Helplessness is not learned (2022)
neurofrontiers.blog
neurofrontiers.blog
Prior: People acquire helplessness through reinforced external negative stimuli (dysphoric)
Author: No, it isnt the presence of negative stimuli, but the absence of internal positive (control-promoting)
This makes all the difference for understanding how to treat the issue; as well as how to communicate it.Let me give an example from my own life this morning. For quite awhile I've been leaving things in random places where they aren't tidy (prone to breaking, etc.). This morning, for the first time in awhile, I made the extra effort to move something to a better place.
On the first model, and an intuitive one, it was the effort to pick up the items that was the negative stimuli. So the treatment is: learn to enjoy tidying, etc.
Rather, I actually experienced the opposite, and I sort of realised it at the time.
This week I began resetting all my schedules, alarms; started reorganising my day. And it's no coincidence that this tidying-act followed; as have many since i've done this. The heart of the change was actually just putting 4 alarms on my phone.
So what has happened?
I havent learnt to enjoy anything more. Rather, I've started rehabituating my self of control -- by even trivial changes, I am strengthening that sense. The items of my apartment more clearly appear as objects that I can control, rather than a chaotic environment that's beyond control.
This I think is incredibly important in how we frame advice in these cases.
If you have some "learned helplessness", don't focus on the tasks over which you're helpless. Do something quite radically different: practice taking small steps of control, which require minimal effort -- and so on.
As someone posted above, there are limits to this but I wonder if there are systems or ways that we could _stretch_ those limits, possibly by making the _hard_ things not a choice and to be in this _flow_ state without needing to actively expend energy to be in it. Something like a muscle where the more you stretch it past its ability, the stronger it gets (_within reason_). As an example, when I started running, I could hardly do 1 minute without heavy breathing and now am able to run half marathons that, while tired at the end, are completely within my wheelhouse without feeling almost dead.
When I started running, I couldn't make it three city blocks without an asthma attack and cramps. Now I do 3-5 miles of hill running per day in the country summer sun. (Tennessee)
Over the past few years I have been developing a system based on incremental flow, as you mentioned. You can absolutely use small habits, and also leverage the Flow State proper in order to train. Eventually you are able to graduate to multiple spinning plates. (to reference your other comment). As you say the greatest danger is dropping all the plates in the presence of a minor stressor since you are operating at your current capacity.
What you end up needing to train is getting back on the horse. It's similar to the notion of "Returning to Breath" in a meditation practice. I have a leveling system and an economy built in, so that I gamify the practice of picking up the pieces. I'm currently working on smoothing out the difficulty curve, comparing several game mechanics like leveling down, adaptive difficulty, and triggering special modes. The idea is to have some sort of a pressure relief valve built into your life.
Do you use any systems in your own life?
I used to be far more systematic with my life many moons ago, in my late teens and early 20s. That helped immensely and I credit a lot of my personal growth towards that.
I don't think this is the best forum to get into the weeds about it, especially since everyone is different and YMMV. The root of the systems were to 1) create a singular, specific goal that was _the most important thing to me_. More important than pride, than sleep, than food. That's not healthy and only works so far so I then added 2) retrospectives every week on how I'm doing in relation to that goal. Are the steps I'm taking actually helping me reach that goal? Is that goal actually more important than anything else? Is that goal the actual goal I'm after or was it just a flag bearer for what I think the goal might look like? Being solely focused on one thing that influences everything and iterating on that goal are the two "systems" I now use in a general sense.
As an example, I wanted to get into software but dropped out of school and worked manual labor jobs. I decided that my only goal in life was to become a software engineer so I spent all my free time, all of my energy, all of _me_ in order to reach that goal. That came at the cost of the manual labor jobs which meant I had to couch surf for a few months/a year and get food from my friends so I could literally focus my whole life around that goal. I was blessed to have that support network, privileged one might say these days. I'm not saying that's a good choice and I doubt most people have the support network of friends with couches that they'll offer you. But I do think the _severity_ of my desire for that goal was the root cause of success.
Having a singular, focused, concrete goal is the biggest takeaway from all the other "systems" I used. Happy to chat more if that's your jam!
Viscous relates to viscosity.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtuous%20circle
Rather than, "a marine who doesn't make their bed with precision is incapable of precision," think of it as "a marine who doesn't make their bed with precision is experiencing problems that could prevent them from acting with precision in more important situations."
A "no brown M&Ms" situation. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/
(Also, it's a matter of establishing a habit of discipline.)
Eg. tidiness slips in small actions, accumulating, then at some point I just clean it all up as one act and I may-or-may-not break that act into smaller bites (that probably just make sense from an order of operations/batching standpoint.)
Also, generally for things like tidiness, I keep a couple rules. Pick up daily before bed. This covers 80%. But sometimes I'll let that go or only clean halfway, then I must catchup on Sunday. But, cleaning is definitely a full mode I put myself into. If I started doing small unrelated tasks hoping it prodded me to get up and clean, I never would.
And then you'll hit the resource barrier. There's only so much and so hard any one person can control and influence with any given means.
Hmm. The negative stimuli here should be when something breaks. You'll always have to make some efforts to tidy things up, so it can't be a negative stimuli in itself because it's not one of the outcomes. Here it's a positive punishment (broken things should lead you to change the original behavior) (actually, not tidying up has its own positive reinforcement stimuli: you don't have to make efforts).
> I havent learnt to enjoy anything more. Rather, I've started rehabituating my self of control -- by even trivial changes, I am strengthening that sense. The items of my apartment more clearly appear as objects that I can control, rather than a chaotic environment that's beyond control.
Yes, there it is: positive stimuli reinforcing behavior. Which works better than positive punishment (or so I learned decades ago in psy101 ?).
So yea, the big fanfare about "debunking" and how the science progresses are out of place. This is a one paragraph news without citation.
Wait, what?!
This post is summarizing and then (past the sponsor blurb) literally citing the paper on this. Not just any paper, but one by the same authors who first created the theory of "learned helplessness" - and one in which they conclude they initially got the mechanism backwards. See:
Agency about things we percieve we can control. There are vastly many more things which are out of our control, or require gargantuan effort to change, or would be extremely risky.
Why do you think that? By default, we know nothing and are lazy.
The point? That we need to learn and acquire virtue to attain self-mastery which is true freedom. (Note the "self". It is not about controlling or dominating others.) There is no one so helpless as someone who is a slave to his passions.
Once I learned my mental issues had a name and could be coped with, it shook me out of that “helplessness”.
Knowing what you have power over lets you focus on the things you can control.
I see an interesting parallel with mindfulness here.
Actual helplessness has an element of fear or lack of control. The person thinks they aren’t able to do something. Essentially, they’ve given up because they don’t feel any of their actions have control over the outcome.
What you're describing is usually referred to as "weaponized incompetence."
I read the book by Seligman and highly recommend it also to people outside the field.
On the other hand it seems like the author needs to justify that science can be wrong and needs refinements.
It’s very tedious. I remember during my PhD that I had to put these disclaimers on top too. I would expect that this is implicitly clear especially in an academic context.
People and animals clearly learn to stop doing actions that have harmful consequences.
But that's not at all what learned helplessness is. On the contrary, learned helplessness is defined by the absence of proactive action that could remove a painful stimulus.
Honestly doesn't seem like a very meaningful distinction to me.
I think it's helpful because that means that everyone has to learn control. As opposed to just a few people who would need to learn it to fight their helplessness. So, maybe something that should be taught at school?
That is learned helplessness.
The article says that there is no such thing as "learned helplessness". To match what the article says, I can turn your example into: when you don't know how to read, reading means nothing. One has to learn to read in order to make sense of the words.
You do not learn to ignore words by reading without knowing how to ("learned helplessness"), you learn to read words.
The new paper seems to just re-word it as 'learned loss of control'. I don't see the huge difference. Just because the default state on most things is helplessness doesn't mean you cannot learn to fall back into helplessness again. But if the new wording helps with constructing treatment plans for mental health issues, sounds fine enough to me.
Teaching someone to have control, as opposed to “unlearning” their helplessness (which presumably if default, can’t be done).
If you think it isn't then you're not observing the right timescale.
This makes every difference in how to treat people who have this problem. All you have to do is teach people how to feel they have control again.
"And it’s only in situations where we think that investment of resources is worthwhile that part of our prefrontal cortex tells the dorsal raphe nucleus to chill and let us do something about it. In this context, it’s not helplessness that is learned, but control."
The worthwhileness can be both positively and negatively reinforced externally.
I have seen this numerous times when working in various teams. Not sure it is what applies here.
Please follow us on YouTube, LinkedIn, Instagram
TikTok
Omegl
FaceBook, Whatsapp, all under the same nick: avgcorrectionlifest4yle2032
Applied Behavioral Analysis uses operant conditioning theory and techniques used to coerce behavior and compliance in autistic children. It turns out though, that this “therapy” results in Learned Helplessness and PTSD/cPTSD in 46% of autistic people who later seek further therapy for trauma resulting from the practice.
Autistic people see ABA as torture and abuse. Help me end it.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1__cTL6OryHG5Hr6vwl_s...
There is no reason why both negative and positive stimuli couldn't contribute to such learning. If you reward children every time they ask for help, or punish them every time they try something themselves, or both, there is a big chance they learn helplessness to some degree.
So we could clear up the confusion about what "learned helplessness" means by instead calling it, "hopelessness", or "despair"?
Interestingly enough, the definitions of hopelessness and despair are circular references to each other:
hopelessness | ˈhōpləsnəs |
noun
a feeling or state of despair; lack of hope
despair | dəˈsper |
noun
the complete loss or absence of hope
Huh, weird