Because I’ve seen the relationship between irregular lifestyle and depression in other people around me in my life. If there is research on the topic that you know about or some contrary observations you want to forward then feel free. But at this point this seems like this conversation is heading towards “well can you prove that” territory. And in short, no I cannot prove it.
I’ve seen the relationship between irregular lifestyle and depression in other people
And which way the causality arrow points?
In any case, I’m trying to say that there is a difference between saying “Orderly life helps some people I know manage their mental state” (which is a statement about some people you know) and “There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health” (which is a statement about how the world works).
The typical mind fallacy is also accompanied by the atypical mind fallacy—the idea that no one has the same mind or thoughts as you and you are unique.
And what is it other than the atypical mind fallacy if one regards himself as too far above the level of the plebes who work as clerks to subject himself to a schedule, unless he has some strong concrete evidence that basically compels him to acknowledge his own brilliance?
If John von Neumann or Paul Erdos woke up at 2 PM and argued that their brains worked better at night, I’d be inclined to take them seriously. If someone without anything to show for their irregular lifestyle nevertheless believed that keeping a schedule would damage their progress, that would be a delusion.
the chief benefit is that forcing yourself to go through with things that aren’t fun but which are necessary for living above the level of an animal acts like acid to the narcissistic patterns of thought
and ended with
one regards himself as too far above the level of the plebes who work as clerks to subject himself to a schedule
A fair bit of distance between the two, don’t you think?
No, I don’t agree. Rergarding yourself as superior to plebs and therefore as above routine is at least weak evidence for narcissism. In combination with absence of clear evidence for the idea that you are in fact superior, it would be strong evidence for narcissism.
Actually, there is no need for any evidence of general superiority. All you need is evidence that the disordered lifestyle works for you—regardless of your brilliance or dimness—and that would be quite sufficient.
Why so? If you assert—as I think you do—that ordered lifestyle helps, that implies that you can get evidence what kind of lifestyle helps and, presumably, the same evidence could point in a different direction.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you. Someone for who depression has become the water they swim in might fail to see it that way but depression isn’t the default state of mind for a human being.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you.
But isn’t the situation symmetric? I can say “if you’re depressed then your disciplined lifestyle is not in fact working for you” and that would have the same validity.
Yes that would be correct; and I can imagine how this could be the case for somebody like a very high-powered lawyer that wakes up at 4 AM, goes to bed at midnight and shows up to work dressed for success every day; but still feels the whole thing to be hollow and meaningless. Regularity/schedule/discipline may be necessary without being sufficient.
OK, so if the situation is symmetric, why do you believe that disciplined life helps (some) people, but are unwilling to believe that disordered life also helps (some) people?
I’m not unwilling to believe that a disordered life helps some people. I’m saying that, as an individual, each one of us has to be very careful into letting ourselves believe we are one of those people in the absence of strong counter-evidence; because the ( admittedly intuitively assessed on my part ) prior probability of that being the case is not great.
So basically you have a strong prior that disciplined life is considerably more helpful than disorganized one. I assume it’s based on your own experience and the experience of other people in your circle. That’s all fine. What I am doubtful about is how much does that generalize. “Induction” is not a good answer because it’s applicable to absolutely anything.
Sure. But why do you think this generalizes?
Because I’ve seen the relationship between irregular lifestyle and depression in other people around me in my life. If there is research on the topic that you know about or some contrary observations you want to forward then feel free. But at this point this seems like this conversation is heading towards “well can you prove that” territory. And in short, no I cannot prove it.
And which way the causality arrow points?
In any case, I’m trying to say that there is a difference between saying “Orderly life helps some people I know manage their mental state” (which is a statement about some people you know) and “There’s a relationship between having regular habits and mental health” (which is a statement about how the world works).
There’s a difference, but induction isn’t black magic.
It’s conceivable that it it can point both ways simultaneously. What is in a person’s power to alter is their actual behaviour.
The typical mind fallacy isn’t black magic either.
And what is it other than the atypical mind fallacy if one regards himself as too far above the level of the plebes who work as clerks to subject himself to a schedule, unless he has some strong concrete evidence that basically compels him to acknowledge his own brilliance?
If John von Neumann or Paul Erdos woke up at 2 PM and argued that their brains worked better at night, I’d be inclined to take them seriously. If someone without anything to show for their irregular lifestyle nevertheless believed that keeping a schedule would damage their progress, that would be a delusion.
It’s interesting how we started with
and ended with
A fair bit of distance between the two, don’t you think?
No, I don’t agree. Rergarding yourself as superior to plebs and therefore as above routine is at least weak evidence for narcissism. In combination with absence of clear evidence for the idea that you are in fact superior, it would be strong evidence for narcissism.
Actually, there is no need for any evidence of general superiority. All you need is evidence that the disordered lifestyle works for you—regardless of your brilliance or dimness—and that would be quite sufficient.
In the types of cases that I was referring to, where irregular lifestyle coincides with depression, that evidence too would be unavailable.
Why so? If you assert—as I think you do—that ordered lifestyle helps, that implies that you can get evidence what kind of lifestyle helps and, presumably, the same evidence could point in a different direction.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you. Someone for who depression has become the water they swim in might fail to see it that way but depression isn’t the default state of mind for a human being.
But isn’t the situation symmetric? I can say “if you’re depressed then your disciplined lifestyle is not in fact working for you” and that would have the same validity.
Yes that would be correct; and I can imagine how this could be the case for somebody like a very high-powered lawyer that wakes up at 4 AM, goes to bed at midnight and shows up to work dressed for success every day; but still feels the whole thing to be hollow and meaningless. Regularity/schedule/discipline may be necessary without being sufficient.
OK, so if the situation is symmetric, why do you believe that disciplined life helps (some) people, but are unwilling to believe that disordered life also helps (some) people?
I’m not unwilling to believe that a disordered life helps some people. I’m saying that, as an individual, each one of us has to be very careful into letting ourselves believe we are one of those people in the absence of strong counter-evidence; because the ( admittedly intuitively assessed on my part ) prior probability of that being the case is not great.
So basically you have a strong prior that disciplined life is considerably more helpful than disorganized one. I assume it’s based on your own experience and the experience of other people in your circle. That’s all fine. What I am doubtful about is how much does that generalize. “Induction” is not a good answer because it’s applicable to absolutely anything.
A prior probability is generalized by nature.