You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How to Cope with Stress (Part 2)
Lessley and Michael have different coping mechanisms used. One is successful and the other is not mainly because Lesley has better-coping behavior. As what I've observed, Michael was not able to adapt to the stress coping mechanism mainly because he avoided it. On the other hand, Lessley was open and accepted the situation and perhaps listened to other peoples advice. For me, it's really important to connect to positive people that will encourage you.
True, they are different.
That however is somewhat circular. In the culture we live in one is successful and the other is not. In another culture that stones people to death who would take another partner, and rewards people who pine away forever, Michael would gain the upper hand.
Both coping mechanisms evolved, presumably, and therefore they presumably gave some benefit in the past, in some kind of circumstance. Judging them requires much more, I think, than simply observing which one happens to be more successful right now.
You mean that stones women to death :)
Yes, I agree that different cultures acquire different behavior. But in this particular case, we discuss how an individual copes with a certain stressful event. Statistically, the so-called maladaptive coping strategies (like alcohol abuse or social withdrawal) correlate with lower scores in tests on subjective well-being. They also correlate with physical and mental health issues.
Of course, this is only statistics. From an individual perspective, there must be some cases in which alcohol abuse leads to a higher score in personal well-being questionnaires.
Statistically, some behaviors lead to a better result in a stressful situation. This is what the article is about.
You know, this reminds me of a discussion I had with a work colleague who happens to be a philosopher. We argued about deviant behavior amongst teenagers. As you probably guess, he stated that we cannot say which behavior is deviant. On the other hand, I argued that there are particular behaviors that are obviously deviant like taking drugs. What do you think about this issue? :)
Well it's not uncustomary for men to take up arms and kill a man who disgraced their sister or whatever, it still happens in India and it happened up to recently on my island and in Crete etc. ... and so I went for the gender-neutral people even tho stoning is not the usual treatment in that case :)
There's definitely cases in which it leads to artistic genius! :D
The issue overall is rather complicated. Us philosophers tend to seek Truth (even the ones who don't believe in it), whereas psychologists seem to be searching for something like being functional in the current social milieu. In that sense, someone like the Buddha who was preoccupied with death would be deemed sick and unable to let go, and someone who spends real money to buy extra lives on candy crash would be deemed absolutely healthy and in no need of hospitalization just cos he scores healthy on a questionnaire :D
Philosophers even have this central saying in their tradition, 'better an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig'. This says a lot, I think, about where they (we) stand on issues of mental sickness. To them, it's not so much about how much a person is suffering, but about whether he is right.
If a person goes to a practicing psychologist and says "I'm a gay who lives in a very conservative community, and I suffer because of it", what will the psychologist say? You can replace 'gay' with 'atheist' or whatever is outside the norm. Currently a psychologist has, I think, the right tools to approach the issue because the culture has come a long way. But previously they might do otherwise, like they did with Alan Turing.
If a client says to his psychologist, "my partner cheated on me and I want to cut off his nuts", what does the psychologist say? Does he say "right on! we evolved to cut the nuts of people who cheat on us! don't let those cheating genes spread!" Will he explain the whole historical and biological background that makes us sexually vindictive and conservative, like Jordan Peterson would? Or will he be postconstructivist and say it's all cultural and the mind is pliable and we need to change (in a Clockwork Orange-reminiscent way) how you perceive certain events and how you react to them etc etc? Will he search for a faulty neural circuitry? Will be tell him to channel his feelings into art which will undoubtedly be 'ugly' like Francis Bacon's? Will he just enumerate the pros and cons of what might happen if he attempts to cut off the nuts, at which point the client will just decide to act clever and cut the nuts in ways that won't get him caught? :D
It's overall a complicated and interesting issue, cos it taps into so many other questions that are difficult to answer, like ethics for one, and whether it exists objectively.
Yes, indeed. You philosophers kind of think about the world, whilst psychologist (or at least some branches of psychology) try to find ways to live in the world :)
Oh, I love this saying! Everything comes with a price, doesn't it? :)
Yes, it is. However, you made some great points here. Thanks for spending time commenting and provoking me by bringing these questions!
I see your "live in the world", and I raise you Heidegger's Being in the world :P
Thanks! I will find it and watch it. :)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts @alexander.alexis!
Hello, @acryptolover!
I completely agree with you. Other people could be an amazing resource of strengths in difficult situations.
Facing a problem instead of avoiding it gives you a better chance of getting your life back.
Thank you very much for commenting! I hope the article was helpful!
All the best!
@insight-out
It was such a helpful article @insight-out! Thanks really for sharing!