We Are Not Saved

Delano is very much an example of something being wrong with psychiatry, the question is how emblematic is her experience?
Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance
By: Laura Delano
Published: 2025
352 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
An autobiographical tale of Delano's experience with the mental health industry starting at the age of thirteen. Among other things, it covers her bipolar diagnosis, eating disorders, cutting, and one, nearly successful, suicide attempt. On the treatment side of the ledger she took at least a dozen drugs, engaged in constant therapy, and was committed to psychiatric hospitals and treatment programs on several occasions. In the end she decided that most of her problems stemmed from the substances she was taking, both those that are recognized as harmful, like cocaine and alcohol, and those that were supposed to help her. A major theme of the book is that the horrible withdrawal symptoms that accompany most psychiatric drugs go a long way towards creating the impression that "the drugs are helping". 
Woven through all of this, Delano provides significant research illustrating the bad incentives, and shoddy testing engaged in by the pharmaceutical industry, along with critiques of the DSM, the paradigm of mental illness as a chemical imbalance, and reliance on drugs as a first line of treatment. 
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Delano includes some extensive research. This is not merely an n=1 anecdote, there are clearly a significant number of people who are taking too many psychiatric drugs, and don't have the skills to taper off those drugs. Also Delano is explicitly not "antimedication" or "antipsychiatry". Nevertheless, it is clear that she is not a neutral observer, that she is profoundly distrustful of the pharmaceutical industry, and that she came by this distrust honestly, even if it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. 
It should also be mentioned that money was never a problem for Delano, which probably meant both that she received too much care, but also that she had a large support network available during every phase of her journey. 
Who should read this book?
The debate over how to care for the mentally ill is both fascinating and fraught. It sits at a convoluted nexus that includes healthcare availability, cost, worries over youth, violence, homelessness, anti- and pro- drug narratives, and a weird tangle of culture war issues. Navigating this mess is going to take as much information as we can get and this is a great book describing one of the many angles available for approaching it.
As a more specific matter I would recommend it to psychologists and psychiatrists as something of a counter-narrative/steelman for those who are wary of medications and interventions.
Finally, for those seeking to taper or get off of medication, this book is essential reading, and the idea of hyperbolic tapering may be the single most important bit of knowledge it contains.
If you want a taste of things, I read this as part of the Blocked and Reported book club, and they had an interview with Delano which was quite good.   
Specific thoughts: Mental health treatment is crazy complicated

The Obstacle Is the Way Expanded 10th Anniversary Edition: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph by: Ryan Holiday

The Enchiridion & Discourses by: Epictetus

The Lives of the Caesars by: Suetonius

There's a concept within statecraft known as grand strategy. The "grand" strategy means paying attention to every avenue of conflict, not just the military sphere, but also the diplomatic, the logistical, and the domestic, and everywhere else advantage might be gained or lost. It encompasses soft power, irregular actions, public opinion, etc. But at the same time, it also encompasses prioritization and focus, because, while it's important to consider every avenue, resources are always limited and need to be spent wisely. 
A great example of grand strategy done right is the US in WWII. We supported the Soviets, we developed nukes, we invaded Europe, we came together as a nation, and most of all, we buried the Axis with our industrial capacity. 
For an example of grand strategy done poorly consider Vietnam. Our battlefield tactics were great. But at the strategic level we comprehensively failed in almost every domain. There was vast domestic opposition, political goals were unclear, we failed to contain the conflict geographically, and never really understood the resolve of the Vietnamese people.
You might think that the point of grand strategy, if well executed, would be winning. I disagree, I think the point of grand strategy is not losing. (There's probably an essay to be written about how this applies to Iran, but I think we have enough hot takes on that subject at the moment.) Grand strategy asks you to pay attention to all potential avenues by which disaster may arrive. Disaster in Vietnam did not arrive through the front door, it came from many unexpected directions, but an unexpected disaster is still a disaster, and generally worse than disasters which have been foreseen.
As one considers the various aspects of grand strategy, what would it mean to have a personal grand strategy? And how would that be different from just living a "good life"? As a bridge between these two ideas, consider the life of Napoleon. Something Robert Greene does at great length in his book:
The 33 Strategies of War
By: Robert Greene
Published: 2006
496 Pages

Or how America went from the platonic ideal of goal-scoring to the messy theatricality of flopping. And whether we can stop it before someone get's stoned in the forum.

Eugenics and Other Evils
By: G. K. Chesterton
Published: 1922
188 Pages

Briefly, what is this book about?
Once this book entered the public domain, someone (most likely Inkling Books) added a subtitle to their edition: "An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State". This is a pretty good description of the book's thrust, though the book's major focus is still definitely eugenics.
When the book was written eugenics was a powerful political force, supported by numerous well known individuals. Buck v. Bell, the famous case which approved involuntary sterilization, didn't arrive until 1927. This is where we get the infamous line from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writing for the majority, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Though it was only when researching this piece that I discovered that the ruling explicitly invoked the precedent already set around compulsory vaccination.
The full context is:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
You're probably already aware of Chesterton's biases, though in addition to being very Catholic, and very traditional, he was also a big supporter of the "little guy". This comes out a lot in this book since eugenics seems primarily aimed at the "unwashed masses", not the inbred nobility.
Who should read this book?
I have previously mentioned that I am gradually working through an ebook I picked up many years ago collecting Chesterton's best-known works. This happened to be next on the list. I wouldn't recommend it as the first Chesterton you read, or even the fifth, but it gives a great insight into a particular time and place, and puts you in the middle of an argument we consider long settled but which was raging at the time.
What does the book have to say about the future?
I think there's a lot that could be taken from this book and applied to the current debate over MAID (medical aid in dying). It will be interesting to see if that practice ends up following a similar arc.
Specific thoughts: Chesterton's surprisingly prescient archetypes