
Relationships between Depression and High Intellectual Potential (2012) - dakimov
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2012/567376/
======
droithomme
Miraca Gross did a long term study of exceptionally gifted students in
Australia.

<http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10489.aspx>

Brilliant kids who were held back in their age group, following the
"inclusion" theory, were far more likely to become depressed, and to fail as
adults.

Brilliant kids who were not held back and allowed to progress according to
their own skills and talents, following the "acceleration" theory, were more
likely to become well adjusted successful adults.

The relationship between intelligence and depression in children is explained
by this study. There is a third factor - how the education is handled.

Imagine taking a person of average intelligence and placing them in a class
for profoundly developmentally disabled children, children who can not feed
themselves or talk. Make them sit in this environment daily for 12 years, as
the only person of normal intelligence in the room. Spend hours each day, for
years on end, showing them over and over how to use a spoon. A normal person
forced to experience this would rapidly become suicidal or crazed.

That is what it is like for exceptionally gifted children who are
mainstreamed. Take an 8 yr old child who is doing algebra and calculus on his
own and force him to study tables of "addition facts" for an entire year.
Punish him if he won't fill in the worksheets and then sit quietly if
completed, or raise his hand to receive more worksheets that are the same
thing, to keep him busy and out of trouble. This child becomes frustrated, and
within a few months, will become depressed and hopeless. The "good ones" stay
quiet and contemplate suicide. The "bad ones" start to act up, and nowadays
are prescribed antipsychotic tranquilizers. One of the biggest new markets for
antipsychotics is in forcing it upon children.

~~~
daeken
> That is what it is like for exceptionally gifted children who are
> mainstreamed.

Funny story: I was in special ed classes for my last year of high school. Half
my teachers wanted me to be in the hyper-accelerated program, half my teachers
wanted me to be in special ed; the latter teachers won. They took my
resistance to doing homework and "disorganization" as a profound learning
disability, despite never getting less than an A on a test.

A month or two before I dropped out, a story about one of my projects was
featured in Forbes and other major publications. The same teachers and
administrators who had forced me into that hellish existence were parading it
around as this huge badge of honor for my little school; last I heard, it's
still hanging up in the office somewhere. I never got an apology, never had
anyone say "hey, we fucked up." They justified all of this in their minds;
I'll never understand how.

~~~
lsc
>Funny story: I was in special ed classes for my last year of high school.
Half my teachers wanted me to be in the hyper-accelerated program, half my
teachers wanted me to be in special ed; the latter teachers won. They took my
resistance to doing homework and "disorganization" as a profound learning
disability, despite never getting less than an A on a test.

I was in both the 'gifted' and the 'special ed' programs at the same time. the
'special' classes weren't so bad, really, if you only had to do it for two
hours, twice a week, and it seems they were mostly worried about my
handwriting.

It's funny, 'organizational skills' haunt me to this day, that's the other
thing they tried to teach me. (and yeah, even now I'm pretty bad; I dono if I
would call it a disability, but it's a big problem that holds me back.) but
handwriting? the idea of actually spending time learning handwriting strikes
me as very silly.

~~~
derleth
> the idea of actually spending time learning handwriting strikes me as very
> silly.

It works like this, in the mind of a (bad) educator:

1\. I had to do this.

2\. I don't do random shit, so it must be important.

3\. Therefore, you have to do this.

This chain of logic breaks down at step 2, so that's where post-hoc
rationalizations step in to save the day. That's why I'm going to say this
explicitly: _For everything you can come up with to justify handwriting
classes, there's a better way to learn the same skill that also fosters things
that are more important than having neat handwriting._

For example, fine motor control is better learned through PE classes that
actually teach sports, which has the added benefit of promoting physical
fitness. The aesthetics of handwriting is better learned through calligraphy
as part of a _good_ art class, which has the added benefit of transmitting a
culture which is left out of handwriting classes.

------
olefoo
I was mildly appalled that such a low quality article made it onto the
frontpage of HN, a psychological study that starts off by talking about
Aristotle and _les quatres humeurs_ scores high on my bullshit detection
algorithm.

But I thought the publishers name sounded familiar and went googling and found
[http://www.the-
scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32426/...](http://www.the-
scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32426/title/Predatory-Publishing/)

Which contains this gem:

"""Bolstering this trend is the so-called “gold open-access” model, in which
publishing is supported not by subscription fees but by author fees. An
example of a gold open-access journal is The Scientific World Journal,
currently published by Cairo-based Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This
megajournal covers virtually all scientific fields and imposes an article
processing charge of $1,000 for each accepted article. Similarly, the better-
known Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals charge authors anywhere from
$1,350 to $2,900 to publish, with a discount if the researcher is affiliated
with a university that is an institutional member."""

So effectively, if you are giving this article your attention, you are
supporting a sketchy vanity press that does not appear to engage in the same
level of peer review as more traditional journals, open-access or not.

~~~
dakimov
You see this article has a catchy title with no actual content, and it did
quite well on the HN that is sort of exposing. Next time I'll read the article
_before_ submitting it, sorry.

~~~
olefoo
> Next time I'll read the article before submitting it, sorry.

So what was your thought process in submitting that article?

------
j_baker
One school of thought is that depressed people are in closer contact with
reality due to their lack of defense mechanisms that keep others happy:
<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism>

I don't think the evidence has completely verified this hypothesis, but I
think there's some truth to it. I think it may be a contributing factor to the
Dunning-Krueger effect in that depressed people are willing to accept things
that others won't while having little self-confidence

~~~
psbp
I don't have a high IQ, but I've found that if I wilfully depress myself
before doing something mentally tasking I usually perform much better than I
would have otherwise.

~~~
zokier
I feel that statements like that belittle actual depression, which best to my
knowledge is not something that you can pop into or out from that trivially.

~~~
pessimizer
I feel that statements like that are a working out of ideas out loud, with a
community, and show a thoughtfulness and curiosity that deserves encouraging
amongst humans. If you disagree with an idea, show evidence rather than trying
to shame people into silence.

~~~
zokier
It's not the idea I'm disagreeing with, but the wording used to express it.
More specifically the use of word "depression" to refer a condition that does
not seem very "serious".

------
tokenadult
This article was a weird read for someone like me who meets regularly with
psychologists from a scientifically oriented research department of psychology
(at the University of Minnesota). The conclusion of the article begins,

"In conclusion, the depression observed in children with high potential would
seem to be characterized by narcissistic vulnerability associated with genuine
traumatophilia,"

and the old-fashioned terminology like "narcissistic" and the use of outmoded
(and never validated) projective tests of personality (like the Rorschach)
shows the article is far out of the mainstream of current psychology. I was
wondering how such an old-fashioned article could come from 2012, so I focused
my attention on the academic affiliations of the authors (not from major
centers for the study of high IQ or of depression) and the journal of
publication (not a top journal in this field).

There is a huge prior literature on associations between high IQ and mood
disorders, with much of that literature summarized in the authoritative
textbook by Goodwin and Jamison.

[http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-
Rec...](http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Recurrent-
Depression/dp/0195135792/)

As a parent of four high-IQ children myself, painfully aware of how toxic the
United States school system can be for such children,

<http://learninfreedom.org/age_grading_bad.html>

I first of all sought local friendship networks of other parents who
understand such children. We have been homeschoolers throughout our children's
childhoods, and that seems to have provided our children with some extra scope
for creativity and added resilience for facing personal challenges (including
two international moves during the childhoods of our three oldest children).
Through association with the Davidson Institute for Talent Development Young
Scholars program,

<http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/>

we have learned about--and have shared--resources with other parents about
building optimism in children. I especially like Martin E. P. Seligman's book
The Optimistic Child

[http://www.amazon.com/Optimistic-Child-Safeguard-
Depression-...](http://www.amazon.com/Optimistic-Child-Safeguard-Depression-
Resilience/dp/0618918094/learninfreed)

as a framework for children to learn how to reality-check their own thinking
and not to be depressed by setbacks in life.

~~~
jdietrich
The French approach to psychiatry is very different to that in the Anglophone
world. Lacanian psychoanalysis is still a mainstream treatment, even for
developmental disorders like autism. The article is wholly mainstream by
French standards.

~~~
tokenadult
_The French approach to psychiatry is very different to that in the Anglophone
world._

I gather so. There are a few parts of the United States where psychoanalysis
is still in vogue, but fewer and fewer year by year, as patients usually like
to become well through the treatments they seek. I just did some Web searching
about the approach you kindly mentioned. Is there replicable evidence that the
Lacanian psychoanalysis is working for a large number of French patients?

------
jimrandomh
When a 21st-century paper's abstract starts off by talking about the medieval
four humors theory of medicine, and it doesn't even acknowledge how wrong that
is, you know you can safely stop reading.

~~~
Osmium
In fairness, I think they were trying to point out that the idea there might
be a correlation between intelligence and depression has been around for a
long time:

"Aristotle introduced a quantitative factor, asserting that levels of
melancholy and black bile are positively correlated; however, under a given
threshold of black bile, it can give rise to an exceptional being"

The fact that Aristotle thought "black bile" was responsible for both is
neither here not there, but just a necessary context to understand the
quotation.

------
emmelaich
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melencolia_I>

------
aaronh
while there may in fact be such a correlation, after skimming this "paper" it
appears to be mostly philosophical rambling and armchair musings, very little
data, no graphs or charts or analyses showing correlation, etc., just
citations of other papers.

------
scardine
Ignorance is bliss.

This reminds me of the Jewish tradition, where men is punished when he eats
from the Tree of Knowledge. The more you know, more easily you find anguish.

"Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes deals with this subject in a splendid
way (won the Nebula Award for best novel in 1966).

The tao says: therefore the sage, in exercise of his government, empties their
minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills and strength their bones.
Which is simple advice: don't think too much. Don't take everything so
seriously.

It took me a life to learn that intelligence is not wisdom. The world is full
of uneducated wises and intelligent fools.

Are you really smart? Pray for wisdom, not intelligence.

------
dschiptsov
How about statistical data that a clinical depression occurs mostly among
women?)

~~~
X4
Guess again. Most woman are emotionally more stable than men, when it comes to
stress-resistance. Men are usually shielded much weaker to mentally stressing
attacks. That's because men favor thinking logical, but trying to grasp
illogical or stupid behavior causes a lot of stress. Could be connected with
the amount of "Mirror-Neurons" of men.

------
logical42
If high intellectual potential means an increased awareness of how fucked
humanity actually is, then it isn't super surprising that high intellectual
potential is positively correlated with depression.

------
ap22213
honest serious question: do we have evidence that high IQ (beyond say 120 or
so) is useful for anything important? Seems like a lot of people seek high IQ,
but what's the advantage exactly?

~~~
doctorstupid
It's only an advantage if you have such a high IQ. If you didn't, then you
wouldn't be interested in the kind of problems that would require it.

~~~
ap22213
Like if maybe some people had such high IQs that they saw problems with people
who thought their moderately high IQs were useful.

Sorry, just looking for real data.

------
siscia
We all believe to be super genius, don't we ?

I really wonder what is the average QI (for what it counts) here on HN...

------
caublestone
It's kind of depressing that one needs a high level of intellect to understand
the paper.

~~~
hughlomas
No, this paper is a mimicry of an actual paper, it is analogous to fool's
gold.

------
michaelochurch
The good news: there seems to be no well-documented correlation between upper-
tier IQ and mental illness. At a measured IQ of 150, you're no more or less
likely to have mental health issues than at 100. You can rest easy now (sort
of). Technically speaking, your high IQ is not going to make you crazy or
depressed.

The bad news: beyond about a 125 IQ, it's the CCCP (courage, creativity,
curiosity, passion) that _actually_ matter as predictors of creative
achievement, and those correlate slightly positively with biological mental
illness[0], and _very_ strongly with induced mental illness due to social
adversity.

Society makes sure that the best people have fucked-up lives. That's well-
documented. Fucked-up lives lead to mental illness. Also well-documented.

~~~
alexvr
Your second paragraph is freaking me out a bit. I don't want to believe it,
but it makes sense, and history seems to support it. My theory, though, is
that the smart, courageous, creative, curious, passionate people with a strong
"EQ" aren't as subject to mental illness. It's one thing to be a recluse who
scorns "normal, social people" and stays in his cave doing pretentious, so-so,
slightly-creative intellectual work just to spite others, perpetually
repeating to himself, "I am smarter than those people," and it's another thing
to be a genuine, smart, creative, curious, passionate dude who can actually
deal with being isolated from others when he needs to be, and who has the
social skills and empathy to socialize when he wants to. I think it also
matters whether you're a natural introvert or extrovert, because I theorize
that introverts can better cope with the inherent solitude in a creative
process. But to be relatively safe from mental illness, you've got to be one
of those introverts who could, with some effort, fake it as an extrovert --
one with exceptionally acute social awareness. You need some serious emotional
capacity and social understanding to distance yourself from depression if
you're a bright, passionate, creative powerhouse, unless you're on the other
side of the fence: a natural extrovert who possesses these qualities. In that
case, you just have to fight the urge to socialize in order to get your
creative work done (or perhaps you are creative while socializing).

~~~
qzxt
>> "It's one thing to be a recluse who scorns 'normal, social people'"

This is not a stigmatizing statement at all. tone = {sarcasm: "implied"};

Perhaps people who would feel the urge to be reclusive would be more social if
people like you kept your mouths shut every once in a while and didn't say
pathetically pretentious things like "us normal, social people".

~~~
alexvr
Sorry, didn't mean to come across like that. I'm an introvert myself. I just
respect people who are comfortable with themselves more than I respect those
who hold envious contempt for others and make excuses like "I'm just above
everyone else. That's why I don't hang out with them." Really, that was
something of a self-critique: I am certain that some people I know once
thought I was that guy who thinks he's just too good for everyone else, so I
can relate either way.

~~~
rhizome
_"I'm just above everyone else. That's why I don't hang out with them."_

Who says this?

~~~
obstacle1
Nobody, ever. Pretty sure OP is projecting his own insecurities here. Not
social _with you_ != thinks he is superior to you.

