I haven’t seen any of the new negative responses to the summary since I just woke up (but oh I don’t doubt there are). But I did see immediate negativity and discourse about it yesterday when no one knew what it was.

Here’s the thing: concern is valid, but I find making immediate assumptions about what’s going to be ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ about it before getting any concrete information is a sure fire way to establish an opinion that will be hard to change.

Having worked under psychologists who assist authors, I can tell you they take it very seriously. They will more than likely be credited once it’s published, and them being excluded right now may have been a precaution for them (because you know right this second there would be thousands of people researching them/their credintials/ reaching out to them publicly and privately trying to get information). Some professionals don’t want to be tied publicly to a book other than the author section, some assist on several books at a time and it’s more of a way to pad their publishing list. I don’t understand why that’s upsetting people?Honestly, it seems like an excuse people are using to justify an underlying issue with this project or Dan.

This isn’t a ‘youtuber book’ being slapped together with his name on it. Assuming you’re a fan or have been around for any length of time, you know how seriously Dan takes his position and influence. You know how he carefully chooses his words and what he puts out into the world. You watched Daniel and Depression and heard first hand him emphasizing the importance of talking to a professional and how this was just his story.

But like you said, I do try to keep this space a positive one and I’d rather not have people coming here and telling me why I shouldn’t be excited. Dan has more than earned my trust when it comes to discussions on mental health. And I’m saying that both as a long time subscriber and as someone with a graduate degree in psychology