Does mental illness have a silver lining? New paper says yes

Research shows certain psychological disorders are associated with greater empathy, creativity, resilience and more

R. D. LAING WOULD AGREE

University of Colorado at Boulder

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

An estimated one in five U.S. adults live with mental illnesses, conditions that are almost universally characterized by their negative consequences. But there are also positive attributes associated with psychological disorders— and acknowledging them can reduce stigma, improve care and provide hope to patients and their families.

That’s the case made in a new paper titled Silver Linings in Psychological Disorders: An Agenda for Research and Social Change. 

In it, University of Colorado Boulder psychology professor June Gruber and co-authors at Cornell University point to dozens of studies dating back decades, which associate mental illness with heightened creativity, empathy, resilience and other positive qualities. 

“The prevailing narrative in clinical psychology focuses on mental health from a disease model perspective—we are taught to diagnose what’s wrong and try to fix it,” said Gruber, director of the Positive Emotion and Psychopathology Lab at CU Boulder. “This leaves out the fact that at the same time people struggle with mental health challenges, they may also grow, thrive and even develop unique strengths.” 

Published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, the paper highlights evidence showing that people with mild schizophrenia, hypomania and bipolar disorder tend to score higher on measures of creativity and gravitate toward more creative professions. 

“Some of the most creative minds in our society have also been the minds of people who had mental illness,” said Gruber.

People with a history of depression also tend to show more willingness to cooperate, research from Gruber's lab and others has shown. 

One CU Boulder study of nearly 2,000 college students found that although those on the bipolar spectrum report greater social conflict, they also report significantly larger social networks and feel greater social support. Another study from Gruber’s lab found that while young adults at increased risk for mania tend to perceive even negative situations in an overly positive light, they are also better at detecting emotional shifts in others.

“Together, our findings show that along with well-documented social challenges that come with mood disorders, there may also be meaningful social strengths,” said Gruber.

In the silver linings paper, the authors note that many people in remission from mental illness look back on their darkest struggles as catalysts that helped them build resilience and self-awareness.

Take one 2019 study, led by Cornell Psychology Professor Jonathan Rottenberg, a co-author on the ‘silver linings’ paper. It found that 10 years after being diagnosed with clinical depression, 10% of study participants were “thriving” (meaning they were not only free of depression but had a psychological well-being better than one-quarter of nondepressed adults). 

Gruber and Rottenberg said they do not intend to convey a “Pollyanna,” or “all-will-be-well” approach that glosses over the real suffering that comes with mental illness. But they do want to provide hope, rooted in data, that positive outcomes can occur.

They also stress that the paper is not a call to abandon medication or psychotherapy, which can be lifesaving. Rather, it is a call for a more holistic approach to research and care.

By acknowledging silver linings, Gruber believes her field can reduce stigma and potentially develop treatment plans that seek to preserve the unique traits people like about themselves while keeping the harmful elements of their illness at bay.

“If you have a more holistic understanding of a person, you can do more to support them,” she said. 

---

Journal

Current Directions in Psychological Science

DOI

10.1177/09637214251360738 

Method of Research

Literature review

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Silver Linings in Psychological Disorders: An Agenda for Research and Social Change


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for ANTI-PSYCHIATRY

When schizophrenia meets a personality disorder: why more research is urgently needed

University of Montreal

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A new study by a research team at Université de Montréal highlights a critical lack of knowledge about the cognitive profiles of people living with both schizophrenia and a personality disorder.  

A comprehensive review of scientific literature from the past 24 years, published in Schizophrenia Research: Cognition, reveals that despite the high prevalence of this dual diagnosis (affecting approximately 40 per cent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia) and its association with unfavourable outcomes, the available data are surprisingly limited and fragmented. 

“Our analysis shows a significant blind spot in current knowledge,” said Anouck Chalut, lead author of the study and a Psy. D. in neuropsychology from UdeM. “Little is known about cognition in people living with a personality disorder in addition to schizophrenia.”  

Led by UdeM psychology professor Tania Lecomte—director of L'ESPOIR, a research laboratory in the Department of Psychology dedicated to improving treatments and services for people with severe mental disorders—the researchers combed through hundreds of scientific articles but found only 10 that met their criteria for scientific rigour. 

“We found that the existing research is limited, fragmentary and sometimes contradictory, leaving clinicians with few clear guidelines,” noted Chalut. This gap is consequential because cognition is the strongest predictor of recovery for individuals living with schizophrenia, she said. 

Significant health challenges 

The combination of schizophrenia and a personality disorder presents considerable challenges, including more severe psychotic symptoms, serious functional impairment, reduced compliance with medication, more frequent hospitalization and increased risk of suicide. 

Despite these challenges, people with this dual diagnosis are often excluded from clinical studies or grouped together with patients who have only schizophrenia. 

“Our findings underscore the need to improve our understanding of these individuals and focus on their cognitive profiles to support functional recovery, given that cognition plays a decisive role in that process,” said Chalut. 

The study offers concrete recommendations for both clinicians and researchers, including systematic screening for symptoms of personality disorders in people living with schizophrenia and the use of standardized tools to characterize cognitive profiles in this population. 

The research highlights the need for further investigation into adapting treatments and therapies to the specific needs of these individuals, who are often overlooked in current research, the study team argues. 

Approaches such as cognitive remediation – which aims to mitigate the effects of cognitive deficits and support strategies to strengthen impaired mental abilities, including memory, attention and problem-solving – could prove useful, the researchers believe. 

About this study 

“Cognitive deficits in individuals with comorbid personality disorder and schizophrenia: a scoping review,” by Anouck Chalut et al., was published in the March 2026 issue of Schizophrenia Research: Cognition. 

 

---

Journal

Schizophrenia Research

DOI

10.1016/j.scog.2025.100403 

Method of Research

Meta-analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Cognitive deficits in individuals with comorbid personality disorder and schizophrenia: A scoping review

Why Is the Media Normalizing Nuclear War and Its Effects on US Populations?

Tom Valovic

 July 16, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

As a political journalist, I typically monitor about six or seven print publications and a somewhat absurd number of online ones. But I recently noticed a disturbing trend—a slew of articles with titles like “Apocalyptic map shows worst U.S. states to live in during nuclear war” or “Nuclear Fallout: Is Your State Safe?” Then there’s my personal favorite “10 U.S. States with the Best Odds of Surviving Nuclear Fallout and the Science Behind Their Safety.”

The second article informs us in a blithe and matter-of-fact tone that “recent geopolitical tensions have reignited concerns over nuclear safety across the United States. According to a detailed risk assessment featured on MSN, states along the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington) and East Coast (Florida, Maine, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio) have lower immediate fallout risks compared to central states.” And then, in a tone that could well be used to describe the best air conditioners to buy this summer, we’re cautioned that: “Even states considered safer are not guaranteed refuge from longer-term global impacts such as nuclear winter and widespread humanitarian crises.” Well good to know. Now we can all plan our summer travel accordingly. (As a brief aside, it should be noted that the MSN risk assessment article referred to is no longer available and has been yanked from the website. Curious.)

My first reaction upon seeing these articles was a kind of visceral astonishment. The tone was jarring and, frankly, appalling. Were these perhaps AI-generated pieces coming from a digital source that has no real idea of the emotional resonance required to discuss nuclear war? Quite possibly. Does this point to a design flaw in AI that will never really be eradicated? Also, quite possible. My second more measured reaction was that such articles might inadvertently expose flaws in the veneer of the rational calculus that underlies the basis for what we sometimes generously called modern “civilization.”

So, what’s behind this disturbing attempt on the part of various media outlets to normalize the prospect of nuclear war? For starters, articles like these speak to a deep cognitive dissonance around this topic that’s been evident in sociopolitical environment ever since the horror of Hiroshima. The meme-contour of these articles seems to invite a casual shoulder shrug with respect to the dark road that we’re now heading down and to minimize the powder keg of conflict looming in the Middle East. The matter-of-fact tonality about the possibility of nuclear Armageddon is deeply troubling. Articles such as these nudge us toward the psychologically unhealthy space of accepting a situation that should never be accepted.

Unpacking the Psychological Roots of Militarism

The Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing described our socially conditioned and sometimes blithe acceptance of war and militarism as a form of mass psychosis, noting that “insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.” In a brilliant essay on this topic, clinical psychologist Frank MacHovec noted that “Wartime behavior deviates markedly from cross-cultural social norms and values. The irrationality and emotionality of war is a radical departure from accepted normal behavior… Wartime behavior of and by itself meets current diagnostic criteria for a severe mental disorder.”

MacHovec goes on to discuss war as a function of Freudian death instinct:

We award medals to and hail as heroes or martyrs those who kill more of the enemy. One nation’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, even though it may be the same behavior… Victims are dehumanized into objects, and robot-like violence depersonalizes the aggressor in the process… Defense mechanisms of denial, externalization, projection, rationalization, and splitting block reality testing have the effect of reducing anxiety and protecting against stress. Violence then becomes part of the array of defense mechanisms. Emotion overrides reason and logic in public education and controlled news media that reinforce aggression.

Do Governments Persuade Us to Accept War as “Normal”?

As if our own unruly and erratic human impulses weren’t enough cause for concern, when it comes to the application of violence-as-solution, Western and other governments (often in a position of power as the result of war settlements and therefore having “something to defend”) spend a considerable amount of time and effort normalizing war in both popular culture and the political sphere. Here in the U.S., the CIA funds ceremonies and rituals in venues such as NFL games designed to promote acceptance of the so-called glories of war. Hollywood does its part with movies like Top Gun that position the violent extermination of enemies as noble or brave. In fairness to a broader perspective, we can and should posit that, as individuals, those who fight in wars are often in fact noble or brave in specific situations. Certainly, they have been persuaded to and are willing to risk their lives for a cause and this takes both courage and selflessness.

That said, these qualities of selflessness are often exploited to persuade us that that war itself is somehow an acceptable solution to periodic disagreements that arise between the governments of nations. Adding nuclear acceptance to the mix is when the notion of more severe psychological aberration comes in. Far from being “diplomacy by other means,” our best historians have shown us that wars often benefit economic elites in power. Even worse, modern warfare has shown a disturbing tendency to focus on harming civilian populations. History reveals that, here in the U.S., elites have at times funded both sides of a conflict or stood to gain from both supplying armaments and rebuilding in the aftermath. We see this in extremis in President Donald Trump’s bizarre plans to turn Gaza into a resort area.

The cold hard fact is that many wars are fought for all the wrong reasons: territorial domination of economically important resources (such as oil in the case of Iran and Iraq); economic benefits associated with supply chains; or the mere continuation of empire. But when the possibility of nuclear war becomes either conveniently ignored, gamed, or normalized by any given administration including those of Presidents Trump or Joe Biden and with willing complicity from the mainstream media, then I suggest it crosses the line into the territory that Laing alludes to. It also suggests a potent reason why trust in government is at an all-time low.

Another angle on the psychology of this dynamic is offered by Dr. Kathie Malley-Morrison, a former professor of psychology at Boston University and a member of Massachusetts for Peace Action. In “No, I Can’t Help! Psychic Numbing and How to Confront It, ” she provides a valuable perspective on odd and even bizarre psychological responses to the nuclear war threat that involve either magical thinking around notions of “surviving” or garden-variety denial:

Warnings about the dangers inherent in the availability of nuclear weapons in Russia, the United States, its allies, and other nations can be heard right, left, and center across the political spectrum… Why, then, do we not hear of massive actions against the continued development and sales of nuclear weapons, and the threats by nuclear power countries to use them? One of the answers is psychic numbing—a psychological phenomenon that can affect both individuals and entire cultures in ways that allow atrocities—and existential threats—to grow and spread.

Malley-Morrison points out that psychic numbing is also called “compassion fade.” The article goes on to clarify further:

At the individual level, psychic numbing is a psychological process of desensitization to the pain and suffering of others, particularly as the number of people experiencing pain and suffering increases… Exposure to information about genocides or nuclear holocausts or other catastrophes involving more than a very few people may lead to an emotional shutdown; the very idea of such horrors can seem too painful to tolerate.

She then cites the work of Robert Jay Lifton, an American psychiatrist, while observing that “whole societies or cultures can also be subject to psychic numbing. Within militarized societies, numbing, desensitization, and a general sense of pseudo-inefficacy— the feeling that some problems are so beyond one’s control that one is helpless to solve them—may even be encouraged.”

War and unchecked militarism are unquestionably one of the greatest causes of human suffering. Is humanity now at an existential crossroads where we must simply reject it as an option and wake up to the folly of our own collective self-programming? Given the realities of large-scale polycrisis, a third world war with nuclear, AI, and autonomous weapons in the mix is the last thing humanity needs. Further, it seems abundantly clear that, as governments around the world falter in their efforts to effectively deal with the multi-headed hydra of polycrisis, many are once again falling back on a familiar pattern of state-sanctioned violence against other nations as a “solution” and a means to bolster the power of incumbency.

Sadly, even when large segments of the populace oppose militarism (as is clearly the case here in the U.S.) it has become abundantly clear that our own government will do whatever it pleases without regard to democratic input or sentiment. This might lead us to wonder whether a 2014 Princeton University study stating that true democracy in the U.S. is a thing of the past might not have been painfully accurate. Clearly, the corporate profit-driven machinery of the political establishment and military-industrial-complex can now steamroller over public opinion with cavalier impunity, aided and abetted by both political parties. And while a certain situational adaptability is likely one of the best qualities of the human species, paradoxically, it might also be one of the worse.

This piece first appeared on Common Dreams.

Tom Valovic is a journalist and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and political issues raised by the advent of the Internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, the Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Examiner, among others.