#1240 Roy Richard Grinker - Nobody's Normal: How Culture Created the Stigma of Mental Illness

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello everyone. Welcome to a new episode of The Dissenter. I'm your host, as always, Ricardo Lobs, and today I'm joined by Doctor Roy Richard Grinker. He is professor of anthropology and international affairs at the George Washington University, and today we're going to talk about his book, Nobody's Normal, How Culture Created the Stigma of Mental Illness. So Doctor, Doctor Grinker, welcome to the show. It's a pleasure to everyone.

00:26 Roy Richard Grinker: Yeah, thank you for having me.

00:28 Ricardo Lopes: So, um, since you are a cultural anthropologist, how do you approach the topic of mental illness from the point of view of cultural anthropology? I mean, what kinds of questions can cultural anthropology answer on this topic?

00:47 Roy Richard Grinker: I think it's important to uh recognize that all forms of life, uh, whether it's a medical illness, uh, like a cancer or an infection, uh, or a mental illness, all of these, uh, experiences are within certain historical and cultural contexts. And so anthropology has a long history of looking at how people express suffering and how they seek to alleviate suffering, uh, throughout the world, but they're going to do it in very different ways, right? They have different idioms of distress, and we could look at the differences between, say, uh, you know, how one Um, uh, exhibits, uh, a psychosis in, uh, the rainforests of Central Africa, uh, versus how a psychosis is experienced in Washington DC, but we can also look at the cross-historical relationships, so that schizophrenia was not the same in the 1700s as it is today. Depression was not the same in the 1900s as it is today. Uh, THE post-traumatic stress from war trauma was not the same in the Civil War as it is today. And so what anthropologists look at is the cultural variation. And why is that important? Because if culture is responsible for the ways in which we suffer and seek to ameliorate our suffering, then, you know, that's under human control. We can change that. We can do something about it if we need to.

02:30 Ricardo Lopes: But I mean, what is mental illness then? Um, HOW do you use that term in cultural anthropology?

02:39 Roy Richard Grinker: Well, mental illness is a pretty modern term actually, uh, because, uh, one had to, uh, distinguish between the mental and the physical, the body and the mind in order to get there. Uh, YOU know, the centuries ago, there was illness, and it was a combination of the body and the mind, but once we separated, uh, body and mind, uh, particularly, you know, in the Enlightenment in Europe, um, it became possible. Excuse me, to Um, to isolate certain forms of suffering to the brain and to an individual, and that really set, uh, set the stage for stigma, for stigmatizing somebody who, uh, failed in some way culturally as an individual. Um, I used illness as opposed to disorder. Uh, BECAUSE disorder, I think, evokes a lot of the, uh, uh, pejorative uses of, of terms that relate to mental illness like losing it out of whack. You know, one can short of a six pack or uh uh going crazy, um, going nuts, things like that. Those have to do with disorder, but we don't know what an ordered mind looks like. What is an ordered mind? What is a disordered mind then? Uh, SO I prefer illness because illness refers not to something being out of order. Illness refers to an experience of some kind of suffering, uh, in which there are idioms of distress and people say, I am, I'm feeling this way and I don't want to feel this way.

04:28 Ricardo Lopes: Mm, uh, but what is stigma then? I mean, what does that mean?

04:34 Roy Richard Grinker: The stigma comes from the, the ancient Greek for a branding, um, a mark that, uh, like a, a scar, uh, that exists on you, you know, the ancient Greeks used the concept of stigma, uh, as for branding slaves, right? So, so stigma is really that kind of shadow that we cast upon a person who doesn't fit our norms. And so, The, the normal, the abnormal, you know, that, that is really a variant of what any society finds good and what any society finds bad, and the, the problem with stigma is not just that society can shame, humiliate, marginalize, discriminate against somebody that doesn't conform to a particular norm. But that we can do it to ourselves, you know, we, we, we internalize this idea of what is good and bad, and we can stigmatize ourselves or, you know, so-called self-stigma, uh, and that can be, you know, incredibly, uh, dangerous to one's mental health.

05:45 Ricardo Lopes: And what are the origins of stigma surrounding mental illness, and of course you've already said that the people in cultures that are not, let's say Western cultures, uh, people that live in more traditional societies, for example, do not have and do not approach what we call. Mental illness the same way, but do we also find stigma associated with non-normative kinds of behaviors in non-Western societies,

06:19 Roy Richard Grinker: or not? Yes, there are people who are stigmatized throughout the world for various kinds of conditions. Um, THE, the stigma seems to be exacerbated when the Suffering or the illness or the difference is thought to be contained within the individual. And, and this is why the rise of the concept of mental illness occurred in early capitalism, where the individual became the, the, the agent of, of, of their life. They were responsible. It's not God, it's or, or society, it's the individual. And Actually, the very first asylums for the mentally ill in Western Europe, particularly in France, were designed to remove from society those people who didn't conform to the ideals. And that ideal was the independent autonomous worker. So the first asylums were kind of, were populated by people who didn't work. And, and the first asylum in um Uh, in France, uh, had as its mandate to house the idol. It was really about people who didn't conform to capitalism. So, uh, stigma tends to be associated with people who don't fit the norms of a society. Now, let's say you are, uh, in the Kalahari Desert and you hear voices, um, that may not, uh, be something that is associated with a problem within you. But which manifested in you. So perhaps it was something that is wrong with your family or some, or it's a spiritual um revenge for something that somebody else in your family did. It may affect you randomly, but it's not your fault, and it's not something that you caused. Um, AND you suffer, and so you may not, your, your whole community could be stigmatized as, as having an illness, but you as an individual aren't necessarily marked or branded or stigmatized as somehow, you know, forever, uh, forever sick.

08:33 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. Uh, BUT I mean, uh, what kinds of stigma tend to be associated with mental illness and in what ways do they affect the lives of people who suffer from mental illness?

08:48 Roy Richard Grinker: Well, it depends on, you know, the condition, uh, but for much of the 20th century, um, homosexuality was stigmatized, and what that meant was that people suffered thinking that they were defective. Or that, you know, they didn't belong. Uh, IF somebody has depression, they may see themselves as unworthy, um, as, uh, undeserving of care and not even seek care. Uh, SOMEBODY who, um, is, uh, stigmatized is somebody who feels that, um, they, they, they should be alone and they shouldn't seek support. Uh, SOMEBODY who's stigmatized may evoke fear and so people don't talk to them and they don't reach out to them. Um, EVERY society has some form of stigma, what, however that takes, you know, whether it's exiling somebody or marginalizing somebody or punishing someone or discriminating against them, but the forms of discrimination. And the object of that discrimination will vary from place to place and time to time.

10:03 Ricardo Lopes: So you mentioned capitalism earlier, um, how did people, at least in the West, approach mental illness before the advent of capitalism?

10:16 Roy Richard Grinker: Uh, MENTAL illness wasn't marked out as something that was distinct from other forms of disability. So, I mentioned earlier the first asylums in, in France. Um, THE, the first asylum, one of the first asylums, the Sault Petriere, famous, you know, asylum, uh, 18th, early 18th century, um, you have, uh, people with all kinds of variations lumped together, undifferentiated. So you have people who perhaps have lost a limb. Uh, SOMEONE who's blind or deaf or mute, someone who is a criminal. Somebody who is an alcoholic and somebody who hears voices, and they're in this sort of undifferentiated mass. And by the time these asylums in place, you're starting to see a mass movement of people who are confined, and there are estimates that at some point in the 18th century, nearly 1% of the population of Paris was confined. And this was the first time that so many people had been in one place that scientists could look at them and say, well, there's so many people here, we better classify them. And mark them out and separate the criminal from the beggar and separate the beggar from the person with the physical disability or the person with leprosy or whatever that might be. And that is where mental illness categories emerge. It's in that separation of the people who are confined. So it's confinement that precedes the development of a concept of mental illness. You also could not have the concept of mental illness without, as I said earlier, the separation of body and mind. This idea where there are diseases of the body and there are diseases of the mind.

12:18 Ricardo Lopes: So that was uh around the time when a modern understanding of mental illness as we have it now was developed.

12:27 Roy Richard Grinker: Yes, yeah, and, and it, it was used for particular historical purposes that were unique to those times. So, for example, the, when the idea that there were diseases of the body and diseases of the mind, uh, came about, uh, elites could say, ah, well, the, uh, the, the diseases of the body belong to, to those of us who can Uh, who can control our minds, but the poor, the weak, the, the immigrant, they actually, uh, can't control themselves and their bodies are taking control over their minds. And so they've developed various theories. About how the separation of body and mind could act differently on people depending on their social status. And so this is how culture and history and illness combine together. Right. This is where they meet, this is where they influence each other. So, you know, even as late as the late 19th century in the United States and Europe, uh, there were thoughts that mental illnesses like depression, Uh, were really distinctive to highly educated, uh, high status people, whereas the worker, his or her mind was driven by the body and impulses and, and primal urges. And so one could have depression, uh, if you were of high status, but you might not have depression without that. It was associated with people like Freud and Remington and Darwin and, you know, great thinkers who experienced bouts of depression. It was associated with the use of the mind.

14:20 Ricardo Lopes: Very interesting. Uh, IN what ways would you say uh capitalism might have contributed to the stigma of mental illness or uh expanding, uh, what we stigmatize in terms of how people express themselves behaviorally and psychologically. Well,

14:40 Roy Richard Grinker: what is the ideal person in a capitalist society? A productive person, a productive person, uh, uh, a person who is responsible for themselves. Uh, WHO is autonomous and independent, can go out and shape their own distinct household as a unit of production. And so if you are dependent on others, you do not fit into that capitalist model. Right. So, so, so, so that, that's really the source of stigma in Western Europe and North America, whereas the source of stigma in another society could be something that's different. So I'm not saying that capitalism causes mental illness or that capitalism causes stigma. I'm just saying that if we live in a society that has these particular ideals that are born out of a certain social and economic system, it's not surprising that they will shape. The way in which we experience difference and the way in which we express our suffering.

15:44 Ricardo Lopes: And do you think that we can also see that manifesting today that perhaps many people who get mental illness label, whatever it might be, are, I mean, many times might just be people who are not adjusted to a capitalist society.

16:08 Roy Richard Grinker: Well, I think we're making a lot of progress um where we're seeing. Um, MENTAL illnesses as sort of part of the normal range of experience that humans have. Um, AND I felt this when I was growing up. I mean, I, I grew up in a, a, a Family of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, and I was kind of raised to think that everybody had a little mental illness or, you know, it's some, we're all on some common spectrum together, right? Um, AND that, um, at some point in your life, you're going to experience, you know, emotional distress and emotional suffering. Um, WHERE does that, you know, at what point does that become an illness? So like, if you're shy, at what point does shyness become so severe that it might be autism or sadness? At what point does the normal sadness someone might feel become clinical depression? Where does the normal anxiety that we have that makes me, you know, look both ways before I cross the street, that's adaptive for all humans, become an anxiety disorder? That is a clinical judgment. On whether that illness or that extent, that symptom. Uh, KEEPS you from doing the things that you want to do and that society expects you to do. And so, the point at which something becomes an illness is when you can't function. It's really about functionality. Um, AND that depends on what function you, you know, you need to, to serve. So, a child can have certain symptoms that don't warrant a diagnosis until they go to school. And they could function at home, but now they can't function at school, and the diagnosis helps to drive some sort of intervention or treatment, right? Um, I can be sad when my loved one dies, but if it gets to the point where I can't get up in the morning and can't go to work, then it requires something else, which is a treatment, and diagnoses always drive, or they should drive treatments. So I think that because we have more and more diagnoses today, and there's more understanding of this idea of us all existing on a spectrum together. That the stigma of mental illness is decreasing, and I think it's decreasing rapidly. We're now seeing young people living longer at homes with their parents or other family members. We're seeing uh new family configurations that are making social supports possible. And so these are still within the same kind of, you know, social system, capitalist system, economic system, but we, we can change it and we can adapt and we can adjust. And so, I think these, the, uh, the norm of the highly autonomous uh individual who shields their suffering from everybody else and eschews any kind of diagnosis is decreasing rapidly. And that's a good thing. Mhm.

19:20 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, SO I would like to just take a step back and ask you a few questions about how our understanding of mental illness was shaped throughout the 20th century, and I would like to start by asking you about how it was shaped particularly by war in the 20th century.

19:40 Roy Richard Grinker: Wars are really, I'm glad you brought that up. It's a really interesting topic because, um, you know, we think of wars often as aberrations, um, but, um, they're not just, uh, uh, distinctive periods of time in which things are not going well, but they also, because of the kinds of disruptions that occur in wars, can actually be productive. And I'm not saying war is good. I'm just saying that, that, that wars don't just start and end. Things happen within them. I mean we, that we developed anesthesia in the Civil War. Um, WE developed a jet technology during World War 1 and World War 2. THINGS, things change. Things develop sometimes, you know, at a very rapid pace. And one of the things that has happened during, particularly World War 1 and World War 2 was the recognition that people who suffer from trauma emotionally. Um, ARE not abnormal people. They are Just people who are in abnormal circumstances. And so, the, the idea of being emotionally affected for many years on by, by witnessing or being involved with a traumatic experience, um, has become somewhat normalized. Um, As as something that we should even expect. So, you see today when there are tragedies around the world, that mental health care workers go to these places because there is the expectation that this will happen. Not that, oh, there's some abnormal people out there, but there are normal people who um are going to suffer. And, and so wars really helped take mental illness out of the asylum. It wasn't just something where you took somebody and locked them away, but something that we could do something about. That you could provide care. Now, that's not to say that Our treatment of people with mental illnesses didn't change. In World War One, the symptoms of mental illness were usually physical. They were things like sweating, um, diarrhea, stomach aches, uh, sometimes, uh, an arm would be paralyzed, you couldn't smell, you couldn't speak, uh, you couldn't balance yourself, and you would fall over and you had an awkward gait. Because those were the questions that doctors asked, like, what, what are your, what are your physical symptoms after this trauma. Um, AND then by World War II, we have the advent of psychoanalysis. And the doctors are now asking questions about how do you feel. What are you thinking about? What are you dreaming about? And so, patients who experienced trauma in World War II started to experience that trauma more in emotional terms than in physical terms. And they started to describe their symptoms, therefore, as anxiety, depression, fear, things like that. Um, SO we could say on the one hand, that there's always been trauma, but how it gets experienced, you know, the idiom of distress changes. And that's even true with something like uh a psychotic disorder, right? So, if you live in the United States, your paranoia might have to do with the CIA watching you. Or through your television, maybe. But what if you live in the middle of a rainforest in Central Africa? You don't have the CIA there. What, what, what, how do you, what is your idiom of distress? It might be that there are witches or sorcerers or some evil force that's watching you. We, you know, with bipolar disorder, people often say, oh, this so and so imagines that they are a God or imagines that they are Jesus Christ or so on, but you can't. Imagine that you're something unless you know about it, right? And so idioms of distress are different depending on where we live and the kind of material we have, uh, in our society.

24:01 Ricardo Lopes: That's very interesting. So do you think that different idioms of distress might help, uh, more or less people deal with their psychological distress?

24:16 Roy Richard Grinker: Well, an idiom of distress is a form of communication. It is, it is, it, it is the, um, the primary, what, what psychologists sometimes call the primary gain. In illness, you have a primary gain and a secondary gain. The primary gain is to draw attention to your suffering. So that's why you have the symptom. The secondary gain is that society does something for you or your family does something for you. So, um, idioms of distress, how we describe our suffering, um, are very, very important. They just may not be understandable to everybody. Across cultures. Let me give you an example from, uh, the from America. Uh, IT has long been common for many American Indian groups to, um, for members of American Indian groups after the loss of a loved one, to hear that, the voice of that loved one in their head, uh, for one or two weeks after the death. Um Now, probably 10 out of 10 emergency room doctors would say that's a psychosis. But in fact, it's not a psychosis. It's something that's normative and um American Indian communities, and it has nothing to do with mental illness. It has to do with how people express and experience grief and not wanting to lose touch with the loved one and and having that voice in in one's head can be be comforting. So, um, The idiom of distress may not be understandable, you know, across cultures. There was for a time, uh, what looked like an epidemic in West Africa of, uh, people believing that, that their penises, men believing their penises were being stolen spiritually. Um, IT didn't make sense to most people who were trained in Western medical care, but it made a lot of sense to doctors in West Africa who understood that this was an idiom of distress related to urbanization. The, um, the threats to, uh, family and ethnic identity and the influx of strangers into their community that they thought might somehow threaten the, um, integrity of, of their kinship groups, but it made sense to them, but didn't make sense, it wouldn't make sense to us, right? Um, AND throughout the world, there are what are sometimes referred to as cultural idioms of distress, which used to be called culture-bound syndromes. These are syndromes that are distinctive to particular locations, like, uh, Lata, which is a hyperstartling disease in Southeast Asia, uh, Koro, uh, which is a disease in some parts of southern China. In which people believe that their genitals are being sucked up into the body. Koro comes from the Malaysian word for the head of the turtle. Um, AND, uh, and so we, we see these, um, kinds of idioms of distress around the world, and it's not that people are psychotic or crazy. Um, IT'S that, that, that the culture affects the way in which we experience ourselves. And, um, you know, we need only look at autism today. And the dramatic increase in diagnosis of autism, particularly among older children and adults, to see that we are embracing a new form, a new idiom of disability and need, uh, that, that we didn't embrace in the past.

27:59 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, HOW do you approach or how do you look at the rise of, uh, mental illness diagnosis, like you mentioned autism, there's also, of course, depression earlier, you also mentioned or referred to ADHD. Um, WHAT do you make of that?

28:20 Roy Richard Grinker: Well, I wouldn't say that that necessarily an increase in autism, ADHD and other mental illnesses, but an increase in diagnosis and treatment. Um, WHEN there were, um, really, uh, when there was really a scarcity of treatments in the mid-twentieth century, epidemiologic studies showed that the, uh, prevalence of mental illnesses was far, far higher. THAN anybody guessed through the epidemiologic studies. And yet if you looked at clinic records, insurance records, things like that, it didn't look like there was that much mental illness. But if you actually went out and knocked on every door and, and looked at everybody and, you know, left no stone unturned, you would find a lot of mental illness. And so what's happening now is that people are getting diagnoses that they didn't get in the past. So maybe The person with ADHD was in the past, I don't know, discriminated or stigmatized as somebody who was A bad student or a loser, or, or,

29:26 Ricardo Lopes: or lazy

29:27 Roy Richard Grinker: or lazy, right, right. Um, AND, uh, and you know, we see, we see this in microcosm with particular individuals. One of the things in my book, Nobody's Normal, I write about a freshman, I taught a freshman seminar, so it's just freshmen coming into George Washington University. They're 17 years old, 18 years old, max, maximum. And I was asking them at the end, you know, what's been the best, it's your first semester of college, what's been the best thing so far about your semester? And one student said, oh, the best thing about my semester was getting diagnosed with ADHD. I was like, oh, tell us, you know, if you feel comfortable, tell us about that. And she said, well, my parents always told me that I was lazy or just not that smart. And I would say, no, I think something's wrong with me, and they say, no, you're just not working hard enough. You're not trying hard enough. And it was when she got to college that she was able to act on her own. Um, AND go to a counselor, go to a psychologist, and she received the diagnosis of ADHD, and she said that was just the first time in my life that somebody saw that I wasn't lazy, I wasn't stupid, that I actually Just needed some support or accommodation, and in her case, it was, uh, a medication plus a little extra time on exams, and she was excelling in her school, right? So, this is somebody who in the past might not have had any diagnosis at all, um, particularly people with autism who are diagnosed late in life, um, uh, and this, their, their symptoms are not particularly Um, profound or highly disabling, um, people without an intellectual disability, for example, uh, they are, you know, they're getting diagnosed now and they would have just been considered weird or loners or, or awkward or nerds or geeks or who knows what in the past. Um, AND so we're finding new ways to, um, Uh, to provide labels that don't stigmatize, that aren't negative.

31:39 Ricardo Lopes: Right, um. How do you look at the advent of the DSM and, um, I mean, diagnostic manuals and how things have changed, changed in terms of how we approach the classification of mental illness over the past few decades.

32:03 Roy Richard Grinker: That's a huge question. Um, HUGE question. Um, AND you can answer that question from a number of different, uh, perspectives. So one thing that, that, that's, that's true is that, uh, the field of psychology and psychiatry, clinical psychology and psychiatry used to be, uh, something that was not standardized. So if I was studying something in France and you're studying something in the United States, how do I know that we're studying the same thing, right? How do I know that we're, we're actually studying the same thing? The DSM was a way to help to standardize so that at least you could compare results from across different places. And so it played a huge role in Uh, in, in, in the development of the mental health professions. On the other hand, when you create these diagnostic classifications, You start to fix in stone. A set of criteria that then make it seem like this condition actually is real. So when autism gets introduced into the DSM, Um, It's thought of as being something real. It's not that doctors discovered something new that they called autism. What they did was that they said, oh, you know, there are these symptoms over here and these symptoms over here, and they often go together, and they often coexist with each other. So, let's, uh, let, let's see if, um, maybe there is a term that we can have that will help us to capture that. And so then we start to think that autism is a real disease that has a real objective existence, when in fact, there are probably 100 autisms or 150 different autisms. And so, you know, there are pluses and minuses, right? Uh,

34:10 Ricardo Lopes: I have just one last question then also because I'm looking at the time and I know that we only have 9 minutes left or something like that. That, so, uh, and referring directly to, uh, the title of your book, Nobody's Normal, uh, I mean, what, uh, do you mean by that exactly? I mean, is anyone normal? How do you approach that question?

34:36 Roy Richard Grinker: I actually got the title from a student, um, and, uh, who, who, you know, basically who, who said, you know, nobody's normal. Is anybody normal anymore? And I said, no, no, nobody's normal. Um, BECAUSE normal is a construction, right? Normal used to mean 100 years ago, the average, the norm, the mean, norm. So we, we in the United States, we had normal schools. They were, you know, designed to teach the norm, uh, of, of, of what was in society, but, um, what, uh, uh, what happened over the 20th century is that normal shifted from being a statistical average. To being something you wanted to aspire to. I want to be normal, and normal is a variant of the good, right? So nobody it fits something that is the norm because the norm is always changing. And the norm is something that we have constructed. Right? So, we use the term normal here and there and say, oh, you know, I know you had a flight delay, but that's normal. Um, WE mean statistically normal. But increasingly, we are moving and our, this is what my book tries to document, away from this idea that there are human beings who are normal and abnormal, right? And so, when you look at a group of students like the ones I had who have ADHD or autism or whatever, um, uh, they recognize that normal is an ideal construction. Rather than something which is grounded in Um, in some kind of objective fact. So what would a normal human being look like? I don't know. And what would an abnormal human being look like? Each is a case by case. Um, Example that. Has to be assessed in terms of what we consider to be healthy, not healthy, allowing a human being to do what they want to do and build a meaningful life. So, if I have autism and I build a meaningful life, Just, you know, because of or despite. My autism Is it there then that I'm, am I abnormal? You know, the, the when you start asking that question, you realize how absurd it is to think that there's any such thing in the world as normal or, or abnormal. There are variations, and we all exist on a spectrum.

37:16 Ricardo Lopes: Great, so Doctor Grinker, uh, the book is again Nobody's Normal, How Culture Created the Stigma of Mental Illness. I'm leaving a link to it in the description of the interview, and would you like to tell people where they can find you and your work on the internet?

37:35 Roy Richard Grinker: Um, WELL, uh, I don't have a web, a, uh, a personal website right now, uh, but my work is available on, uh, all the major booksellers, um, sites and, uh, in academic journals as well, and I'm at the George Washington University.

37:52 Ricardo Lopes: OK, great. So thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show. It's been a real pleasure to talk with you. Thank you. Hi guys, thank you for watching this interview until the end. If you liked it, please share it, leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by Enlights Learning and Development done differently. Check their website at enlights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or PayPal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and PayPal supporters, Perergo Larsson, Jerry Muller, Frederick Sundo, Bernard Seyaz Olaf, Alex, Adam Cassel, Matthew Whittingbird, Arnaud Wolf, Tim Hollis, Eric Elena, John Connors, Philip Forrest Connolly. Then Dmitri Robert Windegerru Inai Zu Mark Nevs, Colin Holbrookfield, Governor, Michel Stormir, Samuel Andrea, Francis Forti Agnun, Svergoro, and Hal Herz Agnon, Mahel Jonathan Labrarinth, John Yardston, and Samuel Curric Hines, Mark Smith, John Ware, Tom Hammel, Sardusran, David Sloan Wilson, Yasilla Dezaraujo Romain Roach, Diego Londono Correa. Yannik Punteran Ruzmani, Charlotte Blis Nicole Barbaro, Adam Hunt, Pavlostazevski, Alekbaka, Madison, Gary G. Alman, Semov, Zal Adrian Yei Poltontin, John Barboza, Julian Price, Edward Hall, Edin Bronner, Douglas Fry, Franco Bartolatti, Gabriel P Scortez or Suliliski, Scott Zachary Fish, Tim Duffy, Sony Smith, and Wisman. Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Georg Jarno, Luke Lovai, Georgios Theophanous, Chris Williamson, Peter Wolozin, David Williams, Di Acosta, Anton Ericsson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralli Chevalier, Bangalore atheists, Larry D. Lee Junior. Old Eringbon. Esterri, Michael Bailey, then Spurber, Robert Grassy, Zigoren, Jeff McMahon, Jake Zul, Barnabas Raddix, Mark Kempel, Thomas Dovner, Luke Neeson, Chris Story, Kimberly Johnson, Benjamin Galbert, Jessica Nowicki, Linda Brendan, Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensleyman. George Ekoriati, Valentine Steinmann, Per Crawley, Kate Van Goler, Alexander Obert, Liam Dunaway, BR, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Perpendicular, Jannes Hetner, Ursula Guinov, Gregory Hastings, David Pinsov, Sean Nelson, Mike Levin, and Jos Necht. A special thanks to my producers Iar Webb, Jim Frank Lucas Stink, Tom Vanneden, Bernardine Curtis Dixon, Benedict Mueller, Thomas Trumbull, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carlomon Negro, Al Nick Cortiz and Nick Golden, and to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Sergio Quadrian, Bogdan Kanis, and Rosie. Thank you for all.