 |
 |
Hi Tom, When you write: "Psychological progress is often made through failing to prove hypothesesand there is a possibility that the happy poets who killed themselves were bipolar as opposed to just depressed. Again it's the focus on the self through ups and downs that seems to matter in the actual act of suicide rather than going on being happy or unhappy." This seems to me very general, and while the study notes that there is "retrospective evidence to suggest that many suicidal poets have suffered from some form of depressive disorder throughout their lives" and goes on to note "among the 83 poets noted by Jamison to suffer from cyclothymia, bipolar, or major depressive illness, only 25% committed suicide," the focus of the study goes on to "isolate which themes or linguistic features may predict future suicide attempts." So what it has to offer that is new is this linguistic approach which is proposed as diagnostic. Being bipolar or having depressive illness as well as the various psychologies or life situations of the poets involved is not at issue in the hypothesis. As the methods state "Presence of mental illness...was not a factor... thus differences between the suicidal and control poets are more likely associated with suicide than mental illness." And, yes, it's true as you say that progress can be made, and not just in the field of psychology, by a failed hypothesis, but usually the failure of the hypothesis has to be acknowledged, and it isn't in this particular study, which instead draws a conclusion of what "may" be or "might be" significant as it hangs upon the one remaining thread, the greater presence of self-referencing in suicidal poets while the greater presence of everything else (which disproves the hypothesis) is ignored. Also, when this study is compared with "Lying Words," different assumptions operate; in that study "liars show lower cognitive complexity, used fewer self-references and other-references, and used more negative emotion words." Some of these are similar to the hypothesis advanced about "the suicidal group of poets," that they'll use more negative emotion words, fewer other-references (communication). And I suppose some relationship could be seen between "lower cognitive complexity" and "social disengagement." I can't help but notice the inverse relationship on self-references, that liars will have fewer of them, and suicidal poets will have more. And since these are psychological studies, I would assume their focus is mental health, and one study seems to assume that liars show their lack of mental health by the lack of self- referencing and the other that suicidal poets show their lack of mental health by self-referencing. I wonder what Plato would say? Well, if you like, you can pass my comments on. Frankly, I would hate to see anything like this used as a diagnostic tool. And while even a failed hypothesis might be useful, many who conduct studies don't like them and try to rescue as much of the hypothesis as possible. For instance, this study acknowledges that "it is premature to fingerprint suicide potential by use of a text analysis approach" but goes on to say "configurations of language in poetry might be predictors of suicide." And in most of the poets grouped into the suicide group, there were all sorts of more obvious predictors, attempts, threats, statements, not to mention the obvious difficulties of their lives, more than enough to pay attention to, if anyone had. Best, Rebecca Rebecca Seiferle www.thedrunkenboat.com -------Original Message------- From: tom bell <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 08/16/03 10:11 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Poetry & Psych > > Psychological progress is often made through failing to prove hypothesesand there is a possibility that the happy poets who killed themselves were bipolar as opposed to just depressed. Again it's the focus on the self through ups and downs that seems to matter in the actual act of suicide rather than going on being happy or unhappy. again if you like I can pass this along to him. I know he'll be glad some literary people actually read it. His comment to me awhile back was that when he talked to lit people about it where he worked their comment was "we don't like to read that stuff in our field. We only read _______ journals." tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 9:28 PM Subject: Re: Poetry & Psych > Alison Croggon wrote: It ignores the > self-gratifying annihilation of self that writing offers in its > aesthetic considerations, say. Hmmm. > > Hmmm is right, "self-gratifying annihilation of self?" haha > > I read a bunch of these too, The Secret Life of Pronouns, > Word Use in the Poetry of Suicidal and Nonsuicidal Poets, > Lying Words, and the one you mention about the repression > of trauma damaging the immune system, and found it interesting > if not entirely persuasive. > > I had to wonder why in "The Secret Life of Pronouns," the most > significant measure of increasing health is a change of style > in pronoun usage, and in "Lying Words," a primary indicator > of truthfulness is the use of the first person pronoun, whereas > the use of the first person pronoun is hypothesized as > part of the disengagement of the suicidal poet. > > I also noticed that in the conclusions for this paper on > the suicidal and nonsuicidal poet, nothing was said > about the higher means of terms of "positive emotions" among > the suicidal poets, which are 3.3 early, 3.1 middle, and 3.9 > later. Whereas the control, and nonsuicidal group of poets, > was 2.3 early, 2.9 in middle, 2.5 late. Which indicates > that suicidal poets have a higher rate of terms of "positive > emotion (happy, love) and may just get happier and happier. Whereas > the control group seems to decline somewhat. Though it was > noted that the suicidal poets had a higher usage of sexual words > throughout their writing. Which in a weird sort of way might > suggest that due to their increased use of the first person, > the suicidal poets are not liars (since in "Lying Words" > "liars used first-person pronouns at a lower rate than > truth-tellers), that they express more positive emotion, > happiness and love, and that this increases as they go, > more terms of "communication (talk, share)" and more sexual > words throughout their writing lives. Well, is it any wonder > the poor fools do themselves in? > > Well, seriously, this paper "hypothesized that there would be > an increase in hopelessness words and in references to the > self and a decrease in positive emotion words and references > to communications with others in the later periods of the poets' > careers." In the hopelessness words, there was a continuing > decrease from 2.2 to 1.8 to 1.7. The positive emotion words > increased as I noted above. The references to the self remained > the same as 4.0 in the early and later work, with a dip in > the middle. And only the references to communications with > others declined, from 1.2 to 1.0. Three out of four of > the elements of the hypothesis were contradicted by the study's > own data. Also the conclusions at one point seem simply in > error, "Additionally, the use of the first-person plural, which > might indicate an awareness of and an integration in social > and personal relationships, was lower in the suicide group's > poetry than it was in that of the nonsuicide group." But > Table 1 shows for the use "We (us, our) for the suicide > group .73, 1.3, and .85, and for the control group, .69, > .40, and 1.1. It's only lower in later usage, and if that > is significant, I wonder what to make of that .40 among > the "socially integrated" nonsuicidal group. > > When the authors begin the conclusion "the results indicate > that certain features may be associated with suicide," > _may_ seems to be the operative word here. Particularly > for a study that failed to prove three out of four > of the elements of its hypothesis. > > Best, > > Rebecca > > Rebecca Seiferle > www.thedrunkenboat.com > > > > -------Original Message------- > From: Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: 08/17/03 10:19 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Poetry & Psych > > > > > At 2:56 PM -0500 16/8/03, tom bell wrote:>here's an url for a pdf > version > >http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/Pennebaker/Reprints/Suicida l > >Poets.PDF > > > >but you'll probably need to cut and paste it in your browser? > > The end of the url might have fallen off - I had to reinstate an "htm" > > Well, I've downloaded a few of the essays, and I am really not at all > sure that this kind of investigation really pertains to imaginative > writing. I have long known that repressing trauma rather than > expressing it leads to depressing the immune system, and that also > the entering of imaginative states may be as traumatic as the > original episodes, and may exacerbate mental problems rather than > solve them (who is it in the Bible who say that wisdom only leads to > sadness?) I think most writers are very familiar with their own > neuroses whether they choose to express them directly or not. &c. > And he just seems to be saying things like, well, poets who write > about sad stuff are more likely to kill themselves... Also I don't > know how you can do a linguistic analysis of Mandelstam and Pasternak > in English, but there is no comment on studying the work in its > original Russian. I also downloaded his essay on truth-tellers and > liars and their linguistic use, and wondered whether he would say > fiction writers were truth tellers or liars. Since of course good > fiction writers are both. > > I actually have very little doubt that imaginative writing is a > adaptive survival mechanism. But there is a real problem in viewing > it through therapeutic glasses. Dr Pennebaker seems to be coming > from the other end - that it helps people to write things down or > otherwise express what troubles them - which is fine, but I think is > of little use in analysing the phenomenon of writing and runs the > risk of boxing it in issues of mental health. It ignores the > self-gratifying annihilation of self that writing offers in its > aesthetic considerations, say. Hmmm. > > A much more urgent and interesting relationship between trauma and > language is outlined in Elizabeth Scarry's The Body in Pain - The > Making and Unmaking of the World. > > Best > > A > -- > > > Alison Croggon > > Blog > http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com > > Editor, Masthead > http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/ > > Home page > http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/