite clearly acting from the Donald Trump playbook when he reacted to the election loss, and Trump was an important model throughout his right-wing populist presidency. But, unlike the pusillanimous US Supreme Court, which is clearly willing to do whatever Trump requires of it, Brazil's maintained its independence and actually voted on the evidence (and there was plenty of damning evidence provided) and brought down a decision according to the law, not partisan politics. The panel's decision was 4-1.

Predictably enough, the Trump administration, lost in its bubble of delusion and misinformation, has expressed its surprise and disappointment with the Brazilian court's decision, calling it a witch hunt and unjust. Trump has already slapped 50% tariffs on Brazil for having the audacity to even put Bolsonaro on trial, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has vowed that there will almost certainly be further repercussions after this latest decision. But Lula seems refreshingly impervious to America's threats thus far.

The trial has gripped Brazil, and this decision may serve to further divide an already polarized country (sound familiar?) Bolsonaro's lawyers have of course said that they will appeal the decision, and keep appealing it until they get the decision they want - also straight out of the Trump playbook - but they may not find Brazil's courts as willing to play ball as America's.

Do the Brits really want to see the Bayeux Tapestry?

French President Emmanuel Macron has promised to loan the UK the famous thousand-year old Bayeux Tapestry as a gesture of goodwill.

Politicians and local authorities are lauding the decision. Conservators and museum people, on the other hand, are warning that the tapestry is way too fragile to transport (and is, of course, irreplaceable).

My first thought was: why would Britain want to admire a tapestry celebrating nearly two hundred years of conquest and oppression by a foreign force? Maybe the Brits are more broad-minded and urbane than I think, but my guess is that M. Macron is being overly optimistic 

Why is it alway men that engage in risky investing behaviour?

If you've ever wondered why it always seems to be guys that do all that investment in cryptocurrencies, meme stocks, sports gambling, even belief in Donald Trump and conspiracies theories, some new research purports to explain it (but fails, in my opinion).

The research, published in the journal Judgment and Decision Making (yes, that's the name of a scientific journal!), identifies something called the "confidence-information-distortion-confidence" cycle. This essentially says that, once men have an initial opinion on something - whether it be choosing a mortgage or insurance option, making investment decisions, choosing a financial advisor or going it alone - they tend to interpret any subsequent pieces of information, whether confirmatory or useful or relevant or not, as support for their initial assessment. Even if it shouldn't rationally affect their decision at all, each new item of information somehow increases their confidence that their original opinion was right. 

You could just call it "conviction bias", rather than the pseudo-science gobbledygook this study chooses to employ. And it's hardly surprising or news, is it? More to the point, it doesn't really explain why men are more affected by this logic blindness than women. But it remains a fact that some 61% of cryptocurrency investors are men, high-risk stock trading tends to be a male province by a two-to-one ratio, and sports betting is male thing by a three-to-one margin.

A study explaining why women are more risk-averse than men might be more useful. I imagine it has its origins in evolutionary biology or child-rearing or something of that sort. These things usually do.

Robert Kennedy Jr. hauled over the coals on vaccines

The US Senate committee investigating the actions and decisions of Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. is riveting America, not least for Kennedy's completely unrepentant fixation on walking back decades - nay, centuries - of research and settled science on vaccination.

He doesn't say so in so many words, but it's clear that Kennedy wants to get rid of ALL vaccinations. For now, he is contenting himself with limiting some important vaccines, including the COVID vaccine (which he calls the "most deadly in history", despite its clear role in saving thousands, maybe millions, of lives) and the hepatitis B and RSV vaccines. The spectre of the spread of preventable diseases like polio and measles running rampant through America once again is by no means improbable. (Florida has already revealed plans to repeal ALL vaccine requirements for schoolchildren!)

Kennedy has already dismissed many members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including its director, as well as the entire panel of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and replaced them with known antivaccine activists. He is promising many more sackings in the near future of anyone who disagrees with his own wacky beliefs (which is almost all mainstream scientists). Many more have voluntarily resigned their positions, unable to work in such an environment. Even his family members are calling for him to step down, calling him a threat to the health of Americans!

The White House (or at least Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller) has publicly defended Kennedy, who has come under fire from politicians on both sides of the political divide. Miller called RFK Jr. "a crown jewel of this administration", in spite of the growing howls for his removal. Trump himself has remained suspiciously quiet about it all, contenting himself with saying that Kennedy "means very well" (faint praise indeed), and that "I like the fact that he's different".(ridiculous and childish). Trump seems to dither between strongly supporting vaccines and not. For example, he recently deadpanned, "Look, you have vaccines that work. They just pure and simple work. They're not controversial at all." OK.

As with so much that is happening in the Trump administration, it's hard to look away. But it's a depressing and unedifying spectacle to see so much good work (and so many good people) being wilfully destroyed in this way.

Why does everyone now hate Keir Starmer?

Keir Starmer and the Labour Party won a landslide victory in the UK elections a year ago (411 out of the 650 seats available), largely as a result of general dissatisfaction with the Tories' sorry performance over the preceding decade plus. The country, it seemed, was willing to give him carte blanche to follow a new political direction.

But, as I noted just recently, Labour's popularity is now down around 20%, barely above that of the Conservatives, and well behind the far-right Reform UK, which would win with a healthy majority if an election were held today. Luckily, no such election is planned. 69% of voters now have an unfavourable opinion of Labour, and Starmer's net favourability rating has sunk to an all-time low of -46%. In fact, even among Labour voters, his approval rating is -26%.

Now, Starmer has lost one of his most loyal lieutenants, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who resigned after details surfaced of her failure to pay the proper land tax on a new home, an egregious sin indeed.

And all this is in spite of what seem at face value to be a series of economic wins: trade deals with the US, India and the EU for example, reductions in NHS waiting lists, improvements to school services, etc.

So, how did Starmer manage to make such an almighty hash of it? Why is Starmer so unpopular?

Well, as is so often the case, cost of living issues are the main reason. Inflation is on the rise again, and the cost of electricity, gas and other fuels has risen even faster, with water and sewage costs increasing more than everything. These monthly bills are highly visible and top-of-mind for voters, and are a big influence on people's opinions. Cutting benefits for disabled people and winter fuel cuts didn't help the government's image either.

British business have also soured in Labour. Higher taxes on businesses are seen by many as "anti-growth", and limits imposed on immigration and foreign workers, as well as an arguably  laudable increase in the minimum wage and improved workers' rights, are all seen as increased burdens for small and medium-sized businesses in particular.

Ironically, in a country still reeling from the effects of the relatively flamboyant and bombastic Boris Johnson and even Nigel Farage, Starmer's lack of personality is also holding him back. You'd think the country would welcome a calm, thoughtful leader, but apparently his lack of charisma and his dull, plodding approach to politics is a distinct turn-off for many Britons. Many of his cabinet members are also not well-liked as personalities, and several (particularly Chancellor Rachel Reeves) are perceived as being out of their depths.

There were other contributing factors too - Starmer's initial reliance on, and subsequent sacking of, the unpopular advisor Sue Grey; the acceptance of free gifts ("freebiegate"); and others. After all, Starmer was supposed to be different from Boris and the others, right? 

Polling suggests that there are two types of Labour defectors: those who now prefer the Greens or Lib Dems - younger, predominantly female and better-educated, who largely feel that Labour under Starmer is too right-wing and "not Labour enough" - and those who have switched to Reform UK (really?!, yes!), who tend to be more working class and poorly-educated, and often Brexit leave voters, many of whose main complaint is that Labour has not controlled immigration well enough. 

Starmer's response to this has mainly been to lurch even further to the right on issues like immigration and trans rights, i.e. to chase those who have defected to Reform. But those same polls suggest that only 15% of those Reform defectors say they would consider voting Labour again, while nearly 60% of the defectors to the  Greens and Lib Dems say they might still vote Labour in the future. So, this seems like a bad choice on Starmer's part, and acting more like traditional Labour would probably help them more. It gets complicated, right?

So, predictably, there is no one underlying reason for Starmer's fall from grace, more of a perfect storm of minor factors, none the less damning for all that. What a mess!