So what is wrong with me?

The short answer is that 16 years ago I was diagnosed as manic depressive (now Bipolar 1). If you’re satisfied with that as an explanation then either you are an official (who needs a label and no more) or a fool. Of course I had been diagnosed several times before that. In the seven years after my first meeting with a psychiatrist in 1987; it was first a reactive depression, then a psychotic episode, then severe depression, a short gap of normality, then schizoid affective disorder, and more depression before it settled upon Bipolar.

My perception of my problems, or acceptance of such labels, changed over the years too. Before entering the mental health system I was quite clear psychiatry was the ‘dismal science’, but within days of my first admission I’d lost track of what I felt my problems were. I’d entered a new world of psychological interpretations, but had also begun to be influenced by the clients around me. The end result was that over a period of a decade I became completely converted to defining who, and what I was, by the use of psychiatric labels. I came to the belief that ‘bipolar’ explained myself, to myself. And for a few years more, no doubt with much confirmation bias, I remained thoroughly dis-abled!

It wasn’t until six or seven years ago, when I radically changed my ‘world view’, that I had to then set about revising my view of myself. I began to view the world, from minute to minute, as well as over millions of years, from the point of view of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, and that let me step-out of ‘the preoccupation with self’ that seems to paralyse so many people in mental distress. Viewing all human activity in evolutionary terms, including all social and cultural activity, allows you to see ‘before your very eyes‘ the unfolding of human psychological behaviour on a daily basis - how the interaction between people (including mental health workers, clients and carers) usually reproduces, and only very occasionally transforms, relationships. All of which has led to what verges on contempt for the world of mental health, as evidenced by many of the previous posts on this blog.

Of course an expression of contempt is hugely powerful, if you see it in the face of a partner, then the relationship may as well to over. I haven’t been a client of mental health services for three years, I’ve ceased almost all ‘involvement in Involvement’ or participation, refused for six months now to meet with anyone in an official mental health building and severed links with mental health academics.

I’m now left with two kinds of explanation of myself, between which I flip from time to time. The less common one might be titled; ‘How the hell should I know what’s wrong with me?’ For the sorry facts are that I’ve spent my life not getting the jobs I wanted and being largely unemployed, and unemployable - unable to live to a set routine, accept authority or responsibility for others. A life of not sleeping with the women I really wanted to, but having a succession of short-term relationships with whoever would have me, plus long periods of living alone. And despite all the studying I’ve done, I still don‘t know why I’m largely ignored by the rest of the world. For example, not so long ago I wrote;

‘Just had one of those horrific moments of despair (thankfully they never last long) when I realise that by being honest and true to myself I’ve lived a life of broken relationships, unemployment, mental illness and academic rejection. As a result what blissful moments there have been have largely been experienced alone. And yet any outsider looking-on would conclude that although the day began and ended alone, it was full of good company and worthwhile activity. The more ‘well’ and socially skilled I become, the more angry and isolated I feel.’

So one kind of explanation is that insight has brought me nothing, but that should not be unexpected with someone so unable to understand others. In this sense the question: ‘So what is wrong with me?’ is for others to answer.

The second explanation is the academic one, the alternative to psychiatry, the more neuro-scientifically flavoured one:

a) There is natural variation in the limbic system (which regulates emotion) between the brains of individuals living in any particular environment; my inheritance is that I’m more highly sensitive to my environment than most others. Such sensitivity is occasionally useful, but when the majority in my environment are less sensitive, my emotional reactions look to others like rapid and consistent overreactions. Equally, I’m likely to quickly become over-stimulated and feel the need to socially withdraw. Such reactions occur over the whole range of emotions, which the crude psychiatric category of ‘mood’ hardly begins to encompass.

b) So when it comes to nurture (social learning) individuals bring their particular genetic inheritance to learning in particular environments. But whatever the background and context, the outcome is that we learn (using the inherited capacity to imitate) varying degrees of empathy (the ability to feel what others feel) and a ‘theory of mind’ (knowing how others think). Bringing the consequences of a) to my own particular environment, my ability for empathy and to a lesser extent to share a theory of mind were blocked. I even have problems recognising the universal facial expressions of emotion. So when psychiatry focuses on something called ‘depression’ they are attempting to treat the consequences (rejection or ejection from normal purposeful social interaction) rather than the cause.

c) Finally there is a third process which even neuroscience, let alone psychiatry, hardly recognises and about which I’m only aware of the consequences - and that is handedness. I am very left-handed, instinctively a southpaw, but I also want to move anti-clockwise, often transpose figures and letters - all in a world designed by right-handed people. But of course I’ve known no other world and I am well adapted. Nevertheless I have the horrible suspicion that these instinctive ‘reversals’ happen all the time when I try to relate emotionally to others - and if they do, what must others feel about me?

However one of the implications of the above, and much of the content of this blog, is that a search or journey for conscious explanation is merely a ‘story we tell ourselves’, after the fact and of no causal consequences, and so must be of no importance when attempting to transform one’s own, or anyone else’s behaviour - our routines, rituals, habits and addictions. One should of course be asking what does Nick Hewling do, and ‘how’ does he do it?

I like to think of myself as a mental health peer supporter. I have much greater confidence in my understanding of people when they’re crazy than when they’re together! I almost always know how to react in a useful way. I’ve done my 10,000 hours and some of that learning has become instinctual. On the one hand I’ve always despised those workers who don’t live in the area in which they work and therefore don’t know a client’s territory, who believe their work can be professionalised by impersonal rules of best practice and imagine therefore they can use some different psychology than in their ‘personal’ lives. But equally I’ve come to mistrust the kind of peer support that has been turned into work, formalised and made ‘intentional’ - which rapidly comes to resemble the kind of talking therapy it was intended to replace. I’m accountable only to myself, my rules of effective and ethical conduct have evolved over two decades. I can operate when I like, where I like. To my mind you cannot be an effective helper unless you can do it standing up in the street, or in a bus queue with an audience of ordinary people. What the person in mental distress needs, is support to feel at home in normal social spaces. And I don’t mind occasionally looking crazy to outsiders in order to build a rapport with someone who is being activity avoided by others. Confidences can be offered and received when necessary in the normal way, in close proximity with appropriately lowered voices. Of course such informal peer support is increasingly facilitated by web-based social networks.

What workers think they achieve in one hour in an isolated consulting room I cannot imagine, I’m often with clients before and after such an appointment and actively undoing their work. Having lived in my local area a long time I’m now quite conspicuous, but have come to know the routine of so many clients that I can have as many ‘chance’ encounters as I like. My activity is also purposeful in another sense, I do ‘set the stage’ a lot, contriving the time, location and activity - so as to create an atmosphere conducive to new learning. Motivation can only come from others, and in pursuing people one purses knowledge and skill, I practice social skills like I practice rolling and smoking a cigarette. I know what others want from me; warmth, confidence and competence, humour, to feel what strength I have so they can feel safe and good about themselves. They want my ability to be serious without making heavy talk. I do it by turning my fear and judgement into curiosity, confidence and competence, doubt into accurate assessment, the desire to control into the ability to live with change and uncertainty. I model, verbally and more importantly non-verbally, more effective ways of being with.

Eye movements and mental distress

Don’t you just love it when someone’s eye movements tell you what’s going on in the rest of the room and what they feel and think about it?

An outrageous claim? Yes, but only if you claim too much.

We take cues from everywhere, so quickly and usually unconsciously that the world around us seems seamless and our thoughts and feelings seem to come from within ourselves. But of course our mental map is not the territory itself, and whilst we can consciously cope with 40 pieces of information per second, our unconscious can handle 11 million. Our motivation to act and most of our learning comes from others. Facial expressions and tone of voice give us the vast majority of our information about others emotions. Language, spoken and accompanied by hand and other gestures, or written down, gives us all the cognitive stuff. Posture, our distance from others, and the degree of touch - tell us our relationship to another in any one moment. But all this information has to be structured in some way in order for us to navigate in the world, and there the eyes have it.

The eyes constantly make small scanning movements, the brain seamlessly puts the composite picture together so we have the complete illusion rather than the more prosaic view seen down a pair of binoculars. But those kind of eye movements can for most practical purposes be ignored, what concerns us here are two types of eye movements which we make in response to the actions of others - both involuntary and initially unconscious but which we habitually tell ourselves, after the fact, were a deliberate choice that ‘I’ made.

Trust your unconscious, it knows more and better than ‘you’ do. Whatever you are thinking and feeling in any given moment is being cued by something in the environment around you. (Remember, sensory deprivation is the fastest way to create madness!)

So, first your eyes will notice (recognise) something in the environment of others and track it before you are conscious of it. You feel a sudden emotion and may even have time to wonder why, before realising who has walked into the room ‘unnoticed’ by you a few seconds earlier. You may think about something from the past, little realising you are watching it happening to others in the present moment. (Afterwards many people will consciously attribute magical or other-worldly explanations to these real, commonplace, and mundane activities of the unconscious parts of the brain).

When observing others eye movements we can see what they notice, consciously and unconsciously, but those movements are overlaid with a second set which indicate their response to what they have noticed.

And it’s at this point that I must be especially careful about what I write, since people have got into all sorts of trouble by overstating the meaning of such phenomena which have been observed over many thousands of years. The problem is that many have wanted to explain the ‘what’ and ‘why’, rather than stick to questions of ‘how’. For the meaning of these second kind of eye movements, often called ‘eye accessing cues’ are almost entirely context specific, dependant on the how well you actually know the person you’re looking at, and of course how well you know yourself - since you are, by virtue of your very presence, cueing them!

The claim is that once you’ve controlled for eye movements in response to activity in the environment, then other movements will indicate how an individual is responding cognitively and emotional to the action around them - how they are thinking and feeling about you!

Now, what follows is my version, and compared with many others, a mild and tentative version, but it’s what my experience tells me is reasonable to claim. First is the observation that there is a marked tendency for people’s eyes to move in one direction (left or right) when trying to access memories, and in the opposite when constructing a thought - imagining some future action. The second observation has been that eye movements tend to stay either level or rise in an upward direction when thinking (particularly visualising), whilst tending to drop below the horizontal when feeling emotions (as bodily sensations, but also as felt in the sounds of the human voice).

When you combine the two elements you get a tendency to visualise thoughts about the future looking up in one direction and about the past in the other. A tendency to imagine future feelings through constructed internal dialogue when looking down in one direction, and remember emotions through the sounds of others speech when looking down in the opposite direction - both with, or without bodily sensations.

If you are in a normal state, that is not mentally distressed, these processes may be so seamless, unconscious, complete and taken-for-granted that you would wish to question their existence. But then you probably exist very efficiently in the world and are genuinely bewildered by the apparent psychological troubles of others. However if you have experienced periods of intense stress and consequent distress, or been witness to them over an extended period of time, and perhaps empathised with those around you a little too much, then you may have noticed the gap, or window that can open-up. Brief moments in which the very construction of social interaction can be seen and felt. The ‘digitised’ bites of which they are made up. A bit like those classic illusions used when being taught about visual perception, or when tiredness late at night causes you to loose the ability to synchronise the pictures and sounds coming from your TV.

But that’s as far as I go, others have and do claim a lot more - as a simple search of the web will reveal. Needless to say that with a lot of testing and matching with both the content of speech and the universal emotions all sorts of possibilities open-up.

Oh! I almost forget - if you are genuinely left-handed (one of the 10 to 13%) then all the above may be reversed, and happen in the opposite direction to the majority! Incidentally, did you know that it you have a diagnosis of Bipolar you are 3 times more likely to be left-handed than the general population…

Bipolar - bi-lateral? (Kipling said it...

Although I rejected psychiatric diagnostic labels some years ago, I did once unearth a study claiming a statistical association that may just point the way to something. (Alas I didn’t record the reference at the time, or I’d give it to you now). The claim was that if you have received a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, you are three times more likely to be left-handed than the general population! There’s a poem of Kipling’s which has been a favourite of mine for thirty years.

The Two-Sided Man

Much I owe to the hands that grew -
More to the Lives that fed -
But most to Allah Who gave me two
Separate sides to my head

Much I reflect on the Good and the True
In the Faiths beneath the sun,
But most upon Allah Who gave me two
Sides to my head, not one.

Wesley’s following, Calvin’s flock,
White or yellow or bronze,
Shaman, Ju-ju or Angekok,
Minister, Mukamuk, Bonze -

Here is a health, my brothers, to you,
However your prayers are said,
And praised be Allah Who gave me two
Separate sides to my head!

I would go without shirt or shoe,
Friend, tobacco or bread,
Sooner than lose for a minute the two
Separate sides of my head!

Kipling, R (1993) Selected Poems (Penguin: London)

For all things asymmetrical go to http://www.righthandlefthand.com/ and McManus, C (2003) Right Hand, Left Hand: The of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures Phoenix: London