https://www.facebook.com/101768762800963/

Mohsin Mehmood

Home
Pakistan
Karachi
Mohsin Mehmood

A trainee Psychiatrist with an interest in Video Production.

10/11/2024

Putting Makeup On Face - A Strange Behaviour

Why do men work so hard? Why are men driven to achieve great things? Why can’t we just sit back and live an ordinary, quieter life?

What’s the point of all this hard work and hustle? I asked a friend.

“All of this is men trying to impress women!” replied my friend.

Really? Do you think men do all these things just to impress women?

“Why else? If there were no women, do you think men would care about all these achievements?”

Maybe, maybe not. But you have a point. And what do women do to impress men?

“They wear makeup!” (We both laughed at this.) Sorry, ladies.

But really, what is makeup? Why do women put it on?

If you think about it, makeup serves a similar purpose to dressing up: it’s a way of making oneself more appealing to the opposite s*x in an evolutionary sense. Whether it's a good thing or not, men often select based on beauty, they have little interest in women’s intellectual achievement.

But why is that?

One way of looking at it is to consider the role women have played throughout human history, especially in childbearing. To give birth to a healthy child, women need to be healthy themselves. So, when men choose partners, a big factor is her health and, by extension, her ability to produce healthy offspring. While men might not actively think of it this way, this happens on an unconscious level & no man would deny that he is attracted to physical beauty.

So what does beauty have to do with health?

It turns out that many traits we find “beautiful” are actually indicators of good health. Let's try to look at it.

Who would most men find attractive?

1. Extremely thin vs. healthy weight vs. obese?
2. Clear, fair skin vs. skin with blemishes?
3. Symmetrical faces vs. asymmetrical faces?
4. A 20-year-old woman vs. a 40-year-old woman?

If men are honest, most would lean towards a medium-weight, fair-skinned, symmetrical-faced, 20-year-old woman. On the surface, it may seem like men are selecting for beauty, but in reality, this is often a subconscious list of qualities which signal health. "This is a healthy woman who is capable of bearing healthy children."

So when women wear makeup, what are they trying to do? In a similar unconscious way, they’re trying to appear beautiful (read: healthy) to be chosen by men. For example, women in their 40s use anti-aging products, and those with blemishes use concealers or creams to create a smooth complexion. Nowadays, many even visit plastic surgeons to achieve more symmetry.

But what about those who say they dress up “for themselves”?

For them, I have a little thought experiment:

Imagine a situation where you can choose between two types of pleasure, but only you will know about it. You won’t be able to talk about it afterward, as I’ll remove it from your memory.

Here are your options:

1. You can eat any delicious food you like from anywhere in the world. You’ll enjoy it, but afterward, you can’t share the experience or take any photos.

2. You can wear any dress or makeup you like, but you can’t take any photos, you cannot post on social media, or let anyone know.

And after the experience, your memory of the event would be erased.

Which option would you choose?

When I ask women this question without explaining why I am asking, almost all choose the food. Why? Because food offers an intrinsic pleasure, something enjoyable on its own, while dressing up and applying makeup often feel enjoyable because of the attention it draws from other people. You can enjoy food alone. You don't need anyone else. But for a dress to have any significance, you require other people. Otherwise there is no logical way of deciding which dress is better. It's ok to say “ I eat for myself” but to say “ I dress up for myself” is a non sensical proposition. (Please note I am only talking about the "beauty" of a dress. You can make a case for the comfort of a dress i-e loose clothes are better than very tight clothes as you will feel suffocated in them)

So, what’s the point I’m making? We don’t dress up just for ourselves. People who think they dress up solely for themselves may not be fully examining their motivations. What I am arguing is that they are dressing up because they seek attention and social acceptance. Those compliments we get for looking good? They feel nice, don’t they?

If I’m right, then doesn’t it follow that people who dress up more or wear more makeup are often trying to gain more acceptance? Isn’t it sometimes an indication of deep-rooted insecurity? If you genuinely loved yourself as you are, why would you feel the need to put extra layers of non-organic material on your face? Isn't it a strange behavior? What would aliens think if they saw women putting up so much makeup on their face that they become unrecognizable? If you felt secure in your body, why would you want to modify it?

And what does all this tell us about social acceptance?

If people accepted or loved you as you are, would you go to such lengths to be accepted? Doesn’t it sometimes feel like those who rely heavily on makeup are chasing validation they don’t feel naturally?

And those people who suggest that you dress up nicely to appear more confident, are they giving good advice? Is it wise to derive your confidence from your clothes or the acceptance of your appearance? I would argue that it is not

If dressing up was truly “for ourselves,” wouldn’t we dress the same way at home when alone? Ask yourself: how would you dress if you were the last person on Earth? Would you still wear makeup?

28/10/2024

To Flirt Or Not To Flirt? That Is The Question!

The game of attraction is not an easy game to play, especially for women. If a woman wants to attract a man she likes, what strategy might work best? How often should she send cues to communicate her interest or desire? I asked a few of my female friends. Following is a discussion based on that conversation.

Apparently, this is a complex issue.

Should she send a cue whenever she feels like it i-e 100% of the time? Or should she communicate only half the time she feels the urge (50%), maybe three out of four times (75%), or just once every four times (25%)?

“What’s the better strategy?”

“25% of the time,” says one of my friends.

Why so?

“I mean, if you signal too often, like 75% or 100% of the time, it can come across as desperate, and that might kill attraction. But if you never signal, say, 0% of the time, then no one would ever know you’re interested.”

Why not try 50%?

“Even 50% is too much! When it comes to seduction or persuasion, less is more. For women especially, who traditionally aren’t expected to make the first move, it’s the men who are expected to reach out.”

But doesn’t signaling only 25% of the time risk going unnoticed?

“Yes,” says the group.

Isn’t it a difficult position to be in as a woman? To like someone yet hold back for fear of seeming too desperate? And what if, while she is waiting for a good time to signal, someone else shows interest, and they form a relationship first? Wouldn’t you regret not making a move?

This situation places women in an emotionally challenging position. Wanting to attract someone while feeling pressure to appear “reserved” creates a push & pull dynamic that can be really frustrating. Many women fear that being too expressive could be interpreted as desperation therefore they take each interaction very carefully. For women, subtle cues seem to work better than overt direct communication. This internal conflict can leave women feeling frustrated or even anxious, wondering if they’ve been too silent or, worse, too obvious. For many, the emotional toll of navigating this delicate balance can be exhausting, as they strive to express genuine interest without compromising their sense of self-worth or perceived value.

When I ask women this question, most agree that signaling only 25% of the time achieves the best results. That is to say that there is an asymmetry in approaching between men & women. The situation is different for men: when a man expresses interest, it’s often seen as confidence. If a man hesitates to approach a woman, it’s viewed as weakness or low self-esteem. But if a woman makes the first move, it can be interpreted as desperation.

So, what should women do in this situation? Should they stick to signaling 25% of the time and hope for the desired outcome, or should they become more proactive and not worry about seeming desperate?

Let’s consider this thought experiment.

Imagine you’re a woman and someone gave you two choices:

1. Any & every man can touch you, and you can’t say no.
2. No one will ever touch you, and you’ll die alone.

Which would you choose?

Most women choose the second option when I ask them. But why?

This reveals a similar asymmetry. For women, there is often a need to avoid “losing value” by being too available. A man values a woman who is his alone & untouched. To put it mathematically, the desire for a woman is directly proportional to how many men want her but inversely related to how many she has been with. So, if 20 men desire a woman who doesn’t pursue any of them, we could say she has a “value” of 20. If she settles with one man, that man receives her full value. But if she tries to be with two men, her value halves to 10 (20/2). And if people figure it out that she’s a “cheater,” her value declines further as fewer men want her.

Why is it that women aren’t valued when they are with multiple men? It’s because, traditionally, it’s easier for a woman to be with men and harder for her to resist that desire. Those who exhibit self-control are seen as powerful (and pious), valued above others.

If women were to signal more than 25%, it could signal a lack of value in society’s eyes or the woman’s desire to have multiple options, which, according to our previous logic, diminishes her perceived worth.

Therefore, if a woman wants to be perceived as having “high value”, it’s best that she remains subtle and signals sparingly. Once she finds a partner, she should stop signaling altogether.

What do you think about this social dynamic? Is it a consequence of how society has been built? Or is there something fundamental about this asymmetry

16/10/2024

Ludo, Depression & The Clever Thieves

Noem, what do you think? Does the Ludo player deserve to win the game?

After some thought, Noem replied, "Yes, but not as much as a chess player deserves to win."

Why not? What's the difference between these two games?

"In chess, the role of strategy is much larger. Ludo, on the other hand, depends mostly on luck. You play with whatever number the dice gives you, and that’s it."

So, can we say the same about wealth? That the rich—those who inherited money—don’t deserve it because their wealth is a matter of luck?

This question, about who "deserves" what, is closely related to how you come by your success. If someone steals wealth, they clearly don’t deserve it—they didn’t work for it.

But what about someone who inherits a fortune from their parents? They didn’t work for it either. In both cases, the person didn’t do anything to earn what they have. In fact, you could even argue that the thief, at least, took some action—however immoral—while the heir just got lucky. But before we explore that, let’s return to the game of Ludo.

Does Ludo involve any strategy at all?

The answer is yes, but not much. Strategy in Ludo is limited and simple enough that most people can learn it. It’s not like chess, where mastering the game takes years of practice. You won’t find Ludomasters in the same way you find Chessmasters. In fact, because Ludo is mostly dependent on random chance, the odds of winning are closer to 50% in a two-player game and 25% in a four-player game. A Chessmaster, on the other hand, would win the vast majority of his games against random opponents, possibly up to 80-100%. That’s because their success isn’t based on random chance but on skills developed through years of practice.

This leads us to a key difference: The chess player “deserves” their win because it’s based on an ability they’ve developed. It’s not due to external factors, like dice rolls. On the other hand, a Ludo player’s win is largely based on luck, much like inheriting wealth—external, a stroke of luck.

Now, as a mental health professional, I wonder: which game should I advise my patients to play? Ludo or Chess? Who would benefit from playing Ludo?

Let’s think about those who are already losing most of the “games” in their lives. Take someone who’s depressed, for example. Often, they feel like everything is going wrong and they have no control over their circumstances. They’re already losing at life’s game. Asking them to play chess, a game where they are likely to lose due to lack of skill, would only reinforce their sense of failure. Ludo, on the other hand, offers a 50% chance of success in a two-player game, regardless of skill. That small taste of success, even if luck-based, can have an uplifting effect on their mood. And for these patients, a two-player Ludo game is far better than a four-player one—50% odds are a lot more encouraging than 25%.

Now, think of the opposite group: those who are already winning at life, let’s call them the Chessmasters of society. For them, experiencing loss can be a humbling, eye-opening experience. Ludo, with its random outcomes, teaches them that no matter how skilled or intelligent they are, there are aspects of life that are out of their control. They can’t win every game, and that’s an important lesson in itself. Furthermore, they have won so many games that winning a game no longer brings them joy. For them winning again after losing a few games would mean a lot more than a continuous streak of winning.

So, who should play Ludo?

Both groups! But the benefits are different. Ludo helps the “losers” regain some self-esteem, while it helps the “winners” accept that they can’t always be in control. In Medical language, we would say that both would benefit but the “mechanism of action” i-e how ludo is helping someone, depends upon whether you are a “chessmaster” or not.

But let’s circle back to the main point: If a Chessmaster deserves their win, what about a thief who uses an intelligent elaborate strategy to steal? Do they deserve what they’ve stolen?

If you look at it closely, skilled thieves, those who craft intricate plans and evade capture, seem to have an edge over less strategic ones. In a way, nature seems to reward the smarter thief—the one who doesn’t get caught. The law ends up punishing only the naive thieves. If we look closely, the legal system isn’t exactly a moral compass for all; it’s more of a filter for those who aren’t good at the game of theft.

Does that mean the clever thief should support the law? I think they should! The law keeps out their competition—the naive & less competent thieves. The system ends up creating an environment where only the cunning, the strategic, and the skillful thrive.

In that sense, isn't our world structured in the same way? Rules often seem to limit the average person while giving the “clever thieves” more space to accumulate wealth and power.

So, should we blame those who inherit wealth through luck?

Or should we praise those who steal it through strategy?

Or, perhaps, we should start questioning the system that rewards the winners of these random and strategic games alike.

11/10/2024

"Dr. Sahab, how do I balance my work and family? My boss thinks I’m not serious about my career, and my wife thinks I’m not serious about family. I’m trying to balance both, but it feels like I’m failing at both. And sometimes, I wonder if I’ll ever find time for myself. I’ve completely neglected myself trying to balance work and family."

This is the reality for many people in their post-marital life. The demands of today’s world are overwhelming, and men are stuck in the middle, trying to juggle work and family. But who takes care of them? Despite their efforts, bosses are never satisfied, and families constantly expect more. No one appreciates a man unless he provides for his family. All other virtues—kindness, patience, integrity—seem to pale in comparison to his ability to earn and entertain. If you can provide endless amusements and luxuries, you’re a "family guy." But if you prioritize yourself over career or your family's unnecessary desires, you’re seen as selfish. Settle for a low-paying job, and you lose social approval. This constant pressure forces men into a hyper-competitive, exhausting lifestyle that leaves them isolated, consumed by endless work.

How are men supposed to balance their lives? And it’s not just men—working women face the same struggles. Can there ever be a fair compromise between career, family, and mental health, or is it just a dream?

Keeping up with modern expectations—looking sharp, earning well, providing for the family, planning vacations—is a recipe for continuous and sustained stress. People are sacrificing their mental health, not because they want to, but because they’re barely keeping their heads above water, trying to meet the demands of work and family.

"What should I do, Dr. Sahab? Should I keep running in this cycle? When I finish work, I don’t get to relax; I go home to another set of responsibilities. The only time I feel at peace is when I sleep, knowing I’ll have to do it all over again tomorrow. How do I balance my work and family?"

This is a common situation for many people. It’s crucial to first establish a hierarchy of priorities. What matters most to you? Do you value your family’s comfort over career success? Are you willing to sacrifice your mental health for professional achievements? You must clearly list your priorities.

Second, understand that excelling in every area is almost impossible. Few people manage to be hyper-successful in their careers, have a thriving family life, and take care of their physical and mental health. For most, compromises are necessary. Be okay with being less successful at work, having an "okay" family life, and setting aside some time for yourself. If you want to be hyper-successful, you’ll have to decide what you’re willing to sacrifice—your family life, your health, or both. You have limited time, a day has only 24 hours and your life only has a certain number of years.

But determining these priorities is not an easy job for most people. Most don’t know what they truly value most. So how do we figure it out?

One way is to imagine yourself 20 years from now, in three different scenarios:

1. You’re highly successful in your career but have an average family life and health.

2. You’re in excellent health but have average family and career outcomes.

3. You have a great family life but average health and career.

Now, arrange these scenarios in order of regret. Which situation would you regret the most? Which would you regret the least? Measuring the potential regret of missing out on something is often a powerful way to discover what you value most.

It’s unfortunate that many people eventually regret the choices they made—or didn’t make—in life. Research shows that the greatest regrets come from not attempting things that we could have attempted. So, ask yourself: "What is my unique ability? What would I regret most not attempting?" If you believe you could lead a political revolution and you don’t try, the regret of not attempting will haunt you more than failure ever could. Once you try and fail, the regret is far less than not trying at all.

For most people, though, the perfect work-life balance will remain a dream without compromises. The reality is, life is incomplete and sacrificial by nature. Your life can only move in one direction, and you only get one chance. This incomplete, sacrificial nature of life leads people to dream of a place where you don’t have to sacrifice one thing for another, where time isn’t limited and you don't have to pick one thing over another.

09/10/2024

A young man lied about his religion to cut in line and ask Dr. Zakir Naik a question before anyone else.

A postgraduate doctor, entrusted with saving lives, paid someone else to write his thesis dissertation.

A father bought the leaked MDCAT paper for his son, believing that was the only way to secure his future as a doctor.

A political party agreed to whatever was demanded, all for the chance to seize power.

A colleague spread scandalous lies about another, hoping to inch closer to the boss.

Do you see a pattern?

What would a child, witnessing all of this, learn?

He would learn two things.

First, that bypassing the rules isn't just acceptable—it's essential. Why follow the rules when you’re not guaranteed success, while others leap ahead with lies and shortcuts?

Second, they would learn that skill and hard work mean nothing in a world where shortcuts are most important. Why strive for excellence when those who cheat the system are rewarded just the same—or even more?

I don't blame the young man who lied about his religion to get ahead. He is a reflection of the society he lives in. Just as he tries to cut ahead of everyone else in line, people in offices flatter the boss to climb the ranks without earning it. Both are using shortcuts when they should be going through the due process. We’ve taught him that success comes not from effort, but from knowing how to manipulate the system.

We've shown him that you can rise to the highest office without earning the people's votes. That you can pass exams by buying the questions in advance. That your name can appear on research you didn't write. And that you don't need to work hard or develop your skills to get ahead in the office—you just need to flatter the boss.

What have we taught him? That success is not about merit, but about shortcuts & manipulation. That the real key to success lies not in hard work, but in saying, “Sir, apka vision hai” with just the right tone.

What kind of future are we building when this is the lesson we pass on?

05/10/2024

Do You Deserve Anything?

Today is my birthday. I am not a big fan of celebrating birthdays. But since many people do, and if you happen to be on your birthday, you get a little more attention than usual. This allows me to talk to a few more people than I typically do. So, I want to take this opportunity to express some simple yet powerful ideas I didn’t know on my last birthday. Today, I want to make a case for happiness, meaning, and satisfaction in life.

As I write this essay, I’m sitting on a comfortable chair, typing on a kinesthetically pleasing mechanical keyboard while sipping tea. My brain feels rested, engaged with the screen in a meaningful way, and I have no pain in my body. I’m writing in a language foreign to my native area, expressing thoughts that few people even have the capacity to think. If you look closely, none of these things are trivial. Most people, I would argue, don’t have all of these capacities and opportunities.

It’s said that only humans can communicate in a language that is almost arbitrary in a technical sense, yet it allows us to express feelings, thoughts, and ideas in discrete, structured words. The language we use to communicate is separate from us—we use it as a tool, which we can mold or modify however we like. This enables us to express far more than our internal emotions or instinctive feelings, turning fleeting thoughts into something material, perhaps even eternal.

Isn't that magical?

And,

What have we done to deserve it?

I recently had a conversation with a senior colleague about an ancient Hindu creation story. He told me about the Vedic belief that there are 8.4 million species in total, and humans are the most advanced of them. In other words, you had a 1 in 8.4 million chance of being born as a human. Isn’t that enough reason to be happy? Before your birth, you had nothing, and now you have all these cognitive, emotional, and intellectual capacities—starting from zero.

Is it fair to compare yourself to another human being when you could’ve been a cockroach? Even a cockroach values its life, fighting to avoid death. Compared to a human, a cockroach is insignificant, yet its life is precious to it. If we were to arrange all 8.4 million species in ascending order of complexity, all humans would fall above the 99.9th percentile. The variation between individual humans on this distribution chart would be insignificant since they all lie above the 99.9th percentile. This implies that the greatest achievement is not what comes after being human, but that the greatest blessing is simply being human. No matter how far you go as a human being compared to others, the mere fact of being human is more significant than any level of success you achieve in comparison to other humans.

Given this, is it really fair to be upset about losing material things? You are the most prized creation, the ultimate version of nature’s creative expression. Is it graceful to wish for more money, fame, or the approval of others? Or does that not diminish the grandness of your position as a human being? You are the greatest creation of the greatest creator. And what have you done to deserve all this?

The only possible response to what you’ve been given is gratitude. If you had zero money and someone gave you 100 units, wouldn’t your natural response be gratitude? If the same person gave others 200 or 300 units, should you protest? You didn’t deserve those 100 units to begin with—so what are you protesting for? If nature had willed it, you could have been given nothing at all. There is no justification for demanding more.

If we're so special, why doesn't being alive always feel that way?

Because we’ve evolved to compare ourselves only to other human beings. The general abilities we all possess are taken for granted, canceled out by their commonality. For instance, no one feels grateful for having fully functioning kidneys because almost everyone else has them. But in isolation, the complexity and work of a fully functioning kidney is more magical than any magic trick. We marvel at the idea of telepathy, but language itself accomplishes much the same thing. It transmits thoughts from one mind to another. Yet, because we all have the ability to use language, its magic seems diminished. Compared to the other 8.4 million species, only we have this power of discrete, semantically loaded communication.

Today, I invite you to see the magic in our everyday lives. No amount of wealth can compare to what you already possess as a human being. Instead of comparing yourself to those who may seem "better" than you, consider the possibility that you could have been a cockroach or a lizard. Then ask yourself—when you began with nothing, can it really be fair to complain that you were given too little? Does someone who started from non-existence deserve anything at all? Isn’t gratitude the only rational response for anyone fortunate enough to have been chosen as a human, out of 8.4 million possibilities?

26/09/2024

Why Don't We Have Good Psychiatrists?

“What are you reading, Dr. Mohsin?” asked a junior doctor.

I showed her the cover of the book, waiting for her to read the title: I was reading Louis Sass’ Madness and Modernism.

“Would that come in your exams?” she asked, assuming I was preparing for some test.

"No," I replied, almost carelessly.

"Then why are you reading this?"

She couldn’t understand why anyone would read something that wasn’t directly related to their exams. For her, studying outside of exam preparation seemed like a waste of time, better spent on materials that could come in exams. Unfortunately she’s not alone. Most junior doctors in Pakistan have the same mindset!

When I first joined psychiatry, I used to wonder why we don’t have great psychiatrists in our country. Senior and junior psychiatrists seemed indistinguishable in their abilities—sometimes, those still in training looked better than certified psychiatrists who had been in practice for years. The most important reason, I believe, is that our trainees have shifted their focus away from real training and started prioritizing exams instead. Unfortunately exams only test a very narrow range of topics; if you prepare well for these frequently asked questions, you can easily pass, even if you lack a deeper understanding of human behavior and psychology.

In our system, not passing exams nullifies all other achievements. No matter how insightful or competent you might be as a psychiatrist, nothing matters unless you're certified. Therefore passing the exam becomes the ultimate goal. This obsession with passing exams has drained the real essence of training. During the four years of residency, trainees often ignore the additional learning that’s critical to becoming a well-rounded psychiatrist.

What Makes a Good Psychiatrist?

Though psychiatry is studied as a branch of medicine, it’s a lot more than that. A good psychiatrist needs more than just medical expertise. We aren't just treating biological beings. We are dealing with the whole person.

Engel’s biopsychosocial model is a good way of thinking about mental illnesses. Psychiatric disorders have complex roots—biological, psychological, and social. I would argue we should add spiritual and religious dimensions as well. People aren't just defined by biology; they’re shaped by their beliefs, their social environment, and their spiritual lives. To connect with patients across diverse backgrounds, we need to be able to speak to all these dimensions, which aren’t part of the typical medical curriculum.

How would you help a Hindu widow who is deeply depressed, not just from losing her husband, but from the cultural isolation and stigma of being seen as cursed and shunned by her community, if you don't know a little about her cultural background? Or how would you help Maria, a Catholic woman paralyzed by guilt and anxiety after divorcing her abusive husband, fearing divine punishment for breaking her marriage vows, if you don't understand her religious background?

If this approach is so essential, why isn’t it reflected in psychiatric training programs?

The Current State of Psychiatric Training

For these ideas to be integrated into training, we need people who understand their importance. But unfortunately, most of those in decision-making positions were never trained this way themselves, and so the cycle of shallow, mechanical training continues. Moreover, when junior doctors suggest expanding the scope of training beyond the exam-oriented system, they're not taken seriously at all & often dismissed or criticized. In an environment where political connections and "yes men" rise to the top, innovation is a dream. Those who should be fostering open-mindedness & creativity are often the most resistant to it. They think their way of doing things is the only way of doing things!
If a trainee tries to bring up an unconventional topic, it’s seen as an attempt to "outshine the master"—a threat rather than a contribution. This creates a culture where initiative is punished instead of praised, discouraging others from thinking beyond the narrow confines of the curriculum.

Why Are Trainees Content with the System?

This is a difficult question, but two important reasons stand out.

First, the socio-political situation in this country is dismal. It doesn’t allow trainees to focus fully on their careers. The compensation postgraduate doctors receive barely covers their living expenses, let alone allows them to thrive. As a result, most want to put in the bare minimum during their training so they can take on side jobs or run businesses to make ends meet. Others are busy preparing for international exams, hoping for an exit from a country where staying often feels like enduring life imprisonment. All of this pulls their attention away from truly engaging with the intricacies of psychological phenomena during their training.

Second, there's a lack of inspiration. Trainees don’t have mentors who can motivate them to strive for greatness. The senior psychiatrists they encounter went through the same superficial training. Junior doctors quickly realize that they can achieve the same level of professional success without going beyond what’s required for “passing the exam”. Most professors, while knowledgeable, seem ordinary. We don’t have mentors actively researching fundamental mental health issues or making groundbreaking contributions to the field. Instead, research is often done just for the sake of publications, chosen not for importance or purpose, but for "how easily the work can be completed and published in a journal."

Without financial stability or inspiring role models, it’s nearly impossible for trainees to focus on anything beyond passing exams. In such a system, the biggest achievement is not making a scientific discovery or contributing something meaningful, but rather leaving this country. As a result, we end up with psychiatrists who can only talk about biological diseases, have multiple degrees earned by doing "just enough," and produce research papers that have no real impact other than padding their CVs.

The Cycle of Mediocrity

This all makes me wonder: what really makes a good psychiatrist? Is it the one with the most degrees and publications? Or is it the one who can truly understand people, help them through their struggles, and guide them toward living a better life?

Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck in a cycle of mediocrity. Mediocre trainers produce mediocre psychiatrists, and so the cycle continues. Can this ever be disrupted? I fear that the answer is no. The forces maintaining this cycle are too strong, and until there is a fundamental shift in how we view psychiatric education, we will continue to produce psychiatrists who fall short of their true potential.

Address

Karachi
74600

Telephone

+923013518388

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Mohsin Mehmood posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.