Of course there can be overlap between the speakers with some utilizing all three. Although, I observe a distinct separation between speaking to those with Mental illness and those who are purely sharing success, professional achievements, and research. For instance, we have Doug-Doug is a leading physician who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and shares passion for stigma on the Mental health population and shows images and stats and more images. His accomplishments are highlighted. He shares his diagnosis in the middle with mild emotion and a bit about the past difficulties he faced. You feel something and then you hear about the award he won for at a famous Mental health event in Germany. The symptoms are being briefly being addressed and then masked by the accomplishment.
Also, it seems to be targeting colleagues rather than patients. Do his fellow attendees with Mental illness who are functioning on an "average" level need to hear about all the awards and accomplishment. Is it necessary to prove that he overcome illness times 100 rather than just 10?
It's also important to note a lack of emotion. When speaking briefly about the illness in between the success, where was the emotion? It was clearly repressed as the event of illness was placed behind him.
A great example of utilizing emotion would be the "Ted Talks." The Ted Talks consist of some of the greatest minds in the world. The number one most important factor is "emotion" according to Carmine Gallo of "Talk like Ted." These speakers have a choice to give emotion or to focus on everything else, but emotion. It does not come easily to everyone and it is normal for people to utilize their strengths and fear their weaknesses. A speech needs to be humanized and the greatest researcher or psychologist may not be able to nail that component rather it takes removing the layers of achievements to get down to the skin and the heart.
Let's continue on with our speaker Doug. He is lacking emotion, but he wins over a large majority of the audience. Are they clapping because achievements or are they clapping because of his story or both?
Speakers usually have their name and profession on a pamphlet or a description can be found on the internet. If you are an educated speaker with BP disorder-is it necessary to emphasize your accomplishments? The average person with Bipolar disorder is not over the top successful. "Successful" meaning multiple degrees, educator, world leader, medical doctor, and author. That would be the National definition of successful. If the average person is just holding onto a job or living off public assistance-how does he feel? Is this inspiring or discouraging to one with BP disorder?
Many people who are speaking to clinicians, politicians, and advocators they may be overcompensating on their need to convey success with consideration of these people to impress. It's important to note that speakers with illness do need to speak about certain issues in regards to policy, updates in research, and relative material. But what percentage of that needs to be present in comparison just spending ten minutes on symptom management and how illness is currently impacting the speaker.
A common name one may know is the author Kay Redfield Jamison. A psychiatrist who was diagnosed with Bipolar disorder in her early twenties. The book is fantastically written and a bestseller, but the woman overcome her sickness to keep rising to the top of the ladder. In all fairness, she is speaking the language of clinicians and to patients. For the average patient of mine reading that book or relating to her speech-not happening.
Eleanor Roosevelt says, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
In all honesty, I believe that the Bipolar population in under privileged areas would feel inferior. "If she keeps moving up the mountain, how come I keep slipping down?"
Those words I just hear ringing through my ears as it's a bit of a pill to swallow-have a disorder and professionally soar to the top. Do symptoms just disappear after a certain age? Dr. Jamison went through symptoms of her early adulthood, but then it just all turned into professional growth.
Carmine Gallo says and I say, the human component and "meeting someone where they are" is important rather than a race to have the most credentials and achievements mentioned in one speech. How about a speech with no credentials or professional achievements made? Only family and illness improvements or developments. You just walk out your door and you leave it all behind you to speak as an advocate and a great doctor with knowledge and expertise, but you use it in the most effective way to relate to both clients and professionals. This is the skill to inspire and touch the clinician while making the Bipolar patient feel included.
Lastly, it is recommended to utilize realistic symptoms and connect them to difficulties. There is a difference between saying, "I got divorced and now I am happily remarried" to "The Bipolar interfered with my interpersonal relationships including my marriage. I am married now, but I still difficulties with friendships. I take a note book to write good my wife and friends." Make the disorder practical and be creative when making the choice to speak. While it is normal to repeat a speech, the past incidents of experiencing bipolar disorder just seem typical and rehearsed.
In comparison to stigma, it is quite different because stigma is encouraging emphasize on the self. Speaking with achievement is about making more direct comparisons between diagnosis and achievement. If a person knows how to get to the top spanning twenty years, not a five year, bad few years-that would be helpful.
There is recognition that it is still painful for a professional to open up about their diagnosis and it is common to overcompensate. It could be easier to brush over the emotional component and real "you" underneath the gold stars or it could be easier with easy to identify with your illness first and the accomplishments are just great additions.