It's okay if you talk to yourself...

I have recently just come out of a fairly deep stint of depression, and so I have only just now gotten enough energy to write anything at all. One of the things I wanted to write was a complete "re-do" of the first couple of entries on this blog. But having just looked over it, I think my best course of action would be to look at the questions I asked, and then answer them to the best to my ability.

This format is not quite what I wanted for this blog, but I think it's important to try to answer one's own questions instead of just waiting for someone else to answer them.

...it's just when you start to answer yourself that it's time to worry...

If that phrase is correct, then I guess it's time to worry! It's not, but I thought it was an appropriate aphorism to mention...anyway, I'm going to start with the first article.

"Can the same things that bring someone from -8 to 0, also bring someone from 0 to +8? (and/or vise versa?)"

This question is kind of cute, in retrospect. If you read my last article, then you know that due to a sort of unregulated immersion into positive psychology, I kind of either triggered or worsened a depressive episode. Like I said there, however, I truly believe that (if done correctly) one can be treated for depression with positive psychology, but a technique involving it would have to be carefully constructed in order to not come off inappropriately. When I say "inappropriately," I mean a few things:

              Condescending. Positive psychology can come off VERY condescending--it is very similar to the whole, "you're not really depressed, you're just in a bad mood" that is so common to hear these days. It's the "just get over it" of advice. It isn't actually that, it just sounds that way when you are depressed. Especially if you have been told the other kinds of advice--it makes it much harder to accept anything positive, really.
              Cheesy/Corny. Quick, tell me what you think about this phrase: "laughter is the best medicine" or: "turn that frown upside down." If you are cynical (like me), then you probably rolled your eyes. If you are almost hatefully cynical (like I can be), then you probably equated it with the above. It's slightly different than being condescending, but not by much.
               Impossible. This is more along the lines of what I said in my last post about how I felt trying to apply positive psychology to my own life: How am I supposed to identify and improve on my signature strengths, when I'm just trying to convince myself that I should continue to live?

So to answer my own question, with a careful application of principles and an emphasis on patience and kindness (much with any other "learning" types of therapy), positive psychology could absolutely bring someone from a -8 to 0. This is a topic I'm going to have to really think about though, before I post too much more on it.

"Just how stable is mental health?"

This is actually a bigger question than I had realized back then! Measuring the stability of mental health requires the definition of mental health overall. The newest discussion on this I've seen (yes, still my positive psych class), has been pushing the idea that mental health is not just the absence of illness (physical health as well, by the way), but the presence of "flourishing." This is one of those things that makes a depressed person recoil a bit--ugh, what a corny word: flourishing. This is actually a great way to look at things, just so long as you allow for the state of "stability" to be in there. Flourishing, I feel, would be almost impossible to do 100% of the time, specifically when tragedy strikes.

Notice how I said "almost impossible?" It is my understanding (for now) that the true measure of mental health is not your current state, but your current ability to cope with negative events, and how that coping affects your current state. So while a tragedy may make you grieve, your ability to cope with that grief is a better measure of your mental health than the fact that you are grieving. For example:

If "Bill" suddenly had a death in the family, he would start the grieving process. Knowing that grieving is perfectly natural, he makes sure to take care of himself during this difficult time. He also keeps an eye on the rest of his family, makes sure they also know that whatever they feel is okay, and spends time with supportive persons in order to properly heal. He might laugh at this time, he might cry, he might even be angry, but whatever he does, he keeps tabs on his physical health and remembers to do the things that he has always done to make himself happy, even if he does not feel happy at the time. "Bill" is flourishing, despite the pain he feels at the loss of a loved one. He would be a great example of a +8. Now, if everyone around him starts dying off one by one, he loses his house, his job, his wife, his dog, and even his physical health--all in the span of a few months...he may just need to get some help. His number may slip a little if none of his coping techniques help, and it may slip a lot if he abandons them altogether.

Now if Bill simply couldn't cope at all with the original loss, he's not necessarily at a -8, but he sure isn't a +8. And this is okay, too. It takes a lot of work and maturity to be a +8, and most of us will never achieve this in our lifetimes.

This is fairly similar to (my limited understanding of) physical health. Right now, each of our immune systems are dealing with foreign invaders--germs--and for the most part, are killing any threats. Every once in a while, one gets through our defenses and we get colds or the flu, but if we are always taking good care of our bodies, this happens far less often than someone who does not. So practicing positive psychology as at least a 0 is a lot like remembering to eat your veggies and exercise when you are in moderately good health. Then the better you are at doing either one, the healthier and more resistant to natural detriments you become.

Finally,
"How would you operationalize this scenario?"

This question was referencing the article talking about studying a family laughing together. It is also still a question to me. I suppose any sort of research done like this would have to be more qualitative as opposed to quantitative, but either way, one would have to just be more specific than saying "studies on a family laughing together." What are you studying really? Why they laugh? How laughing helps the parents to discipline their children? How laughing strengthens familial bonds (by looking at confidence levels the children hold for their parents or something similar)? The list goes on. And I suppose any of these are relevant...so I guess it's not a question to me anymore. Hm.

Anyway, thanks for staying patient while I answered my own questions. Next time, I'll probably write an unrelated article before moving on to the second terribly written set of questions, in order to give you something of substance to read as a break.

~Deuces!