Cyclothymic. That's a bipolar spectrum disorder, but it doesn't match the lay image of the manic-depressive. The episodes are milder and shorter, but they come on quickly. A "depression attack" can last 3 hours, resolve in a panic attack, and be gone 20 minutes later. Most people who know me wouldn't know that I have it. The one "insane" thing I've done (trolling, back in the day) had the specific purpose of keeping insanity out of my "IRL" existence.
As with all spectrum disorders, people seem to focus on the visible, uncontainable, and publicly dangerous 0.1% and ignore that 99.9% of people with the disorder or "on the spectrum" are not dangerous, wouldn't fit most people's image of "mentally ill", and can be very well-adjusted.
I tend to think of mood disorders as anti-psychopathy. Psychopaths have low or nonexistent mood and emotional sensitivity, which is why they're social high performers and (if ambitious) excel in the work world. Some mood disorders seem to be uncorrelated to context (i.e. episodes happen "for no reason") and that's probably more true of the severe cases, but most people with mood disorders are normal people with hypersensitivity, such as the OP whose brain would take personal criticism extremely seriously, unable to block it out or cope.
Aaron Swartz comes to mind as a archetypical anti-psychopath. They tend to be moralistic, less fearful of negative consequences when doing what they think is right, and prone to mood and anxiety disorders. Anti-psychopathy isn't a desirable thing. It can be just as ill-adjusted. Just as psychopathy tends to be good for the individual (in terms of material prosperity, social rank, and sexual access) but bad for society, anti-psychopathy tends to be good for society but harmful to the individual.
What's happening right now, in Silicon Valley, is a battle to the death between real technologists (who tend to be anti-psychopaths) and the mainstream business culture of entitled executives and board-whores (psychopaths). With Snapchat and Clinkle setting the tone in the current Valley, rents becoming unaffordable, and no-poach agreements all over the Valley, psychopaths seem to be winning.
I think that mood disorders in particular require a certain balance. People tend to do unwise or harmful things, especially when inexperienced, and those with mood disorders are not exceptions. You have to own your actions, even if you made them in a struggle that most people wouldn't understand. That said, it's also important to realize "it's not me, it's them" and keep your pride intact. Mental health issues often give you a front-row seat for how shitty people can be when they think you're weak.
Much of what comes out of these disorders isn't harmful in the least. It's just slightly embarrassing, but plenty of people will hang you out to dry just because they're weak, useless cowards. This may be why people with mood disorders (at least, the milder kind that won't interfere with ethical behavior; a truly "manic" person, noting that mania-- not the milder hypomania-- is very rare even in people with bipolar, does not know who he is) tend to evolve into moralistic, hyper-ethical anti-psychopaths.
I'll give a semi-fictional example. Let's say you're a programmer and you have a hypomanic episode. You still go to work, don't cause any issues, and spend 2 weeks building something you were never assigned to do. It turns out to be really good work and useful to the company (as much, or moreso, than putting that time in on your assigned work) but your boss is pissed off that you were working on this side project, instead of your assigned work, and tags you as "unreliable". A morally decent person would recognize that as wrong (it's health discrimination, and counterproductive, to punish people with "creative flare-ups") but, even still, stories like that are so common in Silicon Valley as to be unremarkable. Anti-psychopaths tend to need an R&D environment where they're measured by performance over time, rather than minute-by-minute superficial reliability (at which they can't possibly compete) and those, sadly, tend to be turning rare in the current anti-intellectual (and pro-psychopathic) environment.
Michael, you tend to make interesting points that get brushed under the rug because you can't resist throwing your hobby horse issues into every conversation.
"mainstream business culture of entitled executives and board-whores"
This ignores the huge and growing influence of engineer-led companies, YC empowering founders vs financiers, and technical VCs like a16z. The tech leadership here is miles better on average than any other city I've worked in or know through friends.
"Snapchat and Clinkle setting the tone in the current Valley"
I know these companies piss you off, but they're not setting the tone in the Valley. They're more like an NBA player getting a max contract without making the playoffs. Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter are all waaaaaaay more important than anyone taking VC money right now. And if you're talking about "hot topic" companies, Whisper and Secret are relevant now than either of the two you mentioned.
"rents becoming unaffordable"
This is not a tech issue, this is a structural local government land use issue present everywhere in the US but more of an issue here because of SV's wealth (vs income) generation.
"no-poach agreements all over the Valley"
This is a big deal for a large number of employees, but Facebook crashed that party years ago, and it didn't apply to startups anyway. Besides, breaking that cartel probably raised rents even more.
This ignores the huge and growing influence of engineer-led companies, YC empowering founders vs financiers...
Do you think that engineer-driven companies are increasing? It seems to be going the other way. Maybe the bad guys aren't more numerous than before, but they've learned to speak our language. There are plenty of companies with horrible culture/management that claim to be doing machine learning and take in just enough talent to convincingly tell a story (see: Knewton, which presents itself as a "big data" company but (a) isn't really doing ML, and (b) has the worst kind of MBA culture).
I'd love to see you be right. I do think that, if you exclude elite tech-literate hedge funds, the Bay Area is still the most progressive employment culture in the U.S. That's damning with faint praise. It still has a lot of trash that I hope will be taken out when the bubble ends.
The tech leadership here is miles better on average than any other city I've worked in or know through friends.
I think you're right, sadly. For as much awfulness as there is in the Bay Area, I feel like the technical culture in the rest of the country is even less evolved.
The ethics are (surprisingly?) better in top hedge funds, and there's more of a meritocracy, but (a) that's not a very useful economic sector and (b) it can't scale up and employ more than a small number of elite people.
Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter are all waaaaaaay more important than anyone taking VC money right now.
Point taken. But Google uses closed allocation and while that may be the right thing for Google, the idea that any company can be a cultural leader in technology (which Google still is, at least in reputation) and run closed allocation is cataclysmic.
this is a structural local government land use issue present everywhere in the US but more of an issue here because of SV's wealth (vs income) generation.
Fair point. The (mostly undeservedly) hated "techies" are almost an entirely separate set from the NIMBYs who are causing the problem.
The issue with rent, though, is that it encourages bad culture. Manhattan doesn't magically turn people into assholes, and neither does San Francisco. But when people absolutely need to be employed 12 months out of the year or risk total financial catastrophe, they can be taken advantage of in ways that you wouldn't see in more affordable locales, and that attracts... the kinds of people who want to exploit a pool of captive labor.
I don't know if the ratio of engineering led companies is growing, but with Twitter and Facebook going public instead of getting acquired, AirBnB, Dropbox and Github all getting huge, and Zuck's approach to big acquisitions so far (founders of Instragram, WhatsApp, and Oculus still running those companies), technical founders seem like they have more expectation of staying in control than before. I can't see any big tech co now bringing in a "grown up" a la early Apple or even Eric Schmidt at Google. And as an employee, it's super easy to find authentically tech-driven companies.
The "increasing" I mentioned had much more to do with a16z's surging influence and success as a VC.
"Knewton"
Never heard of Knewton, there are always going to bad examples. But you only work for one company at a time, and since there are so many great companies here, the bad apples don't matter as much. Bad/weak/deceptive companies are much more dangerous in smaller, thinner tech job markets (basically everywhere outside of SV/SF/NYC/Seattle/Boston).
And yes, the salaries in tech don't matter because tech workers without successful founder equity are still collateral damage between rich powerful companies and rich powerful property owners. I love my career intangibles here but I don't feel richer despite a big pay raise when I moved.
> You still go to work, don't cause any issues, and spend 2 weeks building something you were never assigned to do. It turns out to be really good work and useful to the company (as much, or moreso, than putting that time in on your assigned work) but your boss is pissed off that you were working on this side project, instead of your assigned work, and tags you as "unreliable". A morally decent person would recognize that as wrong (it's health discrimination, and counterproductive, to punish people with "creative flare-ups")...
Isn't this behavior psychopathic by your definition? the person goes to work, disregards agreements he's made with his coworkers and does whatever he wants.
It depends on the why. Using michaelochurch's classifications.
Psycopathic: I break the agreement because I want to do what I want to do.
Anti-psycopathic (particularly for the manic/hypomanic phase): I break the agreement because my brain is creating thousands of ideas a minute, I'm churning out code, I've solved 20 problems that we'd been having just this morning, but none of them are my assigned task(s). It's almost a compulsion, and not one driven from personal want. I don't want to delay the actual work, or procrastinate, but my brain keeps focusing on all the wrong (for work) things.
EDIT: Another fun bit is the after effect. After that spirited creative period, you realize what you've neglected and it feeds the part of the mind pushing you into depression as guilt.
Outside people tend to judge you on what you do, not on what you intend. The latter is invisible to them - they can't reach into your mind and understand what was going on. So from an outside perspective, someone who breaks the agreement because they want to and someone who breaks the agreement because they mentally have to is indistinguishable.
This is true. First, get help from a therapist. Second, if you're finding yourself unable to focus on the actually assigned work, but something still useful, try to sell your bosses on it. If you can't convince them, and still can't regain focus, hopefully your therapist/doctor can help you find a way to regain that focus.
1. I'm not a therapist and I didn't stay at a Holliday Inn Express last night.
2. If you really think that you have a problem, talk to your doctor and find a therapist. This is the #1 thing that helped me.
I'm trying to write a response and have deleted several in composing this one.
Depression with anxiety (for me, they feed on each other and dealing with one helps with the other) and hypomania are my issues. "Fixing" them, I haven't yet. I've learned to deal with and mitigate them. I'm going to focus on dealing with depression, because that's what I really have the most experience with and has impacted me the most. My manic episodes have been brief, and usually occur immediately before or after depression and they've not directly impacted my work since I've been able to focus that energy in a way that was productive. I didn't do it on my own. Seek therapy to develop the skills to help you.
On sleep: Sleep, but not too much. This is hard, especially with depression. For me, I found that I wouldn't sleep in either extreme state. The worst was a period of depression where I'd sleep an average of 1 hour a night for 3-5 days, and then crash for a day. I didn't want to be by myself in a dark room and an empty bed, and my dreams were far from pleasant. But I needed that sleep, I went insane without it. I was hallucinating. I saw things constantly moving out of the corner of my eye. I was convinced I was hearing things, but couldn't see what made the noise (didn't help when, once, it turned out that a spider had taken up residence in an errant grocery bag, that scratching noise was real). I felt that things were crawling on me (at one point I convinced myself that I had fleas I couldn't see, that scene from A Scanner Darkly where the guy goes nuts seeing the bugs everywhere, I could sympathize). So for the love of god, get some sleep. If you find yourself oversleeping (note: easier said than done), find a reason to get up every day. I had school at the time. I didn't miss a class. It forced me out of the apartment. Later, I quit grad school and got a full-time job. The responsibility of having to go somewhere really did help kick me out of that cycle. I was socializing with people, made new friends, and got out of the apartment for 9+ hours a day. Like I said, easier said than done, but find something to motivate you out of the house at least every weekday. I spent a lot of money eating out, but that walk to the restaurant got me out of my home and out of my head for a while. Just don't let food become a crutch, I nearly topped 240 lbs at one point (not good on my frame).
A note on exercise: Walk around the block. Walk around the office block. If you're in a city where this is feasible, walk to lunch. You don't need to become a gym rat, but getting a little bit more exercise and fresh air can help to brighten your mood and help you get through the day. I took up soccer a couple years back, it provides me with both exercise and socialization.
A note on socialization: Socialize, but don't hide yourself in it. In my worst depression I was trying to get other people to go out with me all the time or to do things at someone's place (never my own, it was a constant mess). I was overdoing it, and when I left I felt emptier than when I got there. I was all smiles, and sometimes they were genuine. But when I left I went back to a neutral face, and all the thoughts that I was hiding from came flooding back. Try and make some real connections, maybe meet with a support group. Finding someone, in addition to your therapist, that you can talk to about your issues is incredibly helpful. I've talked to several friends over the years about my issues and told them what some of my warning signs are. I've never stopped an episode with this, but they've helped me recognize it earlier so that I could deal with it before I lost myself in it (in my deepest depression, as noted above, I was not at all of sound mind).
A note on medication: I've never taken medication for my issues. There were a couple episodes of depression where I probably made the wrong choice with that, however. This is a personal decision that you should make with the guidance of your doctor. If you find something that helps you, good. I've just found that (most of the time, again some episodes got...dark) talk therapy and CBT have been mostly sufficient for me.
A note on work: Work is good, it keeps me from sitting around all day and thinking about whatever's driving me mad, and it puts me in a situation where I socialize. Socializing isn't always easy when you're depressed, sometimes it's just fucking painful. But if you can get past the pain, the benefits (for me) payoff. Hopefully you have a good boss you can go to for help. But you probably don't (at least by my measure, most bosses aren't good bosses). Find a way to state your need for a reduced workload when you're depressed without saying that you're depressed. Tell them that the 3 projects are just too much, you can finish 2 of them if they can hand the third off to someone else. This may not be as much as you want removed from your plate, but it's a start and you're not pressing your luck. If you've got a good boss (like I presently do) you can be honest, tell them you need a light load for a few weeks, and they'll accommodate you. But get diagnosed. If you can't get out of bed in the morning, get diagnosed and go through HR to get a flex schedule. Getting diagnosed is incredibly important to keeping your job when you have issues with depression. Work with a manic episode. Try to focus, I'm lucky that I can with mine (or I focus well enough on the tasks at hand). If you can't, sell them on whatever you want to work on. Don't try to ask forgiveness later for "slacking" on your assignments for a month, it may not go well. Convince them that the tool you're making will really payoff in the end. Convince them that the resources you're learning and studying can be used in the project, but you need this time to develop the skills. And don't lie to them about this. That'll come back on you, too.
A note on sympathy: Sympathy is not enabling. If you're looking for advice on how to help a friend, be sympathetic but try not to do anything to encourage their negative feelings. And don't dismiss them when they have problems. One of the cruelest things that I ever saw was when a friend attempted suicide and nearly all her friends abandoned her. You may feel angry and confused over their actions, why did they keep this from you for so long, because they didn't think they could talk to anyone. Your anger and confusion is normal and natural, but do not let it out on them. We need support in these situations, feeling abandoned will only drive us back down that hole. The friendship may not survive in the end, but as a decent human being at least give it a chance.
A final note: This may not be well-written, I'm under a time crunch here. I'll try and read it again when I get home later tonight and reply with corrections or a better post.
You're welcome. Like the author of the story that prompted all of this, I've come to the conclusion that we need to be more honest and open about these things. If nothing else, just telling my family and a few of my friends got me past a lot of hurdles. I could stop faking things so much, I didn't have to hide from them. That required an immense amount of my already very limited energy to pull off. But, it's also helped some of my friends and people around me to realize that, yes, they could in fact go to therapy or talk about their problems and not it didn't mean they were bad people or something.
How did you find a therapist? It's tough realizing that maybe my unhappiness isn't due to my job, it might just be me. I'm worried that my entire life is going to spent job and home hopping in an attempt to find something not miserable.
I'm talking about people reordering priorities. You seem to be jumping to ethical issues (breaking a commitment) right away.
For most people, the work isn't based on free agreements. They have no power, must do what they're told, and rarely get the chance to freely commit to anything.
I don't think there's much wrong with de-prioritizing an unfree commitment (especially if the delivery is only 2 weeks later rather than "not made"). The failure is on the people who created that context. Software companies especially need to understand that subordinate work will generally be of 1/10 the quality of work that people freely elect because it suits their vision, career goals, or intellectual interests. (A large part of the "10x" effect is motivation.)
Knowing myself, I don't freely commit to things unless I'm 100% (or, to be honest about it, more like 99.5%) sure I can deliver. (If keeping my job requires it, I'll unfreely commit to things because I need to eat, but not prioritize them over my own career needs.) And no matter how sick I may be, I will fight it and keep it from affecting my work as much as I can. Having fought this thing for over 20 years, I'm actually far stronger than 99% of people almost all of the time. I'm also more conscientious. The illness is only a weakness during (very rare, less than once per year) flare-ups.
If you work with a group of people you can't separate "reordering priorities" from the ethical issue of breaking a commitment.
You keep on implying that as a software developer you know better than the people asking you to do work. That even though you are not doing what was asked, you are doing something more important. That may be true, but I'm having a really hard time seeing the difference between the two types of people you are portraying (both seem very self-serving, regardless of motive), and neither of them seem like people I want to work with or have running large organizations.
If you have a condition that causes you to spend a few weeks each year working on non-management-approved activities then it is a minor problem and we should be compassionate about it.
If somebody had to spend a few extra weeks off work each year to get chemotherapy you'd be a complete bastard to say they were unethical and broke a commitment.
That doesn't change just because it is a mental health issue instead of a physical one. If you can accommodate it then you have the ethical obligation to do so.
If you have a condition that causes you to spend a few weeks each year working on non-management-approved activities then it is a minor problem
Disagree that it's a problem. Micromanagement is the problem. Side effects of high creativity (whether a person is or is not suffering from a mood disorder) aren't problems. If we desire progress for this world, then society should adapt to its best people, not the reverse.
More to the point: if you don't trust people to work on what they consider important, then don't hire them. The idea that every iota of work has to be approved by some silly priesthood is counterproductive and idiotic.
Baby steps mate. I agree with you but think such a view is a bit too progressive for the majority of management.
In large organizations there tend to be a lot of pretty arbitrary deadlines and unfortunately overall good work does not seem to offset missing a few arbitrary deadlines. So upper management hammers middle management who in turn hammers the team lead who then either bottles it up or pushes it down onto the plebes below.
In startups being different (ehm sorry not a good "cultural fit") is enough to get you fired so good luck if you expect understanding and support.
I think the best option is to work in a large organization under a respected, strong, and results driven team lead doing important work.
Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee."
I tend to agree that some bosses are micro managing idiots. But I had a boss who told me what side of the desk my phone had to be on - even though I'm left handed.
Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee."
I think we're now arguing about the ethical obligation of an employee, which is an open question. Is it (from the most restrictive to the least):
(1) to subordinate wholly to one's immediate manager?
(2) to act in the corporation's best interest?
(3) not to act *against* the corporation's interests?
(4) not to use one's employment with the corporation to act against its interests?
(5) not to break laws or compete illicitly with the company?
The law puts it somewhere on the spectrum between 4 and 5. Breaking 4 is generally considered unethical, except in the case of illegal activity by the company (whistleblowing) or collective bargaining.
People I'm describing are at 2-2.5 on that subordinacy spectrum. They're pursuing the joint interest of themselves and the company in a way that attracts middle management opposition. They don't deserve the punishment they'll typically get (termination, possibly worse) for that.
Far stronger than 99% of people... on what basis? I assume you've tested yourself against a large population and found you came out in the 99th percentile? You've run though SEAL BUD/S training and succeeded? Or is that just more conjecture?
For the amount of words you regularly commit to speculating about mental issues on this site, ever think about just getting out of your own head once in awhile? You know, day-by-day just practicing to stop caring so much about every small emotional upswing & downswing? Ya know, just letting them be what they are.
The way you write about your emotions makes me think you take the sound of hoofbeats and start freaking out about zebras, not rationally concluding horses. Practice getting off the rollercoaster, a "3 hour depression attack" is you magnifying some tiny event into a giant mental battle. And yes, I've experienced panic attacks and depression before, so I explicitly know of the tendency to both fear them and how your mood colors every conclusion you're making about life. You draw up these massive narratives about emotional events that honestly don't need any explanation. They are what they are, the sooner you stop trying to analyze / write a book about them and focus on something else, the sooner they pass.
Maybe you need to stop fighting yourself so hard and just let go, ever think about that? Before you start defensively banging out a giant response too, let my words soak in a little. From an outside perspective, all you ever talk about on this subject is purely conjecture and stems from your own personal projections about the root of mental health issues, there is rarely any objective factual basis for your posts.
> For the amount of words you regularly commit to speculating about mental issues on this site, ever think about just getting out of your own head once in awhile? You know, day-by-day just practicing to stop caring so much about every small emotional upswing & downswing? Ya know, just letting them be what they are.
This reminds me of my friend's advice to me last fall. I'd sufferred an injury to my back which caused me to have a herniated disk. This in turn put pressure on my sciatic nerve. My friend told me to just walk normally. If I could have, I wouldn't have been limping and cringing with every step.
For people who have long term pain (and who have had the scary dangerous stuff ruled out by a proper doctor) the old advice was "lie flat on your back and don't exercise". This is the worst thing those people can do. Modern advice is "carefully take paracetamol and keep moving as normally as possible; and when you're back to normal get some exercise to strengthen those back muscles".
I'll add to this, pay attention to your chairs. I originally thought my injury was in my leg (that's where all the pain was). It had lasted 3 weeks before it was properly diagnosed. After being put on steroids and starting PT I saw quick improvement, but I plateaued after a couple weeks. I realized that my chairs at home were the problem after I spent a few nights sitting at my kitchen table working on a project. That chair put me in a posture that helped a lot. Switched back to another chair for a couple nights, I got worse, switched back, I got better. So try different seats for a few nights each, you may find that the ones that feel comfortable to sit in are actually hindering your recovery.
There's a time and place for grace, and there's a time and place for a little bit of exhortation. If you had been lying in bed for months or years, constantly moaning about your pain, maybe your friend would have been right to give you a little nudge nudge. Even in physical rehab, therapists prefer to get a patient acting "as if" they are normal as soon as possible, even if there is pain.
When it comes to changing one's own mental outlook/attitudes/moods, if someone doesn't have faith that reaching out to take those painful steps of courage will, in time, "fix their back", then it most certainly won't be fixed.
Not in the slightest. You're being highly selective in what you focus on, and deliberately phrasing your description of the situation to spin it that way. You're just short of begging the question.
Anti-psychopath doesn't mean "good person". Many anti-psychopaths are good people but it's not a law of nature. Anti-psychopathy seems to be about sensitivity.
A common anti-psychopathic/hypomanic pattern is the creative "flare-up" in which a person is highly focused but intolerant of inefficiency. Such people, when faced with the slow pace and meaninglessness of most corporate work, often just elect to do something more useful, or try to solve the deeper and more important problem. It's hard to blame them.
> Such people, when faced with the slow pace and meaninglessness of most corporate work, often just elect to do something more useful, or try to solve the deeper and more important problem. It's hard to blame them.
Again, massive implication here. Why are you so sure that the anti-psychopaths are making the right call, that the work they are working on is more useful to the organization?
Why are you so sure that the anti-psychopaths are making the right call
Case by case, one can't be 100% sure on every call, obviously. But I will choose the beneficial and sometimes altruistic creativity of the anti-psychopath over the self-advancing vice, social competitiveness, and superficial reliability of the psychopath every time, and be right most of the time. No one can make the right call all the time.
> But I will choose the beneficial and sometimes altruistic creativity of the anti-psychopath over the self-advancing vice, social competitiveness, and superficial reliability of the psychopath every time, and be right most of the time
I do not accept the premise that the behavior your are describing is by definition "beneficial and sometimes altruistic." And I do not accept the premise that the reliability of the psychopath is superficial.
Did you ever get a formal diagnosis for cyclothymia? Dysthymia is very strong on one side of my family, but cyclothymia is closer to my experience these days. In the past, I've been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. I've read and observed these spectrum disorders (in myself and others), but never actually known anyone who was formally diagnosed (whatever that's worth).
Usually my symptoms track the seasons pretty closely. I tend to be hyper-productive in summer and a hermit in winter; it's likely just SAD + whatever I have.
> Mental health issues often give you a front-row seat for how shitty people can be when they think you're weak.
This cannot be emphasized enough. This is much harder to take than the symptoms themselves, which can be managed. In a sense, you will grow up very quickly.
> Anti-psychopaths tend to need an R&D environment where they're measured by performance over time, rather than minute-by-minute superficial reliability (at which they can't possibly compete) and those, sadly, tend to be turning rare in the current anti-intellectual (and pro-psychopathic) environment.
Bonus points for a lifestyle company. You do not want to be working under people who will exploit you so they can buy the next status symbol they've been told to grasp at. But, yeah, I'm only really happy in R&D for several reasons: hard problems, autonomy, and longer timeframes.
All software development should be like that. But we've sold out for a crappy lottery ticket that's rigged against us.
Any tips for coping/changing your lifestyle/having fewer totally hopeless existential crises? I spend a lot of time at the edge, feeling one second away from throwing everything away and starting over on a completely different path.
2. I guess it's just me. My girlfriend humors me occasionally but can't really relate and just thinks I have some combination of ADD/wrong career causing unhappiness/too many thoughts.
3. I'm not sure, it's always just something totally different. Live in my car, bum out of a backpack internationally working from a laptop, take design classes, work on a farm, work for a non-profit, build various startup ideas, go for a PhD and write/teach, figure out a way to help alleviate global suffering; real lack of healthcare, lack of clean water, lack of food, lack of education, suffering instead of being surrounded by first-world problems.
The suffering path is a big draw because the crises frequently lead to the conclusion that life is meaningless, the only sure thing in life is suffering, so the only meaning must be to try and minimize the total amount of suffering endured by humanity. That sounds kind of hokey but I don't mean it to be. I'm very empathetic but not very sentimental or religious or "ohhh change the world" optimistic. It's more of a get out in the field and do the dirty work because otherwise you're just wasting time kind of feeling.
I went on a sabbatical thinking I may not be able to do dev again, but I was wrong.
It's good you mentioned lifestyle changes; you'll want to get in the habit of constantly experimenting with these before you pull the plug completely. Consider:
* therapy
* being in a community (in real life)
* lifting
* the arts
* doing more/less work-type stuff on the side (open source, speaking, mentoring, etc)
* service projects (lots of different clubs do them)
I think a lot of the existential pain in my late twenties was due to feeling alone plus stuck at my job. I tried several things to deal with it (all safe) but couldn't get a handle on it, resulting in burnout.
All of those things you want to do are good; you could try doing some of them part time. When life tells you to pack up, you'll know it, so I'm not going to prescribe anything particular, other than letting you know to trust your instincts here. I had to find out the problem was mostly me (but other people also had to go). But one thing you need to know: all the good you do cannot patch you up on the inside. Whatever you're feeling will be there later.
The importance of someone who honestly balances you out cannot be understated. I did not understand balance until I had to see myself through my wife's eyes over and over again. It's humbling and hard, but it will change you to something healthier much quicker. I don't know what your relationship looks like, but I hope your girlfriend builds you up and supports you whatever your mood is.
Personally, I have to always be learning. I found a guitar teacher who does a great job teaching technique, and I'm constantly challenged. I also work in R&D at a lifestyle company.
This is much harder to take than the symptoms themselves, which can be managed. In a sense, you will grow up very quickly.
Yeah. It's made worse by the fact that technology's upper management are psychopaths here to exploit the cheap talent (and health issues, from their perspective, make you "bargain bin") and most of the low- and mid-level people are spineless weaklings who don't fight for themselves (because they think they'll be tech CEOs in 5 years, despite lacking social skills and savvy).
But, yeah, I'm only really happy in R&D for several reasons: hard problems, autonomy, and longer timeframes.
All software development should be like that. But we've sold out for a crappy lottery ticket that's rigged against us.
Well, perhaps not "all software development". If you're running a trading desk and have algos running during Hong Kong hours, you're going to need people who can handle drop-everything, short-term crises. I would say that all software development should be like that-- except for the few kinds that can't be, and those should be paid at $2+ million per year.
Is this a real thing? Can you think of any other careers that might work well for this type of person? I've been leaning towards self-employment mainly for the "performance over time, rather than minute-by-minute" aspect. Have you had or do you know anyone who has had success "treating" this without medication? I've been looking into vipassana retreats and tend to do a lot of self-reflection but it frequently makes things worse.
As with all spectrum disorders, people seem to focus on the visible, uncontainable, and publicly dangerous 0.1% and ignore that 99.9% of people with the disorder or "on the spectrum" are not dangerous, wouldn't fit most people's image of "mentally ill", and can be very well-adjusted.
I tend to think of mood disorders as anti-psychopathy. Psychopaths have low or nonexistent mood and emotional sensitivity, which is why they're social high performers and (if ambitious) excel in the work world. Some mood disorders seem to be uncorrelated to context (i.e. episodes happen "for no reason") and that's probably more true of the severe cases, but most people with mood disorders are normal people with hypersensitivity, such as the OP whose brain would take personal criticism extremely seriously, unable to block it out or cope.
Aaron Swartz comes to mind as a archetypical anti-psychopath. They tend to be moralistic, less fearful of negative consequences when doing what they think is right, and prone to mood and anxiety disorders. Anti-psychopathy isn't a desirable thing. It can be just as ill-adjusted. Just as psychopathy tends to be good for the individual (in terms of material prosperity, social rank, and sexual access) but bad for society, anti-psychopathy tends to be good for society but harmful to the individual.
What's happening right now, in Silicon Valley, is a battle to the death between real technologists (who tend to be anti-psychopaths) and the mainstream business culture of entitled executives and board-whores (psychopaths). With Snapchat and Clinkle setting the tone in the current Valley, rents becoming unaffordable, and no-poach agreements all over the Valley, psychopaths seem to be winning.
I think that mood disorders in particular require a certain balance. People tend to do unwise or harmful things, especially when inexperienced, and those with mood disorders are not exceptions. You have to own your actions, even if you made them in a struggle that most people wouldn't understand. That said, it's also important to realize "it's not me, it's them" and keep your pride intact. Mental health issues often give you a front-row seat for how shitty people can be when they think you're weak.
Much of what comes out of these disorders isn't harmful in the least. It's just slightly embarrassing, but plenty of people will hang you out to dry just because they're weak, useless cowards. This may be why people with mood disorders (at least, the milder kind that won't interfere with ethical behavior; a truly "manic" person, noting that mania-- not the milder hypomania-- is very rare even in people with bipolar, does not know who he is) tend to evolve into moralistic, hyper-ethical anti-psychopaths.
I'll give a semi-fictional example. Let's say you're a programmer and you have a hypomanic episode. You still go to work, don't cause any issues, and spend 2 weeks building something you were never assigned to do. It turns out to be really good work and useful to the company (as much, or moreso, than putting that time in on your assigned work) but your boss is pissed off that you were working on this side project, instead of your assigned work, and tags you as "unreliable". A morally decent person would recognize that as wrong (it's health discrimination, and counterproductive, to punish people with "creative flare-ups") but, even still, stories like that are so common in Silicon Valley as to be unremarkable. Anti-psychopaths tend to need an R&D environment where they're measured by performance over time, rather than minute-by-minute superficial reliability (at which they can't possibly compete) and those, sadly, tend to be turning rare in the current anti-intellectual (and pro-psychopathic) environment.