“that’s so paternalistic, who are we to assume what’s good for you???”

In previous times, (pre-1970s) that was the approach — the psych/iatrist/ologist was a substitute daddy hired to bring the wayward woman or child back into obedience. All of this is a very recent prosthetic to stem problems that emerged during the very long decay of the traditional family.

Today, there is no father (sometimes literally, certainly legally in the traditional sense even when the father is present), so the psych operates as an agent of the state, and its definition of health and sickness accords to what the state needs from its citizens.

“it is an essentially (and much-needed) conservative message sanctioned by the cathedral, packaged for public consumption, but without an objectionable/sectarian religious justification.”

That would be nice. Unfortunately, there is no unified message, and the incentives point towards further family breakdown and cannibalization. I am very optimistic about alternative political orders, but have zero confidence in the ability of the US as an entity to correct its course.

if you’re experiencing some anxiety, then ok that’s pretty common – but how much? if it “interferes with your normal activities” substantially on a daily basis, then we’ll call that an anxiety disorder, even if your “normal activities” are empty-to-depraved and involve very little which would sustainably gratify any ordinary human being. now you’re suffering from an anxiety disorder, and failures to improve yourself or fulfill your obligations until you’re cured are not your fault.

psychology thinks this makes diagnoses individualized/context-sensitive, but it is just dat solipsism, and the diagnoses on the margin become self-fulfilling prophesies besides. there’s no reason in theory why the criteria can’t be more objective. e.g. you’re depressed if you’re literally unable to work and/or take care of your family, not if you just can’t get excited about living your trashy “Girls” life anymore. but oh no, that’s so paternalistic, who are we to assume what’s good for you???

the related point about the state and its increasing inability to herd hedonistic, solipsistic citizen-cats is why I no longer have much hope for the left libertarian project. the internal tension between “not dictating values/lifestyles” and “promoting individual goods” is just too great. tradeoffs made in light of the latter require or at least imply positions on the former.

I’ve come to believe that positive psychology is our only hope of taming the secular religion. it is Science, and We Fucking Love Science. and, if you listen, even within the academy the positive psychologists are saying: “you’re probably not special. we basically know what makes people happy. it’s friends, family, and security. you personally need to do what you can to achieve these things by e.g. delaying gratification, ignore our advice at your own peril.” it is an essentially (and much-needed) conservative message sanctioned by the cathedral, packaged for public consumption, but without an objectionable/sectarian religious justification.