Conventional wisdom—at least in North America—holds that persistence is a virtue: “if at first you don’t succeed” and all that. We marvel at those who single-mindedly pursue their dreams and, after overcoming countless obstacles, finally get to roll in their success like pigs in mud. But recent thinking from the nascent field of evolutionary medicine turns conventional wisdom on its head by suggesting that persistence may be a maladaptive behaviour. Or, to offer the flip-side: quitters can be winners.
The June 25th issue of The Economist reports on a study by Carsten Wrosch and Gregory Miller which was designed to test a hypothesis proposed by Randolph Nesse. (In fact, findings from the Wrosch/Miller study first appeared in a note in the December 07 issue of Scientific American.) Nesse sets out his hypothesis in a paper titled “Is Depression An Adaptation?” published in 2000. Nesse frames his hypothesis as follows:
[I]t seems likely that low mood and related negative affects were shaped to help organisms cope with unpropitious situations. Some negative and passive aspects of depression may be useful because they inhibit dangerous or wasteful actions in situations characterized by committed pursuit of an unreachable goal, temptations to challenge authority, insufficient internal reserves to allow action without damage, or lack of a viable life strategy.
Nesse makes a distinction between low mood and clinical depression. Low mood is that blah response most of us experience from time to time. Clinical depression is that beast defined in the APA’s DSM IV that includes suicidal ideation. Nesse acknowledges that clinical depression is clearly a disease rather than a biological adaptation.
In their study, Wrosch and Miller focussed on ability to disengage from unattainable goals and re-engage with more realistic goals. They followed a group of 97 teenaged girls for 19 months. They found that those girls who experienced low mood were able to disengage more easily from unattainable goals and in the long run were also less susceptible to more severe depression. This lends support to Nesse’s hypothesis that low mood is an adaptive behaviour. Low mood is compared to other aversion responses like pain, coughing, and fever. While we like to relieve these responses with analgesics and expectorants, they are normal adaptations. We have evolved these responses, however unpleasant, in order to avoid more severe unpleasantness. For example, while a cough may leave us with a sore chest, the ache from muscle spasms is preferable to the increased risk of pneumonia—coughing is a response which enables us to eliminate microbes from our lungs and trachea. In the same way, low mood can be understood as an averse response to circumstances or behaviours which, if allowed to persist, could result in greater harm.
So what happens if we ignore that blah feeling and press on to our goal? The final paragraph of The Economist article is jarring:
Dr Nesse believes that persistence is a reason for the exceptional level of clinical depression in America—the country that has the highest depression rate in the world. “Persistence is part of the American way of life,” he says. “People here are often driven to pursue overly ambitious goals, which then can lead to depression.”
What is it about American life that so valorizes persistence? “Be excellent!” say Bill and Ted, and while they say it in their inimical half-assed way, many of their viewers take their edict to heart. Hard work pays off. As the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team discovered, not only does it get you a gold medal, but also a Hollywood movie celebrating your achievement so others can learn the lesson. Erin Brockovich wins the case, gets a hefty cheque and a movie about her life. (Note the footer on her personal web site: “Stick-to-it-ive-ness n. Informal – Unwavering pertinacity, perseverence.”) John Nash does battle with paranoid psychoses and, despite incredible odds, wins a Nobel prize, a hefty cheque, and gets a movie about his life. While the conventions of a genre may make for a successful movie, they don’t necessarily make a sound prescription for successful living.
Another word comes to mind which sometimes crops up in related discussions of affect—grandiosity—a grasping for the unattainable. And what could be more grandiose than life in America.
“Any kid can grow up to be the president.” (i.e. any American kid.)
“I’d rather be anything but ordinary.” – Avril Lavigne
“Get rich or die trying.” – 50 Cent is another example of life rewarded by a movie
“Shoot for the moon.” – Brian Littrell
“Never settle for second best.” – Just about any motivational speaker you can name
“Simply the best.” – Tina Turner
“Celebrating Excellence” – Canada’s Governor General
“Losing is not an option.” – Rich Wallace
“This organization will not tolerate failure.” – Dr. Evil
“The brightest and the best.” – Richard Haass
“Too important to fail.” – Just about any CEO in the US financial sector
As a statistical fact, 99.99999% of all American kids will NOT grow up to be the president. That is a probability which approaches certainty—even for white kids. As a statistical fact, at least 50% of all participants in competitive sports and games will lose. As a statistical (and semantic) fact, 50% of all people are NOT the brightest and best because they have below average intelligence. And as a moral and ethical (and probably economic) fact, no one and nothing is too important to fail.
Facts notwithstanding, we revel in behaviour which is driven by grandiosity. We buy lottery tickets to share in the fantasy of enormous wealth. We buy designer labels and model-endorsed cosmetic brands to participate vicariously in the lives of the beautiful people. We incur debt secured by earnings from a future which is itself a fantasy so we can live today a life of martinis and Aston Martins—borrowing from one fantasy to fund another. We have unwittingly birthed a growing prosperity Pentecostalism that tells us God wants us to get all we can grab.
Grandiosity aside, another and more subtle feature of modern life which contributes to the rising prevalence of major depression is increased specialization of functions. While this feature is not unique to America, its origins lie in the fragmented work environment of Detroit’s assembly lines. In “Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness,” Nesse puts it thus:
The size and duration of personal goals may be a major difference that accounts for much pathology. Just a few thousand years ago, most individuals allocated their effort among a limited variety of tasks: gathering food, taking care of kin, participating in the group, etc. But as social groups enlarged and roles became more specialized, the requirements for success have escalated so that the big rewards now go to those who allocate a huge proportion of their life’s effort to one domain, and sometimes even just to one goal. The Olympic athlete, for instance, has to devote him or herself so completely to the goal of gold that a balanced life is impossible. Likewise, someone who wants to be a music star, a top academic or a CEO will almost always have to sacrifice much to strive for the goal. What is worse, the goal may take years of specialized effort, it may not be reached, and if failure occurs, no satisfactory alternative may be available. Our brain regulation systems were never designed to cope with efforts so long in duration, towards goals so large, with all-or-none outcomes that offer few alternatives. It is relatively easy to give up on looking for nuts when several days of foraging have proved fruitless. Giving up on a PhD programme after 5 years, or a marriage after 10 years, are decisions orders of magnitude larger, decisions whose costs often lead individuals to persist in the pursuit of hopeless or unwanted goals, creating the exact situations that disengage motivation and cause depression.
How do we save ourselves from persistence? The obvious answer is to follow the cues of low mood—abandon unrealistic goals and redirect energy to more appropriate endeavors. This is not a revolutionary idea. It lies at the core of Buddhism and ascetic philosophies. Regulate your desires. Develop close relationships. Nurture your personal identity, not by reference to possessions or status, but by reference to your embeddedness in healthy social networks. In pre-modern society, this was easier because we lived in a primarily agrarian world where communal life revolved around religious affiliation and personal goals were either simpler or straddled multiple domains so people didn’t invest themselves entirely in a single long-term enterprise.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy offers useful strategies to cope with the challenge of disengagement from unrealistic goals. In effect, CBT clothes ancient wisdom in scientific language, but the result is the same—the changes you effect in your life begin by looking inward. The first step is to identify distortions in thinking. Distortions fall into categories which are remarkably commonplace. Those relevant to the issue of persistence include: 1) all-or-nothing thinking; and 2) making inflexible demands of yourself and others. These distorted patterns of thinking may have emerged as the result of core assumptions from a variety of sources—upbringing, culture, peer groups, religious affiliation. These assumptions might be things like: “I’m no good unless I’m the very best blogger on earth.”—an example of all-or-nothing thinking. Or: “If people are going to regard me as a good person, it’s important that I never let them down, no matter what.”—an example of an inflexible demand. Both assumptions can feed persistence, and while persistence is celebrated as a virtue, the personal cost can be significant. The first assumption increases the likelihood that you will begin to think of yourself as a failure. The second increases the likelihood that you will destroy personal and professional relationships. (It’s interesting to note that organized religion engages in both these patterns of thought distortion.)
Once you have identified distortions in thinking and the core assumptions which ground them, you can move on to the task of examining the evidence. Almost invariably, a close look at the evidence demonstrates that the distorted thinking is unfounded. It is entirely possible to be a good person without being the very best blogger on earth. To be the very best blogger may require trade-offs in other areas of life, like parenting, relationships, travel. By reconciling yourself to more modest blogging goals, you can devote more energy to other areas of life which are compatible with being a good person. In fact, you may be a better person after you give up your blogging aspirations in favour of your personal life. After weighing the evidence, it becomes possible to reformulate your thinking and to work at dislodging core assumptions which may have been undermining you. The object is to achieve a balanced view of things: given a realistic assessment of the evidence, what are some appropriate thoughts you can entertain about you relationship to others and to the world around you? And what are some attainable and satisfying goals you can pursue?
I want to ensure that I’m not taken as denigrating persistence. On the contrary, persistence has its benefits. It is a virtue when used to counter the temptation to respond only to immediate gratifications. For example, learning a new skill, like playing the piano or acquiring a new language, would be impossible without persistence, and it can be extremely beneficial to have such skills. Persistence as a mindless cultural imperative is harmful when we divorce it from the particular circumstances in which an individual pursues their goals. It is effective when balanced against the personal costs of such pursuits.
Sources:
Wrosch, Carsten & Gregory Miller, “Depressive symptoms can be useful: Self-regulatory and emotional benefits of dysphoric mood in adolescence” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 96(6), Jun 2009, 1181-1190 (available from PsycNET)
Nesse RM, “Is depression an adaptation?” Archives of General Psychiatry, 57: 14-20, 2000.
Nesse RM, “Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness” Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 359(1449):1333-47, 2004