Later on I learned that there is no reason why not think that moderate versions of the same problem do not work through the same pathways as illness.
Just because they work through the same pathways doesn’t mean that they are the same with respect to ability to overcome them.
Someone who is clumsy because of a neurological disorder cannot do anything which prevents himself from being clumsy. Someone who is “normally” clumsy can. The fact that they both have similar causes doesn’t change that.
Someone who is clumsy because of a neurological disorder cannot do anything which prevents himself from being clumsy. Someone who is “normally” clumsy can.
Given that placebo’s do seem to have an effect on mental illnesses, I don’t think there reasons to believe that people with mental illnesses can’t do anything affect their state. On the other hand the fact that change is possible doesn’t mean that a person can change simply by trying very hard.
But there’s a difference between being able to change their state, and being able to change their state far enough to achieve normality. Someone who is very clumsy because of severe neurological problems could, by effort, get somewhat better, but even with a lot of effort he will still be clumsy, just less clumsy. Someone who is clumsy in the way that most clumsy people are, on the other hand, can entirely alleviate the clumsiness by effort. Even if they have similar causes, in one case the gap is a size that can be made up for by effort, and in the other case it is not.
Someone who is very clumsy because of severe neurological problems could, by effort, get somewhat better, but even with a lot of effort he will still be clumsy, just less clumsy.
The fact that something isn’t changeable by investing effort doesn’t mean that it isn’t changeable by another strategy. Sometimes the key to change is investing less effort.
Biological issues and mental issue also also often interlinked. Making it part of your identity that you can’t do something for biological reason X can often make change more difficult.
But there’s a difference between being able to change their state, and being able to change their state far enough to achieve normality
Given someone in front of you, how do you tell? How can this difference be observed?
It is easy to imagine “someone who cannot change their state” and “someone who can change their state”, but if you erase the XML tags and that your imagination has attached to the two, what would you actually be seeing?
By just saying “most humans can compensate for X degree of clumsiness. This person has Y degree of clumsiness. Y is greater than X”.
Of course, your ability to determine those two factors isn’t perfect, so you will get it wrong sometimes, especially in borderline cases, but you can certainly do better than chance.
Better than chance is a low bar. If you have some problem in your life, how do you determine whether and to what extent it is solvable, when to carry on and when to give up? Where the problem is, for example, akrasia, clumsiness, social anxiety, despair at the magnitude of the ills of the world, being a refugee in a flimsy boat in the Mediterranean, or acne.
It is easy to invent examples in the imagination where it is clear that you can solve it or clear that you can’t. There are fewer easy answers for the problems that life throws at you, which are not selected for solvability or unsolvability.
Going back to an ancestor comment:
Someone who is clumsy because of a neurological disorder cannot do anything which prevents himself from being clumsy. Someone who is “normally” clumsy can.
Again, it’s not always easy to tell. I’ve seen people with severe cerebral palsy who it was clear were never going to walk or speak with a clear voice. I’ve also seen beginners in the taiko class who are competent at the ordinary movements of day to day life, but make a complete hash of what seem to me like the very simplest actions. I wonder if they are ever going to get it, and recognise that I don’t know. So I point them toward the correct movements, see them do the wrong thing again, and repeat. When I first took up tai chi, maybe the teacher thought the same thing about me. Eventually I learned, but I’ve seen other people go on for years without advancing. Could they, with different instruction? I can’t tell.
“Better than chance” is just another way to say “sometimes it actually works”. It doesn’t need to work every single time for it to be something useful.
And given the human tendency to generalize from one example, it has to be hard to take another look… My own learned response is ‘the person is clumsy and so has to be ignored if possible; it does not matter why s/he is so, since both a mentally ill or just careless can probably realize my rudeness if I stare.’ On the other hand, if someone at my workplace has a disability, I would be very wary of them having to do anything with volatile chemicals, and quietly but unceasingly influence things to make her/him stop. (I am in a plant physiology Dept.) Possibly I would be most rude to such a person, but exploding centrifuges just aren’t safe.
Just because they work through the same pathways doesn’t mean that they are the same with respect to ability to overcome them.
Someone who is clumsy because of a neurological disorder cannot do anything which prevents himself from being clumsy. Someone who is “normally” clumsy can. The fact that they both have similar causes doesn’t change that.
Given that placebo’s do seem to have an effect on mental illnesses, I don’t think there reasons to believe that people with mental illnesses can’t do anything affect their state. On the other hand the fact that change is possible doesn’t mean that a person can change simply by trying very hard.
But there’s a difference between being able to change their state, and being able to change their state far enough to achieve normality. Someone who is very clumsy because of severe neurological problems could, by effort, get somewhat better, but even with a lot of effort he will still be clumsy, just less clumsy. Someone who is clumsy in the way that most clumsy people are, on the other hand, can entirely alleviate the clumsiness by effort. Even if they have similar causes, in one case the gap is a size that can be made up for by effort, and in the other case it is not.
The fact that something isn’t changeable by investing effort doesn’t mean that it isn’t changeable by another strategy. Sometimes the key to change is investing less effort.
Biological issues and mental issue also also often interlinked. Making it part of your identity that you can’t do something for biological reason X can often make change more difficult.
Given someone in front of you, how do you tell? How can this difference be observed?
It is easy to imagine “someone who cannot change their state” and “someone who can change their state”, but if you erase the XML tags and that your imagination has attached to the two, what would you actually be seeing?
By just saying “most humans can compensate for X degree of clumsiness. This person has Y degree of clumsiness. Y is greater than X”.
Of course, your ability to determine those two factors isn’t perfect, so you will get it wrong sometimes, especially in borderline cases, but you can certainly do better than chance.
Better than chance is a low bar. If you have some problem in your life, how do you determine whether and to what extent it is solvable, when to carry on and when to give up? Where the problem is, for example, akrasia, clumsiness, social anxiety, despair at the magnitude of the ills of the world, being a refugee in a flimsy boat in the Mediterranean, or acne.
It is easy to invent examples in the imagination where it is clear that you can solve it or clear that you can’t. There are fewer easy answers for the problems that life throws at you, which are not selected for solvability or unsolvability.
Going back to an ancestor comment:
Again, it’s not always easy to tell. I’ve seen people with severe cerebral palsy who it was clear were never going to walk or speak with a clear voice. I’ve also seen beginners in the taiko class who are competent at the ordinary movements of day to day life, but make a complete hash of what seem to me like the very simplest actions. I wonder if they are ever going to get it, and recognise that I don’t know. So I point them toward the correct movements, see them do the wrong thing again, and repeat. When I first took up tai chi, maybe the teacher thought the same thing about me. Eventually I learned, but I’ve seen other people go on for years without advancing. Could they, with different instruction? I can’t tell.
“Better than chance” is just another way to say “sometimes it actually works”. It doesn’t need to work every single time for it to be something useful.
And given the human tendency to generalize from one example, it has to be hard to take another look… My own learned response is ‘the person is clumsy and so has to be ignored if possible; it does not matter why s/he is so, since both a mentally ill or just careless can probably realize my rudeness if I stare.’ On the other hand, if someone at my workplace has a disability, I would be very wary of them having to do anything with volatile chemicals, and quietly but unceasingly influence things to make her/him stop. (I am in a plant physiology Dept.) Possibly I would be most rude to such a person, but exploding centrifuges just aren’t safe.