Thanks to Kaj Sotala, Brian Toomey, Stag Lynn, Ethan Kuntz, and Anna Salamon.
There’s no way that chronic depression, self-loathing, poor agency, or muscle tension could be optimal… right?
Jake was depressed for 6 months. He also felt horrible every time he interacted with other people because of his emotional insecurities.
So without knowing how to outgrow his insecurities, his system basically had two options:
Interact with other people — and constantly feel horrible
Don’t interact with anyone unless absolutely necessary
So his system converged on the second option, also known as “depression”.
Depression certainly wasn’t the globally optimal strategy, but given the options, it was a locally optimal strategy.
Once he outgrew his emotional insecurities, however, he was no longer blocked on the better optimum of both interacting with others and not feeling horrible.
And so with no need for the ‘depression strategy’, the symptoms evaporated — two years and counting. I know because Jake was me.
More examples of locally optimal strategies
Most chronic issues for the people I help end up looking like locally optimal strategies. For example, self-loathing often turns out to be a strategy for avoiding conflict with others. Lack of agency often turns out to be a strategy for avoiding judgements of failure. But ideally, they would both have self-love and be safe from conflicts; or have agency and be okay with judgements of failure.
I’ve seen people make significant and sometimes total progress in weeks on issues they’ve had for years. One of my tenets is that any persistent mental issue is probably a locally optimal strategy. (Again: if my mind had hit the “undo depression” button while I was depressed, I would’ve gotten hurt!)
In my own growth, my issues relating to depression, empathy, conflict avoidance, emotional numbness, eye contact, boundaries, neck pain, and more all turned out to be locally optimal strategies. Only once I fully understood what an issue was doing for me did I make a step change towards resolving it.
For example, I had neck pain for 3½ years. A few times it was so bad I couldn’t turn my head. Over the years, I had tried to counteract my neck tension with physical therapy and stretching but nothing really worked. Then, earlier this year I finally realized precisely how it was strategic, so I implemented better strategies towards the same goals and have had ~90% less neck pain since.
Btw: Noticing how my neck pain was locally optimal was quite tricky, and even suppressed. So even if an issue IS a locally optimal strategy, it can be quite difficult to understand how. (This process may help.)
How common are locally optimal strategies?
I have no hard data, but I suspect that when an issue has lasted years, local optimality is more probable than not. Why? Consider:
If there were no downsides to resolving a persistent issue, then why has it lasted so long??
Thanks to Brian Toomey, Kaj Sotala, Stag Lynn, Ethan Kuntz, Anna Salamon, and my clients for support.
If I understand correctly, your claim is that when we see long-standing issues like depression, chronic neck pain, or patterns of emotional avoidance persisting for years, it’s more likely than not to be some sort of adaptive coping strategy—essentially a way the mind or body protects itself from harm–otherwise the issue would have been resolved.
Why do you think this is more likely than a mundane explanations such as “bad luck in the genetic lottery, no obvious levers to pull”?
Great question, thanks!
I think you’re correct in pointing towards the existence of basically-all-downside genetic conditions, but I still think these are in the minority. Moreover, even most of those don’t create a big issue on the object level— compared to how people might feel about the issue as a result.
This argument doesn’t extend to conditions like Huntington’s, but if a person is missing a pinky finger, most of the issues the person is going to face are related to social factors and their own emotions, not the physical aspect.
I also just say this from experience helping others.
I feel like this is conflating two different things: experiencing depression and behavior in response to that experience.
My experience of depression is nothing like a strategy. It’s more akin to having long covid in my brain. Treating it as an emotional or psychological dysfunction did nothing. The only thing that eventually worked (after years of trying all sorts of things) was finding the right combination of medications. If you don’t make enough of your own neurotransmitters, store-bought are fine.
I did not say that depression is always a strategy for everyone.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you did. My point is that there is a difference between “depression can be the result of a locally optimal strategy” and “depression is a locally optimal strategy”. The latter doesn’t even make sense to me semantically whereas the former seems more like what you are trying to communicate.
Incidentally, coherence therapy (which I know is one of the things Chris is drawing from) makes the distinction between three types of depression, some of them being strategies and some not. Also I recall Unlocking the Emotional Brain mentioning a fourth type which is purely biochemical.
From Coherence Therapy: Practice Manual & Training Guide:
Thanks for writing this!
But also- A and B don’t seem all that different to me?
Even C doesn’t seem all that different uhh (maybe like: grief as a means to communicate)
If I look at depression as a way of acting / thinking / feeling, then it makes sense that there could be multiple paths to end up that way. Some people could have neurological issues that make it difficult to do otherwise, while others could have the capacity to act/think/feel differently but have settled there as their locally optimal strategy.