i think it's actually interesting to see someone so heavily involved in 'mental health discourse' acknowledge and grapple with these ideas and contradictions, but personally, i think he's coming to the exact wrong conclusions

can it be debilitating to become aware of how dehumanised you are by structural factors far beyond your control, and how dependent parts of your psyche might be on the hail mary chance they inexplicably contort in your favour? yes! crushingly so!

however, i don't understand how willfully keeping people in ignorance of these things, as he seems to suggest, is more useful; keeping people labouring under the illusion the problem is located within them, and that they have the capacity as individuals to excise these things

i believe it is absolutely crucial to be aware of anything which may contribute to your self esteem, and the exact extent to which it does, while also that reacting to being, for eg, in poverty with extreme stress is not some unnatural response in need of 'fixing' internally

to be aware that you are experiencing feelings of worthlessness as a rational - and encouraged! - response to being an 'unsuccessful' individual within a capitalist system is far more useful than believing you just have the wrong 'attitude' or are prone to 'thinking errors'

here he presents a position nobody is arguing: that only the poor suffer psychological distress. what's being argued is that distress is experienced differently across the class spectrum, and that this is so often ignored in favour of a universalised conception of 'mental health'