|
8748 Posts
A common suggestion made to a depressed person is to postpone major decisions until the worst of it has passed because the ability to reason is compromised. The suggestion is very clear in its intent but very vague in its reasoning. The vagueness is based in the lack of an objective reference. What is an acceptable level of ability to reason? And how much worse are things than normal, how much better can they get, and how much effort and how long will it take to get better? Depending on the answers to these questions, the suggestion to postpone can be absolute nonsense.
Relativity isn't very helpful here. If one of the greatest thinkers is depressed and her ability to reason has been lowered to the level of an above average thinker, should her authority over herself be forcefully removed by her society?
Depending on the ability to forecast how soon, how easily and how much better a depressed person will get, declining abilities could be the best reason to hasten a decision, not postpone it. That is, if the forecast for a rise in ability is not good, it is best to make decisions as soon as possible.
What special rights does a person have over himself? Assuming that a decision involves no subjective evidence unique to the person it concerns, everyone has an equal opportunity to make the correct decision. The people with the best ability to reason ought to make the decision. But even people with equal abilities may make opposite decisions. And how do we know who is in the best position to make the decision? The person with the best ability to reason may be outperformed by the person with more knowledge and experience. Decisions concerning people avoid these difficulties when people are allowed to be their own masters. People accept the responsibility of making their own decisions. But there are exceptions made in the name of paternalism (and others that don't concern this blog). So when is a compromised ability to reason sufficient enough to make an exception? To take a person's right to govern himself away?
We know of many things that compromise the ability to reason. Lack of rest, lack of nutrition, lack of exercise, improper diet, stress, drugs (even just caffeine)... These are obvious ones, but then you've got phenomena like girls doing worse on math tests when reminded that they're girls and African Americans doing worse on standardized tests when asked to fill in a bubble indicating that they're African Americans. Do depressed people reason worse when reminded that they're depressed? That's not the point, just a side thought. The point is that our abilities to reason are fluctuating depending on more variables than we realize and many negative effects can coincide to severely compromise the ability to reason. This could happen without anyone noticing because the variables are commonplace and acceptable. Depression is apparently an unacceptable variable.
We can imagine that humans are stupid. We normally think of intelligence relative to humans. But we can imagine an intellect much better than the average or even the best human intellect. When doing so, we must think of the intellect tackling problems beyond human capability. Decisions that we can't consistently get right, but must be made, require us to settle. We can imagine that a greater intellect could put forth more effort and ability and make the decision properly. Lacking that, we do what we can and give up when the time is right, settling on whatever we ended up at. An unimportant decision can be made quickly by a person of poor ability. An important decision can take years or even decades of collective effort of the best minds in society. For every decision, there must exist some objective standards of effort and ability that we are so far unable or unwilling to define.
It is troublesome that a person can make the suggestion that a depressed person's ability to reason has diminished and that that can take away the depressed person's self-authority. Where are the measurements? Where are the arguments, supported by facts and evidence, about the level of ability and amount of effort that a decision requires? How can a line of thinking so thinly logical and so fucking irrational be used to take away someone else's logic and rationality?
As if a depressed person's self-esteem issues aren't severe enough, the healthy people, the professionals trained to fix, fling accusations of incompetence that are complete fucking guesses. No they're not so insensitive and rude that they say "you are incompetent!" but that is the bottom line. I think it's a bullshit power grab made by a person who wants to go with a different decision and is too lazy or too god damned stupid to justify and defend it properly.
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one.
 
|
|
|
I don't know if there is any good measurement of a person's ability to reason in psychology. It's usually just based off of arguing facts and logical connections, in the theme of cognitive behaviourism. I think the concept of reasoning should be thought of as a medium, allowing one to make a conclusion from a beginning point. Thus the measurement or critique of reason should be based on the fluidity and conductivity of ideas to their fruition. I'm not really far in psychology so I'm probably way off though.
|
Due to the way we all have our own lives to live, and see things our own way... I really think I agree with you in distaste about the vague guidelines for ability to reason for one's self.
Who's to say Doc knows better than you, anyway?
I don't agree with advice to postpone major decisions because of the "lack of competence"..
Why don't we all just put our lives on hold until it's the way we want it.. wait...don't we have to make changes now to get there?
|
5003 Posts
What I'm about to say may not apply to depression, but it's something that I realized over the last few months over being emotional and decision making.
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one.
Not going to talk about "psychology", but for me, I think the biggest way to judge this is hindsight. Generally whenever I got emotional, I got advice from other people, but I ended up doing my own thing anyway. You look back, and you see the decision you made versus the decision you could have made... nearly every time the decision I made while emotional ended up being quite the destructive, stupid one. Being too involved in the situation, or "caring too much", etc etc... all usually ended up blinding me, and nowadays I really just try and have some trust in close friends whenever I get into situations similar.
Of course, you'll never have a perfect control for it (ie: you never know for certain if advice given to you by other people was actually better than yours), but I don't think it takes much reason to gauge between whichever ones work out and whichever ones do not. Being emotional is a fringe extreme case though I think, since it makes you completely myopic.
|
There is no absolute scale to measure someone's ability to reason. But relative scales are possible, especially comparing the same person to themselves. When depressed, person is more likely to be make illogical decisions or view the world in a negative light than that same person would if not depressed.
Of course depression doesn't effect all decisions and depressed people aren't more incompetent that others. Just look to history and some of the greatest decision makers of all time struggled with depression (Lincoln, Churchill, etc.).
But when it comes to large decisions knowing that there is a chemical imbalance in your brain has to at least bring in some doubt about whether or not you would make the same choice if you weren't depressed and all other things equal. This doubt shouldn't be so strong that it paralyzes you or that it justifies someone else making decisions for you, but it should exist and encourage you to hold a higher standard of scrutiny for decisions that have irreversible consequences.
|
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
SNIP
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one.
I think it all comes down to your final statement here. I don't think the person of interest would be able to ever truly see their own ability to reason in a logical manner. You need those outside parties. The outside parties will always have less than ideal information, though. It's a situation psychologists are forced to make the best of, I think. As for them not caring as much as you, I don't know the answer to who cares more. I think dismissing their efforts compared to yours may not give them enough credit, but I fully understand why you would feel that way.
Edit: And Milkis brings up a very good point about being too invested in solely your point of view as opposed to having an "unbiased" (does such a thing truly exist?) outsider's view of the situation. I'm not entirely sure of the relevance here, though.
|
Indeed Cake,
It's important to do it by case by case and even then.. people do change.
I treat those as excuses now. Nothing more; nothing less. Then again, I'm more intune with myself more than I was before.
|
I don't think there's much useful to say on this level of generality. Sometimes it's right to let others influence your decisions even if you don't agree with their reasoning 100% and sometimes it's not. It really depends on the specifics of the situation. You just need to talk to people you're comfortable sharing these important details with.
But in general there's probably nothing wrong with listening to what others have to say, whether you end up using their advice or not.
|
I think its unreasonable to try and make comparisons between one persons emotional well-being and anothers. It would be silly to say that things like that were based on FACTs. The truth is that when something is considered a fact there is still a chance it is not a fact, just a stubborn unfact.
I think that "a person who is depressed has a limited ability to make proper decisions that they could reasonably make when not depressed" is generally a true statement. I don't think that means depressed people should not be allowed to make their own descisions but they certainly should be careful making important decisions about important things.
"Lack of rest, lack of nutrition, lack of exercise, improper diet, stress, drugs (even just caffeine)" All contribute to depression, maybe thats why they have a negative affect on decision making? Even drug addicts in outpatient treatment (like me the last 4 months) are allowed to make their own decisions but are warned that they should postpone important decision making until later (like quitting your job or your marriage). Its reasonable advice (< Lulz)
Our brains are far from being a science, and reasonable advice for one person might not be reasonable to another depending on the situation. I hope if someone is taking away someones right to make decisions it is to protect said person, and not stroke someones ego, but that shit happens as well.
|
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
As if a depressed person's self-esteem issues aren't severe enough, the healthy people, the professionals trained to fix, fling accusations of incompetence that are complete fucking guesses. No they're not so insensitive and rude that they say "you are incompetent!" but that is the bottom line. I think it's a bullshit power grab made by a person who wants to go with a different decision and is too lazy or too god damned stupid to justify and defend it properly.
As a former depressed person, this is what irritated me the most about treatment.
|
On July 02 2012 05:46 ranjutan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
As if a depressed person's self-esteem issues aren't severe enough, the healthy people, the professionals trained to fix, fling accusations of incompetence that are complete fucking guesses. No they're not so insensitive and rude that they say "you are incompetent!" but that is the bottom line. I think it's a bullshit power grab made by a person who wants to go with a different decision and is too lazy or too god damned stupid to justify and defend it properly.
As a former depressed person, this is what irritated me the most about treatment.
I'll speak for myself when I say I've never ever let that happen in any treatment I did. ._.
|
Well I don't know how the psychologist phrased it, but at the very least there is a kernel of good advice in there:
"If you can afford to postpone a decision in order to maximize your own potential, then you should."
This advice is not specific to depression either. It could easily be applied to any number of situations where we know that we are compromised.
|
The way you view one's "ability to reason" is way too black and white.
Depressed people are vulnerable in so many fucking ways.
Issue ain't the ability to reason properly (that has no meaning), but rather the lack of perspective over situations, because of your condition.
|
When it comes to mental health the first thing I learned is that you should never generalize ever.
|
Information by itself is warped and as biased as the decisions made that created said information; so when I've received advice from people regarding my life I find that their advice is often missing the mark. It's isn't even necessarily that they don't have enough information, and sometimes an overabundance of information can be just as problematic as knowing nothing at all, it's that their information has been biased to account for depressed person. What I am trying to say is that someone takes in to account the person's poor state, the advice that they would give to a normal person is discounted and instead they advice for marginal improvements. I can only speak for my personal experience, and I have never seen a professional, but the less than optimistic advice ends up making me feel more depressed. An example of this would be that when I was out of work, many people advised me to lower my career expectations/or that I should settle for something halfway to what I wanted to reach (despite me being a straight A student all through school). That advice was based off of the information that I gave them for at the time my confidence was low and while I secretly held (or hoped) that my capabilities were higher nothing was more devastating to be nonchalantly advised to settle for what I had.
I hope that made sense; and in summary I'm mirroring what Nony is saying.
|
Well the bottom line is that, going to a psychologist due to mental reasons is a catch-22. If you are mentally capable of recognizing that you are mentally unhealthy, than do you really need support? Not to mention the acceptance that going to a psychologist means that you agree that someone can tell you what to do without knowing what's going through your head, i.e., someone is "smarter" than you.
|
really interesting post. i am a grad student in a social science field, and i'm often struck by how much psychologists etc. focus on 'reason' as an objective process with no emotional inputs. obviously if you are in a particularly bad place, you're going to make different decisions than you would if you were feeling totally healthy -- but i'm persuaded by the evidence that emotion is *always* a key input into reason (e.g., the 'somatic marker hypothesis' advanced by damasio among others). essentially, i would say that your mind is not constituted by a unitary process; your decisions are always multiple i.e. influenced by diverse factors, and drawing a line for when you become 'reasonable' is mostly just baggage of the enlightenment (the rational man as the basis for judgment).
[edit: btw you are the best writer i've seen among starcraft players and clearly a really smart dude, if you ever decide to stop progaming (please dont!) i hope you'd consider going into academia]
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
seems impossible sometimes even for totally healthy people. it's really difficult to identify the forces in your own mind that shape a decision... they're kinda like anonymous campaign donors. let's campaign against superpacs to keep mental elections honest!
|
This is super nerdy but the discussion reminds me from the plot of Ultima VII: The Serpent Isle. The plot involves a land called New Sosaria which is essentially ruled over by three giant serpent/gods who represent three principles; Order, Chaos, and Balance. In a time long before the followers of Order defeated the followers of Chaos, and the Chaos serpent was destroyed - leaving Order to rule - only without the counter-balance of Chaos it became a mindless being flaoting the ether.
Just to put it into context the principles of Order in the game were Logic, Discipline, and Ethicalty (sounds to me a lot like everything we focus on in modern society) and the principles of Chaos were Emotion, Tolerance, and Enthusiasm. Balance was the combination of the two being Rationality, Dedication, and Harmony.
It only really now dawns on me the relevance of that story to modern society. We put *so* much emphasis on the world of logic, reason, stability - all those things which differentiate us from other animals. But it's left our society unbalanced... we don't celebrate or nourish the other aspects of ourselves; our feelings, our impulses, our instincts, and our bodies.
I find a lot of classical psychology an attempt to place an inherently chaotic aspects of human nature into an ordered and rigid model. And not just psychology, it's everywhere. How often do you hear a person (or yourself) refer to your body objectively; "my hand", "my head", "my foot". It's not just your foot or your head, it's you. Human beings are all of it - a mind, a body, feelings. Yet somehow we've been conditioned to buy into this absurd context that we are a disembodied brain.
(As a side note; I trained as a professional actor and some of the stuff I came into contact with was pretty powerful in terms of addressing this. Especially voice work. If anyone's interested check out the work of Kristin Linklater or if you live in New Zealand there's an amazing voice teacher Sylvia Rands who lives in Auckland and engages with this a lot in her work.)
|
Well yeah, you've pretty effectively summarized why a lot of people consider psychology bullshit. It pretends to follow some semblance of the scientific method, I think, but no one knows anything about the human mind, so it's a pretty feeble attempt.
Relating to your point about people performing worse when they know about "the odds" against them, it might stand to reason that the less space occupied in someone's mind by such existential questions, the more effective they are in making decisions; i.e. objectifying self-betterment; shaping one's will and existence into an idea rather than an ego. That's just a thought that comes out of my own experience.
|
When a mental health professional or other person states something like that I would like to think that they are suggesting introspection to a depressed person, an individual in a state of at least disliking or not caring for and possibly hating themselves. Due to being in that state they might not consider living a life without depression in the actions they reason to take in life decisions due to letting certain emotions cloud or at least influence their rationale. That would be just one example of a lack of perspective from a depressed person, as our feelings and state of mind influence our thought processes regardless of the individual's sense of reason.
I am not a psychologist or neuroscientist so I cannot imagine a scientific measurement of human reasoning, let alone how that reasoning differs while undergoing depression.
|
You mention how your ability to reason is compromised by things like lack of sleep, food, or being reminded of your race etc.
But life decisions arent decided like an experimental test that you fill out in 1 hour, you think of them for a longer period of time, and you dont think about them only when youre malnourished or constantly tired. Depression on the other hand can stick with you for the entire day, and that for weeks, months..
Sure, you might be smarter than a lot of psychologists, but your decisions might still be different to the decisions you yourself would make in a healthy state of mind.
I'm kinda puzzled by your mentioning of your self-authority being taken away, cause one can only take wild guesses at what exactly you mean by that.
It's not like a doctor can force you to do anything, unless he thinks you're in immediate danger of hurting yourself or others.
But like you say, some decisions are better not because of ones ability to reason, but because of ones experience and knowledge, and that is something that a psychologist or a psychiatrist will most likely be good at, and there are things that are just typical for depressed patients, that they dont see things the way they would if they were healthy.
|
This is a really tough subject. I have significant experience on both sides. My own ability to reason questioned too much at one point, and years later my father’s questioned too little, leading to suicide.
The problem is that you can’t know about someone else. You can think you have a good idea, but you have to think very similarly to the person yourself to be sure you can see some things from the same angle—the same angle plus other angles that they can’t see. That is very rare unless the person has blind spots that you can help them find for themselves (which I suppose is a basic description of when therapy works). I don’t see any kind of test or criteria that covers it all short of observing severe self-destructive behavior, at which point it might be too late. But that is probably a risk we have to take.
Personally, well, my depression is not as bad as it once was. These days it’s combined with cognitive issues related to MS though. But even when the two combine at their worst, so far I know myself far better than anyone else possibly could even if they studied me for a lifetime.
I know very well what you mean about making decisions. It’s extremely frustrating. I never think completely like myself and am always aware of it. You can’t sit around hoping to feel better before you do something at a certain point. Nor can you struggle for huge amounts of time with each decision to work yourself around to what that decision really “should” be. But I have to take time thinking about everything that I once would have left to impulse or intuition. As a result, I’m aware that I think things through much longer than most people do. Are my decisions more reasonable than most, or less reasonable since they are not a hundred percent true to what I want? Well, I don’t know. I do know that I’m by far the most qualified person to decide for myself, and have been even in my darkest hours. The enormous amount of context (self-knowledge more so than any exterior circumstances) I always put to every decision I make means that whatever my emotions say, they’re unable to pull a decision out of my hands.
Of course, the context, both self-knowledge and circumstances, change with time. I don’t believe that people ever stay the same, only some aspects of them do, and those aspects different from person to person. If you have an extended problem that affects your reasoning, then that context warps over time. But I personally believe that if you’re aware of that, aware of it all--the entire process, then you can always prevent the warping. Then you’re always the best person to make decisions for yourself.
Others can only guess at when that process fails.
This is a generalization and I know it—I apologize in advance to psychologists and therapists that don’t fall into this category—but from my experience most trained professionals don’t know how to identify when a person’s self-perception and reasoning are working. They look for blind spots, they look for ways a problem usually works. When a person doesn’t seem to be finding blind spots—from the beginning or after a time—they work under the assumption that the person’s self-perception and self-knowledge have flaws. They may often be right to some degree, but I feel that assumption heavily influences their perception of when decision-making is impaired. If they make any assumption like that, and if they’re wrong in either direction, it means disaster.
In an ideal world, every professional could identify when long-term self-knowledge is being warped and simply help reinforce it rather than even consider taking decisions away. But all of us are human. Some people do lose their ability to make rational decisions. I think for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be something we have to fight for. I guess the deciding point is whether you can fight for it, for better or worse.
|
The issue that involves people suffering from depression is that their emotions play a bigger role in any potential decisions they have to make due to their state of mind. Emotions are the most non-empirical way of approaching any given situation, and the result of which makes those people alter their values from when they are mentally healthy.
People with the ability to control their emotions, or to be "cold," as society likes to blanket them with, are statistically able to make tougher and more rationed decisions in situations; like the aspects of triage and other critical thinking exercises. Now as you bring up, there's no way to say whether a depressed person will be more hampered with X decision in their state of mind versus Y decision.
I may be able to decide a meal just fine as a depressed person, whereas changing my career path, or taking up a reasonably questionable hobby points to an obvious red flag given my state of mind. Critically, one would reflect that they'd prefer to become healthy before making such a decision, rather than promptly doing it during an unhealthy phase of their life.
|
|
|
I completely get where you're coming from. I find this very frustrating.
The only issue I take is that you insist there is a 'correct' decision (or perhaps you don't mean it that way, it is consistently your choice of words). But this is a matter of perspective. Taking your example of the psychiatrist and the patient disagreeing. From the psychiatrist point of view, maybe the correct decision is whatever makes you most functional in society. From the patient point of view, maybe that is unacceptable because he or she views the functions of society as unhealthy or disturbing. One big reason I avoid this profession.
It's not that psychology is bullshit, as some less astute posters have mentioned. It's that the conclusions you can come to from psychological studies are limited, and certain professionals (and indeed amateurs) go far beyond what they are capable of determining. The studies you mention about people doing worse on tests when reminded of negative stereotypes regarding their ability to take the test... That's legit. You can apply it and just not remind people of those stereotypes and you will improve scores and people's lives a lot. What you can't do is take a study that is based on the general population of relatively healthy adults, and apply to an individual with very specific problems. Not all depressed people are alike, is my basic point...
|
Nony as someone who is depressed i <3 you so much. 
|
I'm not convinced that being "depressed" reduces one's ability to reason (though, in some cases it clearly does). "Depression" is a broad word. There are multiple types of depression as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
Studies by psychologists Alloy and Abramson (1979) and Dobson and Franche (1989) suggested that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities than those who are not depressed.
|
On July 02 2012 08:41 guN-viCe wrote:I'm not convinced that being "depressed" reduces one's ability to reason (though, in some cases it clearly does). "Depression" is a broad word. There are multiple types of depression as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realismShow nested quote +Studies by psychologists Alloy and Abramson (1979) and Dobson and Franche (1989) suggested that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities than those who are not depressed.
So then the reality of our situations must be really depressing.
|
I think that humanity overall is pretty ignorant when it comes to the workings of the brain and psychology. We all realise at some point that our thinking seems to be inconsistent, we consider it a mathematical process that solves logical equations and presents us a rational and optimal solution, but in reality our decisions are erratic.
Unfortunately for us, our consciousness is but a tiny fraction of our brain's processing power, yet it is all we really have (or are aware of), so we give it an exorbitant amount of weight in our interaction with the physical world. Our subconcious does all the decision making, whereas our conscious mind just gets the press release and gives it it's own spin of logic (since it doesn't know where the answer came from). In that context it's hard to say that anyone has any real control over their decision making and it suggests that humans can't objectively judge abstract concepts at all, or rather, they can't tell whether they're being rational.
It will require a total understanding of the brains processes before we can even deduce how our subconscious mind weighs decisions. I'm not even sure whether we'll ever reach a point where we can (literally) read our own mind, let alone be capable of fathoming the millions of variables that influence our decision to eat a banana or not.
For now you can argue that an emotionally detached person will make better decisions than an emotionally engaged person, since the subconscious weights emotions into its decision making (even though the conscious mind might reason otherwise). But even that is just an attempt at approximating the truth.
|
<3 Nony id just follow your heart.
|
On July 02 2012 04:39 Th1rdEye wrote:
Why don't we all just put our lives on hold until it's the way we want it.. wait...don't we have to make changes now to get there?
Well said sir. If you don't know when your depression will end (which I think should be in most cases), then you can't just stop making important decisions.
|
I wonder whether that really is what people mean by having a compromised "ability to reason" in the context of decision-making. I don't think it's literally just about whether one's logical skills have declined (though they may atrophy from lack of use, but that's a different story). When I hear that said, I interpret it as behavior that exhibits a waning resilience to cognitive biases - which can be as much about lack of utilization than about literal lack of ability.
I don't think utilization, in this context, is necessarily conscious - for example, depression skews one's interpretation of difficulty and probability (basically, where you fall between optimism and pessimism), and it's very hard to catch and convince oneself that you have to, say, write things down or revisit your interpretations of events. In general, even when judging rationally, the human brain takes a lot of shortcuts to be efficient (taking various things for granted, using archetypes, etc.), and it's those shortcuts that get affected by depression.
There certainly are various experiments out there that can point out peoples' cognitive biases, and I would imagine those could become more or less pronounced depending on depression. YourMorals.Org has a few of those. I would point out specific ones, but I worry that might bias results if you end up "trying too hard". (Be sure to hit "complete list of studies" at the bottom of the list of studies, which opens up both current and past surveys.)
Also, I'd point out that the alternative isn't necessarily to have someone else make the decision for you - the antidote might just be to have a friend there helping make the decision with you, to keep oneself honest, so to speak.
[edited to add] I should note that this is all speaking from my own experience; not an expert, etc.
[edit2 to add] I'd beware of tests that just test ability - this context doesn't call for something like an Alzheimer's screening test, for example, even though that sort of thing does literally test ability to reason. It needs to be something that tests how well you use your ability to reason. I have little doubt in any SC2 player's technical ability to reason... :p
[edits] clarifications, rewordings, formatting...
|
I didn't think you could write like this, cool post.
|
I have a close friend... who is highly intelligent in most aspects... but severely lacks the ability to choose the best path for himself, despite his ability to reason...
Time and time again I watch him argue with himself about a certain decision... and it almost never fails to go wrongly..
He spends time making charts and weighing pros and cons when most others would simply go with their gut feeling...
Everything that he does, "should" turn out for the best... so why doesn't it?
|
|
|
I think you overstate the degree to which people have control taken away rather than giving it away willingly.
|
That is nonsense. You are depressed, of course your ability to reason is affected. That is what depression means. Of course it doesn't mean you can't add 2 + 2 anymore, or figure out the best way to save $2 at Walmart. It means, and again, all of this is incredibly obvious, that you cannot trust your own reasoning about yourself.
|
Wow it sounds like you're losing it teeler; you need to calm down. You are depressed and that is reason enough. They don't have the time to come up with your specific measurements of whatever cognition.Your inability to realize that you are put in the same category as many other people makes me suspicious of your mental state already.
|
That is nonsense. You are depressed, of course your ability to reason is affected. That is what depression means. Of course it doesn't mean you can't add 2 + 2 anymore, or figure out the best way to save $2 at Walmart. It means, and again, all of this is incredibly obvious, that you cannot trust your own reasoning about yourself.
That’s simply not true. Obviously it depends on the type of depression, but you can have anhedonia, sadness, helplessness, trouble thinking, feelings of worthlessness; easily enough symptoms to be diagnosed with depression, and still have completely solid reasoning. Depression means that emotions (and the lack thereof) will try to interfere with your reasoning. Reasoning will be harder, but inability to reason around those emotions is not an inherent part in depression.
The keyword being “try”, depression tries to affect your reasoning, it will not always succeed, and might never succeed to a larger extent than any of the everyday things Nony mentioned.
If you’re depressed, it’s quite offensive when people assume that your reasoning is automatically worse than theirs, especially regarding yourself.
|
Hey, Tyler.
Even though I'm not 100% sure that it's been validated FOR depression, as in "to be used to evaluate if your cognitive functions are ok IF you are depressed", there's a pretty simple test called the MMSE, or the Mini Mental State Examination, which evaluates cognitive functions, including reasoning (however hard that sounds). I've seen it being applied to patients who suffer from depression (such as myself) and as part of my practice (I'm an MD) I've also applied it to patients in certain ocasions.
It still baffles me, as a doctor, how we can assume to understand "reasoning" as a concept and to even begin we get to grasp the evaluation of it... It's such a complex thing, multi-variabled in its construction and operation, that -at least for me- it seems impossible to properly assess it, We can only try to understand the impact of it on the daily wellbeing and daily activities of those suffering with depression to only qualitatively state "this patient's reasoning is impaired".
Still, that's pretty subjective and as such, examinator bias is all over the assessment.
You've stated a pretty important thing... Because that subjectiveness is because the reasoning in the assessed patient is being compared to another point of reference, that must obviously be the examinator's... And nothing says their reasoning is "normal".
In fact, what could be stated as a "normal reasoning?"
A pretty damn interesting question. Don't know the answer for it myself.
|
On July 02 2012 10:41 Zaragon wrote:
If you’re depressed, it’s quite offensive when people assume that your reasoning is automatically worse than theirs, especially regarding yourself.
My experience is that a lot of people always think their reasoning or judgement is better than yours. About themselves, you or basically anything they care to have an opinion about. They might feel more comfortable sharing this with a depressed person for whatever reason, but the feeling is often there anyway.
|
I think there is a case to be made for advising depressed people, when those people are liable to make choices that have been already shown to have long term detrimental effects - i.e. choices that other depressed people have consistently made in the past that led to ultimately unwanted consequences. On the whole however I agree with you.
|
Didn't they give you the spiel that your "brain chemicals are imbalanced, and depression is no different than diabetes?" Simply replenish your brain chemicals like a diabetic does insulin! Yes, professionals can often be quite patronizing and condescending, treating you like an idiot and a child.
|
Really interesting read, thanks for sharing nony : )
|
I liked it, I wish I could add more than appreciation but I don't have any meaningful thoughts beyond what has already been said.
|
it seems like a worryingly large number of people live in a world of absolutes where they can justify making the arbitrary judgement calls you mentioned regarding a person's ability to make their own desicions. they have an opinion that goes one way or the other, and a lack of either scientific understanding or just plain thought experiments into the issue leave them in a place where something either is or isnt, with no room in between to admit that they dont actually have the answer
|
On July 02 2012 09:57 UniversalSnip wrote:
I think you overstate the degree to which people have control taken away rather than giving it away willingly.
What choice do they have? To be depressed and "unable to reason"?
People desperate for answers will take anything given to them. If you liken it to religion, even an athiest calls for a priest on his death bed. People desperate for solutions confide in those offering them.
|
I prefer to keep the information I present concise and helpful, but I am afraid that if I do not write enough, I will be passed over in favor of an allegedly greater mind presenting more information.
When is self-interest required? At what point does focusing on oneself become too selfish? When do the interests of others outweigh self-interest?
These are some important questions that a depressed person needs to answer. In matters of choosing between two+ sharply diverging paths that lead to two+ different desired "life achievement" outcomes, I believe action should be taken in one direction as soon as possible. It is better to decide quickly than to be indecisive and emotionally frozen as a result. Time is a valuable resource and mistakes can be learned from -- action is possible after a decision is made. Look at CJ_EffOrt, for example. His mind before his decision to retire is unknown, but his mind is unimportant here. He took action and found that he didn't want to retire, and then he took action to return to CJ.
Self-interest is important when a person is depressed. It is important to ignore self-deprecating thoughts and ideas in order to heal. When a person is depressed, he should be selfish with the intent of improving his life, but also be open to the positive ideas of others that are focused on improving his life.
I don't know whether psychology attempts to measure a person's ability to reason, nor do I know its best attempts if they do exist. I do have personal experience with depression, and I know how painful it is.
There will always be legitimate reasons to feel bad. Focus on the good things and all that. But I have found that in my own internal conflicts, the best choice seems to be the one that reduces stress and makes my life easier to enjoy, regardless of the reason(s) my curiosity/ego/friend gives me to take the other path. Stress can be a powerful motivator, but it is otherwise a relatively unimportant thing to focus on.
Is more time spent on one life path necessarily a good idea? At present, it seems to depend on whether you are satisfied with the personal value you feel relative to the time spent attempting to build that value in yourself. But you must also take into account the opportunity cost. Could you enjoy your life in some alternative future with the knowledge of a goal left not achieved? Is there a goal you have at the present that you are not working towards, but would like to, and are you capable of enjoying your life at present with the knowledge of that goal left not achieved?
Music helps. Trying to make others lives better helps. Getting some sun helps. I hold onto a one-song personal anthem and try not to compare myself to others. Those two things help a lot.
I wish you as speedy a recovery as a full recovery allows you, and also that you take independent action that leads you to greater enjoyment of your life, whatever that action may be.
|
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
It is troublesome that a person can make the suggestion that a depressed person's ability to reason has diminished and that that can take away the depressed person's self-authority. Where are the measurements? Where are the arguments, supported by facts and evidence, about the level of ability and amount of effort that a decision requires? How can a line of thinking so thinly logical and so fucking irrational be used to take away someone else's logic and rationality?
As if a depressed person's self-esteem issues aren't severe enough, the healthy people, the professionals trained to fix, fling accusations of incompetence that are complete fucking guesses. No they're not so insensitive and rude that they say "you are incompetent!" but that is the bottom line. I think it's a bullshit power grab made by a person who wants to go with a different decision and is too lazy or too god damned stupid to justify and defend it properly.
To me, those two paragraphs hit the hardest, as I was in that exact same situation. I had been seeing a coach/therapist for my AS for about a year, and had developed an immense amount of trust in her. She was the only person that I had ever met to truly understand who I was, and why I acted the way I did. The betrayal I felt when she made me "volunteer" for inpatient depression treatment (the other option was calling the police and telling them that I was a hazard to myself) made things way worse than they already were. I know that she cared and that she was afraid because she had never seen me sink so low before, but there's nothing that makes you feel quite as helpless and angry as when your own authority over yourself is taken away.
I felt that she was entirely unjustified to make that call for me, for the same points outlined in the blog. Even now that my depression is (mostly) over and I can look back at it more rationally, I still feel the same way. In the end, all it did was sour the trust in our relationship, and I lost one of the most important people in my life.
I wish I had the answers to the questions posed in the blog, as I am still searching for them for myself - great post.
|
Thought of a reduction in ability to reason leads to the reduction in ability to reason. This thought process spirals downward thus creating the depression effect.
Depression is merely viewed as a state of negativity. The 'span of rationalization' is just shifted during this state. Similarly, if one person is overly excited/happy, his 'span of rationalization' shifts in the opposite direction. I guess you could also call this your ability to reason.
'Doctors' who claim to be able to fix a person's self-esteem issues as you have stated are not real doctors. One cannot heal one others' depression, all this doctor can do is open a door for you, but you need to walk through it to cure yourself.
|
It's worth considering exactly how depression might impair judgment, and when its effect would be stronger or weaker. A lot of the problem comes from the well-documented basic human tendency to answer questions about the future based on how one feels in the present. If you go shopping for groceries while you're hungry, you buy a lot more than if you go shopping after a big meal. Every day we're faced with a lot of decisions, and we try to choose the one that we think will make us happiest, but our way of evaluating that happiness intuitively is by asking, "how happy would this make me now?"
In general, people are well-suited to making decisions for themselves because they know more than anyone else what makes them happy. If you're engaged to your long-time girlfriend, and you're trying to decide to go through with it, you are the best one to answer that question. You know how you feel about her, you know what kind of person you are, you know how well you do with commitment and making sacrifices for other people more than anyone else does. You may not know yourself perfectly, but you definitely know yourself better than anyone else does. So when you ask yourself, "how happy would it make me to be married to her right now?" and you picture married life, based on your knowledge of yourself and your preferences, you can make a reasonable decision about what will make you happy.
But depression throws off that analysis. Things that would normally make you happy don't always when you're depressed. You can still think and reason and control yourself just as well as any other time, but making judgments about what will make you happy is very hard because when you try to evaluate the costs, you evaluate them accurately, but when you try to evaluate the benefits, nothing seems like it would really make you happy anyway.
In this case doing something like "following your heart" may not be the best course of action. Your "heart" is probably just your brain's basic instincts for decision-making, the "peripheral route" to persuasion rather than the central one. And those instincts will be as guilty of this fallacy as any part of your mind. What you need is a dispassionate way of evaluating decisions that won't be so affected by your current mental state.
One way to do this would to just try to be aware of the bias and not listen to it. Instead of asking "how happy would this make me now?" you should try to ask "how happy would this usually make me?" Another way to do this is to find a close friend who knows you almost as well as you know yourself, and has a pretty good idea of what does and doesn't make you happy. Obviously they can't know as well as you can what decision would be best, but their judgment is unaffected by your current mental state, which gives their opinion some value beyond what you could reason out yourself.
Nony, you strike me as someone who is very good at forming distancing yourself from an issue and forming a dispassionate judgment. I would imagine people like that are less affected by this bias, although I must confess I haven't read any studies that indicate who is more or less affected by it. In fact I think studies show that people who are aware of the cognitive biases discovered by psychology are actually more prone to them, as though they think that by being aware of the bias they are immune to its effects. At any rate, there's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.
|
I completely agree with Nony. I too have depression that really affects my life. But I wouldn't say it makes me unable to make smart and reasonable decisions. If anything, it's my incredible reasoning skills that makes my depression worse. When I was at a point where I had a lot of suicidal thoughts, I was thinking 100% clearly. I thought out every possible situation of every person I knew and figured out why their life would be better if I weren't around. I used reason and logic to feed my depression.
During my times of depression I think clearer than ever before. It's not always the optimistic and positive thoughts I want myself to be thinking, but they are intelligent and rational thoughts. I think that being reasonable has been my downfall in the past.
|
Mmm...psych.
Nice blog, NoNy.
|
|As I proofread: Prepare yourself for my traditional disjointed writing. I was reading my posts previously, and every single one is structured like this. Meaning it isn't.
I heard it said once, that the majority of people over estimate themselves.
Answers to simple questions such as 'how good are you at math?' -- 'Yeah I'm not great, but I'm above average.'
These people who say this have scored lower than average on whatever tests that they said they were above average in.
The reason that they say this, is because they have no reference point with which to measure themselves.
Interestingly, you must be an expert at something, to be able to judge that other people are worse than you, and their varying degrees of badness. You must also be an expert to recognize when people are better than you, because you have this vast experience with which to measure things against.
When it comes to making a complex decision. I.E. moving residence for benefit XYZ at the expense of ABC. Physically, you are a young guy. There are people older than you with more experience in life who will be able to tell you, by their high er level of experience what will give the most joy and prosperity to you.
Your tool of measurement is only held, and given units, by those who created it. These people are also not emotionally the same as you.
However, there are major flaws in my view. The one that stands out to me, is who has more experience of you, than... you? You won't find a psychologist who has lived 20+ years of professional gaming, with stronger medical depression, with the a stronger athletic background, and the same upbringing.
In something like chess. You will find that guy who is better than you. You will find that guy who has such a profound understanding of your strategy which revolves around controlling the centre four squares that he surrenders it, plays around you and wins. Chess is very structured, there are few deviations, and only limited possibilities. There you can reliably measure yourself against one another based on experience.
But, life? There are so many variations to what you can experience through your life. Everything that happens in your life is in varying degrees. If your father dies, and your sister completely breaks down crying, but you are only numbed, you come out with different experiences and as a result, influences on your life. Then, how do you measure the degree of difference? How do you understand the difference between which of you is more sorrowful, if at all. You can't measure it. You can't even wrap your mind around the concept. Sure, everyone can agree that your experiences will shape who you are as a person, but how much. And then, genetics, what if someone is born with a stronger, hardened brain, and you are not? It is not possible, you can't possibly measure it.
There is no point arguing it in my mind. Trust yourself to know what is right.
Use your instinct.
Take your time.
|
Hmm I don't know what's been said in the thread so far, but Psychology insofar as I know it (not much) has little claim over "measuring reasoning". It's quite the philosophical task to define "Reasoning" and then separate it out from "Behavior" "Mindset" "Chemical Reaction".
I'm sure there are plenty of Psychologists that would argue about that and would provide their own narrow definition. We all also know the conventional meaning though and I suppose this isn't the place for such a convoluted discussion.
With that as the preface, I suppose to say it most simply:
The legitimacy of your reasoning would depend on your propensity to avoid cognitive biases. When you become emotional, impatient, overly burdened, I'm sure the list goes on, but as a general trend you become more prone to bias.
Wikipedia on Cognitive Bias--
A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, leading to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[1][2][3] Implicit in the concept of a "pattern of deviation" is a standard of comparison with what is normatively expected; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. A continually evolving list of cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics.
Of course it depends on what you meant by Reasoning and what sort of "Pattern of deviation" is applicable. But i'm talking well over my depth, so sorry if this is really bad :DD:D
EDIT: Link to a list for lols http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
|
It's less a matter of affecting your reasoning skills, and more a matter of impairing your judgment, especially in regards to more personal decisions having to do with emotions and value judgments. Whenever you're in a really emotionally turbulent state, your judgment may not be all it could be, especially when making very personal decisions. Now, whether or not that means you should postpone major decisions or have others make them for you is gonna depend upon things like how affected you are, how urgent the decision is, how much the decision you're making has to do with your state, and so on.
I would agree that it's not as simple as "you're depressed, so we can't let you make decisions for yourself," and I can see how that would be quite harmful if applied in a blanket fashion, but it is always good to be aware at least of the possibility of impairment and to take that into account when making plans and decisions.
|
I've never understood depression. I have like.... one bad day a year everything else in life is pretty much perfect and it's not like anything special has ever really happened.
You have all your limbs, your friends and family are alive, you have an income, you have your health and a wife/husband. How can people who have all these things actually be depressed? What more in life do you seriously want. It's something I'll probably never understand.
|
On July 02 2012 15:26 Figgy wrote:
I've never understood depression. I have like.... one bad day a year everything else in life is pretty much perfect and it's not like anything special has ever really happened.
You have all your limbs, your friends and family are alive, you have an income, you have your health and a wife/husband. How can people who have all these things actually be depressed? What more in life do you seriously want. It's something I'll probably never understand.
To many people, depression is caused by a chemical imbalance within the brain, more-so than being sad about negative events, or having a bad life. You're acting like it's their fault for being greedy and wanting more or something, when it's actually not within their control to just be happy unless they get help and/or go on some form of medication.
|
On July 02 2012 15:26 Figgy wrote:
I've never understood depression. I have like.... one bad day a year everything else in life is pretty much perfect and it's not like anything special has ever really happened.
You have all your limbs, your friends and family are alive, you have an income, you have your health and a wife/husband. How can people who have all these things actually be depressed? What more in life do you seriously want. It's something I'll probably never understand.
Because sometimes people look around them, see that they are in the top 1% of luckiest human beings to ever live, and realize that they are still sad.
Sometimes people will be depressed because of their genes and because of physiological factors such as brain chemicals. You may think having an income, health, wife/husband is enough for happiness, but what you're really saying is "In that situation I would be happy." This may very well be true because you've got normal brain functions and always will. However, is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to perceive that some people's brains operate in a different manner to yours, and that difference can cause depression?
You're right, you'll never understand what it's like. So the choices are you respect that it exists, or you can condescend those who have it because you personally have not gone through it.
One of these choices makes you an ass.
|
|
|
It's possible other individuals in a similar situation might be prone to making much more dramatic changes in their life that is overwhelmingly self-destructive. Becoming an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler could be a few of the negative outcomes. It's hard to map down an entire individual, so it's probably more of a blanket statement.
|
I can relate to this because I have plane fright.(is that the correct term in english?)
Intellectually I know that the possibility of something bad happening is very very very small, but as a person with plane fright I will always think that the bad thing will happen to me. I'm going to Korea tomorrow, 14 hour trip, hopefully it will be worth it!
|
On July 02 2012 15:26 Figgy wrote:
I've never understood depression. I have like.... one bad day a year everything else in life is pretty much perfect and it's not like anything special has ever really happened.
You have all your limbs, your friends and family are alive, you have an income, you have your health and a wife/husband. How can people who have all these things actually be depressed? What more in life do you seriously want. It's something I'll probably never understand.
almost every depressed person has probably several people like you, telling them its not so bad etc. Its counter productive and indeed only shows a lack of understanding
just consider yourself lucky
|
Thing that I noticed in this was:
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
As if a depressed person's self-esteem issues aren't severe enough, the healthy people, the professionals trained to fix, fling accusations of incompetence that are complete fucking guesses. No they're not so insensitive and rude that they say "you are incompetent!" but that is the bottom line. I think it's a bullshit power grab made by a person who wants to go with a different decision and is too lazy or too god damned stupid to justify and defend it properly.
Well, whats he saying exactly then? And more to the point, are you really sure that your interpretation of what he is saying is correct? Maybe all this just came from either your misinterpretation of what he said, or from his failure to express what he was really trying to say?
Either way, ask him why he says what he says. If he really wants to say that you're incompetent, ask him why.
-If he doesnt mean calling you incompetent at all, all is fine.
-If he means it and has a good reason for calling you incompetent, and you agree with it, all is fine.
-If he means it and has a good reason for calling you incompetent, but you dont agree, its still good. Even if you might not agree with the reason, it will make you understand why he did it if it was backed up by some solid logic. You should be able to come to an agreement to disagree and move on. And he should hopefully not press the "incompetence"-issue.
-If he means it but doesnt have a good reason for it at best you get an apology from him and you can move on to more important issues rather than having this plague you.
-If he means it but doesnt have a good reason for it and doesnt want to admit him doing anything wrong, its up to you to make a judgement whether you wanna continue to talk to him about this (where by continuing you accept his faults) or if you wanna call it quits and not see him again.
|
Part of overcoming depression is the realisation that your thought processes are NOT rational.
Half the struggle of the process for professionals is getting people to realize that and to realize they are not subservient to their thoughts. No, you are not incompetent, but your rationality is severely impaired. Making long winded semi-philosophical speeches about it won't change that.
|
On July 02 2012 15:41 Kitai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 15:26 Figgy wrote:
I've never understood depression. I have like.... one bad day a year everything else in life is pretty much perfect and it's not like anything special has ever really happened.
You have all your limbs, your friends and family are alive, you have an income, you have your health and a wife/husband. How can people who have all these things actually be depressed? What more in life do you seriously want. It's something I'll probably never understand. To many people, depression is caused by a chemical imbalance within the brain, more-so than being sad about negative events, or having a bad life. You're acting like it's their fault for being greedy and wanting more or something, when it's actually not within their control to just be happy unless they get help and/or go on some form of medication.
Very much so. There´s a huge difference between "I´m so depressed today" and a clinical depression. The former is feeling bad and applying a wrong term for that feeling, the latter is an illness. Implying an actually depressed person should be content with what they have is like saying someone with a fever is just lazy and should get up to make walk. These uninformed opinions just make it harder for the person afflicted and it´s sad that so little has changed in mainstream perception compared to the progress made in psychology and neurology.
Concerning the OP
I don´t have a degree in shit or any professional experience, so probably not what you´re looking for, but I think:
The idea of right choices is a fallacy that one has to rid oneself of. There is no objective good or bad, only the subjective feeling of benefit or harm. Decisions for optimizing one´s happiness are considered the right one´s and there´s really not much to it. It just gets complicated if there is some kind of ideal - like becoming rich, having a family, getting laid a million times - which people try to adhere to because they feel obliged to, or just are unaware of what they want, or feel the need to conform, etc. It all comes down to feeling good or not feeling good. If a guy is rich, has a family, and a good sexlife, he can still be reasonably unhappy. He´s not supposed to, but he can be with or without a depression.
If someone feels better selling his shit and living in the wilderness rather than in his penthouse, it´s the right decision. It is right, if he knows beforehand what he´s getting into and can anticipate how it´s going to make him feel. Of course, that´s kinda vague, and maybe he wants to get back afterwards and can´t and there´s remorse and all kinds of not feeling good, but that can happen to you with any choice. Doing what you want per se is right for you, if your want now is the same later and you can decide reasonably when you can assess its stability, i.e. your future want.
A depression on the otherhand deprives you - at least - temporarily of the ability to feel good and also "clouds" your mind with fears you otherwise don´t have (like e.g. what others think of you and your choices). That decision-making is different "under influence" (be it a depression, or being high, or starved, or afraid) is a self-evident fact, isn´t it? So, no your not as rational as you´d otherwise might be. But you´re completely right that many people are not even rational without a severe mental influence like a depression. But that is comparing, and comparing for the sake of being normal/above-average/okay/whatever is not being rational, it´s being dependent on how other people view oneself.
So a depression definitely afflicts you ability to reason, like a fever does, or being hung-over does, or even having your period does, because it changes some workings within the brain, thereby changing your perception, thereby making it very hard, if not impossible to anticipate the outcome of a decision that is usually based on making you feel good, since you are not your normal, sober, healthy, painless self at that time.
So the real question is: How does a person decide what´s good for himself, when they cannot know what is good for themselves.
I agree with you though that taking away decision-making from someone (if possible) would be kind of pointless, at least if dealing with a person who´s not happy with certain outcomes, but with making their own decisions, no matter how they turn out.
My 2cents: Making your own decisions is best you can get, if you desire so. But if that´s what you really want, you gotta make sure you are actually able to be yourself. Being depressed is not being yourself, it´s being sick, being your depressed self. Getting back to normal, back to wanting, back to the ability to be happy is top priority and all decisions made should point in that direction, because otherwise, what good is to come of it? When you´re at the point of knowing what you want, and getting satisfaction in achieving it, right and wrong become superfluous and all talks of further "optimization" strike me as a popular misconception, because at the end it´s the edict of worms for everybody.
|
I don't agree with the notion that people with "depression" cannot reason or that they are inherently less reasonable/rational. At some point you need an objective measure. Whether or not someone is "depressed" changes as your measure changes. I can pick measures that make non-"depressed" people seem idiotic. It's all a matter of perspective.
--
But if you don't share my perspective, you are depressed and need treatment! Don't take drugs... except the ones we sell you.
How many million drug addicts have been created now? Drug addicts are A-OK so long as they keep going to work and paying their taxes
On July 02 2012 19:52 Evangelist wrote:
Part of overcoming depression is the realisation that your thought processes are NOT rational.
Shame that irrational thought process isn't limited to people with "depression" XD
|
On July 02 2012 10:41 Zaragon wrote: Show nested quote +That is nonsense. You are depressed, of course your ability to reason is affected. That is what depression means. Of course it doesn't mean you can't add 2 + 2 anymore, or figure out the best way to save $2 at Walmart. It means, and again, all of this is incredibly obvious, that you cannot trust your own reasoning about yourself. That’s simply not true. Obviously it depends on the type of depression, but you can have anhedonia, sadness, helplessness, trouble thinking, feelings of worthlessness; easily enough symptoms to be diagnosed with depression, and still have completely solid reasoning. .
Helplessness, trouble thinking, catastrophising and feelings of worthlessness are all symptoms of diminished reasoning capacity. A feeling of worthlessness is basically a massive red flag to an inability to get perspective. Note, I am not saying that said capacity is diminished in all areas of thinking, but in terms of interpersonal skills and self awareness, a depressive persons ability to reason is extremely diminished and this will effect their life in a number of ways, especially when it comes to personal progression in life.
|
On July 02 2012 20:27 Mstring wrote:I don't agree with the notion that people with "depression" cannot reason or that they are inherently less reasonable/rational. At some point you need an objective measure. Whether or not someone is "depressed" changes as your measure changes. I can pick measures that make non-"depressed" people seem idiotic. It's all a matter of perspective. -- But if you don't share my perspective, you are depressed and need treatment! Don't take drugs... except the ones we sell you. How many million drug addicts have been created now? Drug addicts are A-OK so long as they keep going to work and paying their taxes Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 19:52 Evangelist wrote:
Part of overcoming depression is the realisation that your thought processes are NOT rational.
Shame that irrational thought process isn't limited to people with "depression" XD
Absolutely right. The thing is, when most non-depressive people get a thought flashing through their head like "I'm really shit at this" they will usually dismiss it in a matter of seconds. It might linger for a bit, they might get a bit down, but it won't hugely effect them. They'll usually distract themselves in some other way or keep going.
Take for example my personal experience in social anxiety disorder. The thought "everyone's looking at you, this is horrible" is so utterly overpowering as to be crippling. A personal with social anxiety will focus on the one thing they got wrong and will hammer themselves with it, continually, for hours, days, weeks, even months! Now depression is not something that can be gotten rid of with simple positive thinking. However it is part of the process and part of that is admitting that your thoughts are under your control and if they are irrational, then your reasoning in certain aspects of your life cannot be trusted.
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one.
I'm gonna cut this one in half because I think you need a bit of perspective, NoNy. Yes, it will match yours. In fact, the average non-depressive person will greatly exceed your ability to reason in terms of interpersonal relationships and in personal decision making. They will make better decisions which make them happier which will be better reasoned. There are many extremely great thinkers who suffered from severe depression and made cataclysms of their personal lives. This does not mean their ability to reason within abstract concepts is diminished - it just means their ability to reason in regard to specific situations is impaired.
Let's take another non-depressive example. Thorzain plays the Spoon Terran style because he doesn't ever feel safe. He will likely watch replays where his opponent sits back with a tenth of his army, patiently building up a deathball. Yet he continues to do this - okay yes, probably down to success, but his reasoning is not rational. His reasoning is based on fear of getting wiped out on the map and instantly losing. I have the same fear, 3 leagues down. The difference being, both of us have been confronted with evidence and while we know rationally that an opponent is sitting back, we're still scared of moving out because of what might happen.
When someone states you have lost the ability to reason, it is usually applied to one specific situation or a number of them. You can be the most rational, level headed person in the world (for example, I start a PhD in physics in 2 months so I obviously know how to reason) but still have significant flaws and drawbacks in certain situations. Your ability to reason related to your personal circumstances is substantially impaired, and you need to accept that.
|
Interesting read. The question of who is going to make a decision instead of you is interesting. Because in theory everyone would be uncapable of making that major decision. The best case would be someone who had no emotions and nothing at stake in the decision. I would have to say an outsider.
|
On July 02 2012 04:45 Milkis wrote:What I'm about to say may not apply to depression, but it's something that I realized over the last few months over being emotional and decision making. Show nested quote +I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one. Not going to talk about "psychology", but for me, I think the biggest way to judge this is hindsight. Generally whenever I got emotional, I got advice from other people, but I ended up doing my own thing anyway. You look back, and you see the decision you made versus the decision you could have made... nearly every time the decision I made while emotional ended up being quite the destructive, stupid one. Being too involved in the situation, or "caring too much", etc etc... all usually ended up blinding me, and nowadays I really just try and have some trust in close friends whenever I get into situations similar. Of course, you'll never have a perfect control for it (ie: you never know for certain if advice given to you by other people was actually better than yours), but I don't think it takes much reason to gauge between whichever ones work out and whichever ones do not. Being emotional is a fringe extreme case though I think, since it makes you completely myopic.
I think what you say works as a fine example of how a powerful emotional state can act as just any other number of variables on one's decision making, as NonY said. I do agree that hindsight and self-examination are big here.
Though the center point is how depression is overly criticized as being a variable to account for, and given an undue amount of weight compared to other factors. As NonY said, it is fucking irrational to take such an approach, and it is downright making a mockery of how truly complex and expansive the human mind and it's influences are.
Sometimes even in powerful emotional states as you mentioned, we are able to recognized we are in such a state. Preparation when not in such a state can lead to having a working decision-making ability that is untouched when in those states.
For instance, just because I may be depressed when required to make a decision does not that I am unaware of my depression and its effects.
I like to think of it as going to the grocery store while hungry. So many more food items seem appealing, oftentimes ones that are less healthy, less practical, or more expensive. However, having thought about the situation before hand and given it enough preparation, I can still make the correct decisions about what to purchase, completely aware that my urges are driven by my hunger and do not necessarily need to have any more influence than I allow them.
Of course, many effects can be much more serious, or much more sneaky in their impairing of your judgment, but the it seems we are poor judges of these effects, and often given some undue weight.
God I miss reading things like this. Great blog, NonY.
|
I have no experience with depression or anything similar on the level discussed here, so feel free to just dismiss me if I come of as not knowing anything. But from my own experience from times when, looking back, I was dealing with impaired judgement...
I feel the most problematic is that it isn't so much your ability to reason that is impaired. That is, your ability to do raw processing such as math or logical analysis. What is impaired is your ability to receive inputs and judge their proper relevance and value. You will take incredibly important things and dismiss them as unimportant and irrelevant, and you will take tiny insignificant things and turn them into the centre of how you're looking at things.
This also makes it incredibly difficult to ask or receive advice. Because when another person has a different evaluation than you, how do you know this because they can see the situation more clearly, and not because they have completely misunderstood what is going on, or are working from a value system fundamentally different from yours?
I think I have to agree with Milkis's point, that is: the only person fit to judge your impaired self, is your non-impaired self. I have never had a situation where I got out of these mindsets because of my own reasoning or someone elses advice. What happened was that eventually reality hit me like a brick wall. Then much later I would look back with a clear head and realise how stupid and blind I had been.
Of course, that doesn't offer much help while someone is going trough it... I'd guess the best thing is to try and stay humble, and surround yourself with people you feel you can trust through thick and thin. But I think if we had clear answers to these kinds of problems, we'd all be living much happier lives. 
|
Small fact relevant to you Nony:
Depressed people tend to have a more accurate sense of reality than others. Ironically, happy individuals or even happy relationships tend to have some bit of willful misperception.
I think the lack of reason sentiment could probably be traced to suicides and an effort to explain why people do something that seems incomprehensible to happier individuals. It may also be due to an inability to articulate why the the process of deciding to commit suicide can be affected by extreme emotion or some "non rational" element. (Personally, I think in some cases suicide might be the consequence of the same sort of emotion affecting non-depressed individuals)
edit: Of course being psych the first paper I google with 130 citations disagrees with this popular hypothesis.
|
Rationality is not really what's at issue, it's the heuristics upon which that rationality is based - i.e. the perceived probability that certain decisions will have positive outcomes, etc. What's important to realize is that, because we are not yet at a point where we can derive all decisions from first principles, all human rationality is in fact predicated on inputs which are not themselves rational (which is not to say they are irrational - they are heuristic, so thinking about them in terms of "rational" or "irrational" is a category error). FWIW, I speak from some small amount of experience on this point.
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason.
Psychology tends to put a bit too much emphasis on normativity, although I'm sure there is some rigorous work on this question of which I'm unaware.
It is troublesome that a person can make the suggestion that a depressed person's ability to reason has diminished and that that can take away the depressed person's self-authority. Where are the measurements? Where are the arguments, supported by facts and evidence, about the level of ability and amount of effort that a decision requires? How can a line of thinking so thinly logical and so fucking irrational be used to take away someone else's logic and rationality?
So, yeah, you're right, this move is illegitimate. The better point is that a depressed person's ability to perceive the world in a heuristically powerful fashion has been diminished.
|
all the people explaining all the various ways a depressed person's reasoning skills can be impaired have completely missed the point of the blog. i dont think i saw anything in his blog claiming that a depressed person has no impairment on their reasoning abilities. what i got from the blog is that setting that issue aside, on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves? such claims are given without necessary evidence and seem to be expected to just be accepted as common sense as if the statement itself is so self evidently true that there shouldn't be any need to make a rational investigation into the reasoning behind it.
also, subjectivity
|
On July 03 2012 02:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
also, subjectivity
What about it?
on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves?
The point of therapy is not to "make decisions" for people. The point is to enable them to make better decisions for themselves.
|
On July 03 2012 02:50 sam!zdat wrote:What about it? Show nested quote +
on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves?
The point of therapy is not to "make decisions" for people. The point is to enable them to make better decisions for themselves.
seems like you didnt pay much attention to the blog 
|
On July 03 2012 02:53 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:50 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 02:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
also, subjectivity What about it?
on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves?
The point of therapy is not to "make decisions" for people. The point is to enable them to make better decisions for themselves. seems like you didnt pay much attention to the blog
The topic of the blog was the suggestion that people should postpone major decisions while being depressed, which is a good idea.
Would you care to elaborate what I missed?
edit: my point is that it's a straw man that psychology says depressed people can't "reason."
this, for example, is the entirely wrong way to think about it:
If one of the greatest thinkers is depressed and her ability to reason has been lowered to the level of an above average thinker
|
Well, I happen to know some scientific facts that support the opposite claim.
On July 02 2012 06:01 Boonbag wrote:
The way you view one's "ability to reason" is way too black and white.
Depressed people are vulnerable in so many fucking ways.
Issue ain't the ability to reason properly (that has no meaning), but rather the lack of perspective over situations, because of your condition.
Depressed people are known to have more realistic perspectives of the world and their own capabilities, because having an inflated ego is an important part of being a happy human. It follows that with more accurate information to base your decisions on, you can make better ones.
EDIT: If you're so terribly depressed, that also interferes with decision making. The sweet spot is in mild to moderate depression, lol.
|
On July 03 2012 03:01 Demonhunter04 wrote:
Depressed people are known to have more realistic perspectives of the world
This is at best an open question. It is unquestionably not a "scientific fact."
because having an inflated ego is an important part of being a happy human.
But perhaps not a necessary condition?
It follows that with more accurate information to base your decisions on, you can make better ones.
How does this follow? What is a "better" decision? One that makes you happier, or something else?
|
On July 03 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:53 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 03 2012 02:50 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 02:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
also, subjectivity What about it?
on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves?
The point of therapy is not to "make decisions" for people. The point is to enable them to make better decisions for themselves. seems like you didnt pay much attention to the blog The topic of the blog was the suggestion that people should postpone major decisions while being depressed, which is a good idea. Would you care to elaborate what I missed? edit: my point is that it's a straw man that psychology says depressed people can't "reason." this, for example, is the entirely wrong way to think about it: Show nested quote +
If one of the greatest thinkers is depressed and her ability to reason has been lowered to the level of an above average thinker
not only did you not pay attention to the blog, you didn't pay attention to my post either....
the point of the blog was to question the idea that while somebody is depressed, another person should be making their choices for them. regardless of if somebody's ability to reason is impaired, they still may be the most qualified person to be making their own decisions instead of somebody else. this can be argued but it shouldn't just be accepted as truth for every situation.
|
On July 03 2012 03:04 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 02:53 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 03 2012 02:50 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 02:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
also, subjectivity What about it?
on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves?
The point of therapy is not to "make decisions" for people. The point is to enable them to make better decisions for themselves. seems like you didnt pay much attention to the blog The topic of the blog was the suggestion that people should postpone major decisions while being depressed, which is a good idea. Would you care to elaborate what I missed? edit: my point is that it's a straw man that psychology says depressed people can't "reason." this, for example, is the entirely wrong way to think about it:
If one of the greatest thinkers is depressed and her ability to reason has been lowered to the level of an above average thinker
not only did you not pay attention to the blog, you didn't pay attention to my post either.... the point of the blog was to question the idea that while somebody is depressed, another person should be making their choices for them. regardless of if somebody's ability to reason is impaired, they still may be the most qualified person to be making their own decisions instead of somebody else. this can be argued but it shouldn't just be accepted as truth for every situation.
Please take your tone down a notch, and consider that it may in fact be you who is not paying attention to me.
Consider the first sentence of the blog:
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
A common suggestion made to a depressed person is to postpone major decisions until the worst of it has passed because the ability to reason is compromised.
There is nothing in the blog about "making choices" for somebody else (although nony may mistakenly conflate the "meta-choice" of choosing to make a choice with a decision per se).
My point is that depression has nothing to do with an impairment of the ability to reason, and nony's argument is therefore off base. Depression impairs heuristic perception of the world, not rationality. Depression contains elements of both an intense physiological effect and a crisis of self-worth (with unclear causality).
|
On July 02 2012 06:06 StarStruck wrote:
When it comes to mental health the first thing I learned is that you should never generalize ever.
We have a jester.
I think the main idea of postponing major decisions doesn't have to have a lot to do with depression. People make better decisions on complex issues if they think about them a lot (as opposed to simpler issues, where it may be better to go with "instinct").
Another take would be the idea that "time heals all wounds", but again that isn't depression-specific.
As for a "reasoning scale"... aside from logical, mathematical and emotional reasoning (A felt ___ towards B, because B did ___), I am not aware of any. You would probably have to go to models of decision making instead. Now, decision making is very interesting, but largely restricted to testing of economical models. You give someone several choices, each choice is linked to a consequence, then you see how well people keep track of the consequences by looking at the choices they make.
Often linked to game theory. But yea, that's all I got right now.
|
On July 03 2012 03:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:04 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 03 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 02:53 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 03 2012 02:50 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 02:47 thrawn2112 wrote:
also, subjectivity What about it?
on what grounds can somebody claim to be in a better position to make decisions for a depressed person than the depressed person themselves?
The point of therapy is not to "make decisions" for people. The point is to enable them to make better decisions for themselves. seems like you didnt pay much attention to the blog The topic of the blog was the suggestion that people should postpone major decisions while being depressed, which is a good idea. Would you care to elaborate what I missed? edit: my point is that it's a straw man that psychology says depressed people can't "reason." this, for example, is the entirely wrong way to think about it:
If one of the greatest thinkers is depressed and her ability to reason has been lowered to the level of an above average thinker
not only did you not pay attention to the blog, you didn't pay attention to my post either.... the point of the blog was to question the idea that while somebody is depressed, another person should be making their choices for them. regardless of if somebody's ability to reason is impaired, they still may be the most qualified person to be making their own decisions instead of somebody else. this can be argued but it shouldn't just be accepted as truth for every situation. Please take your tone down a notch, and consider that it may in fact be you who is not paying attention to me. Consider the first sentence of the blog: Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
A common suggestion made to a depressed person is to postpone major decisions until the worst of it has passed because the ability to reason is compromised.
There is nothing in the blog about "making choices" for somebody else (although nony may mistakenly conflate the "meta-choice" of choosing to make a choice with a decision per se). My point is that depression has nothing to do with an impairment of the ability to reason, and nony's argument is therefore off base. Depression impairs heuristic perception of the world, not rationality. Depression contains elements of both an intense physiological effect and a crisis of self-worth (with unclear causality).
my tone wasn't as dickish in my head as it probably come across on a screen
I agree with your last statement and how it should change the way nony is thinking through this issue but I am still standing by my original claim concerning the main points of the blog. I think this line:
I think it's a bullshit power grab made by a person who wants to go with a different decision and is too lazy or too god damned stupid to justify and defend it properly.
shows enough emotion (maybe suggesting some personal experience?) for me to suspect it's the heart of the matter and why nony has written out such a thoughtful post.
nony why u no follow up post?
|
Yeah, I mean, I can't speak to Nony's particular experience, there are of course many terrible therapists.
I would be stunned, however, if there were not a good deal of rigorous empirical work on impaired decision making in depressed persons.
|
The thing is, reason itself is actually a very subjective thing. Different persons and creatures have their brains wired differently, which will cause them to reason in a different way. Hormones affect brain chemistry which changes the way people reason and make judgements. So does adolescence, adrenaline, sex, sugar, caffeine.
An argument could be made that simply the fact that we are human compromises our ability to reason. I think Tyler brings up a very good point here, since so many things affect the ability to reason, how can someone say that one condition or another is what compromises said ability enough to warrant taking that ability away from someone? Its a very slippery slope and part of living in a free society (imo) should mean that we don't take people's ability to make decisions for themselves away.
The other side to the argument is that you don't want people doing something that they may regret doing or would not have done if they weren't affected by some condition at the time. Anyway, I can only imagine that it must be incredibly frustrating to have that happen while struggling with something like this.
|
On July 03 2012 03:04 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:01 Demonhunter04 wrote:
Depressed people are known to have more realistic perspectives of the world
This is at best an open question. It is unquestionably not a "scientific fact." But perhaps not a necessary condition? Show nested quote +
It follows that with more accurate information to base your decisions on, you can make better ones.
How does this follow? What is a "better" decision? One that makes you happier, or something else?
A better decision in this context is one that is more likely to achieve the desired result. I thought the thing about perspectives was well established, thanks for letting me know otherwise.
|
On July 03 2012 03:36 TheFish7 wrote:
The thing is, reason itself is actually a very subjective thing.
Disagree strongly. The whole point of reason is that it is not subjective, although the very fact that you feel it possible to claim this may be a sign that we are equivocating on "reason."
@demonhunter: it may be possible that a more realistic view of the world would lead to depression, but depression in and of itself does not lead to a more realistic worldview (and arguing this would require an already-decided "realistic worldview," which tends to make the claim a nonstarter, doesn't it?  )
|
On July 03 2012 03:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:36 TheFish7 wrote:
The thing is, reason itself is actually a very subjective thing. Disagree strongly. The whole point of reason is that it is not subjective, although the very fact that you feel it possible to claim this may be a sign that we are equivocating on "reason."
What I mean is simply that any reasoning that a human being does is always done in the mind of that person. If reason is the method by which we establish ideas, then it is subjective because it can only occur within the mind of the human that is doing the reasoning, it always pertains to the characteristics of the individual who is engaging in it. When I say reason I don't mean for example; computational logic.
|
I would argue that most real thought (and certainly all productive thought) is carried out intersubjectively in discursive communities through the medium of language, but this is perhaps a digression from the topic at hand.
I would use "thought" rather than "reason" to indicate the thing you are talking about - less confusing. "reason" in the sense of ratio is explicitly non-subjective, so I think you can tighten up your language here
edit: to appeal to the ultimate (and intersubjective  ) authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
|
On July 03 2012 03:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:36 TheFish7 wrote:
The thing is, reason itself is actually a very subjective thing. Disagree strongly. The whole point of reason is that it is not subjective, although the very fact that you feel it possible to claim this may be a sign that we are equivocating on "reason." @demonhunter: it may be possible that a more realistic view of the world would lead to depression, but depression in and of itself does not lead to a more realistic worldview (and arguing this would require an already-decided "realistic worldview," which tends to make the claim a nonstarter, doesn't it? )
Actually, the facts Demonhunter cites are accurate: Depressed people judge the world more accurately on average. Of these, those the least bias towards the world are the people with mild to medium depression/negative aspect. Im too lazy to go through my psychology books for citations, but it has been proven. This does not however mean its applicable to any one person at given time. Its statistical. Make due with this post:
On July 02 2012 08:41 guN-viCe wrote:I'm not convinced that being "depressed" reduces one's ability to reason (though, in some cases it clearly does). "Depression" is a broad word. There are multiple types of depression as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realismShow nested quote +Studies by psychologists Alloy and Abramson (1979) and Dobson and Franche (1989) suggested that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities than those who are not depressed.
To the Web MD wannabe's and Hobby-philosophers; Please stop stating that a persons ability to reason is unequivocally reduced by depression. Cite papers and/or facts. Talking out of your ass, but being well spoken about it doesnt make it true.
|
On July 03 2012 04:18 Aphasie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:50 sam!zdat wrote:On July 03 2012 03:36 TheFish7 wrote:
The thing is, reason itself is actually a very subjective thing. Disagree strongly. The whole point of reason is that it is not subjective, although the very fact that you feel it possible to claim this may be a sign that we are equivocating on "reason." @demonhunter: it may be possible that a more realistic view of the world would lead to depression, but depression in and of itself does not lead to a more realistic worldview (and arguing this would require an already-decided "realistic worldview," which tends to make the claim a nonstarter, doesn't it? ) Actually, the facts Demonhunter cites are accurate: Depressed people judge the world more accurately on average. Of these, those the least bias towards the world are the people with mild to medium depression/negative aspect. Im too lazy to go through my psychology books for citations, but it has been proven. This does not however mean its applicable to any one person at given time. Its statistical. Make due with this post: Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 08:41 guN-viCe wrote:I'm not convinced that being "depressed" reduces one's ability to reason (though, in some cases it clearly does). "Depression" is a broad word. There are multiple types of depression as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realismStudies by psychologists Alloy and Abramson (1979) and Dobson and Franche (1989) suggested that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities than those who are not depressed. To the Web MD wannabe's and Hobby-philosophers; Please stop stating that a persons ability to reason is unequivocally reduced by depression. Cite papers and/or facts. Talking out of your ass, but being well spoken about it doesnt make it true.
Hmm ok. I'm not a psychology major, so everything I learned, I taught myself. Can I have a source for this information? I read it ages ago and can't find a trustworthy source online.
|
I am sorry for not having read through the whole thread and thus possibly repeating things that have been already said. But I would like to comment on the OP from my personal perspective, as my wife suffered from serious depression for several years and I had a very intimate experience of her condition.
I consider the suggestion to postpone decisions very reasonable, but for a different reason: making serious decisions is demanding. At the peak of the illness, every decision she had to make, even extremely mundane, had an obvious effect on her condition. I know that this is very individual, but I would suggest to a seriously depressed person to try to put everything beyong their head. Unless they have children or other people vitally dependent on them, there is nothing more important in the world than one's mental health. I would even say that the physical health is secondary in such a situation. Obviously, this ould be easier said than done if there is no shoulder to lean on ...
On the other hand, the question of the ability to reason is an interesting one. Every depressed person I have met (the number of whose is still shocking to me - the "epidemic"of depression may as well be the next big problem of the modern society) had some problem in percieving reality, particularly when it comes the percieving themselves and their abilitites. Usually, I would take their opinion on factual matters, or even myself, without hesitation - the only subject where their reason is compromised is always thair own life. I am not insisting that this should be the case of everyone, but I think it is a point to consider. Moreso because the affected person is usually unaware.
|
I've been trying to come up with a good reply to this blog post for about an hour now. It's not been an easy thing to do that's for sure because I have many opinions based of what has been said.
I'll try to keep this attempt short and sweet:
Why go to a mental health professional if you are unwilling to accept their suggestions or at least understand that their opinions are based off their experience?
Doesn't the simple act of visiting them in the first place imply that you (or the law, or whoever drove you to them) believe(s) their ability to reason, or more to the point; their ability to judge your ability to reason is greater than yours in your current state?
|
On July 03 2012 04:18 Aphasie wrote:
Actually, the facts Demonhunter cites are accurate: Depressed people judge the world more accurately on average.
This is fair. I'm not opposed to a correlation between the two, in fact it seems plausible.
Would be interested to see how they operationalize a realistic worldview, however, as that seems very problematic.
|
There's also another problem not adressed here. While depressed people often make decisions based on more realistic and accurate judgements of reality, some of them (not all because it depends on the type of depression) also tend to make decisions in a more impulsive way, which can be extremely dangerous and is one of the main reasons you advise your patients not to make too many important decisions when depressed. This doesn't happen in every case though.
|
One of the most important things I've had to do do deal with depression is to learn to differentiate between my own good thinking and bad thinking. It's not the ability to reason, it's not about skill with logical deduction. It's about emphasis. It's about what you choose to think about and whether or not you can see the forest for the trees. It's not about accurate your line of thinking is, but how helpful.
At some point I've had to be able to recognize certain kinds of thoughts and though patterns and be aware that they stem from the depression, and make an effort to not take them seriously, and to not become too worried about the suffering that they represent.
|
Very well written rant, lol.
STICK IT TO 'EM, NONY.
|
Um, I don't understand how you can doubt depression's impairment of judgement/reasoning if it can convince people to such extremes as suicide, drug abuse, etc.
I guess there should be a differentiation between 15 year old girl depression (which is what you seem to be talking about?) and real depression, which is a real issue?
|
On July 03 2012 05:07 skipgamer wrote:
I've been trying to come up with a good reply to this blog post for about an hour now. It's not been an easy thing to do that's for sure because I have many opinions based of what has been said.
I'll try to keep this attempt short and sweet:
Why go to a mental health professional if you are unwilling to accept their suggestions or at least understand that their opinions are based off their experience?
Doesn't the simple act of visiting them in the first place imply that you (or the law, or whoever drove you to them) believe(s) their ability to reason, or more to the point; their ability to judge your ability to reason is greater than yours in your current state?
Not necessarily. you go to them for their expertise, and they make suggestions based on their expertise. But they are not infallible, nor can they necessarily reason about your personal issues better than you can. And because of the trust in the relationship, they might sometimes be inclined to exploit their informational advantage; economists have highlighted this phenomenon pretty frequently. The standard example is realtors selling your house for less than its worth because they don't make much more money spending the effort to find better buyers, and they could make more money ending the sale process early and starting in on selling another house.
Not that professional opinions are totally worthless, but the fact that you went to a professional does not mean that it is somehow illogical or erroneous to not take their advice.
|
On July 03 2012 05:07 skipgamer wrote:
I've been trying to come up with a good reply to this blog post for about an hour now. It's not been an easy thing to do that's for sure because I have many opinions based of what has been said.
I'll try to keep this attempt short and sweet:
Why go to a mental health professional if you are unwilling to accept their suggestions or at least understand that their opinions are based off their experience?
Doesn't the simple act of visiting them in the first place imply that you (or the law, or whoever drove you to them) believe(s) their ability to reason, or more to the point; their ability to judge your ability to reason is greater than yours in your current state?
The example in the blog was different, I feel. It seemed to be described as if the professional did not reason, while disagreeing with the decision that was discussed. Perhaps the professional was not able to construct good arguments, instead relying on a gut feeling or a fixed standard opinion for the decision, thus objectively being worse at something one would call "reasoning". Perhaps his opinion was reasoned well inside his mind, but he was not able to express himself, or he was simply lazy.
|
being bi-polar I learned very quickly not to make major decisions during an episode of either mania or depression, my ability to reason and make a good decision are seriously compromised during those times (even simple things like making a strategy choice during a video game can display this lol). Most people don't realise their judgement is impaired until after making a terrible decision and having to deal with the fallout. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
The flip side of it however is that for most depressed people, the problem isn't systemic or untreatable (i.e a mental disorder such as bi-polar, schizophrenia et al) but a lifestyle one, after all an otherwise mentally and physically healthy person is usually depressed because of their living situation, relationship, job or some other factor over which they can exert some control. Usually they need to make some sort of change or they will continue on a downward spiral. Being that their judgement is impaired, going to see a professional and getting help is probably the best course of action rather than making a paradigm shifting decision by themselves.
my .02 (probably not worth the virtual paper its written on lol)
|
There are a lot of text walls in this thread, so I'll try to answer the question as directly as possible.
In terms of some "objective" measure of reasoning ability, there is no (moderately successful) attempt in the field of psychology as far as I know. This is probably due to the fact that no one wants to try to classify "objectively" better choices, and truthfully most probably don't believe such a classification is possible.
Most of what psychologists specializing in decision making do is in measuring how deviations from "neutral" states of mind affect decisions. A couple of others in this thread have mentioned cognitive biases, and this is really the literature that is closest to what you're asking about (if I am understanding your request correctly). Perhaps what you're interested in is the effect of being in a state of negative affect on decisions against a neutral state and additionally what level of regret persons in each category feel about the decisions that they have made.
This is probably the research that would be used to justify an attempt to remove someone from a position to make decisions for themselves: "I recognize that you are in (emotional and/or physical) state X, so research suggests that if you make decision Y you will regret it later. Therefore, I will attempt to not allow you to make decision Y for yourself."
If this is the line of research that you feel would best answer your question, I can talk to a colleague of mine who is a specialist in this area and provide more details.
EDIT: Also, having re-read the original post, I must take some issue with your treatment of "reasoning ability". My impression is that you view ability to reason as a one-dimensional construct (for example, you state that a person with very above average reason may have their reason impaired and still be able to reason as well or better than the average person). I see no reason (pardon the pun) to believe that reason is so one dimensional. I think it is much more likely that if we were able to measure reason, we would find it to be a many-dimensional thing, with different impairments or benefits pushing decisions in many different directions.
|
On July 03 2012 08:18 FragKrag wrote:
Um, I don't understand how you can doubt depression's impairment of judgement/reasoning if it can convince people to such extremes as suicide, drug abuse, etc.
I guess there should be a differentiation between 15 year old girl depression (which is what you seem to be talking about?) and real depression, which is a real issue?
You misunderstood the blog. In my depressed state I was able to understand it. Compromised me > healthy you. Therefore I should retain the right to make my own decisions. Comprende?
|
On July 03 2012 08:18 FragKrag wrote:
Um, I don't understand how you can doubt depression's impairment of judgement/reasoning if it can convince people to such extremes as suicide, drug abuse, etc.
I guess there should be a differentiation between 15 year old girl depression (which is what you seem to be talking about?) and real depression, which is a real issue?
this post is so full of fail on so many level i wont answer just quoting it
i dont even want to comment on this blog too much but american psychiatric institution is well known for being abusively patronising in the rest of the world so i really hope you arent put in an extreme situation, you are obviously really smart anyway and manage to go forward with your life
|
Two things in response to Nony's rant:
First, while I've never been depressed or seen a psychologist, I would hope that you would be guided to make the best-informed decisions possible, and merely to continue to evaluate and re-evaluate yourself and your life (as everyone should constantly do), rather than have any other person (be it a friend, family member, or "professional") explicitly take away your freedom to make your own decisions. While I don't have the level of experience that you do, I feel that you're slightly exaggerating the level of loss that you have in your life by merely reaching out for help.
Second, as depression is a serious emotional state and mood disorder, it's only natural that depressed patients are more likely to jump to a conclusion that's consistent with their normal behavior and experience instead of weighing all possible options (which may reveal more optimal choices). That's why guidance (and eventual recovery) is suggested in the first place, and why depression is taken so seriously. Your analogy of a very smart depressed person still making better decisions than a less intelligent clear-headed person still stands, but such a disparity is not necessarily commonplace, nor is it necessarily relevant (as ultimately, you have the final word on your own decision, and everyone involved in your life wants you to be as clear-headed as possible at the end of the day). So in reality, it's really all about the fact that a non-depressed Nony is always going to be a better decision-maker than a depressed Nony,.
|
|
|
I'm going to try and place my perspective (from personal experience) on this topic, coming from a rather Buddhist (in the most vague sense) mindset. It is my opinion that there is a misrepresentation of depression by industry professionals and the cause/effect of placing depression in a negative context (looking down upon depressed individuals) is not only sustaining the persons depression, but increasing it.
My general argument is that , in the process of removing depression via "treatment" which actually secludes the depressed person from being the "social norm" we actually not only sustain depression, we further it's position upon the person inflicted by it. By taking away the ability for the depressed persons ability to reason via drugs, we in effect create a social norm that it is alright to drug patients no matter the severity. The key to effectively neutralizing depression is similar to any placebo type personality disease/disorder--you don't tell someone to stop eating because they think they're fat, so you shouldn't tell a depressed person to stop being depressed because they're depressed...--is to remove the negative context society places on the individuals effected. "He has such a good life, I can't believe he's depressed" "He's depressed? People have it so much worse" "How can someone even be depressed" "Depressions not real, they're faking" are all examples of mindsets created by influenced by societies lack of acceptance, and furthermore lack of proper understanding.
To conclude, depression is such a vague and near impossible to compare placebo(or personality disorder) that one needs to delve deeper into it's root (cause/effect) and produce a more adequate measure. The social norm of drugging and placing people in a negative context who suffer from this disorder, not only increases the depression of the affected individual, but sustains it, and the key way to solve this problem is to find the root of the depression--whether it is something that happened in the past, or fears of the future--and correct it there. Placing people under this "cushion" of drug induced logic is more of an impairment than a solution.
Anyway, that's my perspective.
On July 03 2012 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Two things in response to Nony's rant:
First, while I've never been depressed or seen a psychologist, I would hope that you would be guided to make the best-informed decisions possible, and merely to continue to evaluate and re-evaluate yourself and your life (as everyone should constantly do), rather than have any other person (be it a friend, family member, or "professional") explicitly take away your freedom to make your own decisions. While I don't have the level of experience that you do, I feel that you're slightly exaggerating the level of loss that you have in your life by merely reaching out for help.
Second, as depression is a serious emotional state and mood disorder, it's only natural that depressed patients are more likely to jump to a conclusion that's consistent with their normal behavior and experience instead of weighing all possible options (which may reveal more optimal choices). That's why guidance (and eventual recovery) is suggested in the first place, and why depression is taken so seriously. Your analogy of a very smart depressed person still making better decisions than a less intelligent clear-headed person still stands, but such a disparity is not necessarily commonplace, nor is it necessarily relevant (as ultimately, you have the final word on your own decision, and everyone involved in your life wants you to be as clear-headed as possible at the end of the day). So in reality, it's really all about the fact that a non-depressed Nony is always going to be a better decision-maker than a depressed Nony,.
I would like to argue a few of your points.
First point, you conclude that he is "slightly exaggerating" the level of loss by reaching out for help, but this in itself is not the point Tyler (if I read clearly enough) was trying to impress upon you. It is my opinion, that Tyler was trying to simply speak about the social acceptance of drugs and "don't worry so much" mentalities that industry professionals have. You can say that "reaching out for help" is always going to be the right alternative, but when the help actually attempts to not only correct your disorder, but change your ideology, something is fundamentally wrong. You could argue, that your ideology is flawed and that is why the course must be corrected, but that isn't the topic for debate.
So to conclude with your first point, the "exaggeration" is actually a rather apparent truth in the attempts by professionals to "correct" depressed peoples ideologies, and in effect, dumb them down.
Second point, you concluded in your final statement that "a non-depressed Nony is always going to be a better decision-maker than a depressed Nony", I would also argue that perhaps your views are in fact, take no offense, rather ignorant on the topic. You concluded that "depressed patients are more likely to jump to a conclusion that's consistent with their normal behavior and experience instead of weighing all possible options (which may reveal more optimal choices)", which by all means, may very well be true. and you move on to disregard his analogy (most likely personal) of a very smart depressed person "still making better decisions than a less intelligent clear-headed person", as it is not "commonplace, nor is it necessarily relevant". Furthermore, you move on to say that he ultimately has "the final word on his decision" but then counter that point by saying everyone "wants him to be clear-headed". The argument that I am trying to get across is that does he truly have his own decision?
The entire time you posted, you placed your opinion in a subjective enough way to state that you believe that it is his decision to "choose" between being a non-depressed Nony and a depressed Nony, and as I already quoted, you state (paraphrased) that obviously Tyler being less depressed will increase his mental capability to make sound decisions, but in effect of "curing" his disorder, through drugs (the most likely option), would he still have the mental capacity he had before hand? They say ignorance is bliss, but to an intelligent person, ignorance would in turn, relate to hell.
That again, is my personal opinion, you may refute what I said at anytime, I will remain active in this thread as long as it continues to be an adequate discussion.
EDITED: If anyone saw my first paragraph, it was related to a "teacher" in leadership class, I actually rewrote my first paragraph and continued on, because I wanted to play my own opinion on the topic, I didn't want to misrepresent that persons beliefs on the topic. Sorry if that confused anyone hahaha.
Furthermore, note this thread that I created recently
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=340132
The thread (linked above) describes a topic which is in buddhist philosophy which was actually the main reason to, for lack of a better term, curing my depression disorder.
|
I've always wondered why people put so much faith into what medical professionals do/say. Sure, they ARE professionals, and they DO have the training to know what they're doing, but at the end of they day they're just people, same as anyone else. They make bad calls just as much as any other person, and sometimes, someone less qualified may make the better decision.
When it comes down to it, take what anyone else says with a grain of salt, especially when what they're talking about directly relates to you.
|
On July 03 2012 12:34 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 11:12 CtrlShiftAltGrrrrrrr wrote:On July 03 2012 08:18 FragKrag wrote:
Um, I don't understand how you can doubt depression's impairment of judgement/reasoning if it can convince people to such extremes as suicide, drug abuse, etc.
I guess there should be a differentiation between 15 year old girl depression (which is what you seem to be talking about?) and real depression, which is a real issue? this post is so full of fail on so many level i wont answer just quoting it i dont even want to comment on this blog too much but american psychiatric institution is well known for being abusively patronising in the rest of the world so i really hope you arent put in an extreme situation, you are obviously really smart anyway and manage to go forward with your life While I was reading the blog it seemed like NonY had no idea what the problems of a truly depressed person are.
??? Nony has been dealing with depression himself for a pretty long time, where have you been? He says that recently he has been feeling a lot better because he started a new medication and has begun seeing a new psychiatrist, but I wouldn't classify his depression as some 15 year old girl "Why won't Kyle ask me out?" idiocy.
|
On July 03 2012 12:40 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 12:34 FragKrag wrote:On July 03 2012 11:12 CtrlShiftAltGrrrrrrr wrote:On July 03 2012 08:18 FragKrag wrote:
Um, I don't understand how you can doubt depression's impairment of judgement/reasoning if it can convince people to such extremes as suicide, drug abuse, etc.
I guess there should be a differentiation between 15 year old girl depression (which is what you seem to be talking about?) and real depression, which is a real issue? this post is so full of fail on so many level i wont answer just quoting it i dont even want to comment on this blog too much but american psychiatric institution is well known for being abusively patronising in the rest of the world so i really hope you arent put in an extreme situation, you are obviously really smart anyway and manage to go forward with your life While I was reading the blog it seemed like NonY had no idea what the problems of a truly depressed person are. ??? Nony has been dealing with depression himself for a pretty long time, where have you been? He says that recently he has been feeling a lot better because he started a new medication and has begun seeing a new psychiatrist, but I wouldn't classify his depression as some 15 year old girl "Why won't Kyle ask me out?" idiocy.
yeah that's why I editted it out
|
On July 03 2012 12:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Two things in response to Nony's rant:
First, while I've never been depressed or seen a psychologist, I would hope that you would be guided to make the best-informed decisions possible, and merely to continue to evaluate and re-evaluate yourself and your life (as everyone should constantly do), rather than have any other person (be it a friend, family member, or "professional") explicitly take away your freedom to make your own decisions. While I don't have the level of experience that you do, I feel that you're slightly exaggerating the level of loss that you have in your life by merely reaching out for help.
Second, as depression is a serious emotional state and mood disorder, it's only natural that depressed patients are more likely to jump to a conclusion that's consistent with their normal behavior and experience instead of weighing all possible options (which may reveal more optimal choices). That's why guidance (and eventual recovery) is suggested in the first place, and why depression is taken so seriously. Your analogy of a very smart depressed person still making better decisions than a less intelligent clear-headed person still stands, but such a disparity is not necessarily commonplace, nor is it necessarily relevant (as ultimately, you have the final word on your own decision, and everyone involved in your life wants you to be as clear-headed as possible at the end of the day). So in reality, it's really all about the fact that a non-depressed Nony is always going to be a better decision-maker than a depressed Nony,. I would like to argue a few of your points. First point, you conclude that he is "slightly exaggerating" the level of loss by reaching out for help, but this in itself is not the point Tyler (if I read clearly enough) was trying to impress upon you. It is my opinion, that Tyler was trying to simply speak about the social acceptance of drugs and "don't worry so much" mentalities that industry professionals have. You can say that "reaching out for help" is always going to be the right alternative, but when the help actually attempts to not only correct your disorder, but change your ideology, something is fundamentally wrong. You could argue, that your ideology is flawed and that is why the course must be corrected, but that isn't the topic for debate. So to conclude with your first point, the "exaggeration" is actually a rather apparent truth in the attempts by professionals to "correct" depressed peoples ideologies, and in effect, dumb them down. Second point, you concluded in your final statement that "a non-depressed Nony is always going to be a better decision-maker than a depressed Nony", I would also argue that perhaps your views are in fact, take no offense, rather ignorant on the topic. You concluded that "depressed patients are more likely to jump to a conclusion that's consistent with their normal behavior and experience instead of weighing all possible options (which may reveal more optimal choices)", which by all means, may very well be true. and you move on to disregard his analogy (most likely personal) of a very smart depressed person "still making better decisions than a less intelligent clear-headed person", as it is not "commonplace, nor is it necessarily relevant". Furthermore, you move on to say that he ultimately has "the final word on his decision" but then counter that point by saying everyone "wants him to be clear-headed". The argument that I am trying to get across is that does he truly have his own decision? The entire time you posted, you placed your opinion in a subjective enough way to state that you believe that it is his decision to "choose" between being a non-depressed Nony and a depressed Nony, and as I already quoted, you state (paraphrased) that obviously Tyler being less depressed will increase his mental capability to make sound decisions, but in effect of "curing" his disorder, through drugs (the most likely option), would he still have the mental capacity he had before hand? They say ignorance is bliss, but to an intelligent person, ignorance would in turn, relate to hell. That again, is my personal opinion, you may refute what I said at anytime, I will remain active in this thread as long as it continues to be an adequate discussion.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
Replying to the first point critique:
I agree with you that there can definitely come a point where the level of instruction or advice that anyone gives a person can become too invasive or no longer helpful. Obviously, there are two scenarios here:
1. The patient is mentally capable of making his own decisions at the end of the day
2. The patient is not mentally capable of making his own decisions at the end of the day
And Nony (and others in the thread) have brought up good points about how it's quite hard to assess such things, and I'm quite fine with just focusing on situation #1 and not assuming a catch-22 of any sort.
And with such a case, I think it's in the patient's best interest (if he ever asks for help) to merely be made aware of all his options (something that a professional can help him do, as medical and psychological treatments can be alternatives to trying to live with the disorder), and then allow that patient to make the final choice after he's been made aware of all possible risks and rewards and every other factor and variable that could possibly be known. And again, there's almost no way that he could know everything without professional help. And keep in mind that the doctors can't force pills down his throat.
And just to be clear, I don't assume that there is one special drug that can cure depression at the cost of something else (e.g. mental capacity). Sometimes it comes down to figuring out the lesser of two (or more) evils. And this is actually something I can relate to... not because I have clinical depression, but because I have mild Tourette's syndrome and so I have a neurologist and have decided to take medicine to help control (not cure- unfortunately) my tics. The worst side-effect is the occasional slowing down of mental capacity, which makes me want to ditch the pills from time to time... but there aren't many alternative treatments that are as effective, and not using anything at all brings back more (and more severe) compulsions that distract from daily life anyway. And as an educator, intelligence is one of the things I value most highly above everything else, so it's an incredibly hard decision. There's no nice, neat answer. So based on circumstances, you weigh your options (after first learning about them from an expert), and make an informed decision. And then maybe you switch and try something else if Option A didn't work out as planned. Sometimes you just get dealt an imperfect deck of genetic or environmental cards, and you work with what you've got. It's certainly easier said than done, but that's what you've got to do.
So if Nony has to choose between depression and something he values more than his depression, that will be the difference between treatments. But he definitely has the final word on whether or not to take whatever pills he's prescribed or general advice he's offered. Sacrifices are probably going to be made either way; nearly everything comes with side-effects and possible risks. Hopefully he finds something that works well with fewest losses to his general well-being.
|
I don't know where the basic premise comes from. I'm studying psychotherapy and I don't recognize the "inability to reason" etc at all, nor that important decisions should be postponed. In behavior activation for example major life changes might very well be encouraged. I haven't heard anyone advocate that depressed individuals can't reason properly and shouldn't make big decisions - unless you are talking about suicide which I guess maybe you are.
IQ goes down during a depressed state. Not by much, and not enough for it to matter regarding decision making. Probably the people doing the tests just aren't very motivated.
|
I know I'm not contributing anything to this thread but I just wanted to say that I love Nony and reading his posts.
that is all
|
My stance is that depression or not, you should make your own choices.
Yes, depression affects your decisions. You might make totally different decisions if you weren't depressed... but you ARE depressed, and that's the only thing that matters. This is reality, comparing your current decisions with hypothetical decisions is completely useless.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you should work with your decisions RIGHT NOW, not any decisions you might have potentially made if you were not in the situation you are undoubtedly in right now. Essentially, the psychiatrist is saying that "normally, you would make different decisions... on that basis, we're going to say that your current decisions go against what you 'truly' want"... which is irrelevant.
|
It's hard to rationalize something when your view on the world and how things relate to you is generally negative.
I wouldn't ask an angry person if they'd be willing to do be a favor.. and similarly I wouldn't expect a depressed person to make a rational call when it came to making a decision that affects him and others around him.. it's illogical, it's not a matter of cognition and ability to solve a logical problem.. but the ability to think like a rational human being who shares common emotion, emotion is involved in all** decisions we make.. surely it would be unwise to make a decision.. we would make decisions we don't normally make.
|
another interesting thing to think about
saying that a depressed person wouldn't make the same choices that they would if they weren't depressed could possibly be an irrelevant issue. people change constantly; when in your life have you ever been the same person at two different instances of time? should the logic of "well you're not yourself right now" be applied across the board to every situation where any person is "not himself?" i've done a lot of things that to me seemed fun and worthwhile that many people would see as irresponsible and a waste of time. i'm going into the army, and i've had to come to terms with the possibility that once i get out, i may be a completely different person and no longer find value in the same things i find value in now. while at first this worried me, i realized that if i am indeed a different person with a different set of preferences, at that point in time i will still be able to make my choices as i see fit and be able to get the same potential happiness out of life according to my new preferences/values. however, i realize that this analogy is very different from the situation nony is talking about. my example showed more of a slow progression of mental states and personal values, while the issue at hand is more about the short term bi-polar sort of personality swings that somebody going in and out of depression goes through. somebody using my logic might rapidly go back in forth in way they make choices (not reasoning ability, some choices have little to do with reason) and that's where my argument falls apart. regardless of this, i still think it's important that people not use phrases such as "that guy isn't himself right now." if he's not himself, who is he? if it's in your nature to have drastic mood swings, well that's just who you are. if it's in your nature to have drastic mood swings and, being aware of it, seek decision-making guidance during times when you are unhappy with your mental state and therefore rely on others to help make choices for you, well then that is who you are. no matter what influences causes a person to make choices they are still themselves, the idea that they are anything different than themselves is absurd. telling somebody that they aren't themselves is one of the most arrogant and condescending things you could possibly do.
relevant youtube clip: link
|
Blanket statements criticizing someone's ability to reason are usually just ad hominid blanket statements. If you really get down to it, they are just disagreeing on ONE decision, but make a statement about ALL decisions.
Conventionally, people consider "the right decision" to be one thatl is 1) possible to be explained logically step by step 2) most commonly agreed upon as "right". But of course, the idea decision cant be known unless you're omniscient, because you don't know what you don't know. Step 2) of listening to the mass consensus is an attempt to counteract this, because hopefully more people's opinions means more options will be considered. Of course this has it's faults too. Trying to live up to the bar of perfect-decision-making-at-all-times is just self torture.
|
I think relativity is more helpful than you initially assume. The reason you may postpone a decision is twofold. First, it may not be your optimal decision. Sure, it may be an above average decision for someone else, but it still may not be the decision you are best capable of. [1] Second, “good” decisions are somewhat subjective. After all, most of the time life is about what is optimal for you rather than what is optimal objectively (the latter is often impossible to determine). Thus, the delay of important decisions may be in order to remain with consistent with yourself rather than to create optimal decisions.
In terms of competency threshold there is actually a long and confusing legal precedent concerning mental illness. My own knowledge largely comes from the “right to refuse” treatment but I think that qualifies as a major life decision. Both Rogers v. Okin and Rennie v. Klein uphold the right of the patient to be assumed competent to refuse treatment for mental illness. [2][3] A court may find the patient incompetent, but that is fairly rare and extreme. Both address more extreme cases than somewhat severe depression; I think it’s safe to say you are qualified to make decisions. It is instead a question of whether that is what’s best for you.
Interestingly, the entire premise of this post could be incorrect on society’s part. It turns out depression might not even hurt our ability to reason. In fact it could even help [4]. However, even if that is true, a decision made while depressed may not be consistent with what we will want later. After all, just because a decision is better reasoned does not mean it the one we will desire later. Another side note is that depression could have benefits besides increased reasoning capacity: it could also provide valuable insight. This is not to say depression is good or positive; rather I am suggesting how it interacts with our normal decision making process is vast and complex. Someone may have realizations through depression that she could not have had were she "normal" [5].
[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242676.php
[2] http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/720/266/425748/
[3] http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/343
[4] http://www.livescience.com/14036-upside-depression-decision-making.html
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28depression-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
|
There's an entire theory on thought that postulates that all decisions are made by instinct alone and that rational thought doesn't kick in until after we make a decision.
To be fair, this was something Dogbert said this morning, and I have no idea whether or not it's real.
|
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
It is troublesome that a person can make the suggestion that a depressed person's ability to reason has diminished and that that can take away the depressed person's self-authority. Where are the measurements? Where are the arguments, supported by facts and evidence, about the level of ability and amount of effort that a decision requires? How can a line of thinking so thinly logical and so fucking irrational be used to take away someone else's logic and rationality?
Do anyone like being depressed? I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't call it a depression. Yet depressed people continue to make decisions which reinforce said depression. If they hadn't the sadness would never have developed into a real depression. Are you depressed? Then you are making the wrong decisions in some areas of your life yet you yourself are adamant in your opinion that they are the correct decisions.
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one.
Did you know that most of the decisions you make are already decided by you before you even start to reason? And the only point of reasoning then is to affirm your already chosen path? So most of your hard thinking just goes into cementing this belief, which could be good if the decision was correct, but could also be disastrous if the decision was the wrong one. Anyway, no matter if it was right or wrong the thing we know is that it will be hell to try to change your opinion on the matter and that your own view is so strongly reinforced that it is impossible for you to see if there is any wrong in it. This makes depressions a really tough nut to crack, since when you think about all your problems that much you create mental bastions immune to all but the most fervent approaches.
This is fairly blunt and a depressed person would just scoff at the nonsense I am spouting, I know I would during my years where I barely even talked to people, but I hope that at least a seed of it gets through. I got out of my depression by hurling myself at my mental walls. Sure some of them were solid and it did hurt a lot hitting them but not as much as I though it would. But many others were just imaginary walls that were stopping me from having a good life and getting rid of those was the best thing I have ever done. These professionals are probably trying to get you to do things that helps most depressed persons, doesn't mean that it can work on you. However the fact that you are sure that it wont work doesn't mean much really, since the way out is beyond a path you didn't think would work.
So at least you can try to listen to others from time to time even though their advice sounds completely outrageous and impossible. If they were wrong you are still depressed and have learned something about yourself but if they were right you just cleared a major hurdle on the way out of your depression. Another thing is that it isn't wrong to get happy over silly and small things. Every time you find a glimmer of happiness savor the moment as long as possible instead of scoffing it away.
Edit: Of course it is possible for these to dissolve over time but that doesn't always happen and is a very slow process so it is dumb sitting out waiting for it since then you could miss out on large parts of your life.
Edit edit: Or is this about them wanting you to try out some medical drugs? My post isn't about that, so it might not apply. I wouldn't advice you to take drugs but neither would I advice against it. Drugs can make it easier to clear roadblocks and thus aren't necessarily permanent but it could help to use them for a year or two and then go back. Drugs effect your mental abilities but it is mostly temporary, I used some drugs for a while and my mind was kinda foggy during that time but now it is back to my old normal sharp self.
|
On July 03 2012 22:03 Zorkmid wrote:
There's an entire theory on thought that postulates that all decisions are made by instinct alone and that rational thought doesn't kick in until after we make a decision.
I would argue such a theory that such a theory only relates to those with either A) lower IQ(can't process the required information efficiently) or B) lack of self-control(succumbs to peer pressure, or any other variety of pressure related instances, so in turn they fall back on there instinctive nature which surpasses the logic/rational thought).
To be frank, the entire notion of actions based on "instincts" before rational thought implies that humans as a species has yet to even evolve past the basic animal on a logic based equivalent. I know, that before every decision I make, I rationally choose which is right. Now you could argue, that a mother would choose her child over the lives of a thousand other children, and perhaps you are right, but n that sense instincts > logic and rationalization, furthermore that circumstance is subjective and not an everyday life choice. If the argument by this "theory" is that the human, under immense pressure and strain, reacts in an instinctive way then I would personally agree that on average, most people would. But to continue, if it implies that the person always chooses the instinct before the rational/logical decision then I would simply say that is not the case.
On July 03 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Replying to the first point critique:
I agree with you that there can definitely come a point where the level of instruction or advice that anyone gives a person can become too invasive or no longer helpful. Obviously, there are two scenarios here:
1. The patient is mentally capable of making his own decisions at the end of the day
2. The patient is not mentally capable of making his own decisions at the end of the day
And Nony (and others in the thread) have brought up good points about how it's quite hard to assess such things, and I'm quite fine with just focusing on situation #1 and not assuming a catch-22 of any sort.
And with such a case, I think it's in the patient's best interest (if he ever asks for help) to merely be made aware of all his options (something that a professional can help him do, as medical and psychological treatments can be alternatives to trying to live with the disorder), and then allow that patient to make the final choice after he's been made aware of all possible risks and rewards and every other factor and variable that could possibly be known. And again, there's almost no way that he could know everything without professional help. And keep in mind that the doctors can't force pills down his throat.
And just to be clear, I don't assume that there is one special drug that can cure depression at the cost of something else (e.g. mental capacity). Sometimes it comes down to figuring out the lesser of two (or more) evils. And this is actually something I can relate to... not because I have clinical depression, but because I have mild Tourette's syndrome and so I have a neurologist and have decided to take medicine to help control (not cure- unfortunately) my tics. The worst side-effect is the occasional slowing down of mental capacity, which makes me want to ditch the pills from time to time... but there aren't many alternative treatments that are as effective, and not using anything at all brings back more (and more severe) compulsions that distract from daily life anyway. And as an educator, intelligence is one of the things I value most highly above everything else, so it's an incredibly hard decision. There's no nice, neat answer. So based on circumstances, you weigh your options (after first learning about them from an expert), and make an informed decision. And then maybe you switch and try something else if Option A didn't work out as planned. Sometimes you just get dealt an imperfect deck of genetic or environmental cards, and you work with what you've got. It's certainly easier said than done, but that's what you've got to do.
So if Nony has to choose between depression and something he values more than his depression, that will be the difference between treatments. But he definitely has the final word on whether or not to take whatever pills he's prescribed or general advice he's offered. Sacrifices are probably going to be made either way; nearly everything comes with side-effects and possible risks. Hopefully he finds something that works well with fewest losses to his general well-being.
I have nothing more to add to this, I agree with the following points you've made--though they may be a bit vague--and I would agree sacrifices will be made.
The only tiny argument I would have, is when comparing Tourette's syndrome (which is inherently a more severe case which almost requires medical attention) to depression, no matter the severity, is a bit of a non-comparable claim, I would argue that TS actually requires treatment for the individual to function properly in society, because it is actually a inherited neuropsychiatric disorder whereas depression can be so many other things.
So the point at which I am trying to get across, is that if the lesser of two evils for you is lowering mental abilities to function properly in society (which I do not condone, because I would personally be fine with TS as it is in society, I feel it's a maturity issue within people that makes it so people shy away from it) I believe the lesser for Tyler would not be equivalent, and if ridding himself of depression requires drugging himself, and by doing so lowering his critical thinking abilities, then it most certainly isn't the lesser of two evils. Like I stated earlier, to someone with a lower intelligence, ignorance is more often bliss and they would prefer it, but when someone with a rather high intelligence (note Tyler) is forced to choose between ignorance and depression... He will almost certainly choose depression because to be ignorant for a smart person, is depressing in its own stature.
|
Postponing important decisions in that situation actually has very little to do with one's abilty to reason.
Even with the best decision making skills in the fkin world, you will make mistakes if your capacity to assess a particular situation is compromised, it's not about your intellectual capacities but about your emotional instability/bias that'll distort your perception of things.
For the same reasons, doctors are not supposed to treat people they are close to because they are too emotionally involved, it doesn't mean that they suddenly become terrible at their jobs, just that a warped perception makes things a lot tougher when an important decision has to be made.
|
On July 03 2012 16:28 BuuurN wrote:
I know I'm not contributing anything to this thread but I just wanted to say that I love Nony and reading his posts.
that is all
Tyler is just an amazing guy.
|
On July 03 2012 23:28 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 16:28 BuuurN wrote:
I know I'm not contributing anything to this thread but I just wanted to say that I love Nony and reading his posts.
that is all Tyler is just an amazing guy.
It's always the best of people who have depression, why! : D
offtopic:
Really mature response in the SOTG thread, and really well done during the episode, not getting involved in the "bantering" and making fun of Avilo.
|
I may be misunderstanding the situation/circumstances, but it seems like you've gone a doctor/therapist to help you with a certain problem (depression) for a while now, and reached a point where he/she is saying you should not be making a decision about X at this point because your "ability to reason" is at a reduced state. Is it not up to you to decide whether you take this advice and/or continue seeing this doctor/psychiatrist or not? As in, if you don't like the direction this treatment is headed, you have the option of leaving this treatment and seeking help somewhere else. And if you trust this doctor, or trusted them up to this point, then you should probably continue trusting them even if they are giving you advice you don't particularly like right now.
Again, I may not be understanding the situation correctly, however.
|
I believe people are told to postpone major decisions while depressed not because their ability to reason (logically) is necessarily impaired, but more because your brain is functioning different than normal, and it's believed that you will be happier long term with a decision made when you are in a normal state of mind.
Now, if you are suffering from long term depression and have been depressed for a long time, it might not apply - after all, being depressed might be because you need to make some changes in your life, and postponing it doesn't work ... so yeah, giving advice based on this is impossible obviously ...
But consider it akin to making a major life decision when you are drunk or on drugs ... your brain doesn't function normally, and so it might be a smart thing to just postpone the decision until you've returned to your normal state of mind.
|
wow so many internet psychologists have come out of the woodwork for this blog..who knew TL had so many experts on the matter.
Great post Nony well written..I'm sure between you and your wife/family you will always be able to figure whats best. GL
|
To Tyler, I sincerely hope that whatever you do, you do at least attempt to go along with a psychiatrist's treatment plan, as they do tend to know what they are doing having been to medical school and residency and had years of treating patients behind their belt. Please don't become a case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
As for depression, I have personal experience with clinical depression, and I can in fact say that healthy me far out-thinks and makes better decisions than depressed me. Yes, it obviously varies from person to person but the treatment and psychiatrist helped immensely. If you have a (seemingly) disrespectful psychiatrist there are plenty more out there, and what you are portraying as a person telling you to not make decisions I suspect is actually a person who is attempting to get you to delay any major life decisions while the chemical imbalance in your brain that is depression is still holding strong.
|
On July 04 2012 01:27 Irre wrote:
wow so many internet psychologists have come out of the woodwork for this blog..who knew TL had so many experts on the matter.
Great post Nony well written..I'm sure between you and your wife/family you will always be able to figure whats best. GL
Everyone is an expert on their own experience. I personally love hearing people share their honest experiences. If you don't, that's fine, but I don't think anyone benefits from snide remarks
|
A person's faculty for reason is commensurate with their determination to 3 Gate Expand over FFE.
'Reasonable' behavior is relative to the context of the society that you exist in. It can be determined by cross-referencing the century you live in with your present longitude/latitude. No behavior is reasonable in the absolute sense. A psychiatrist's primary task is to get people to fall in line with the reasonable behavior of their society. If you announce that you plan to make a decision that runs counter to society's standards, your mental fitness may be called into question.
|
|
|
For those who are interested in a treatment for depression that focuses solely on an individual’s reasoning check out Rational emotive therapy(RET). The main premise of RET is that whenever we become upset, it's not the events that upset us its our irrational beliefs about that event that upset us. By being able to acknowledge these irrational beliefs the professional can help the client deconstruct their current irrational thought process and replace with a new thought process based of thinking rationally.
I'm a human services student which involves a lot of therapy and counseling classes and this has been the most unique therapeutic approach I have encounter, its completely different from all of the other types of therapies because its based on a scientific model unlike many others where its merely left to the subjective opinion of the professional. This also differs from others because of the therapeutic relationship, in most types of therapy its important for the therapist to come off as supportive and to allow the client to direct where the therapy leads, but with RET it’s the opposite the professional directs where the therapy leads and is very confrontational with the client and directly challenges any irrational beliefs and insists on the clients using their critical thinking skills. Personally I think this type of therapy is perfect for those who believe they think rationally because they will be challenged by the professional.
Heres some more basic information if your interested http://www.rebtnetwork.org/whatis.html
|
On July 03 2012 22:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
To be frank, the entire notion of actions based on "instincts" before rational thought implies that humans as a species has yet to even evolve past the basic animal on a logic based equivalent. I know, that before every decision I make, I rationally choose which is right. Now you could argue, that a mother would choose her child over the lives of a thousand other children, and perhaps you are right, but n that sense instincts > logic and rationalization, furthermore that circumstance is subjective and not an everyday life choice. If the argument by this "theory" is that the human, under immense pressure and strain, reacts in an instinctive way then I would personally agree that on average, most people would. But to continue, if it implies that the person always chooses the instinct before the rational/logical decision then I would simply say that is not the case.
I would recommend the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, for an exploration of split-second "instinct" decisions. While we often think that we are making some thought-out, rational decisions as you describe, it is quite often not the case. "Instincts" are a bit more complex than they seem, though, and can in fact be more accurate in some cases than longer, rational, thought-out decisions/judgments. I can't really explain the whole book in a TL post, so I just recommend that you check it out if you are interested. It's some pretty cool stuff, and will change the way you think about decision making.
|
I will mention Dunning-Kruger as well. As a victim of my own depression (I went to the very last step but failed, thank god), it is hard to conceptualize arguments against what you are feeling, mostly because you "feel" rather than "think" you are right, and if you've ever been in a relationship, you will know no emotion exists that has ever listened to reason.
This can best be described as being stuck in a dream and "feeling" that the way to go in a forest is west. The answer isn't west, nor is it any of the other 3 directions. The problem here is that it doesn't matter; the dream exists in a hypothetical realm that answers, once concluded and despite being correct, have no relevance to the superset reality. It's similar to being in a deep depressed state, except that making that decision has real-life consequences. That is why you really must be mature about it and take the advice of people removed from your dream to make decisions for you.
In the end, some people die, and some live, but over the years you realize that the outcome really is down to something akin to fate. If no reason can change a person's mind, and that person's personality is predisposed to or has an affinity for endless rationalizations for poor choices, then it seems as if they were destined for the "choice" they chose, like a monkey choosing a banana over a piece of string.
|
I believe it is generally accepted in modern biomedical ethics that paternalistic actions are only justified when the patient's autonomy is significantly compromised. The fact that a patient's ability to reason is simply "diminished" is not an acceptable justification to override their autonomy - like you said, decision-making capacity can be altered to varying extents by myriad variables. So, in order to take away a depressed patient's ability to make autonomous decisions regarding his own treatment, the patient must exhibit a severe impairment that clearly indicates they are unable to make decisions for their own well-being. So, it seems to me that any medical professional that tried to override your decision-making is clearly in the wrong here.
|
Nice and interesting with your perspective on this, psychology and philosophy are the two most interesting fields!
I would like to add a few things though.
It definitely feels outrageous when you look at what kind of deprivation of "rights" and/or status we allow ourselves to perform, in the name of psychiatry, and depression is no exception.
Perhaps luckily, depression is much more accepted these days then just a few years ago and it definitely has something to do with how we generally relate to it as something everyone goes through, albeit in very different shapes and sizes, and in most peoples case, not pathological at all.
I see you call for a valid argument about peoples ability to "reason" while in such a state. But the definition of our ability to reason is still made on a case-by-case basis even today. It is impossibly hard to say what our reasoning really is, and we might speculate whether the answers we come up with for that question, will ever stop sounding like they are pulling themselves up by the bootstraps ever so slightly. After all, we are left to dry by modern philosophy on this matter, it seems for now we have to admit that there is no answer in classical philosophy that has the sort of incisive pin-pointing effect we want but (you spoke in such terms that i assume you have epistemology/knowledge study of some kind behind you, excuse me if i get too obscure) Hegels coherence, contextualism, and comprehensiveness seems to be the closest we can come recognizing objective truth, if we want it to have any kind of specifics but quite obviously that is still not objective in the sense you want. you can go more specific, and it will seem more and more subjective or you can go broader and it will seem vague and over-simplified, e.g. "i clearly and distinctly percieve it to be true"
I get the feeling the kind of reason you are talking about is a mix between Marilyn Vos Savant, and like... an Airforce pilot or something (i am kidding of course but you get what i mean) and while the kind of intelligence we want and see in them, are definitely nice and neat and packaged, it's not proof enough for you and i, that someone is smart or even "reasonable", for us to give them full control of our lives.
Almost only when we feel we are completely lost (in mental or physical serious disease) do we trust in these people completely, and then it seems to be for lack of a better option.
the DSM is the most obvious example.(tyler will know this im sure, but for others the DSM is basically the compendium of all the mental pathologies recognized by contemporay psychiatry) Every psychotherapist or psychiatrist ive ever talked to, or heard give an opinion on the matter, recognizes it to be completely and utterly terrible, and describe it ONLY a neccesary evil, not at all something "we"(it spans in use over many countries) can be proud of.
I wan't to end on some personal opinon, before i write too much wall!
to me, it seems that we do at least want some kind of power of right-deprevation in psychiatry, at least for now general consensus seems to be that with many symptoms of mental disorder people should not retain the right to choose what to do with their body etc. But it gets interesting when we come to voting and and that kind of external decision making.
this is actually something ive discussed alot with friends in the field, and it is almost paradoxical where we land. It should be possible, i think, to say: "you are a danger to yourself, im going to restrain you and treat you", but it should NOT be possible to take from people their right to vote, or any other right we percieve as a nation to be, intrinsic to being a person and a part of a country, democratically speaking you are back to the non-mental illness reasoning-ability point if someone is on the border, has some very border-case downs syndrome for example it seems to me we can expect of eachother to say, this person needs these kinds of help (and this can include taking control over said persons body) but we cannot take away from them the right to be persons and participate in a democracy (ideologically speaking of course, since it's doubtful whether this kind of a utopian democracy exists anywhere today) because, if we do say "IQs lower then 130 should not be able to vote" it will end up being up to the higher IQ population to slowly raise and raise the bar... if you can see where im going, this is with respect to the apparent consensus across countries and rights-organizations to deal in philosophies only real human numerical value, "persons". If it is a person, it has the rights we attribute to a person, if we start dividing "persons" into qualitative subcategories we end in the kind of parts of history we would rather forget.
sorry for the wall
boris
|
I think you’re too concerned with the exception to this generality rather than the wisdom of the statement itself that major decisions should not be made while suffering from depression. Of course it is true, as you point out, that a depressed person is can still make rational decisions. As is the case with any generality, there are always exceptions. No one would question the wisdom of the statement “seatbelts save lives” but it is also true that in some instances wearing a seatbelt can actually result in death when in a collision. The fact that an exception exists does not make the original statement incorrect.
The point is that depression literally alters your brain chemistry in a way which can result in irrational thinking (and in a way which is obviously more serious than caffeine, lack of rest, and nutrition) and thus you may be making decisions which would not be the same after your brain chemistry is back to normal. So because you literally may run into a scenario where when choosing A or B one week you would choose A and the next you would choose B, and this variation can be explained by a temporary medical condition, then of course it is logical to wait until the medical condition stops to be a factor. So I think you are just flat out wrong when you say that the statement is “very vague in its reasoning”.
Good luck with your decision.
|
On July 03 2012 22:32 Klockan3 wrote:
Do anyone like being depressed? I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't call it a depression. Yet depressed people continue to make decisions which reinforce said depression. If they hadn't the sadness would never have developed into a real depression. Are you depressed? Then you are making the wrong decisions in some areas of your life yet you yourself are adamant in your opinion that they are the correct decisions.
This is extremely ill-informed not only is there no such scientific suggestion in modern psychology, modern psychologists would laugh at it, as they would years and years back.
It is a general misconception that a depression is in and of itself a negative thing. it may well be that a kind of depression is neccesary to make a specific kind of adaptation to your person and your mental framework (i'm being intentionally vague here, because it really is ridiculous to even speculate of, you are jumping so many fences and hurdles to even talk about this)
Saying he somehow neccsarily caused his own depression is also downright hilarious when you manage to, in a very short amount of text, make several terminological contradictions in your notions of choice and causal relation.
I wouldn't respond to you normally because theres not really an ounce of coherency in any argument you make, but its important to put straight into the ground such notions as "i know the nature of a depression is" and "i know what causes depression"
Please at least do a quick google before lecturing someone on the issue
"Do anyone like being depressed? I don't think so" - it almost gets hilarious on second look, EVEN if you could track down the latin root of the word to something that would arguably deal in positive or negative emotional value, it should be painfully obvious that what he refers to here is the modern diagnostic sense.
|
If someone is depressed and wants to commit suicide, I think the best thing is to tell them to wait until the depressive episode is over before they really decide to jump that bridge.
Depression can be really weird, sometimes you don't know what causes it, you just feel like killing yourself for about an hour, and then it subsides and goes away, and then you are like "thank god i didn't kill myself".
You are far more unable to reason during an episode of depression than when you are in a calm state of mind. You may not be able to quantify it, but qualitatively from my own experience I believe this is true.
I don't think you need to be a psychologist to know this, I think its common sense.
If you are stating that psychologists believe that a person with depression is always less able to reason than a "sane" person, then I agree with you OP, I believe that a depressive person has the potential to have more cognitive ability than someone without.
|
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I would like to know psychology's best attempts at measuring a person's ability to reason. When someone tells me my ability is compromised, I'd like to know who is going to make the decision instead of me. And then we can take some tests and see who is really better qualified, a compromised me or a regular them. I'd like to know how much effort they'll put into their decision. There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision. I can't imagine a definitive one.
I recommend reading the “Believing Brain” – Our brains naturally rationalize events around us. “Our minds are like lawyers”, it wasn’t until we developed the scientific method that we learned to be objective.
Also “Thinking fast and Slow” is a pretty good read as well. It discuss how bias affects peoples thinking / rationalization.
With regard to someone making decisions for you, well that is a legal issue, unless you sign power of attorney to an agent. You can always refuse medical treatment.
I highly recommend that if you have been labeled with “depression” that you look for a genetic root cause. For me, I was labeled as being depressed, then I discovered actually I had Asperger’s syndrome. Now I understand how I process information and it helps me cope in many situations.
http://www.aane.org/asperger_resources/articles/miscellaneous/aspergers_depression.html
Good luck, also I recommend that you read as much as you can, we are entering a new scientific age and the platonic ideals we once held are being challenged each day with new knowelege we have gained through science. There is no cure for life, it is managed.
|
A common suggestion made to a depressed person is to postpone major decisions until the worst of it has passed because the ability to reason is compromised. The suggestion is very clear in its intent but very vague in its reasoning. The vagueness is based in the lack of an objective reference. What is an acceptable level of ability to reason? And how much worse are things than normal, how much better can they get, and how much effort and how long will it take to get better? Depending on the answers to these questions, the suggestion to postpone can be absolute nonsense.
The suggestion is subjective to the person. If I could define a high-capacity depressed person that doesn't see a point in working hard at life but will continue to function thinking things might change or maybe the thinking is wrong, and a low-capacity depressed person whose feelings of gloom affects every part of how hard he/she pursues goals and makes decision. The former will be able to identify when a big draining episode has passed, and reserve big decisions for when that moment is reached (if the advice is taken). To the latter, this advice cannot be taken effectively and for an improvement in decision-making.
What special rights does a person have over himself? Assuming that a decision involves no subjective evidence unique to the person it concerns, everyone has an equal opportunity to make the correct decision.
You enter into a pretty huge discussion topic here. I would even contest that there are important decisions that don't require unique, subjective evidence. Maybe you're in a depression when you realize that your current education path isn't really in line with what you enjoy doing. How much of that is self discovery, and how much just depression preventing enjoyment of the current task? Change education to job or career and you find the same thing. How much could even a good friend advise you not knowing what really REALLY excites you (Knowing only what interested you in the past, perhaps with depression now affecting how much you really share and connect with them). So, no, I cannot bring myself right now to believe there are an important class of decisions that don't require subjective evidence.
The people with the best ability to reason ought to make the decision. But even people with equal abilities may make opposite decisions. And how do we know who is in the best position to make the decision? The person with the best ability to reason may be outperformed by the person with more knowledge and experience. Decisions concerning people avoid these difficulties when people are allowed to be their own masters. People accept the responsibility of making their own decisions. But there are exceptions made in the name of paternalism (and others that don't concern this blog). So when is a compromised ability to reason sufficient enough to make an exception? To take a person's right to govern himself away?
You contradict yourself here. The person with the best ability to reason still makes wrong decisions. He only owns his own body, not yours. I mean, is there a moral argument to be made with this "ought?" If I'm depressed and others misjudge the extent of my impaired decision-making, you betcha nobody ought to make my own decisions but me. I don't see the morality of the denial of freedom.
I agree with what you said on paternalism. Particularly, I agree with the exception for when someone depressed shows signs of seeking to kill himself. Intervene for sure. To the best of my thinking right now, that is the only case that I'd be in favor of coercion to force somebody into decisions
We can imagine that humans are stupid. We normally think of intelligence relative to humans. But we can imagine an intellect much better than the average or even the best human intellect. When doing so, we must think of the intellect tackling problems beyond human capability. Decisions that we can't consistently get right, but must be made, require us to settle. We can imagine that a greater intellect could put forth more effort and ability and make the decision properly. Lacking that, we do what we can and give up when the time is right, settling on whatever we ended up at. An unimportant decision can be made quickly by a person of poor ability. An important decision can take years or even decades of collective effort of the best minds in society. For every decision, there must exist some objective standards of effort and ability that we are so far unable or unwilling to define.
You can even think of a supernatural intellect, a divine being, that is a supreme intellect. One able to take in objective standards with the subjective ones and even the worst of caprices, some of which give each person their slice of uniqueness. Food for thought--I wouldn't trust the best minds with years of resources just focused on a relationship, career, life move, to make a decision that I would agree with. That 5 out of 6 experts agree that this is the right way to go. I keep on arriving at the supernatural when I think about who I would trust to make decisions for me (of course, of pointless practicality in the literal sense.)
I say all this because others look at the bad decisions and think, "If only someone came and warned him that's he's throwing all this away!" I look at it and wonder, "Think of all the inadequacies in normal decisions and what makes you, you, that others cannot make for you without tyranny."
|
I felt compelled to say something about this. I personally don't think that depression has a major effect on your ability to make decisions.
I personally went through depression last year during my last year in high school. At one point I made a consciences decision to give up in one of my classes. I'm a good student who got a 3.8 gpa over all in high school. In that class I was going to receive a D-/F in that class and I didn't have a care in the world. Fast forward to about 2 months later and after me finding a pretty nice routine in my life I realized that I did care cause a D-/F would get me kicked off the accepted list to my college and stop me from getting my diploma. With hindsight I was able to to see that with a compromised state of mind I had made a HORRIBLE DECISION. But I was able to clean things up with my grade.(that's besides the point).
Now I want to show how I was able to make a great decision while also being depressed. I played baseball since I was 4 years old my dream was to play for my varsity high school team (I want you to realize that this was what I loved). Then I made it to the junior varsity team and the teammates I had were horrible pricks, my coach was a moron, and I had zero play time. Out of 30 games I had 3 plate appearances and about 6 innings on the field .000 avg. with 1 play made. I had enough and I quit, then I gave up to the point where I didn't even eat lunch with any of my friends and I didn't even play video games. I just shut down and gave up. Then I was given an opportunity to join the school's academic decathlon team. Keep in mind I gave no craps about life at that time outside of school work. But even with my "compromised ability to make a decision" I decided to join the team (keep in mind I knew no one on the team). I went on to get a silver medal in the state competition for California for a speech I gave and made friends that I will keep in touch with forever. This was a GOOD DECISION that I made when I wasn't thinking straight.
I'll admit that these parts in my life aren't far behind me, but I truly believe that you can make a good decision even if you aren't thinking right i.e. depressed, enraged, ecstatic. To me I don't see any difference between decision making from a "compromised" mind set and from a "pristine" one. You can always make a good decision and a horrible one no matter what state your in. That's my take of it.
(and just wanted to say that depression sucks and I pray that anyone who falls into it will find their way out, it really does suck)
|
You answered your own post in the first sentence:
"A common suggestion"
At the end of your post you state:
"There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision"
They gave you a suggestion, meaning that in the end, the decision is clearly yours alone.
You walk a dangerous road into further depression as you try to begin to over analyze these types of topics.
I could sit here and explain my own situation and blah blah blah about how I fixed it (like so many have done here), but that's the dumbest thing I could do if I actually care about your success against depression.
Shit happens in life dude.....
but..
Awesome happens too
Focus on the awesome, and downplay the shit. Wanna know who does this? People who aren't depressed.
|
On July 04 2012 06:18 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 22:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
To be frank, the entire notion of actions based on "instincts" before rational thought implies that humans as a species has yet to even evolve past the basic animal on a logic based equivalent. I know, that before every decision I make, I rationally choose which is right. Now you could argue, that a mother would choose her child over the lives of a thousand other children, and perhaps you are right, but n that sense instincts > logic and rationalization, furthermore that circumstance is subjective and not an everyday life choice. If the argument by this "theory" is that the human, under immense pressure and strain, reacts in an instinctive way then I would personally agree that on average, most people would. But to continue, if it implies that the person always chooses the instinct before the rational/logical decision then I would simply say that is not the case. I would recommend the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, for an exploration of split-second "instinct" decisions. While we often think that we are making some thought-out, rational decisions as you describe, it is quite often not the case. "Instincts" are a bit more complex than they seem, though, and can in fact be more accurate in some cases than longer, rational, thought-out decisions/judgments. I can't really explain the whole book in a TL post, so I just recommend that you check it out if you are interested. It's some pretty cool stuff, and will change the way you think about decision making.
I can differentiate between "split second" decisions which entirely are related to your instinctive nature, but this isn't a "split second" discussion. I could counter the "split second" argument though by stating that, for example, you are walking and a man pulls a gun out of his coat and is robbing you, your first instinct--this would depend if you are alpha or omega--would generally be to find any chance to remove the gun and defend yourself, but logic comes into play and you give all of your valuables instead of going with your instincts.
Like I said though, if your argument is related to split second decision making, then it really has no place here, you could argue that he was given option A or B and he instinctively chose B as soon as he heard it, and that is a common thing most people do, but when one truly sits and reflects on the situation (and especially one who is rather intelligent) generally they come to the right conclusion for themselves.
Depression, if anything, turns someone into a cynic... It doesn't remove your logic, or diminish it. One could state that it may alter the perspective of the depressed person, but "altered" is not diminished, and I could alter my perspective on life any day of the week, so it's perfectly normal.
On July 04 2012 19:08 Gruntt wrote:
You answered your own post in the first sentence:
"A common suggestion"
At the end of your post you state:
"There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision"
They gave you a suggestion, meaning that in the end, the decision is clearly yours alone.
You walk a dangerous road into further depression as you try to begin to over analyze these types of topics.
I could sit here and explain my own situation and blah blah blah about how I fixed it (like so many have done here), but that's the dumbest thing I could do if I actually care about your success against depression.
Shit happens in life dude.....
but..
Awesome happens too
Focus on the awesome, and downplay the shit. Wanna know who does this? People who aren't depressed.
What an immature answer, relating to your final 4 lines... "Shit happens in life, but, awesome happens too, focus on the awesome and downplay the shit. Wanna know who does this? People who aren't depressed.
Firstly in your response you talk about caring for his success in depression, and then go on to insult him with your ridiculous final statement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that non-depressed people focus more on the good things, thank you for telling us all that, but I especially like how you asked a rhetorical question and a facetious way, very helpful. Insult his intelligence..
You're neither helping, nor aiding. If you put more thought into your posts, maybe continue, but after that ... suggestion, perhaps you should find another thread to peddle around in.
Furthermore, you also implied all of us messaging with advice from personal experience is "the dummbest thing" you could do, which then further translates that we have done extremely stupid things. In case you're curious, the entire idea of knowledge is it's transfer between persons, so the fact that we all share are own (even tho barely anyone actually shared their story, just advice in how they overcame it) stories is always going to be a plus, it's more data for him to make a conclusive decision. If we all were like you, we'd sit in a big circle and tell him "dude just be happy", "girl you're not fat, just eat", "Dude stop being gay, really", "calm down, its not a big deal"..
Your post is infuriating.
|
On July 02 2012 04:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:
A common suggestion made to a depressed person is to postpone major decisions until the worst of it has passed because the ability to reason is compromised. The suggestion is very clear in its intent but very vague in its reasoning. The vagueness is based in the lack of an objective reference. What is an acceptable level of ability to reason? And how much worse are things than normal, how much better can they get, and how much effort and how long will it take to get better? Depending on the answers to these questions, the suggestion to postpone can be absolute nonsense.
Relativity isn't very helpful here. If one of the greatest thinkers is depressed and her ability to reason has been lowered to the level of an above average thinker, should her authority over herself be forcefully removed by her society?
Hey Tyler,
I work in biomedical research, not psych, so I can't state anything definitively or with any real weight, but I would like to give my take based on my experience working with doctors, and science in general.
When you state that someone's ability to reason is compromised, you are not referring to a quantitative decrease in their abilities. Rather, you are stating that they are unable to reason due to outside influences, which can range from compromised perception, where the patient can reason normally but is acting on imagined sensory input, to severe trauma, in which case reasoning is no longer performed at a high level, instead at the level of basic survival instincts (e.g. pain aversion).
What I am saying is that if your ability to reason is compromised, you are wholly unable to make decisions, not merely impaired. Trying to quantify it is like trying to pull useful data out of a contaminated sample--you have to question the results even if you sift out anything reasonable. The equipment and reagents have to be trustworthy before you can claim your results have any validity.
This is my hunch, that you are somewhat misunderstanding the terminology. I would encourage you to bring your concerns to the attention of a psychologist or someone otherwise able to comment on this, to clarify what is meant by the comment "ability to reason is compromised".
|
On July 05 2012 02:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:18 JDub wrote:On July 03 2012 22:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
To be frank, the entire notion of actions based on "instincts" before rational thought implies that humans as a species has yet to even evolve past the basic animal on a logic based equivalent. I know, that before every decision I make, I rationally choose which is right. Now you could argue, that a mother would choose her child over the lives of a thousand other children, and perhaps you are right, but n that sense instincts > logic and rationalization, furthermore that circumstance is subjective and not an everyday life choice. If the argument by this "theory" is that the human, under immense pressure and strain, reacts in an instinctive way then I would personally agree that on average, most people would. But to continue, if it implies that the person always chooses the instinct before the rational/logical decision then I would simply say that is not the case. I would recommend the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, for an exploration of split-second "instinct" decisions. While we often think that we are making some thought-out, rational decisions as you describe, it is quite often not the case. "Instincts" are a bit more complex than they seem, though, and can in fact be more accurate in some cases than longer, rational, thought-out decisions/judgments. I can't really explain the whole book in a TL post, so I just recommend that you check it out if you are interested. It's some pretty cool stuff, and will change the way you think about decision making. I can differentiate between "split second" decisions which entirely are related to your instinctive nature, but this isn't a "split second" discussion. I could counter the "split second" argument though by stating that, for example, you are walking and a man pulls a gun out of his coat and is robbing you, your first instinct--this would depend if you are alpha or omega--would generally be to find any chance to remove the gun and defend yourself, but logic comes into play and you give all of your valuables instead of going with your instincts. Like I said though, if your argument is related to split second decision making, then it really has no place here, you could argue that he was given option A or B and he instinctively chose B as soon as he heard it, and that is a common thing most people do, but when one truly sits and reflects on the situation (and especially one who is rather intelligent) generally they come to the right conclusion for themselves. Depression, if anything, turns someone into a cynic... It doesn't remove your logic, or diminish it. One could state that it may alter the perspective of the depressed person, but "altered" is not diminished, and I could alter my perspective on life any day of the week, so it's perfectly normal. Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 19:08 Gruntt wrote:
You answered your own post in the first sentence:
"A common suggestion"
At the end of your post you state:
"There's no way it'll match mine. I'd like to know their arguments why my subjective experience is not valuable enough evidence to weigh in on the decision"
They gave you a suggestion, meaning that in the end, the decision is clearly yours alone.
You walk a dangerous road into further depression as you try to begin to over analyze these types of topics.
I could sit here and explain my own situation and blah blah blah about how I fixed it (like so many have done here), but that's the dumbest thing I could do if I actually care about your success against depression.
Shit happens in life dude.....
but..
Awesome happens too
Focus on the awesome, and downplay the shit. Wanna know who does this? People who aren't depressed. What an immature answer, relating to your final 4 lines... "Shit happens in life, but, awesome happens too, focus on the awesome and downplay the shit. Wanna know who does this? People who aren't depressed. Firstly in your response you talk about caring for his success in depression, and then go on to insult him with your ridiculous final statement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that non-depressed people focus more on the good things, thank you for telling us all that, but I especially like how you asked a rhetorical question and a facetious way, very helpful. Insult his intelligence.. You're neither helping, nor aiding. If you put more thought into your posts, maybe continue, but after that ... suggestion, perhaps you should find another thread to peddle around in. Furthermore, you also implied all of us messaging with advice from personal experience is "the dummbest thing" you could do, which then further translates that we have done extremely stupid things. In case you're curious, the entire idea of knowledge is it's transfer between persons, so the fact that we all share are own (even tho barely anyone actually shared their story, just advice in how they overcame it) stories is always going to be a plus, it's more data for him to make a conclusive decision. If we all were like you, we'd sit in a big circle and tell him "dude just be happy", "girl you're not fat, just eat", "Dude stop being gay, really", "calm down, its not a big deal".. Your post is infuriating.
I'm sorry this infuriates you, but the end result of all of these discussions always ends up coming down to that last part. Trying to over analyze this simple concept is, in the end, a waste of his time. I'm not trying to mess with you.
He has his own life. People want to throw their situations into play and try to compare to others', but everyone's challenges are different. By trying to give him some amazing answer that worked for myself would be incredibly misleading to what his personal goal is.
Look, it was unfair of me to say what I did without backing it up with a reason. My reason is that when someone sits on their own and constantly over analyzes concepts like this.... it usually leads to further depression. This is actually increases with intelligence, so the more intelligent liquid`nony is, it's possible to go deeper into this hole.
There have been multiple studies comparing sleeplessness to intelligence, depression to intelligence, and various other things. The rate of insomnia and depression appear to correlate directly to the person's IQ. In the end, one of the worst things a person with depression can do is sit alone and try to analyze the heck out of a small thought about whether their opinion or their psychologist's opinion is worth more.
Also, people's decision making is compromised all the time. If someone is drunk, high, very ill, or any number of other things... this can show someone's "measuring ability" is compromised. If the description of himself in his liquid rising video is any indication, you watch him talk about his wife helping him get on a new medication that has ended up helping him a ton. Was her decision making superior to his? Is it now still? Is his psychologist's? What if she was drunk when she told him that? What if she herself was severely depressed when she told him that?
This overly analytical approach just causes problems and headaches. There's no solution dude, don't you see? It can't be answered. This is why when people give advice and everything about how they've fixed things or made things better, they don't realize that nony basically asked an unanswerable question that is based PURELY on one's perspective. Funny enough, if someone were to answer his question with certainty, they'd be assuming the SAME power the psychologist assumed by acting like they know what the right thing to do is.
Lastly, nony asked this question:
Where are the measurements? Where are the arguments, supported by facts and evidence, about the level of ability and amount of effort that a decision requires? How can a line of thinking so thinly logical and so fucking irrational be used to take away someone else's logic and rationality?
Then he goes on to say this:
As if a depressed person's self-esteem issues aren't severe enough, the healthy people, the professionals trained to fix, fling accusations of incompetence that are complete fucking guesses.
He literally talks about how these people are trained in the field, which has loads of history of various conditions and tests used to measure people, and then says they're guessing. So basically, we're going to state that people who have trained for years and become professionals in this field, or at least the one he's seeing, are just full of shit.
Look at the TOPIC of the thread!! ---> "Measuring Ability to Reason"
He flips out on the concept while over analyzing the shit out of it, and tells people on a starcraft website about it.... then you proceed to tell me that saying for him to just focus on the good things instead of focusing on the bad things is BAD?
Hell, my advice was the best advice.
Also, please don't describe my post with "dude stop being gay," by throwing it in with other diseases (obesity, depression). I'm don't think the gay people on this forum will really appreciate their sexual preference being compared to likes of someone being "happy" or "fat."
|
He literally talks about how these people are trained in the field, which has loads of history of various conditions and tests used to measure people, and then says they're guessing. So basically, we're going to state that people who have trained for years and become professionals in this field, or at least the one he's seeing, are just full of shit.
The professionals in the field do just guess, though. Seriously. "He must be depresssed because his brain isn't producing enough serotonin... prescribe him Venlafaxine". But they have no idea whether or not that is the problem, because they haven't done any sort of brain scan. This is why all antidepressants come with a little warning on the label that says that it may increase suicidal thoughts or make depression worse.
So, yea, if a professional throws out an accusation of incompetence, it's likely to be just as much a guess as any of their other guesses. There's actually no logical decrease in one's ability to reason resulting from depression. A depressed person has full cognitive function. This cognitive function, however, is making decisions based on how the person feels at that particular time, rather than some arbitrary point in the future where he may or may not be any better off.
|
When you are depressed your ability to introspect negatively affects your reasoning so that it is biased against yourself.
You are better off learning Buddhism than studying psychology.
|
On July 05 2012 02:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:18 JDub wrote:On July 03 2012 22:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
To be frank, the entire notion of actions based on "instincts" before rational thought implies that humans as a species has yet to even evolve past the basic animal on a logic based equivalent. I know, that before every decision I make, I rationally choose which is right. Now you could argue, that a mother would choose her child over the lives of a thousand other children, and perhaps you are right, but n that sense instincts > logic and rationalization, furthermore that circumstance is subjective and not an everyday life choice. If the argument by this "theory" is that the human, under immense pressure and strain, reacts in an instinctive way then I would personally agree that on average, most people would. But to continue, if it implies that the person always chooses the instinct before the rational/logical decision then I would simply say that is not the case. I would recommend the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, for an exploration of split-second "instinct" decisions. While we often think that we are making some thought-out, rational decisions as you describe, it is quite often not the case. "Instincts" are a bit more complex than they seem, though, and can in fact be more accurate in some cases than longer, rational, thought-out decisions/judgments. I can't really explain the whole book in a TL post, so I just recommend that you check it out if you are interested. It's some pretty cool stuff, and will change the way you think about decision making. I can differentiate between "split second" decisions which entirely are related to your instinctive nature, but this isn't a "split second" discussion. I could counter the "split second" argument though by stating that, for example, you are walking and a man pulls a gun out of his coat and is robbing you, your first instinct--this would depend if you are alpha or omega--would generally be to find any chance to remove the gun and defend yourself, but logic comes into play and you give all of your valuables instead of going with your instincts. Like I said though, if your argument is related to split second decision making, then it really has no place here, you could argue that he was given option A or B and he instinctively chose B as soon as he heard it, and that is a common thing most people do, but when one truly sits and reflects on the situation (and especially one who is rather intelligent) generally they come to the right conclusion for themselves.
I don't have an argument here, I just wanted to make sure you didn't discount split-second "instinct" (I put instinct in quotes because split-second decisions are not necessarily based on instinct as one would think of it, but on pretty complex subconscious reasoning). I don't think it's possible to always know that a decision you make is rationally/logically correct, because almost any real-life decision doesn't have a rationally correct answer, it probably has multiple possible answers each with its own positives and negatives which can not be qualified as in a math problem. And in many cases, how one weighs those positives and negatives can be swayed by things on a subconscious level, so the seemingly logic-based decision one makes is really a combination of rational thinking and subconscious "instinctual" thinking. Again, I'm not really giving the ideas presented in the book justice, but you are fooling yourself if you think you can always distinguish between your conscious and subconscious decision-making (you will always have a rational justification for subconscious decisions, even if they didn't exist before the decision was made). Sorry this is getting a bit off-topic though.
|
1)I wouldn't worry about your ability to make decisions; no one should. You dont have the free will to make a decision, so any deliberation wont ultimately matter, as its already been made for you. There are of course decision that are not predetermined such as random things. Those are not a cause of concern either. Worrying about what decision you make wont impact the probabilities or the outcome.
2)If being normal helped you make better decisions than being depressed, than normal people all agree. Seeing as this is not true, being not depressed doesnt seem to help you make decisions or hinder you.
|
On July 05 2012 14:00 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +He literally talks about how these people are trained in the field, which has loads of history of various conditions and tests used to measure people, and then says they're guessing. So basically, we're going to state that people who have trained for years and become professionals in this field, or at least the one he's seeing, are just full of shit. The professionals in the field do just guess, though. Seriously. "He must be depresssed because his brain isn't producing enough serotonin... prescribe him Venlafaxine". But they have no idea whether or not that is the problem, because they haven't done any sort of brain scan. This is why all antidepressants come with a little warning on the label that says that it may increase suicidal thoughts or make depression worse. So, yea, if a professional throws out an accusation of incompetence, it's likely to be just as much a guess as any of their other guesses. There's actually no logical decrease in one's ability to reason resulting from depression. A depressed person has full cognitive function. This cognitive function, however, is making decisions based on how the person feels at that particular time, rather than some arbitrary point in the future where he may or may not be any better off.
Well, if it was just the serotonin they probably wouldn't prescribe an SNRI (venlafaxine, Serotonin-Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), probably just an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor).
I think when you say "A depressed person has full cognitive function," you're making a very bold statement. I can do a pubmed or google search and find study results that say otherwise. Here's the abstract of one: http://www.psy-journal.com/article/S0165-1781(08)00436-8/abstract
The results showed that
a) while individuals with current depression had worse cognitive performance in all domains than healthy controls, those individuals with previous depression had lasting cognitive impairments in the domains of immediate memory and attention as compared with healthy controls.
b) individuals with current depression had lower scores in the visuospatial/constructional and attention domains and the total score than individuals with previous depression.
c) individuals in the depression group as a whole who were currently unemployed had significantly lower scores in all domains (except attention) of cognitive function.
d) cognitive function was not related to either physical or mental quality of life or impairments of activities of daily living (ADL, IADL).
e) that unemployment in previous depression was related to poor cognitive function similar to those with current depression.
The results indicate that MDD may have detrimental and lasting effects on cognitive performance partly related to poorer general functioning.
I'm having difficulty interpreting exactly what "d)" meant, but where it says cognitive function was not related to mental quality of life, that might be along the lines of trying to support your argument. In the end though, the results were clear. This is just one study of many we could find, and the source seems pretty solid --> "Psychiatry Research
Volume 176, Issue 2 , Pages 183-189, 30 April 2010" Publisher: Elsevier, whom seem pretty legit.
They tell us in school to watch out for friends who start giving away important things, like large amounts of money, a tv, or their car. That's a type of reaction some have to depression. For anyone to say that depression does not cause a mental lack of ability to reason, or that there's no cognitive impairment, is also just guessing
|
See this shit, now you got me over analyzing shit for no reason! lol
I'm out!
|
|
|
I totally agree.
There's really just one way to find out whose ability to reason is the best. Hold a contest of logic, deduction and perception that will put each participant to the test. Don't forget style that should be considered then we'll know who best of the litter the one who's level headed and realistic just like me. Can't settle for less 'cause I'm the best so a contest we will see, who's the number one greatest perfectest decision maker in the world for me?
|
My therapist doesn't act like that around me at all. In fact she goes out of her way to help me deal with feelings of low self-worth, incompetence, etc. The few other therapists I've met have been the same way. I guess it's just really bad luck if you happen to run into a professional mental health person who does make you feel incompetent/worthless. I wouldn't give up on therapy because of a few bad experiences or people you just can't connect with. There are a lot of different therapists out there and the only real way to find out who is right for you is to try different ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
