I confess that this mode of decision-making is also somewhat alien to me—perhaps I fear engaging in ‘negotiations’ of some sort with myself because I feel that it should all agree on something—doubts should be dealt with, one way or the other, and separating myself into sub-agents too readily may increase my chances of missing that tiny note of discord.
I am not bipolar, but I think that the same method may cause you to make unnecessarily irrational compromises. I would create an agenda when in ‘neutral’ mode to accomplish, and then maximize the positive effects and minimize the negative effects that each mood has on the realization of that agenda. Example: I predict that Hypomaniac has a lot of energy which can be usefully harnessed to, say, write that 12 page paper. Depressed doesn’t feel like doing anything, so if you can’t improve on that in any way, then the best you can do is prevent Depressed from interfering with the productivity of Neutral and Hypomaniac. Compromising with Depressed gives him more power than is necessary.
Of course, Neutral and Hypomaniac can always be insincere to depressed—say that they’re going to do dangerous things, and then refrain from such. (This last bit is a joke more than anything. :D)
I’ve spent so much of my adult life depressed that it has unfortunately formed too much of my self image. Separating it out into it’s own identity, and then calling it dysfunctional and undesirable is helpful in overcoming some of that.
I said that I’m not really interested in continuing to live; I might get over this feeling if I manage to keep my depression in check for several more years. Right now, knowing that I will (statistically) soon feel like killing myself is that tiny note of discord, and makes me doubt any desire I have to affirm life.
I would create an agenda when in ‘neutral’ mode to accomplish, and then maximize the positive effects and minimize the negative effects that each mood has on the realization of that agenda
The primary way I achieve this agenda is to prevent either of the other agents from taking control. The fallback mechanism is the compromise I mentioned. How can Neutral modify their behavior if they won’t cooperate? If they do cooperate, isn’t that necessarily an agreement?
Of course, Neutral and Hypomaniac can always be insincere to depressed
Though this is a joke, we at Less Wrong often talk about agents with access to each other’s source code. This is sort of a restricted example of that. If one of my agents defects, and says “my finger slipped”, the other agents know immediately whether the defection was indeed accidental. Rarely is this possible at all, much less so convenient!
How can Neutral modify their behavior if they won’t cooperate?
Do they exist as distinct entities or are they ideas? Neutral can unimagine them. Or, rather, you can unimagine all of them. Dictate them out of your head.
Are you actually three agents? Have you tried being four agents or two? Does that make sense as a question to ask?
Have you tried any other treatment for depression as depression, not as bipolar disorder—e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy?
you can unimagine all of them. Dictate them out of your head.
I am not actually three agents, any more than you are actually one (or six, or whatever). However, modeling my behavior is much simpler from a three-agent perspective than a two- or a nine- agent perspective, so it’s a useful tool. I can stop using that model, but that won’t make my aberrant behavior disappear.
Edit to clarify: I was behaving this way, (but much worse) years before it occurred to me that thinking of myself this way might help me understand and remedy my behavior. Your post seems to imply that I could fix the problem by unimagining these agents. If that’s what you mean, I’m a bit insulted, but you might mean something else.
Have you tried any other treatment for depression as depression, not as bipolar disorder
I was originally treated for depression, not bipolar, because my hypomanic states aren’t manic, and weren’t originally noticed as contraindications for certain standard treatments. This is very common for type II bipolar.
Regardless, non-pharmacological treatments for depression have helped me, and continue to help me more than the subject of my post—they’re just less relevant to the Less Wrong community. Cognitive behavioral therapy has helped a little, but my most successful treatments have been habitual and environmental changes. Notably, regular early morning sun exposure, omega-3 fatty acid supplements, more sex and more frequent exercise.
Mood stabilizers also work, but at the cost of my mind, so I don’t take them any more. I’m lucky that my disease is mild enough that it can be controlled with the methods above. There are plenty of people who simply have no choice other than their mind or their life.
Your post seems to imply that I could fix the problem by unimagining these agents. If that’s what you mean, I’m a bit insulted
Not “could” in the sense that it’s an ability you have but choose not to use, nor in the sense that you could “if you were a better person”, nor in the sense that your illness is imaginary.
Only ‘could’ in the narrow literal sense that it answers the question “how could neutral modify their behaviour without their cooperation?”—if you aren’t really three entities and “you” are the greater whole then you ‘could’ ignore their lack of cooperation and alter their behaviour by fiat. (Whether you actually could in real life, or if it would be helpful to do so, is another matter).
I confess that this mode of decision-making is also somewhat alien to me—perhaps I fear engaging in ‘negotiations’ of some sort with myself because I feel that it should all agree on something—doubts should be dealt with, one way or the other, and separating myself into sub-agents too readily may increase my chances of missing that tiny note of discord.
I am not bipolar, but I think that the same method may cause you to make unnecessarily irrational compromises. I would create an agenda when in ‘neutral’ mode to accomplish, and then maximize the positive effects and minimize the negative effects that each mood has on the realization of that agenda. Example: I predict that Hypomaniac has a lot of energy which can be usefully harnessed to, say, write that 12 page paper. Depressed doesn’t feel like doing anything, so if you can’t improve on that in any way, then the best you can do is prevent Depressed from interfering with the productivity of Neutral and Hypomaniac. Compromising with Depressed gives him more power than is necessary.
Of course, Neutral and Hypomaniac can always be insincere to depressed—say that they’re going to do dangerous things, and then refrain from such. (This last bit is a joke more than anything. :D)
I’ve spent so much of my adult life depressed that it has unfortunately formed too much of my self image. Separating it out into it’s own identity, and then calling it dysfunctional and undesirable is helpful in overcoming some of that.
I said that I’m not really interested in continuing to live; I might get over this feeling if I manage to keep my depression in check for several more years. Right now, knowing that I will (statistically) soon feel like killing myself is that tiny note of discord, and makes me doubt any desire I have to affirm life.
The primary way I achieve this agenda is to prevent either of the other agents from taking control. The fallback mechanism is the compromise I mentioned. How can Neutral modify their behavior if they won’t cooperate? If they do cooperate, isn’t that necessarily an agreement?
Though this is a joke, we at Less Wrong often talk about agents with access to each other’s source code. This is sort of a restricted example of that. If one of my agents defects, and says “my finger slipped”, the other agents know immediately whether the defection was indeed accidental. Rarely is this possible at all, much less so convenient!
Do they exist as distinct entities or are they ideas? Neutral can unimagine them. Or, rather, you can unimagine all of them. Dictate them out of your head.
Are you actually three agents? Have you tried being four agents or two? Does that make sense as a question to ask?
Have you tried any other treatment for depression as depression, not as bipolar disorder—e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy?
I am not actually three agents, any more than you are actually one (or six, or whatever). However, modeling my behavior is much simpler from a three-agent perspective than a two- or a nine- agent perspective, so it’s a useful tool. I can stop using that model, but that won’t make my aberrant behavior disappear.
Edit to clarify: I was behaving this way, (but much worse) years before it occurred to me that thinking of myself this way might help me understand and remedy my behavior. Your post seems to imply that I could fix the problem by unimagining these agents. If that’s what you mean, I’m a bit insulted, but you might mean something else.
I was originally treated for depression, not bipolar, because my hypomanic states aren’t manic, and weren’t originally noticed as contraindications for certain standard treatments. This is very common for type II bipolar.
Regardless, non-pharmacological treatments for depression have helped me, and continue to help me more than the subject of my post—they’re just less relevant to the Less Wrong community. Cognitive behavioral therapy has helped a little, but my most successful treatments have been habitual and environmental changes. Notably, regular early morning sun exposure, omega-3 fatty acid supplements, more sex and more frequent exercise.
Mood stabilizers also work, but at the cost of my mind, so I don’t take them any more. I’m lucky that my disease is mild enough that it can be controlled with the methods above. There are plenty of people who simply have no choice other than their mind or their life.
Not “could” in the sense that it’s an ability you have but choose not to use, nor in the sense that you could “if you were a better person”, nor in the sense that your illness is imaginary.
Only ‘could’ in the narrow literal sense that it answers the question “how could neutral modify their behaviour without their cooperation?”—if you aren’t really three entities and “you” are the greater whole then you ‘could’ ignore their lack of cooperation and alter their behaviour by fiat. (Whether you actually could in real life, or if it would be helpful to do so, is another matter).
Interesting. Thank you.