Mental health AND psychological information

Mental health refers to the overall state of an individual in terms of emotional stability, normal social functioning, and basic resilience in facing challenges. Psychological information, on the other hand, serves as a medium for promoting public awareness of mental health, facilitating self-assessment, and providing guidance for intervention. The relationship between the two is neither subordinate nor causal; rather, it represents a two-way interaction where the quality of psychological information directly influences the public’s understanding of mental health. Conversely, the real needs of the general population in terms of mental health also continuously drive the evolution of the content and refinement of the boundaries of this information.

Last year, while working at the psychological services office in our local government, I encountered a worried high school mother whose son was so anxious that he was in tears. She mentioned that several psychological bloggers had said that if a child closes themselves in their room as soon as they get home and refuses to talk to their parents, it could be a sign of depression. So, she insisted on having her son take the SDS depression screening test three times in a row. However, all the results were completely normal. Her son, on the other hand, felt that she was making a fuss out of nothing. As a result of this, the already tense atmosphere during their exam preparation turned into a cold war for half a month, and the mother and son even stopped eating at the same table.

In fact, there are countless similar cases of “misleading information,” and the academic community as well as frontline science communicators have debated this issue for several years. Academic researchers have always argued that the dissemination of psychological information must be strictly regulated based on qualifications. Counsellors who are not part of a registered system or bloggers without a background in psychology should not be allowed to publish such content at will. After all, extreme theories such as “the determinism of one’s upbringing” or “high sensitivity being a natural trait” have wrongly labeled many people in the past. What were merely minor challenges in their development have been misinterpreted as “inescapable curses from their family of origin,” causing them unnecessary emotional distress.

However, those who work on the front lines of public education have a completely different perspective. I know a counselor who provides psychological services for teenagers in a county town; she says that many parents there have never even heard the idea that depression is not a sign of weakness or fragility. If all psychological information had to be presented in an academic and formal tone, not only would parents find it difficult to understand, but even local teachers would lose interest in reading it. It is only when the information includes personal experiences and real-life examples that people are willing to share it, and it is then that basic knowledge about mental health can truly be disseminated. If Kata dies, it would essentially mean blocking off the cognitive channels for these emerging markets.

I’ve also encountered similar balancing challenges when helping companies revise their employee assistance program materials. An intern who wrote the original draft had stated that “if someone suffers from insomnia for a week in a row, they should seek medical attention as soon as possible.” I deleted that phrase and revised it accordingly: Consider seeking professional help if you experience consecutive weeks of insomnia, along with a complete loss of interest in things you used to enjoy and a constant feeling that you are unable to do anything well. After all, who among those who work long nights to meet project deadlines hasn’t experienced insomnia for a week? If we published the original text as is, I don’t know how much unnecessary stress that would cause for so many people who are already under deadline pressure. You see, the difference in wording when it comes to psychological information can have a significantly different impact on people.

It’s really interesting how many people have such serious misconceptions about these two concepts. They seem to think that “mental health” simply means being free from illness, and that “mental health information” is nothing more than a guide for treating people who have mental problems. I used to give parent lectures at elementary schools about how to praise children in a way that wouldn’t make them overly sensitive. At the end of one lecture, a father came up to me and said that he had always thought mental health was some kind of scam, but today he realized that the way we talk to our children is actually related to mental health as well. In fact, you can think of mental health just like the condition of your car. Mental health information is equivalent to the maintenance guides and troubleshooting tips you usually read about cars. You wouldn’t just start disassembling your engine based on those guides, nor would you drive your car around with a malfunctioning light on without looking at any advice at all, waiting until it breaks down completely before taking it for repair, right?

Of course, at present, both the criteria for assessing mental health and the content guidelines for psychological information are still in the process of gradual adjustment, so there is no absolute right or wrong. You might come across little quizzes like “three-minute test to determine if you have anxiety disorder” from time to time; it’s fine to give them a try for fun, but don’t rush to label yourself based on the results. After all, whether it’s about mental health or psychological information, the ultimate goal isn’t to turn you into a “perfect person,” but rather to help you live your life more comfortably. Doesn’t that make sense?