From: sykopath@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mickey)
Subject: Re: Any suggestions for when you feel depressed for no reason?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 07:44:06 GMT

Before anything else, I'd like to thank Gary Brainin and Barbara Davis
for their support.  It's very painful to be flamed for trying to help
someone, and very comforting to know both that some people care enough
to defend me in such a case, and are willing to read my post carefully
enough to understand what I actually said, and thus avoid the need to
flame me.  

Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that the following is not a flame.
While I did feel hurt and unfairly treated when reading Gary Murphy's 
response to my post, I have absolutely no interest in propagating
these bad feelings any further.  This post is intended to serve
as an explanation of the things that Gary Murphy found unclear
in my post, and also as both a defense against, and a correction to,
his insults and anger towards me.

[for the rest of this post, "Gary" not otherwise specified refers to 
Gary Murphy, not Gary Brainin.  I hope you will see the necessity
of this, Gary Brainin, and not mind too much...*hopeful look*...]


Gary, I don't know why you felt it necessary to post these accusations
and angry words directed at me, but I sincerely hope that you can put
aside your feelings long enough to read carefully my reply here, and
perhaps find that they were improperly directed in the first place...

In article <MURPHYG.92Oct14091509@murphyg.Software.Mitel.COM> murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.061645.20535@leland.Stanford.EDU> sykopath@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mickey) writes:
>
>   One comment on this...
>   1) there are still things which happened *SEVEN YEARS* ago, which will
>   make me cringe internally and blush with shame just to remember them.
>   ...
>   And...I haven't been really able to pray for a group in public since then,
>   because it reminds me of that experience.
>
>   2) there is hope!  In fact, for me at least, there is a cure.
>   Tell someone.
>   Like I just did there.
>
>   It works *much* better in person than on the net...
>   ...but then, it's much harder to do in person, too.
>
>So what you are telling us, Mickey, is having done that you can now
>magically give a public prayer without the least taint of embarassement?

No.  Not "magically", and not "without the least taint of embarassment."

I could give public prayers before, when the situation demanded it...
...it simply made me very uncomfortable, and I found the feelings of
embarrassment associated with doing it (or even thinking about it) to be
highly aversive.  
This is not a magic wand to be waved over the psyche, offering an instantaneous
and complete cure.  It does, however, lower my anxiety and embarrassment to
a bearable level; in fact, below the level even of unpleasantness.

But yes, I am telling you that the simple act of telling someone about my 
embarrassment (even over the net) was enough to make me significantly more
comfortable with the memory.

>That the simple act now completely and permanently removes all the
>cringing and shame?  I think not.  

What you think is almost entirely irrelevant, Gary, except to yourself.
It is completely irrelevant to whether or not this is actually the case.

Removing your straw-man superlatives: This simple act significantly and
permanently removes much of the cringing and shame associated with an
old and unpleasant memory.

(Gary, you do yourself no great service by setting up foolish arguments
and then knocking them down...I did not say that it "completely" removes
"all" of the shame, and so by "disproving" that you prove nothing about
what I did say.  (also, you didn't disprove it...you merely disputed it
without any justification given: rarely an effective debating technique)).

>You say yourself you haven't done it since, yet you give us what you did
>to cure it!  

I said that I had not been free from feelings of embarrassment since, Gary.
I did not mean to imply that I had not done it since (in fact, I have done 
it since, in a variety of situations; but always with great discomfort).

And I did not give you what I did to cure it...I had never (before that
posting) implemented the "cure" on that particular memory.

If you reread my posting carefully, you will see that I specify quite
clearly "Nor have I told anyone about this since then."

I did not give you what I did to cure it: I gave you what I *was doing*
to cure it, at the moment of posting.

>Which is it? 

Neither.  Both of the choices are based on a misreading of my post.
Please, at least take the time to read the things I post carefully,
if you're going to flame me for them?  Your anger is so intense, and
so personally directed, that it's virtually painful to read your
letter...I'd rather not receive another such flame from you unless and
until I do something deserving of it.

In fact, later in my posts I mention that for those embarrassing memories
where I *have* used this method, I am completely unable to recall
any of them now...since they are no longer psychologically potent for me.

>If it works so well, then why do you give yourself the artificial label 
>of being "a depressed person"?  

1) I have never given myself the label of being "a depressed person".
I just re-skimmed all of my recent posts, looking for this self-labelling,
and was unable to find it.  Where are you quoting from, there?

2) Because the reasons for my occasional depressions are completely unrelated
to embarrassing memories of the past, so curing the latter does not cure 
the former.

3) Because I have not yet implemented this "cure" on all of my past
depressing memories...some of them are so bad, subjectively, that I can't
bring myself to even think about them fully, or the feeling of shame
becomes more than I wish to deal with at this point.  

4) Because labels form a quick and easy (and only slightly misleading, if
used carefully) way of passing a large amount of information to a stranger.
If I call myself "a depressed person" (which I do not), I simply give
you the information that I am depressed a fair amount of the time (I'm not...
...I'm depressed only occasionally).
It's the same reason that I give myself the label "a Christian": while
tending to slightly mislead (i.e. I don't hate gays, believe the world
was created in seven 24-hour days, or approve of the Crusades), it
also gives a fairly good picture of my religious orientation (I believe
in one God, I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe that "Love God, and
love your neighbor" is the highest moral principle).  Labels are 
a convenient shorthand for information which cannot be accurately 
expressed within a reasonable space.

5) I have in the past (in my teen years) been diagnosed as "clinically
depressed" (although my psychologist told me that this was simply
because he had to have *something* for the insurance people, and 
this was closest...).


Or, in other words:
1) I didn't label myself as a depressed person, and
2) it would have been quite justifiable if I had.

>Are you depressed right now? 

No, I'm not depressed right now.  I am rather sad, and uncomfortable, 
and actually fairly angry: I am also not letting my emotions control
my actions, or the contents of what I post.  I also was not depressed
when I posted the message which you flamed.  In fact, the last time
I was depressed was Tuesday evening, after reading my way through 
three large (and somewhat depressing) graphic novels...
...I went and worked out, and was fine again.

> How did you feel when you sat down at the computer just now?  

Nervous, actually, knowing that I was going to post a reply to 
your flame, and still not entirely certain of what I was going to
say, or how I was going to feel about saying it.
(at present, I'm feeling quite good about what I'm saying, since I'm
responding to a rather painful post without rancor, and hopefully
without inflicting pain in return).

>How did you feel when you saw a follow-up to your message?

When I saw the follow-up, I felt happy; I enjoy the validation of
receiving a response from others, of knowing that I have been heard.

When I saw the contents of the post, I felt very hurt, almost betrayed
(I had bared a part of myself to the readers of this newsgroup, in an
attempt to help others...and, it being alt.support, the last thing I 
would have expected was that I would be flamed for doing so).  
Soon after this, I began to feel angry; but, being somewhat insecure
about the justifiability of my feelings, some of this transmuted into
guilt.  This was resolved when Gary Brainin and Barbara Davis posted 
in defense of me, allowing me to view my anger as justified by
the situation, and relieving the guilt I'd been experiencing.

My final state was sadness, hurt, and a fair amount of anger.

>What did you do then?

I first decided not to post a reply, until:
1) I knew more or less exactly what I wanted to say, and
2) I had been experiencing the anger long enough to not act from it.

Then I told the friend I was talking to about what had happened,
and accepted her sympathy and comfort (thanks, Sarah.  You were
a true comfort, and just what I needed at that point.)

(*grin* I believe in giving credit where credit is due...:)

And then I went on to the next newsgroup, after marking your post
to return (so that I would eventually respond to it, rather than
leaving my feelings about it perpetually unresolved).


Why do you ask, Gary?  Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but I sense
a lot of hostility behind those questions, as if you're challenging
my feelings (or the validity thereof), rather than honestly asking
about them.

How is it relevant to the discussion (which was originally a suggestion
about how to deal with embarrassing memories) whether I'm depressed
at this moment or not? 

>Is it truly theraputic in the curative sense, or is it just the rush
>that we get from dumping stale feeling-tales on another human being?

No, it's truly therapeutic.  Were it only "the rush" that you
describe here, the positive effects would not last beyond the 
immediate time-frame of the "therapy", and I would need to keep
telling the same stale embarrassments over and over to different
people (which, observationally, I do not).

Also, this "rush" that you speak of (if I am interpreting it correctly...
...I'm not sure I'd quite call it a "rush", as the dredging up of
said "feeling-tales" tends to make my overall feelings so unpleasant
that it's hard to justify the use of the word "rush" for some part
of them) is something that I feel when sharing a *painful* memory
with someone, not an embarrassing one.  

There are certain experiences in my past which were objectively
painful (e.g. a certain time when my parents lied to me about
a very important thing in my life, at a time when I had been
used to trusting them completely); and sometimes I will unburden
myself to my friends by telling them about these painful experiences.
(NOTE: the last three times this has happened, it has been at the
explicit request of my friends, who I first warned fully about what
they were about to hear, and made sure that they really wanted to 
hear it).  Telling someone about such an objectively painful
experience is also very healing, but in a different way...
...it is, for me, dependent on receiving some form of explicit
validation (for my experiences, my pain, my past injuries) from
the person I am telling it to (even simply a hug).

Personally, I don't enjoy talking about my own "feeling-tales"...
...I worry a bit much, I think, that I'm taking too much and
not giving enough.  I certainly don't get what I'd call a "rush"
from it.  But when I do open up to someone about my past, and
they are both able to bear it (this is very important.  do not offer
to listen to someone's pain if you can't handle it...I had a friend
do this to me once, and it hurt very much...to have to bottle back
up the feelings that I'd started to release was not comfortable) 
and willing to validate me, I find it very therapeutic indeed.

The advantage of speaking about old painful experiences is that my 
feelings are validated and accepted; that I, myself, am accepted
by my friends, in spite of (or because of) having those feelings.
The advantage of speaking about old embarrassing experiences is precisely
that my feelings are *not* validated or accepted; that they are, 
in the interaction between myself and my friend, shown to be improper
and maladaptive responses to a long-past and relatively unimportant
stimulus.
The two processes are completely different.


And again, I perceive hostility in your question...if I'm misperceiving,
please inform me, and I'll correct my impression.
I feel hurt, because I perceive you as accusing me of "dumping" on
my friends in a negative sense, and justifying it by calling it
"therapy".  This is not the case (by all objective signs I've been
able to find, and by the report of my friends), and I am hurt by
the accusation which I perceive.

>Why not simply accept that sometimes we do stupid things and will feel
>bad about it for whatever reason?  

Because "we" needn't continue feeling bad about it...at least one of
"we" (that is, "me") has found a solution which eliminates the vast
majority of the bad feeling.  

I see no reason to continue feeling bad about something in the name
of "acceptance", when I have a perfectly good solution to this feeling.

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change those things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Having found a piece of "wisdom" which shows me that such bad feelings
are things that I can change, I see no reason to exercise serenity
instead of courage with respect to these feelings.

>why not continue to do what is needed regardless?  

I have continued to do what is needed, albeit with some negative
feelings: I am not sufficiently masochistic to continue these 
negative feelings longer than is necessary.

>Why not then listening to and helping our friend instead of

Or, perhaps, in addition to?  I find relationships where all of the 
time is spent with me helping the other person to be at least as
harmful (to myself, and to them) as relationships where all of
the time is spent with them helping me.  
I even have a name for such relationships, in my case: "co-dependent".

I used to do that: I don't anymore.  

True friendship, in my book, involves *mutual* support and care,
each friend listening to and helping the other as the needs and
abilities of each change over time.

Friendship is one arena in which "From each according to his abilities:
to each according to his needs" is a vital and workable principle.

I listen to and support my friends, and they listen to and support me.
When I am troubled, they listen to me more than I listen to them: when
they are troubled, I listen to them more than they listen to me.

Neither of us feels the need to be always listened to, and neither of
us will do the harm (to the other person, and to the friendship itself)
of always listening, and ignoring personal needs.

>adding to their troubles by wasting their time with these stories where
>neither of us can change the outcome?  

None of my friends has ever expressed a feeling that I was "wasting
their time" with such stories: nor would I feel such towards a friend
who came to me for support.  How can a willing action of caring and
love be a waste of time?  Regardless of the effect on the outcome of
these stories (which I acknowledge is nil), the simple knowledge that
someone cares enough to invest such "listening time" is a very comforting
thing for many people (myself included).

If you would feel that such pursuits were "wasting" your time, then
I'm afraid I must respectfully decline to become close friends with
you; as I find listening, in both directions, to be an essential element
of intimacy, and thus of close friendship.


Additionally, I try very hard to ensure that I am in no way adding
to the troubles of a friend while involved in such a sharing...
...I would not turn to a friend who was in distress, for example,
when I had a problem; nor, except in truly desperate cases, would
I turn to a friend who could not spare the time (since most of my
friends would in fact spend time that they could not afford to
spend, if they thought that I had a need that they could meet with
an investment of their time).

I personally find that helping a friend who is in emotional 
distress often *subtracts from* my troubles, in that
1) it distracts me from them,
2) it helps me get them into perspective, and
3) it is an activity which I feel good about doing.
My friends report that they feel the same way, from their perspective.


Finally, I would like to point out that while attempting to change
the outcome of these stories would indeed be futile, and thus
might constitute an objective "waste of their time", this is not
the goal (either stated or implied) of the therapy I was advocating.
Rather, the purpose of telling such stories to a friend is to alter
the *present* feelings about the past occurrence; to change the
effect now of a happening then.

This is quite possible (and, in fact, is the fundamental rationale
behind the whole field of psychology: the past affects us, and the
present can affect the *way* in which the past affects us), and is
the only goal of the above-mentioned therapy.


In summary: I do not add to my friends' trouble, I do not waste
my friends' time, and I do not seek the (relatively futile) goal
of altering the past, but rather the (eminently attainable) goal
of altering the present.

>We both know we could be doing something else more constructive with out time

You cannot speak definitively of what I, or any other person except
yourself, "know" to be true.  Quite frankly, I do *not* know of many
things more constructive to do with my time, than to help a friend
or be helped by a friend.  Whether that help takes the form of
my telling a friend about an embarrassing experience, or the form
of me holding them in my arms while they cry about some past or
present pain, is a totally separate question.  

In some cases, the best possible use of the mutual time of myself
and my friend is for them to sit and listen while I tell them about
an embarrassing memory from my past, and thus liberate myself from
the feelings which it still induces in me.
 
>together, and that time and the friendship is too precious to waste.

It makes me sad that you perceive such mutual assistance as a "waste"
of both time and friendship, when I perceive them as much of the *point*
of time and friendship.  

I hope for your sake that you are able to find methods of dealing
with embarrassment and pain which are as effective for you as these
are for me, and that your friends are able (for their sakes) to benefit
from them as well.

Nonetheless, you might want to consider that some of your friends might
feel more as I do than as you do, and that it might be worth spending
a little of your time in what seems to you to be a wasteful manner,
for the sake of your friend and in the name of friendship.

Just a thought...

>Feelings are like fish: they are best when fresh.

Yes.  And, just like fish, feelings which are left sitting around
for a long time begin to rot and stink, and must be taken out and put
in the trash.  Shoving them further towards the back of the refrigerator
offers no advantage in lessening the odor...or the risk to health.

The same is true of old experiences which cannot be released because
of emotions associated with them.  

I don't embarrass very easily anymore; the most recent problematical
memory of this type comes from well over three years ago.  But the
feelings in question here are feelings *now* about experiences *then*.

The feelings which motivate me to speak with my friends are fresh,
Gary...it's the experiences which are old and stale, and must be
let go of (as they are no longer any use to anyone, least of all 
myself).


I hope that this post clarifies what I intended to say originally,
and will allow you to view it (and me) with perhaps less hostility,
and ideally with fewer (as I perceived them) personal attacks
required in the response...?

I welcome any response you (or anyone else) may care to give to this posting, 
as I'd like to know what your reaction to it is.

*peace-making hugs*,

Mickey "I'm not such a bad guy after all, am I?" Phoenix.
Newsgroups: alt.support