There are a range of challenges that we face, when working to improve mental health outcomes for people, here and across the world. Psychosocial challenges, socioeconomic challenges, cultural challenges, environmental challenges, medical challenges and more. Each challenge brings its own range of complexities, its own contextual differences, and a variety of personal experiences.

​Many people, in many systems, do not shy away from the complexities involved with improving mental health challenges in their communities, their friends and their families.

We are moving towards greater patience and understanding, hopefully advocating for better, more comprehensive assistance and longer-term, fit-for-purpose solutions to these issues.

In Australia, we have world-class healthcare, and a seemingly endless stream of advocates, fundraisers, morning teas, awareness campaigns overtly expressing support for mental health.

We also have an unhealthy obsession with real estate, and an aversion to interrogating the realities of accessibility to the fundamental human needs of shelter, agency, privacy, safety and security.

Housing, is essential for good mental health outcomes.

If we truly care about mental health, then we must be prepared to engage with the difficulties facing housing in Australia. It will require work on multiple fronts: tax reform, planning, negative gearing, banking, wages, productivity, training, supply chain, and inequality. It will require cultural attitude adjustments.
It requires consensus, that housing is a human right, before an investment vehicle.

It requires understanding, that house value increases are a function of contributions of the entire economy.

It requires empathy with those who require housing, a focus on fairness, and reminding Australians that housing policy improvements won’t take away their family home – instead trying to ensure that every Australian can actually have a family home.

It’s complex, but essential work. I hope we’ll do it.

In your conversations, understanding the difference between good-faith, and honesty, can go a long way to avoiding time-wasting, hurt feelings and misunderstandings. There are useful distinctions whether you’re trying to navigate the perilous world of online communication, or personal relationships.
 
A version of a good-faith interaction, between people of different views, is one where both parties have a genuine curiosity, open-mindedness and empathy for the experiences and thoughts of the other person. In this reading, empathy for their point of view, is more rooted in an understanding that they have come to that point of view as a result of their own experiences, knowledge, beliefs and motivations. It doesn’t mean that you must agree with them. It means that there is a patience and curiosity for how they came to that point of view, or feeling, and an interest in engaging with that point of view ready to listen to it, and meet it with your own.

A bad-faith interaction between people of opposing views, is one where pedantic obfuscation, ‘winning’, or ‘proving someone wrong’ are the main intentions. It’s an interaction where no party (or one party in particular) has no interest in actually hearing or understanding what the other person has to say. Where there is no curiosity, patience or attempt to meet the other person where they are, and find common ground, or common cause, from which to explore differences in opinion or understanding.
 
For people who are simply having an argument, amongst friends or partners, good-faith means always considering the long-term implications of what you say and what you do. It means putting your love and care for the other person, in front of being correct, and it means working towards a resolution, rather than a win. Bad-faith arguments (we’ve all heard them, and we’ve all had them), can be full of ‘honesty’ and still be brutally painful, and damaging. Good-faith arguments are those where the disagreement is the centre of the dialogue, not the person. In good-faith arguments both parties disagree, and yet are careful and considerate of the person they disagree with.

You can still be upset, hurt, disappointed by good-faith disagreements, but it is not the point of them. In a bad-faith disagreement, pain is part of the intention.
 
Knowing the difference between these approaches can save you a lot of time and emotional energy. I believe in having all the patience and time one can muster, when talking to individuals and communities that are engaging in good faith. Knowing fully well, that you won’t necessarily change anyone’s mind or point of view on the spot (it’s incredibly difficult to do that), but that you can be a part of a process of mutual understanding, and broadening of context, that will stand everyone in good stead for further dialogue. Encountering good-faith, also helps to prime people for future chats, while bad-faith conversations set people up for instant defensiveness in the future, when encountering similar points of view.
 
 
Some truths that are worth remembering:

• People can have intensely held feelings/opinions and still engage in good-faith debate.
  
  
• People can hold onto feelings/opinions very loosely and still enter dialogue in bad faith.
  
  
• Honesty and truth are important, and there are definitely people who engage in dialogue using demonstrably false information.
  
  
• Honesty is the best policy, except sometimes, when it isn’t. It can be used in bad-faith to upset, discombobulate, and derail dialogue.
  
  
• There can be topics that induce bad-faith conversations between people, who otherwise have good-faith conversations and relationships.
  
  
• If someone is just shit-stirring, know that this in a bad-faith discussion and not worth the energy.
  
  
• If someone disagrees with you, but is engaging in good-faith, they are unlikely to change their minds quickly, but an ongoing, good-faith dialogue is a great way for both of you to better understand one another, and whether you continue to disagree or not, learn something.
  
  
• Changing minds is really difficult, and it’s almost impossible when everyone is raging. Whom the god’s would destroy, they first make mad, is an old saying – one that understands the point of bad-faith, frustration and rage-baiting.
  
  
• Curiosity and patience are the bedrock of good-faith discussions. If you cannot agree, you may at least understand more of the context in which the other parties’ ideas/beliefs/feelings have come from. This is a win, even if it’s only an internal win for you.
  
  
• You, your ideas, your opinions, your feelings, are not for everyone. No matter what they are. There is nothing that absolutely everyone agrees with. Feel free to enlighten others as often as you would like to, with as much energy as you would like to invest – but know that investing your time in bad-faith dialogue is a poor investment, and saving your energy for good-faith conversations will result in better returns.
  
  
• Don’t demand good-faith from those with whom you are engaging in bad-faith. Demonstrate a posture of good-faith, before demanding it from others.
  
  
• You can disengage from bad-faith dialogue at any time. (You can disengage from good-faith dialogue at any time too, but it might be a missed opportunity).

Good luck, and happy conversations!

Just Be Nice
- Josh

If a tree falls in the wood, with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

That is to say, if no one experiences, or observes the sound, are we certain that it happened?

The question is an old philosophical one, with connections to concepts of perception that we see in particle physics, conjuring up wonderful discussions and rabbit-holes for those who wish to chase them.

For today, I want to use something similar to pose a challenge to you.

Can you, over the next week, help someone each day?

It can be a person you know, or it can be a stranger. It can be a small thing, a small act of kindness, or a big thing. It can be a moment, or a commitment. You can do it with their knowledge, or you can help someone in such a way, that they don’t know you helped them at all (this is the hardest level of the challenge).

Anything at all, for anyone – once a day, for a week.

Help someone, with something, once a day, for a week. It can be the same someone, or different people.

But you can’t tell anyone about it.

Do a good deed. Say nothing.

Don’t tell a friend, your partner, your colleague. If there is a person who you helped without their knowledge, you can’t tell them, or anyone else that you did it.

See how it feels. Many, many people struggle with this. The casual mention of a good deed, or the announcement of a deed is, for many, an important part of the process. It feels very strange to tell no one. By no one, I mean, no one. Not only for the week of helping, but forever. Whatever help you gave, you never mention it, ever again, to anyone.

If they thank you, you can acknowledge it, but then that’s it.

That’s the challenge.

Let me know how you go. Don’t let me know what you did, but let me know if you could do it. Let me know how it felt, and what you thought when you did it. Remember, the week of help, is locked away, if you talk about your deeds after the week, you’ve still lost the challenge, and I’d love to know if you do.

Good luck.

- Josh