I don’t disagree that a person with a degree probably has better learning and research skills than someone who doesn’t. I just don’t see how anyone can make any assumptions in this case when we simply don’t know who knows what, based simply on their educational histories. Maybe Tom is a voracious reader of psychological texts; can you prove that he isn’t? Maybe Brooke hasn’t done a lick of research on her own condition; can you prove that she did? We can make assumptions and educated guesses, but we don’t know based on a couple of press releases and some Wikipedia biographies.
He doesn’t believe in chemical imbalances. He refused to acknowledge that some people have gotten relief from mental illnesses through medication. That does not sound like a person who has read medical texts about psychiatry.
She wrote a book about PPD which Amazon.com says “exhibits an informed voice.” Seems clear that she at least has working knowledge of her illness and its treatments, which she discusses in detail in her book.
We have much more information than that. I feel confident stating that Brooke Shields knows more about modern psychiatric illnesses and treatments than Tom Cruise, and this largely stems from her breadth of education and probably from her greater native intelligence.
Even though I have a postgraduate degree, an amateur’s interest in science, and have had both medication and therapy for depression in the past, when I had my baby and was not only miserable, but actively hated my child and thought about giving her away, I knew I must be the most horrible, evil woman ever, and the last thing I wanted to do was share these feelings with someone else. Given that, I imagine that Cruise’s idiot ranting could cause a lot of harm, even to the point of babies being killed by mothers who might have sought treatment if not for hearing his delusions.
Thank goodness I did get help, and I am totally smitten with my kid. I’m definitely getting Shields’s book, and probably writing her a letter of thanks.
Hey Tom, Happy Premise #1: STFU about mental illness.
Agree with who?
Well, I think you’re lumping a couple things into one. The first issue, which you quoted from me above, is that dismissing depression is ridiculous, and I think it would be best handled dismissively—the same way we might respond if Criuse denied the germ theory of disease. Samuel (IIRC) Johnson refuted Berkeley’s argument about the non-existence of material objects by kicking a stone. Philosophers may not find the response sufficient; however, under the circumstances being discussed in this thread, it has a wonderful mix of dismissiveness, ridicule, and proof that Cruise’s remarks warrant. Another great example, for which I cannot easily find a cite, is a physicist’s response to the claim that he couldn’t disprove post-modernsim. He simply said, “Yes I can.”
The second thing is that if Shields were going to respond, then I think she could (and should) have done a much better job. You disagree w/ me on that. Based on my experiences, I find “facts” to be very effective with the layperson. (I say “facts” not to insult you. I’m in land-use zoning & planning and there are some ideologies out there that a lot of people believe in because of the so-called facts supporting them.)
You asked what would have happened if Tom Cruise had been speaking out against doctors prescribing antibiotics for strep throat. I said that, along with many doctors, would have agreed with him.
Depression is much more of a gray area than germ theory. I’ve never thought Johnson’s stone-kicking response was much of an argument, anyway. It rather missed the point.
Maybe it should be ignored because he’s just a movie star and most people know he’s an idiot. But Tom Cruise is a huge movie star worldwide, and through him such views get a worldwide platform. Also, what he said matters because of the particular topic he chose. Not many ‘sane’ people would give him any credit, but a woman who is already suffering from PPD might do.
Agreed. I don’t think this is one of those issues, though. At the same time as Shields’ testimony, there was an official fact-filled statement released to rebut Cruise’s claims. Which one has got more publicity?
Is that just because she’s famous? (In which case it does matter what the famous say). Would she have got the same response if she had read out the statement from the mental health organisations? I don’t think so.
I think this is a dangerously naive view. Yes, virtue need not stoop to defend itself, but many, many people still do not realize that depression is an actual illness that needs treatment; untreated, it can kill you. I know educated, usually open-minded people who are depressed or have loved ones who are depressed, and they just refuse to acknowledge it for what it is or get help. There is still a stigma attached to mental illness, and Cruise reinforces that stigma from the bully pulpit which he has attained not through intelligence, education, or great insight, but by being a movie star. PPD is an even more stigmatized condition because the woman affected feels that she is a terrible person already due to her “unnatural” reactions to her baby. The last thing a woman with PPD needs is some extremely famous guy saying that she’s wrong for getting psychiatric help. Anything Shields (or anyone else) can do to discredit him or get him to STFU is OK by me.
Check out this review of Shields’ book from amazon.com:
This is exactly the kind of reaction I’d be worried about. See how the emphasis shifted from PPD to who’s a better actor, and thus who has more credibility in this issue? The moron who wrote this doesn’t realize that the book came out long before Cruise bloviated on the subject. He singled out Shields, not the other way around. Idiot. There’s a lot more like this on the book’s page, so clearly those of us who are worried that people might take Cruise seriously are not imagining this risk.
IIRC, Scientology DOES pretty much reject the germ theory, in that they believe auditing can cure the common cold and other ailments.
My first wife had it bad. In fact, she started getting weird about 7 months in.
She never realized anything was different. Never admitted to herself that she had some sort of chemical imbalance. Twice I came home from work only to find she had moved everything out and was leaving. Where? Why? She didn’t know.
I couldn’t get her to see anyone about it. In her mind everyone else had a problem, not her.
You might want to specify to whom you refer with that remark.
Yes, and at least one of us who has that worry realizes that the sort of idiot who thinks depression can be cured by vitamins probably won’t be convinced by personal accounts from Shields. Imagine the conversation between Cruise and Random Believer…
Cruise: Sheilds has her head up her ass. She’s imagining things and needs vitamins.
Random Believer: But she said that she had PPD, and that other women told her they had it too.
Cruise: Right, because they’re imagining things. Get it?
Random Beliver: Oh, yeah. Good point.
I’m skeptical that those who are swayed by Cruise are going to be swayed by Shields. I think you’re dealing with belief rather than ignorance. An impassioned appeal is going to make a difference? As evidenced in the Amazon quote you gave above, just about any reply—even if the reply was published years before—add credence to the believers claims. A powerful response? The lady doth protest too much. A thoughtful reply? If it were true, she should be more outraged.
I just don’t see the utility in engaging him in debate. He’s like a creationist: when one is not bound by facts or science, when one is motivated by belief, one will have the upper hand in a debate before the hoi polloi because one is bound by neither logic nor honesty, and the honest debater shall surely lose.