Personal Blogs

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.

I am not on YouTube or social media

Cadwell NOT Caldwell

mental health

More mental health

[3 minute read ] 

I have PTSD. I didn't have many of the symptoms I think i have until a psychiatrist told me I have PTSD in 2016. Everyone suffers PTSD in different ways and childhood trauma is much different to trauma experienced as an adult. Think how you might describe every wave in every ocean and you get some understanding that each of us, sane, insane, troubled, smoothly happy, angry or at peace is experiencing life in vastly different ways and at different speeds and volumes too. 

Just like believing you have the force 'that can' creates the force 'that can', being told you have a reason to feel a bit less than you feel you should be feeling means that we can easily create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Much of my inability to operate at a level that I feel I should be able to operate at is down to poor sleep patterns and a poor diet. I am old enough and ugly enough to know what makes me tick. Saying I get fatigued in the afternoons is a denial that I am a morning person who is unfit and probably skipped lunch. Of course, there are many people who have real diseases that fatigue them; that is a given but I am not one of them unless I want to say my nervous energy drains me. 

the truth of the matter is that I own whatever trauma I experienced. I was handed a poisonous plate and I was compelled to eat from it. That was a series of meals (events) that changed the way I thought and still think. Yet I know this and now everything I do and think is entirely my own doing. I should like to blame evil monsters and psychopaths but at least one of them is dead and another might be by now. 

Getting treatment for PTSD is difficult. I argue that because I have had it for so long it is now a psychiatric malady because the dendrites in my head (we all have them) that connect the axions in my brain and allow thoughts to form are so hard-wired that psychology-led treatment has to first destroy those dendrites in order for me to form new ones; in effect I need to be completely rewired. That, i argue means taking medication that shuts down the highest thinking for a time so the dendrites shrivel and die, then or doing that process psychological work can be done of the mundane day to day stuff such as any misanthropy. Usually, conversations with mental health staff gets no further than that. They won't believe me when i tell them that believing something that is not true is no different to seeing something that isn't there. It is all down to perceiving intangible things. The psychiatrists I have seen disagree with me on every point.

So, I am nuts, crazy, and misaligned. That makes me the same as everyone else; the difference is, I don't fantasise about living a life that I planned long ago. That isn't meant to pillory the public. It really is choosing the red pill over the blue pill in the matrix. 

Here's how I suspect it works:

       'Hmmm. I think I am different to everyone else. I wonder why.' Bingo! the pills are presented. Self examination can only lead to a dual personality state. It can only lead to measured behaviour which isolates an individual from a group if the members of the group act spontaneously. Because they never considered themselves to be different they never had to choose which 'pill' to eat. Watching oneself and comparing oneself to others is the certain course to mental unease, or if you can master it, complete peace and satisfaction.

After years of self-analysis I have concluded that it is my high IQ that separates me from the average person, and not my PTSD. When someone sees in colour and everyone else sees in black and white it is difficult to use the colour of the sky as an example to explain a mystery. Years ago, a friend of mine said, 'I wish I was not so aware'. I knew exactly what he meant and I recognise that he considered his high IQ more as a bane than a boon, just as I sometimes do; but only when I am in the company of others. One lesson I must learn is to keep my mouth shut; hide my light under a bushel, if you will.

Right now, I am deepy troubled that the external examiner plainy failed to perceive the derivation and complexity of a creative writing EMA I recently submitted. That worries me intensely. If they override a tutor's marks I am doomed towards a low degree. Not acheiving my potential because someone else lacks a high IQ will crush me; quite simply because i was held back by a low intelligence psychopath brother who tormented me into self-doubt through public abatement. 

When I say I am control of my PTSD, I was fantasising for a bit; any bully can trigger it and any low intelligence authority can destroy me.

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.

I am not on YouTube or social media

Cadwell NOT Caldwell

Choose gambling and parental oppression

[9 minute read ] 

Freedom

Economists find it difficult to accurately map how people go about their lives; whether they will or won't spend money or invest resources; by resources, I, of course, mean, time; money; support from relationships; and opportunities (anything that could be used by an individual in a fashion to either maintain or improve their existence).

Economists have methods to map out and understand human behaviour, yet they can never be confident that people will  just do as they are predicted to do. However, economists do know some things.

People get stuck on one way of looking at a problem and only accept information to support their view. All other information gets ignored.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/framing-effect.html

Recently, I came across a young person on the 'Student Room' web site, who professed to having a problem and was seeking advice. It seemed the problem that this student thought they had was a financial one, but only by looking at two avenues to finance their university studies. The student has some capital (an undisclosed amount) and has eyed a loan from Student Finance for England (SFE). The dilemma, from the student's point of view seems different to my, rather different, point of view.

This angst-ridden student felt that they were 'ghosted' because they did not get replies from potential employers when they applied for jobs. I can't help but think that this student fails to recognise that they are never going to be the only one to apply for a single position, without being exceptional in their field and  finding a role for which the potential employer has created such parameters on the position that the exceptional candidate is the only one that could possibly believe they may have any chance of success in their application for the position.

This student seems to be unable to consider any potential employer's available resources. Of course, all business people crave in-depth information on their competitors and their industry market; that is a given. I mean, when we apply for a job, many of us have an expectation that there is someone whose sole job is to read CVs and cover letters, and then personally respond to every applicant with detailed feedback on why they have not got the job. When it doesn't happen, some people may feel as though they have been dismissed, or purposely diminished, or indeed, 'ghosted'. And why not? Leaving school and entering the job world is a huge transition in thinking. There is, to my knowledge, no interim staging post; a place where school-leavers are disenfranchised of their belief that they will get coherent and encouraging responses from a leader (teacher) on a individual basis, after they leave school.

This all fits in with, People get stuck on one way of looking at a problem and only accept information to support their view. (above); but only loosely. It would seem that the problem the school-leaver faces is not being able to get a job, and not knowing why. But, I suggest that the true problem is something else. School children today have an expectation of 'to and fro' conversation that is made up of snippets of information passed over a long period of time, with each piece complimenting or negating all previous information. It is the nature of schooling that advice changes as the student grows both in personality and capability. All this comes to a sudden stop when they leave school and all that is left are their friends who perpetuate the dribble of information to which they are accustomed. So, many school-leavers only accept information of a particular style (slow over a long period with immediate gratification thrown in for good measure).

The second part of the definition I wrote in my scrapbook for 'Framing Bias' is: [they] only accept information to support their view. All other information gets ignored. 'That' needs no further explanation, I suggest.

Back to the dilemma the student on the 'Student Room' website has:

The parents are pressuring their child to use a Child Trust Fund to pay for British Citizenship; hopefully for the application of citizenship! This, in my mind, presents a whole web of problems, not least is that the almost-adult (still attending school) would potentially wipe out a capital that would, I suspect, be extremely difficult to replace without good work prospects; and we know that is no guarantee, even if they are able to shed off the reliance on teacher-pupil type transactions to which they are accustomed.

How does this child not have British citizenship? It seems obvious that the parents never applied for it on their behalf - perhaps immigrants cannot make a blanket application for their family, and so immigrant children have to make the application after they reach legal maturity. (Later, I noticed that there is a lower fee for children to make an application for British citizenship, so the parents could have made an application for the troubled student, but seemingly didn't. All sorts of questions can be mounted as to why this might be. But this is not about immigrants and their legal status, outside of the expressed problem at hand. (coercion, debt, capital, and education)

I can't remember what the criteria are for eligibility for a SFE loan. I think it wouldn't be a bad guess to believe that you need to live in England, and not in Scotland or Wales; you have to be legally responsible for the debt; and crucially, there must be some expectation that the loan will be paid back. This latter part probably means that you can be legally chased across the world by the British Government, and a garnishee order can be legally placed on earnings. In other words, without beating about the bush, you have to have British Citizenship. 'Ding' changes to 'Dunk' as the bell suddenly cracks.

Not to put too fine a point on it, applying for British Citizenship solely to reap a financial gain is an extremely sensitive area for a lot of people. SFE loans, by accruing interest and being only repayable when a pay threshold is reached, could mean acquiring many years of work experience before someone achieves a suitable financial income to make even very small repayments.

To re-iterate - This is not about immigrants. That is only a single channel of perceiving this issue; and for many people, it might be the first thing that comes to mind; quite simply because there is a tendency in many of us to follow the latter part of 'Framing Bias' in that many people tend to ignore evidence or information that doesn't fit with their initial evaluation.

The troubled student on the 'Student Room' website probably believes they have a problem with their demanding parents. A reply by another student, to the framed question, alluded to the expectation that SFE has for parents to continue to fund their offspring while they study at university; it went along the lines of eligibility for a maintenance loan. I have no idea how that works, because I am an Open University student with no accommodation to pay for, other than my own home.

Paraphrasing the troubled student: 'I can't get a job, so I would, if I don't give my parents the full SFE loan and they pay for my phone bill and give me some food money, only have £17 [per week or month]' (either way it is not a great amount). The dilemma is whether to give up a financial cushion in the form of capital; the 'Child Trust Fund' is spent on British Citizenship, or seemingly give up the ongoing parental support. Yeah, I know, the information given was not really clear, but what can you expect from a confused person with practically no experience of money matters, adult personal relationships, and in possession of only poor information?

It seems to be an opportunity cost problem.

Putting the confusion and 'bobbling' aside. There is a practical solution, I feel, to the student's dilemma. But we have to approach the problem in a different way. Why can't the student get a job?

Lack of appropriate experience in the industry

Personality and Character issues

Poor education

General lack of knowledge

-isms

But here is where it gets tricky.

The 'Prospect Theory' holds that individuals are more influenced by the possibility of a loss than the prospect of an equivalent gain. (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). I didn't reference this in my scrapbook, but it is likely I got it from 'Simply Psychology'. I have the book, but here is a web address:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/framing-effect.html (accessed 20 June 2026)

Again, I am coming from the angle of looking at lost opportunities. If the student spends their trust fund on British citizenship, which I think costs around £1,839 for naturalisation (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fees-for-citizenship-applications/fees-for-citizenship-applications-and-the-right-of-abode-from-6-april-2018) then that same money cannot be spent on education that would boost the student's desirability as a prospective employee and  thereby ease later undergraduate study in the same field. The gain from appropriate education is a rise in financially rewarding prospects in the short-term, and a further rise in financially rewarding prospects from gaining a better degree, through applying prior knowledge. This, however, is not guaranteed. It is gambling. Losing £1,839 for naturalisation is guaranteed; so what needs to be done to minimise the maximum loss? (minimax)

Applying for British Citizenship, and getting it, with the £1,839 for naturalisation, means that there is a clearly advantageous return; not least the prospect of being eligible for a government-funded loan for education. However, there is a problem that may not seem obvious, unless we are still looking at the problem from an opportunity cost angle. By going to university for three years and not working, valuable opportunities for gaining work experience are lost. Often, graduates cannot get the job they wanted, the one they hoped a degree would assist them into, and they find themselves competing for the same low-paid job as someone with three years work experience, who may not have attended university. 

While most of us, who can trace our British ancestry back to ten or twenty generations ago, would struggle with some of the British History and British Culture questions that are set for immigrants seeking British Citizenship, it really is a question of education. Everybody, including me, I strongly suspect, if I had to apply for British Citizenship, needs to learn about Britain to pass the tests; so inevitably, time, as a resource, is spent in one area, and the same time cannot be spent studying something different or elsewhere. No worries! At least failed job applicants can be assured of benefits if they have British Citizenship. It seems then, that the safe bet, using a Child Trust Fund to pay for naturalisation, really is, just taking the obvious route of positioning oneself above a safety net; a safety net that catches, yet does not propel.

Even with a vast handful of qualifications, someone may still not be able to get a job. I had my CV assessed a few years back by a professional trainer and recruiter (Reed Recruitment). I had already discovered 'Applicant Tracking Software' is used to 'read' CVs, and I had become aware of the U.S.A Department of Homeland Security's 'Automated Targeting System' which is designed to assess suitability for ingress into the United States of America; so I arrived at my appointment with my CV, fairly confident that it was perfect; after all, there were no lines separating either paragraphs or areas of interest.

       'We need to remove all the full-stops.' I was told by the Reed trainer.

My two-page CV, less than three pages, but still more than one, is not long enough to list all my qualifications and have enough room to explain the job roles and responsibilities I have had. Even if everything is fine, employers may look at my social media interaction, and make a decision based solely on my projected personality. This, is after getting past the automated CV checks that resulted in a suggestion that a real person actually reads my CV. Whether all of a two page CV gets read is anyone's guess.

My advice to the distressed student in the 'Student Room' website was 'not to apply for British Citizenship with the sole intention of becoming eligible for accruing a significant and crippling SFE debt that is only repayable once a pay threshold is reached'. Using capital to accrue debt for education just makes no sense to me. The same amount of money, £1,839, if spent on a course through 'Reed Courses' or a whole bunch of other places, should result in a valid and recognised qualification, that should significantly boost a job applicant's desirability, especially at a young age. 

'AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting with Work Experience' £510, not including a £96 exam booking fee, or registration fee with AAT, offered by KBM Training. A six month course.

'Microsoft Office Skills (Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint) Administration & Office Skills' 33.5 hrs self-paced, £15 (no recognised qualification, but still a good addition to an empty CV)

With gainful employment at age 19, the pressure that parents might bear on the decisions a young adult may be faced with, certainly with the example I have exposed, are hugely dissipated.

I may not have made it clear, but the parents of the confused and distressed student on the 'Student Room' website, seem to be attempting to alleviate, or offset, some of the cost of the accommodation the student would need, in order to study away from home, by having the whole SFE loan handed to them (the parents), and then determining how much to give to the student. Who really wants that  kind of oppression from their parents? (I have also read the woes of an autistic student who is not trusted to function well by herself, in the 'Student Room'). Can we really expect that someone with a degree but no valid practice on managing one's own resources would do well in the harsh world of work-hardened adults? I suggest, these parents may be inadvertently smothering the future welfare of their own genes. This flies in the face of 'altruism' which many people believe exists, only towards members of the same family.

As long as the student has a right to work in the UK, I suggest finding work and sticking to it, should be the first priority, and any capital should be spent on action that has the best chance of rapidly replacing the same capital; the reason for this is quite simply, not to allow education be a bar to opportunities. Well, perhaps, not let the pursuit of further or higher education be a bar to opportunity.

Alternatively, spending £1,839 on the hope of British naturalisation would practically guarantee a £4088 SFE loan for a single Open University module. I suppose Essex University online modules cost a similar amount; or £7,335 for two modules per year, to complete a degree in three years.

What we may not be considering is that by gaining qualifications online, there is no need to apply for a maintenance loan if the student stays at home with their parents. Importantly, the total loan is lower, and the accrued interest is less impactful.

The student on the 'Student Room' website seems to see their problem as only being solved by attending a brick University, and an attendant (though distracting) lack of money, which gambling on an imagined future by getting a degree will supposedly eradicate. The real problem is actually, 'How do I get a job?' tomorrow, instead of in three years time. In economics, this is similar to being offered £1 today or waiting for £10 in a years time. It is 'Discounted Utility'. It is calculated as the present discounted value of future utility. However, if the student is stuck in thinking the 'utility' of £1 today is ten times less than £10 in a years time, they are only considering money in a bank and not opportunity. Admittedly, a single pound doesn't give much scope for opportunity, but if it is scaled up, the possibilities are endless. 'How do I get a job in three years time?' is likely to be the wrong direction to take. It certainly requires a quite linear form of convergent thinking, in that one has to believe there is a valuable future available to oneself and everything understood today will be the same in the future. 

       'I have a good job. I will get a mortgage and repay it over twenty-five years, and in twenty-five years I will be free of debt.' Ha ha!

An aside:

I was once denied a £1,000 bank loan, even though I was self-employed with a lot of money going through my bank account (about £190,000 per year), because I transferred £5 per month to a William Hill betting account. I explained that the William Hill account was used for a weekly £1 stake in the Irish Lottery, which has better odds than the English Lottery; (13 million to 1 chance of winning the English Lottery at the time, and 11 million to 1 chance of winning the Irish Lottery. My bank balance was over £14,000 at the time of the loan request. The loan was for work equipment.

       'You're a gambler!' I was told.

       'So are you!' I replied.