The one thing the founder of humanistic psychology wrote about — and was too scared to publish — and why saying it now is the most compassionate thing to do.
20 years in the field of psychology studying happiness plus my own journey of coming to terms with a rare condition that causes progressive vision loss, and I've landed on: choose to accept the things you can't control and choose to make the best of them. I appreciate your take on the same thing and how the research aligns.
Liked this article a lot. I think it contributes nicely to the discourse around reducing blame for one’s condition but also presenting an invitation for personal agency.
One thing I feel aware of is people using the biological interpretation as a sort of “identity” which justifies where they are, or what they’re doing. So, someone may adopt the sense that they are “a depressed person”, and Buddhist psychology informs us that forming an identity around one’s mental state like this can be harmful.
The truth is, with any one particular person, I don’t see how we can fully claim the reason they’re not getting better is genetic. It could be that they suffered trauma, haven’t found the right therapy, or could change something in their life. It could also be genetic. I think my problem with the biological way of thinking is I’m not sure it’s fully applicable to any individual person. This is not to say at all that they deserve blame for where they are at. It’s also not to say someone should “try harder” if something like gratitude journaling didn’t work, that would be dogmatic within one modality. It’s more that regardless of if it’s biology or environnement, they don’t deserve to be blamed for not being able to get better.
But, I think if someone concludes their unhappiness is genetic, that could add a fixidity to their mind that I’m not confident we know is there. Perhaps if it helps someone to believe it is genetic, that is fine, but that would be more of a pragmatic than epistemological justification.
Anyways, great, compassionate article and wanted to think aloud about this, as I feel it’s a really important issue! Loved your book Rise Above.
Such great points you make. It is true that we should acknowledge our biology and give ourselves grace for what we were given. But also hold that there is agency in optimizing our biology to the best it can be to live to our individual potential. Everyone is unique and their potential is unique. The important thing to remember is that despite our biology we have the ability to impact our lives by the positive choices we make to live fully and move in a path towards well-being if we choose. We are not locked into our biology as much as we think, there is room for creating and building upon our biology with knowledge, guidance and practices we can learn that enhance what we were given.
Profound. At 94 and fortunate, I am grateful to see that my inherent melancholy is not sinful, unappreciative, over-sensitive or selfish. It is inherited. Thank you.
Hi Scott, I think we should remember that heritability estimates say nothing about individuals. They are population correlations. They don’t “explain” anything except in a statistical sense, and correlation isn’t causation. A high heritability is also no evidence of immutability (average height and iq, for example have both changed significantly over the last century). Also, heritability estimates only speak to variance within the population given a certain environment, at a certain time. Change the environment and things can change dramatically. Newer methods are also giving us significantly reduced heritability estimates too (Eric Turkheimer has written brilliantly about this.) All of this is to say that, while genetics obviously plays a huge role, we should be far less certain than we are. I find it amazing how mainstream psychology seems to frequently frame population level correlations as “explaining” (in a causal way) individual outcomes.
P.S. I do agree that biological luck is huge though. The statistics in behavioural genetics don’t speak to individuals though.
“they are working against a gradient steeper than the gradient most people work against.”
Now, take this to a Kobe Bryant workout. (You know why I chose him.) He would *want* the steeper gradient. He would know it’s *necessary* to reach the highest levels of performance.
I have a friend who is sunny *all* the time and just seems to love *everything*. They would score well on the moment-to-moment happiness beeper scores, but I would never trust their judgment on a co-worker or a restaurant. Permanent happiness is a block to that kind of clear critique.
This lays bare the great problem of the Happiness Industrial Complex — happiness isn’t the goal! Morally good accomplishment through personally meaningful lives is the goal. Some of us feel great all the time on the journey to that goal — and thus the accomplishment is *harder*. And some of us feel rotten all the time on the journey to that goal — which makes the accomplishment easier (because we just can’t settle) but the journey is harder to live through.
What do you think of this reframing of the issue? It’s meant to be a “yes, and” to the biological truths you (and I) want to bring to light.
I like this, Ed. A lot of people who aspire to greatness have realized the power of intentionally creating steeper gradients (i..e, increasing challenges relating to basketball) for growth. I agree with this AND highly doubt Kobe would ever want a steeper gradient when it comes to mental disorders like severe depression, which was the focus of my article.
Oh of course I didn't mean to imply the steepness should always go up! When people tip into severe depression, they need help. It's not remotely responsible to say to them, "aren't you lucky". But perhaps some of that depression can be treated earlier with a better set of expectations and frame of mind. There's a spectrum here isn't there.
20 years in the field of psychology studying happiness plus my own journey of coming to terms with a rare condition that causes progressive vision loss, and I've landed on: choose to accept the things you can't control and choose to make the best of them. I appreciate your take on the same thing and how the research aligns.
definitely
Liked this article a lot. I think it contributes nicely to the discourse around reducing blame for one’s condition but also presenting an invitation for personal agency.
One thing I feel aware of is people using the biological interpretation as a sort of “identity” which justifies where they are, or what they’re doing. So, someone may adopt the sense that they are “a depressed person”, and Buddhist psychology informs us that forming an identity around one’s mental state like this can be harmful.
The truth is, with any one particular person, I don’t see how we can fully claim the reason they’re not getting better is genetic. It could be that they suffered trauma, haven’t found the right therapy, or could change something in their life. It could also be genetic. I think my problem with the biological way of thinking is I’m not sure it’s fully applicable to any individual person. This is not to say at all that they deserve blame for where they are at. It’s also not to say someone should “try harder” if something like gratitude journaling didn’t work, that would be dogmatic within one modality. It’s more that regardless of if it’s biology or environnement, they don’t deserve to be blamed for not being able to get better.
But, I think if someone concludes their unhappiness is genetic, that could add a fixidity to their mind that I’m not confident we know is there. Perhaps if it helps someone to believe it is genetic, that is fine, but that would be more of a pragmatic than epistemological justification.
Anyways, great, compassionate article and wanted to think aloud about this, as I feel it’s a really important issue! Loved your book Rise Above.
This article is so important and so profound. So many implications of all these points.
The metaphor of the gradient we are each on is so illuminating.
Thank you.
If only Maslow knew about the gut microbiome's role in happiness.
Such great points you make. It is true that we should acknowledge our biology and give ourselves grace for what we were given. But also hold that there is agency in optimizing our biology to the best it can be to live to our individual potential. Everyone is unique and their potential is unique. The important thing to remember is that despite our biology we have the ability to impact our lives by the positive choices we make to live fully and move in a path towards well-being if we choose. We are not locked into our biology as much as we think, there is room for creating and building upon our biology with knowledge, guidance and practices we can learn that enhance what we were given.
That's what I was thinking, that biology is not necessarily destiny when we might have more ability to change our biology than we think.
Profound. At 94 and fortunate, I am grateful to see that my inherent melancholy is not sinful, unappreciative, over-sensitive or selfish. It is inherited. Thank you.
Hi Scott, I think we should remember that heritability estimates say nothing about individuals. They are population correlations. They don’t “explain” anything except in a statistical sense, and correlation isn’t causation. A high heritability is also no evidence of immutability (average height and iq, for example have both changed significantly over the last century). Also, heritability estimates only speak to variance within the population given a certain environment, at a certain time. Change the environment and things can change dramatically. Newer methods are also giving us significantly reduced heritability estimates too (Eric Turkheimer has written brilliantly about this.) All of this is to say that, while genetics obviously plays a huge role, we should be far less certain than we are. I find it amazing how mainstream psychology seems to frequently frame population level correlations as “explaining” (in a causal way) individual outcomes.
P.S. I do agree that biological luck is huge though. The statistics in behavioural genetics don’t speak to individuals though.
yea all those caveats def apply: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/200810/what-makes-us-who-we-are but none of these caveats negate the critical role of genes in contributing to the overall source of variance.
You said:
“they are working against a gradient steeper than the gradient most people work against.”
Now, take this to a Kobe Bryant workout. (You know why I chose him.) He would *want* the steeper gradient. He would know it’s *necessary* to reach the highest levels of performance.
I have a friend who is sunny *all* the time and just seems to love *everything*. They would score well on the moment-to-moment happiness beeper scores, but I would never trust their judgment on a co-worker or a restaurant. Permanent happiness is a block to that kind of clear critique.
This lays bare the great problem of the Happiness Industrial Complex — happiness isn’t the goal! Morally good accomplishment through personally meaningful lives is the goal. Some of us feel great all the time on the journey to that goal — and thus the accomplishment is *harder*. And some of us feel rotten all the time on the journey to that goal — which makes the accomplishment easier (because we just can’t settle) but the journey is harder to live through.
What do you think of this reframing of the issue? It’s meant to be a “yes, and” to the biological truths you (and I) want to bring to light.
I like this, Ed. A lot of people who aspire to greatness have realized the power of intentionally creating steeper gradients (i..e, increasing challenges relating to basketball) for growth. I agree with this AND highly doubt Kobe would ever want a steeper gradient when it comes to mental disorders like severe depression, which was the focus of my article.
Oh of course I didn't mean to imply the steepness should always go up! When people tip into severe depression, they need help. It's not remotely responsible to say to them, "aren't you lucky". But perhaps some of that depression can be treated earlier with a better set of expectations and frame of mind. There's a spectrum here isn't there.