I think you are onto something. With respect to the c factor, I have met and know a number of people with their inner demons, yet they are aware of these and cope. Often these folks experienced quite wild times in their younger years, but evolved. My own airchair opinion (I am not any sort of mental health professional) is that our "consciousness," our "self" is not a single essense, but it is as though we are several people in one (e.g. watch the Disney animated movie "Inside Out"). For some people, the various selves are more capable of coordinating and integrating their parts into a functioning whole (i.e., your "c"). Some other souls struggle with this, for whatever reason(s)
Re: "Comorbidity rates are very high in psychiatry and conform roughly to the rule of 50%: Half of individuals who meet diagnostic criteria for one disorder meet diagnostic criteria for a second disorder at the same time, half of individuals with two disorders meet criteria for a third disorder, and so forth [... .] [...] retrospective and prospective-longitudinal research has shown that comorbidity is also sequential. For example, longitudinal research has shown that GAD [generalized anxiety disorder] and MDE [major depression] are linked to each other sequentially such that each disorder increases the likelihood of developing the other disorder in the future among individuals who presented with only one condition at one point in time. These results underscore the need to take into account both concurrent and sequential comorbidity when evaluating the structure of psychopathology." -- Caspi & others, "The p Factor: One General Psychopathology Factor in the Structure of Psychiatric Disorders?" (embedded link in Arnold's essay)
Might social mechanisms explain part of these concurrent and sequential 'comorbidities'?
For example, if a person is anxious, she might avoid social interaction, including opportunities for personal and educational growth (say, participation in a debate team at school). Anxious avoidance of opportunities for personal growth might diminish her performance in school. Low performance might diminish her self-esteem -- further lowering her academic performance. Household tensions might increase at home because school is the only gateway to adulthood. Depression might follow. Perhaps this youth would flourish if the initial social problem (anxiety about interaction) were addressed in a timely, constructive manner -- or if there were various sound pathways to adulthood, other than school-as-we-know-it.
Similarly, consider a boy who, by personality, lacks Arnold's capacity to daydream when bored. The boy might have a strong desire to be outside playing, feel trapped during class in school, and act out. A diagnosis of ADHD follows. Instead of addressing the mismatch of child and institution (education) in a timely, constructive way, clinicians administer pharmacological 'treatment'. Unintended psychological side-effects ('comorbidites') might then occur.
Humans evolved as hunters-gathers in small bands. The pace, scope, and depth of institutional and cultural change in human history are mind-boggling. Is it any wonder that many youths struggle to find their sea legs, and lose their way?
It's important to remember that psychological disorders aren't illnesses on their own, they are clusters of symptoms that we attach names to and not the same as a viral or bacterial infection which produces symptoms. Then it is further important to remember that there is a lot of symptom overlap between disorders, and if you meet the criteria of disorder X with say 5 of 8 potential symptoms then you can easily also be at 3 of 8 for disorder Y already, and then you might have 1 or 2 symptoms of a half dozen different disorders. Are anxiety and depression really different? It's hard to say with this methodology, there are a whole list of symptoms that you can exhibit with Covid and if you get it twice they might not perfectly overlap but you still had Covid twice. With a mental disorder why couldn't it be the same thing manifesting moderately differently at different times?
The underlying paper is really interesting. I’d also love to hear about further research along the same lines, especially around development of instruments to test for p. The fact that p correlates so well with low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and high neuroticism in personality tests felt like a strongly confirming factor. (And then I read table 2, which shows all the other seemingly confirmatory correlations. Wow.)
I think there’s also a factor related to the environment one finds oneself in. A person who tends towards violent behavior would have been the most valued friend of a king in 12th century England, but would be seen as having psychosis today. There are many examples today of this sort of thing, eg, I’d think diagnoses of ADHD in elementary school boys has as much to do with the expectations of the modern school environment as with the mental health of boys.
Is it possible that the paucity of p-factor research is tied to a fear of finding--and then having to publish--a correlation with either sex or race, two fields and factors that today are fear-narrowed?
There’s a lot of understanding among researchers that mental illnesses have a lot of comorbidities and are highly influenced by innate factors (see Kevin Mitchell’s book Innate). I generally agree with the framing of this article, but I’m not sure that a theoretical construct of a p-factor will make much difference. We will still be largely in the dark about the biophysical processes underlying it, just as we are with the g-factor.
"When a striking and controversial theory appears"
I asked the psychologist I know and she had heard of the P factor, but the P factor isn't actually new, striking, or controversial. The comorbidity of different disorders has been known and noted for a very long time. My question then was what exactly was the purpose of the p factor classification besides to get published? To organize the DSM better?
My own model of this overlapping genetic phenomenon, especially when bringing in the effects of the modern world, is to analogize to asthma, allergies, and autoimmune disorders.
The trans son, BPD mother is underlying ‘high functioning’ Autism /Asperger’s in both. The mother and father often have had similar childhood experiences and share personality traits (assortative mating) but the girl’s was never recognised as a spectrum of positive and negative like the boys was, even if her ‘deficits’ are still much higher than his. Boys can get away with it to an extent, but girls need a much more sophisticated socialisation to be fully functional. BPD is a horrible term though. I wish people would understand that it’s almost never that.
Now for the grand part: make the factors of g (IQ, SES, openness), d (sociopathy, narcissism, disagreeableness), and p (mental illness, neuroticism) independent from one another, and then assign different genes to them.
Something like a p factor almost certainly exists although it is a synthetic construct as opposed to a natural kind. But it may well be a useful construct. The analogy to intelligence is probably apt. Probably is highly correlated with executive functioning.
Great post, and definitely a fruitful area of research.
This is a brilliant piece. I feel like there is pressure to make everyone’s disorder special so it gets individualized attention but clearly this obscures important overlaps.
On the study about the connection between the mental health of the mothers and their sons with gender identity disorder- perhaps the fathers aren't really discussed because the mental health of grown men is harder to get a good sampling because men seek professional help far less often.
I think you are onto something. With respect to the c factor, I have met and know a number of people with their inner demons, yet they are aware of these and cope. Often these folks experienced quite wild times in their younger years, but evolved. My own airchair opinion (I am not any sort of mental health professional) is that our "consciousness," our "self" is not a single essense, but it is as though we are several people in one (e.g. watch the Disney animated movie "Inside Out"). For some people, the various selves are more capable of coordinating and integrating their parts into a functioning whole (i.e., your "c"). Some other souls struggle with this, for whatever reason(s)
Re: "Comorbidity rates are very high in psychiatry and conform roughly to the rule of 50%: Half of individuals who meet diagnostic criteria for one disorder meet diagnostic criteria for a second disorder at the same time, half of individuals with two disorders meet criteria for a third disorder, and so forth [... .] [...] retrospective and prospective-longitudinal research has shown that comorbidity is also sequential. For example, longitudinal research has shown that GAD [generalized anxiety disorder] and MDE [major depression] are linked to each other sequentially such that each disorder increases the likelihood of developing the other disorder in the future among individuals who presented with only one condition at one point in time. These results underscore the need to take into account both concurrent and sequential comorbidity when evaluating the structure of psychopathology." -- Caspi & others, "The p Factor: One General Psychopathology Factor in the Structure of Psychiatric Disorders?" (embedded link in Arnold's essay)
Might social mechanisms explain part of these concurrent and sequential 'comorbidities'?
For example, if a person is anxious, she might avoid social interaction, including opportunities for personal and educational growth (say, participation in a debate team at school). Anxious avoidance of opportunities for personal growth might diminish her performance in school. Low performance might diminish her self-esteem -- further lowering her academic performance. Household tensions might increase at home because school is the only gateway to adulthood. Depression might follow. Perhaps this youth would flourish if the initial social problem (anxiety about interaction) were addressed in a timely, constructive manner -- or if there were various sound pathways to adulthood, other than school-as-we-know-it.
Similarly, consider a boy who, by personality, lacks Arnold's capacity to daydream when bored. The boy might have a strong desire to be outside playing, feel trapped during class in school, and act out. A diagnosis of ADHD follows. Instead of addressing the mismatch of child and institution (education) in a timely, constructive way, clinicians administer pharmacological 'treatment'. Unintended psychological side-effects ('comorbidites') might then occur.
Humans evolved as hunters-gathers in small bands. The pace, scope, and depth of institutional and cultural change in human history are mind-boggling. Is it any wonder that many youths struggle to find their sea legs, and lose their way?
It's important to remember that psychological disorders aren't illnesses on their own, they are clusters of symptoms that we attach names to and not the same as a viral or bacterial infection which produces symptoms. Then it is further important to remember that there is a lot of symptom overlap between disorders, and if you meet the criteria of disorder X with say 5 of 8 potential symptoms then you can easily also be at 3 of 8 for disorder Y already, and then you might have 1 or 2 symptoms of a half dozen different disorders. Are anxiety and depression really different? It's hard to say with this methodology, there are a whole list of symptoms that you can exhibit with Covid and if you get it twice they might not perfectly overlap but you still had Covid twice. With a mental disorder why couldn't it be the same thing manifesting moderately differently at different times?
I don't know if Scott Alexander reads your substack, but it would be interesting to see what he thinks.
The underlying paper is really interesting. I’d also love to hear about further research along the same lines, especially around development of instruments to test for p. The fact that p correlates so well with low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and high neuroticism in personality tests felt like a strongly confirming factor. (And then I read table 2, which shows all the other seemingly confirmatory correlations. Wow.)
I think there’s also a factor related to the environment one finds oneself in. A person who tends towards violent behavior would have been the most valued friend of a king in 12th century England, but would be seen as having psychosis today. There are many examples today of this sort of thing, eg, I’d think diagnoses of ADHD in elementary school boys has as much to do with the expectations of the modern school environment as with the mental health of boys.
Is it possible that the paucity of p-factor research is tied to a fear of finding--and then having to publish--a correlation with either sex or race, two fields and factors that today are fear-narrowed?
higher neuroticism and depression in women is pretty well documented
There’s a lot of understanding among researchers that mental illnesses have a lot of comorbidities and are highly influenced by innate factors (see Kevin Mitchell’s book Innate). I generally agree with the framing of this article, but I’m not sure that a theoretical construct of a p-factor will make much difference. We will still be largely in the dark about the biophysical processes underlying it, just as we are with the g-factor.
"When a striking and controversial theory appears"
I asked the psychologist I know and she had heard of the P factor, but the P factor isn't actually new, striking, or controversial. The comorbidity of different disorders has been known and noted for a very long time. My question then was what exactly was the purpose of the p factor classification besides to get published? To organize the DSM better?
My own model of this overlapping genetic phenomenon, especially when bringing in the effects of the modern world, is to analogize to asthma, allergies, and autoimmune disorders.
The trans son, BPD mother is underlying ‘high functioning’ Autism /Asperger’s in both. The mother and father often have had similar childhood experiences and share personality traits (assortative mating) but the girl’s was never recognised as a spectrum of positive and negative like the boys was, even if her ‘deficits’ are still much higher than his. Boys can get away with it to an extent, but girls need a much more sophisticated socialisation to be fully functional. BPD is a horrible term though. I wish people would understand that it’s almost never that.
Now for the grand part: make the factors of g (IQ, SES, openness), d (sociopathy, narcissism, disagreeableness), and p (mental illness, neuroticism) independent from one another, and then assign different genes to them.
But a lot of the genes will probably overlap, especially because they all affect the brain.
Re psychology research, spend a year working in a lab, you'll understand exactly why it is the way it is.
Something like a p factor almost certainly exists although it is a synthetic construct as opposed to a natural kind. But it may well be a useful construct. The analogy to intelligence is probably apt. Probably is highly correlated with executive functioning.
Great post, and definitely a fruitful area of research.
Haidt specifies Tumblr as a possible source of preteen and teen mental health problems because of its vicious atmosphere.
This is a brilliant piece. I feel like there is pressure to make everyone’s disorder special so it gets individualized attention but clearly this obscures important overlaps.
On the study about the connection between the mental health of the mothers and their sons with gender identity disorder- perhaps the fathers aren't really discussed because the mental health of grown men is harder to get a good sampling because men seek professional help far less often.