5 ms·

I don't know if this is true. I've had a couple of friends go through manic episodes, and while I very much did not enjoy it, there's a world of difference betw

I don't know if this is true. I've had a couple of friends go through manic episodes, and while I very much did not enjoy it, there's a world of difference between them in normal-mode, and manic-mode, and I don't think I trust them less as a result. Maybe it would be different if violence was involved - but I don't think that's very common.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago
The critical thing is that you're aware that your friend in normal-mode will do different things than your friend in manic-mode. The default assumption is that people have various levels of predictability and trustworthiness in normal mode; learning that someone made a terrible choice once means that their morality and wisdom is not what you thought it was, or at least the variance is extremely high. People with bipolar disorders are essentially two very different people. You'd be foolish to trust someone in the middle of a manic episode, but and they can be great friends and very trustworthy when in normal-mode. The problem is that you have to know which mode they're operating in.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I think the first time around, mania kind of creeped in - everybody got sort of frog-boiled by a set of progressively more weird ideas and behaviours that all built up on eachother so it wasn't totally obvious that it was all nuts, until it got really extreme. Now, though, I like to think I'd see it coming a mile off. In general, I think trust is the wrong rubric for living with humans. It's better to have faith. In reality, people make horrible decisions and do monstrous things all the time, especially neurotypical people, and if you can only trust people who will not make terrible choices, you should trust no-one. History proves that the vast majority of people, in the right circumstances, will do astonishing and awful things. It makes more sense to treat it as a moral good in and of itself to trust other people, no matter if they let you down or not. That's the key insight of having faith in the people around you. Maybe they will let you down, maybe they won't, but suffering for an overabundance of faith is a worthwhile kind of suffering.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

The critical thing is that you're aware that your friend in normal-mode will do different things than your friend in manic-mode. The default assumption is that people have various levels of predictability and trustworthiness in normal mode; learning that someone made a terrible choice once means that their morality and wisdom is not what you thought it was, or at least the variance is extremely high. People with bipolar disorders are essentially two very different people. You'd be foolish to trust someone in the middle of a manic episode, but and they can be great friends and very trustworthy when in normal-mode. The problem is that you have to know which mode they're operating in.

pasabagi 5y ago
I think the first time around, mania kind of creeped in - everybody got sort of frog-boiled by a set of progressively more weird ideas and behaviours that all built up on eachother so it wasn't totally obvious that it was all nuts, until it got really extreme. Now, though, I like to think I'd see it coming a mile off. In general, I think trust is the wrong rubric for living with humans. It's better to have faith. In reality, people make horrible decisions and do monstrous things all the time, especially neurotypical people, and if you can only trust people who will not make terrible choices, you should trust no-one. History proves that the vast majority of people, in the right circumstances, will do astonishing and awful things. It makes more sense to treat it as a moral good in and of itself to trust other people, no matter if they let you down or not. That's the key insight of having faith in the people around you. Maybe they will let you down, maybe they won't, but suffering for an overabundance of faith is a worthwhile kind of suffering.