I don't think your comment is as appreciated as it should be, but it tickled me for sure!

Lol...that's an interesting remark, considering the topic!

Another thing is, that even tho the dark red coloring indicates more of 'problem' in certain areas, that's really misleading, isn't it? I mean, if you consider that this graph COULD be reflecting the populations in the world who do consider mental health to be a significant issue...isn't the first step to addressing a problem, acknowledging that it exists?

I think that's a problem with this graph- it doesn't differentiate between those who are progressing towards solutions vs. those who are dismissing problems...but then again, I live in one of the glaring red places! ;) Of course, I'm biased.

That would be a more accurate claim at least, but that helps me clarify the main & inevitable issue with this graph overall...because yes, it does reflect a cultural emphasis on mental health in some places, but not others at the same time. For I wouldn't say that New Zealanders or Australians place more of a cultural significance on diagnosing disorders than other nations, or that they are naturally more prone to mental disorders or addictions within their populations, but I can say that, historically, these were 'prison colonies' of other nations for centuries and access to alcohol or drugs were not as culturally restrictive as it was elsewhere, which is basically like "hello issues!" The same could be said for the United States, which was also historically used to imprison criminals from Europe, but meanwhile, in other nations, criminals of the same sort were simply eradicated from existence. So is that what this graph reflects? The consequences of how populations have addressed mental health issues over time? Or does it reflect more current cultural standards? Which holds more significance? Is it culture & environment, or more inherent, like genealogical? Truth is, it's all of these things, in part...in very small part...in the midst of many other parts...extremely complicated & ever-changing parts...all of which are too significant alone not to be considered & counted towards any "global" or "universal" claim.

I'd say this is simply an impossible thing to map, but that's just my opinion. This graph, however, is most certainly too flawed to definitively reflect anything beyond...well...those who carried out & participated in the mapping- or in other words, their definition of the issues they've attempted to map.

Given what I know to be true, such a graph is useless without complete context- or in other words, any 'graph' is useless in regards to 'mental health' in a general or global context.

I can say from experience...no, it does not!

I don't think this can be accurately diagnosed, considering the differences in culture & destabilizing factors that vary across the world...I mean, of course, those in more well developed nations have more data to collect. Whereas, in underdeveloped nations, they might not even have a term for common mental disorders elsewhere. Some cultures are even known to dismiss the idea of "emotional problems" entirely, and in some countries, they don't address mental disorders or disabilities with compassion or understanding at all.

Just saying, I doubt the global population could be counted accurately in this way, given the vast disparities. For instance, I doubt people in places like Afghanistan or Syria (or other war-ravaged countries) could provide the necessary data to quantify anything to be a "global study." But in more developed, wealthier nations, there would be lots of studies & professionals to provide information...it's the difference between "mental well-being" vs physical starvation & basic survival, and that's a huge difference, which is why poorer people in poorer countries have a lower rate of suicide and disorders like "bulimia" are not a thing.

In history, things like mead were created because poor people didn't have clean water to drink. Does that factor into the societies that now have issues with alcoholism? Well, sure...but that also equals access that a desert population wouldn't have. So overall, there's just too many factors to consider-from history to culture to environment, to political or religious wars, etc., etc.- for this graph to be informative.