5 ms·

I've been down in the hole too; I dig this metacognitive framework. Anecdotally, I've noticed one other interesting dimension that could fit nicely into your fr

I've been down in the hole too; I dig this metacognitive framework. Anecdotally, I've noticed one other interesting dimension that could fit nicely into your framing. As I understand your comment, it proposes a feedback-loop model a bit like this, where the brain observes reality and makes decisions about it. Those decisions affect reality -- which in turn affects the brain's state, it's ability to make decisions, and the very decisions it makes: |----------->-----------| | | reality brain | | |-----------<-----------| I agree with your idea of the "exploration" mode. (Alas, if only I could switch my brain's modes as easily as I can in vim.) Having been down low myself (and still being there in some ways), the question then comes down to: how do you get the brain to actually get up and start exploring? How can you bring a common-sense project-management approach to your own life, brainstorming ideas and prioritizing new frontiers to explore, when the brain keeps wanting to wander into a black hole of regret and rumination? One notion I'm toying with is to decouple the right side of the diagram further. In this sense, I think "psychological resilience" means essentially the brain's ability to maintain its own internal state independent of reality -- in more practical terms, the brain can remain confident of its own ability to operate in reality, even as reality throws curveballs and does all kinds of wacky stuff (like, say, a job that becomes unfulfilling while the world is going through global pandemics and a volatile stock market). |----------->----------->-----------| | | | reality internal decision-making | emotional state brain | | | |-----------<-----------<-----------| I think the mindfulness crowd would call this "equanimity" or "serenity." The Stoics are in a similar metacognitive neighborhood; Seneca wrote about it [1] more eloquently than I can: > External goods are of trivial importance and without much influence in either direction: prosperity does not elevate the sage and adversity does not depress him. For he has always made the effort to rely as much as possible on himself and to derive all delight from himself. It's all still way easier said than done. I have no illusions that I'm even close to being a "sage," in Seneca's definition. But remembering that there are more pieces to the puzzle -- more variables to toy with, more factors to optimize, smaller steps I can take -- helps, sometimes, at least for me. [1]: https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/05/02/seneca-consolation-to-helvia/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/05/02/seneca-consolation...

ajkjk 4y ago
I agree quite a bit with > I think "psychological resilience" means essentially the brain's ability to maintain its own internal state independent of reality -- in more practical terms, the brain can remain confident of its own ability to operate in reality, even as reality throws curveballs and does all kinds of wacky stuff In particular, I think one of the big differences between depressive people and non-depressive people is whether their upbringing/community/learned value system is one that is "sturdy" ie resilient to damage. A socially vulnerable person who has never had a strong foundation for their social legitimacy goes into every social interaction looking for evidence of being accepted. A person who has grown up with their acceptance never in doubt doesn't need anything from each new interaction. So the former person is susceptible to trauma from every interaction, whereas it would take the latter person a long time be worn down by negative responses to the point where it would affect them psychologically. I suspect that the mechanism by which modern life causes such an epidemic of depression is that people grow up less integrated into communities and family units that provide this stability-of-identity by the time they get to adulthood. If you reach adolescence with no model of what a legitimate person looks like or how to be one, it makes sense that you will flounder, and being a social being that craves acceptance by society, you can end up obsessively trying to find that legitimacy in every interaction. (Another mechanism for this is when someone grows up with an abusive or otherwise psychologically damaging home life, such as never being validated by their parents and always criticized -- so even if they are by all metrics very good at life or very good at socializing, they're programmed to never perceive themselves as good enough, so they never get to that state of imperviousness to slightly-negative reality.)
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
  Oof. Yeah, that definitely hits home. I agree that tie-in to developmental psychology makes a ton of sense. The patterns of thought get set early in life, when neuroplasticity is high. Refactoring them later on becomes more and more difficult with the passage of time. Even nowadays, it seems like there's a general lack of strong male role models (in a true, healthy sense of the word "strong"). One puts it all together piecemeal and -- eventually, hopefully -- gets to the point of being able to self-validate. It sounds like you've made a ton of progress yourself. I'm curious if you're up for sharing -- what was most helpful for you?

ajkjk 4y ago

I agree quite a bit with > I think "psychological resilience" means essentially the brain's ability to maintain its own internal state independent of reality -- in more practical terms, the brain can remain confident of its own ability to operate in reality, even as reality throws curveballs and does all kinds of wacky stuff In particular, I think one of the big differences between depressive people and non-depressive people is whether their upbringing/community/learned value system is one that is "sturdy" ie resilient to damage. A socially vulnerable person who has never had a strong foundation for their social legitimacy goes into every social interaction looking for evidence of being accepted. A person who has grown up with their acceptance never in doubt doesn't need anything from each new interaction. So the former person is susceptible to trauma from every interaction, whereas it would take the latter person a long time be worn down by negative responses to the point where it would affect them psychologically. I suspect that the mechanism by which modern life causes such an epidemic of depression is that people grow up less integrated into communities and family units that provide this stability-of-identity by the time they get to adulthood. If you reach adolescence with no model of what a legitimate person looks like or how to be one, it makes sense that you will flounder, and being a social being that craves acceptance by society, you can end up obsessively trying to find that legitimacy in every interaction. (Another mechanism for this is when someone grows up with an abusive or otherwise psychologically damaging home life, such as never being validated by their parents and always criticized -- so even if they are by all metrics very good at life or very good at socializing, they're programmed to never perceive themselves as good enough, so they never get to that state of imperviousness to slightly-negative reality.)

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
Oof. Yeah, that definitely hits home. I agree that tie-in to developmental psychology makes a ton of sense. The patterns of thought get set early in life, when neuroplasticity is high. Refactoring them later on becomes more and more difficult with the passage of time. Even nowadays, it seems like there's a general lack of strong male role models (in a true, healthy sense of the word "strong"). One puts it all together piecemeal and -- eventually, hopefully -- gets to the point of being able to self-validate. It sounds like you've made a ton of progress yourself. I'm curious if you're up for sharing -- what was most helpful for you?