Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker of Anxiety, Depression [pdf](journals.sagepub.com)
journals.sagepub.com
Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker of Anxiety, Depression [pdf]
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2167702617747074
175 comments
You jest but absolutely every fractious argument I have starts with the words, “You always […]”, every such argument quickly turns sours, and inevitably without fail leads to me becoming depressed.
For the love of God is it so difficult to say, “You nearly always […]” or “You almost always “…”] or some non-absolutist variant? Are all the people I argue with mentally unwell?
For the love of God is it so difficult to say, “You nearly always […]” or “You almost always “…”] or some non-absolutist variant? Are all the people I argue with mentally unwell?
According to the theory of Non-Violent Communication (NVC), it's better to identify a specific instance of the behavior rather than generalize.
1. Agree that a particular thing happened
2. Express how you felt about that thing happening
3. Explain what your needs are
4. Request the person to do it differently next time
Realize these arguments should really be about getting your own needs met, rather than proving that the other person is objectively wrong because of how they "always" or "almost always" do something.
1. Agree that a particular thing happened
2. Express how you felt about that thing happening
3. Explain what your needs are
4. Request the person to do it differently next time
Realize these arguments should really be about getting your own needs met, rather than proving that the other person is objectively wrong because of how they "always" or "almost always" do something.
NVC changed my life! It's helped me gracefully navigate little relationship difficulties that could have otherwise ballooned into moments of sabotage.
Here's how I've internalized the NVC formula:
1. Identify what has happened in an objective way, e.g. "we got in a car accident" or "my partner said I don't care". Be honest, and don't inject any judgement. Just lay out the situation.
2. Describe how you felt and how you feel. Use actual feeling words: stating "I felt manipulated" is actually a judgement, not a feeling. Saying "I feel unheard" is a judgement. Avoid these kinds of judgements guised as feelings at all costs. Learn to catch them in your sleep. The NVC book has two pages of true feeling words, like "anxious", "uncertain" and "joyful". There are times when I've sat there with a notebook looking at these pages and been brought to tears. In the heat of a difficult moment, having a page full of feeling words is really helpful.
3. Use your feelings to discover your basic needs that are or are not being met. The idea is that a difficult feeling springs from a basic need going unfulfilled, whereas positive feelings arise when basic needs are met. Connect the dots.
4. Make your request(s). If you've discovered some unfulfilled needs, figure out what could be done to meet them. Now you're ready to make a specific request, rather than a vague one wrapped up in unexpressed emotion and judgement! This step is about helping yourself and/or someone else understand how to support your needs in understandable, concrete ways.
Here's how I've internalized the NVC formula:
1. Identify what has happened in an objective way, e.g. "we got in a car accident" or "my partner said I don't care". Be honest, and don't inject any judgement. Just lay out the situation.
2. Describe how you felt and how you feel. Use actual feeling words: stating "I felt manipulated" is actually a judgement, not a feeling. Saying "I feel unheard" is a judgement. Avoid these kinds of judgements guised as feelings at all costs. Learn to catch them in your sleep. The NVC book has two pages of true feeling words, like "anxious", "uncertain" and "joyful". There are times when I've sat there with a notebook looking at these pages and been brought to tears. In the heat of a difficult moment, having a page full of feeling words is really helpful.
3. Use your feelings to discover your basic needs that are or are not being met. The idea is that a difficult feeling springs from a basic need going unfulfilled, whereas positive feelings arise when basic needs are met. Connect the dots.
4. Make your request(s). If you've discovered some unfulfilled needs, figure out what could be done to meet them. Now you're ready to make a specific request, rather than a vague one wrapped up in unexpressed emotion and judgement! This step is about helping yourself and/or someone else understand how to support your needs in understandable, concrete ways.
Is the book actually called "non violent communication"?
It's called "nonviolent communication, a language for life"
[deleted]
The approved soft psychiatric way you're supposed to do this is something like this:
"When you do X, it makes me feel..."
Which is actually a pretty effective construct when you try it.
"When you do X, it makes me feel..."
Which is actually a pretty effective construct when you try it.
Even better is "When you do X, I feel..."
Your feelings might be triggered by X, but it's a stretch to say X is the cause, and not productive.
Your feelings might be triggered by X, but it's a stretch to say X is the cause, and not productive.
The brain is binary. Neurons fire or they do not. Holding more complex notions in mind that go beyond a simple binary relationship requires more energy (this is not as direct as my statements make it sound, but it generally captures the situation). Because civilization is profoundly safe, there is no substantial benefit to expending that larger amount of energy. Even the worst mistake generally will not result in serious injury or death, so most people will not bother to exert themselves so.
This is wrong on so many levels... Just to point out the physiological misunderstanding: The word "binary" is quite misleading when applied to neurons.
While neurons do work in concrete impulses, these impulses encode continuous values in the frequency domain.
The evolutionary mechanism is also wrong: Starvation is also largely absent today, so any evolutionary pressure to preserve energy would be equally unimportant as other causes of death. In fact, obesity far outstrips starvation as cause for mortality. So if evolution had had the time to adjust, we'd all wallow in ambiguities.
As a rule of thumb: attributing human behaviour that is more complex than basic emotions (fear, hunger, arousal,...) to evolution is almost always wrong. Overcoming evolutionary instincts is, after all, one of humanity's proudest achievements.
It's also not entirely settled if thinking hard actually increases the brain's energy usage. It appears that the brain has a relatively high caseload, with minimal variability.
While neurons do work in concrete impulses, these impulses encode continuous values in the frequency domain.
The evolutionary mechanism is also wrong: Starvation is also largely absent today, so any evolutionary pressure to preserve energy would be equally unimportant as other causes of death. In fact, obesity far outstrips starvation as cause for mortality. So if evolution had had the time to adjust, we'd all wallow in ambiguities.
As a rule of thumb: attributing human behaviour that is more complex than basic emotions (fear, hunger, arousal,...) to evolution is almost always wrong. Overcoming evolutionary instincts is, after all, one of humanity's proudest achievements.
It's also not entirely settled if thinking hard actually increases the brain's energy usage. It appears that the brain has a relatively high caseload, with minimal variability.
I go with “you often”. Or even better, rephrase the entire thing so that it can start with “it seems like” to avoid the accusatory tone altogether.
You never do the dishes vs You often don’t help out with the dishes vs It seems like I’m always the one doing the dishes.
You never do the dishes vs You often don’t help out with the dishes vs It seems like I’m always the one doing the dishes.
vs "I often feel like I'm the only one doing the dishes"
vs "I have gotten the impression you like helping out, but I also noticed that sometimes you don't do the dishes even when you have good opportunities to. Is something wrong? Can I help you get started with that in some way?"
I strongly prefer the latter. More verbose, yes, but it also acknowledges the other person does help, it does not assume malice, and it anchors a strong desire to help out. Which is ehat we want!
vs "I have gotten the impression you like helping out, but I also noticed that sometimes you don't do the dishes even when you have good opportunities to. Is something wrong? Can I help you get started with that in some way?"
I strongly prefer the latter. More verbose, yes, but it also acknowledges the other person does help, it does not assume malice, and it anchors a strong desire to help out. Which is ehat we want!
Huge fan of “too often” myself, along with “not always <get that out of the way up front>, but many times...”
I like your suggestion at the end of speaking from the speaker’s POV. I dunno, I first heard this pointed out in a 100 level psych class, a lot of folks here have been to college/uni. Hopefully this isn’t news to many. But we can be a forgetful lot.
I like your suggestion at the end of speaking from the speaker’s POV. I dunno, I first heard this pointed out in a 100 level psych class, a lot of folks here have been to college/uni. Hopefully this isn’t news to many. But we can be a forgetful lot.
What about "I'd like help with the dishes?"
Yeah, my first reaction was also "what about 'often'?"
"You almost always" is just an intellectualized, passive-aggressive variation on "you always".
“It bothers me how often you...” is objectively true and doesn’t start the conversation with a condemnation.
You are bothered. Maybe it happens every week, maybe it’s only happened three times. But it’s happening enough that it’s bothering you.
You are bothered. Maybe it happens every week, maybe it’s only happened three times. But it’s happening enough that it’s bothering you.
That's a very interesting observation. You're possibly right. A few others here have recommended "often" instead or totally different constructions.
Point in fact, I have never had so many replies to a comment on HN in all my many years here. I've hit on something obviously. I can't reply to everyone but I do want to say that I've read all the responses and they're super interesting and food for thought. :)
Point in fact, I have never had so many replies to a comment on HN in all my many years here. I've hit on something obviously. I can't reply to everyone but I do want to say that I've read all the responses and they're super interesting and food for thought. :)
You can't control what other people do and say but you can control your reaction to it (obviously easier said than done and in some cases impossible without help). So many arguments in life are made because you've inadvertently gone against an expectation another person had based on their own experiences.
say anything to another person starting with "you .... " will immediately bring up defenses and come off as argumentative and passive aggressive and all kinds of boundary violations going on there. There is no harm in saying what you feel:
"I feel bad about the way we talked last time"
Unless I read this the wrong way, are you being addressed like this by someone?
Unless I read this the wrong way, are you being addressed like this by someone?
"You need to..." is one of my favorites. I'm often guilty of it myself when offering advice to others, but recently I've realized how off-putting it can be and have made an attempt to stop phrasing things in that way.
If you're having that many arguments, maybe it's you. Not being snarky, it can be difficult to assess your social interactions int he aggregate and conflict may sometimes be drive n by a desire for emotional activation (and maybe dopamine or other neural reward) that isn't satisfied by shallow/bland interactions.
Of course, not all arguments are bad. I prefer to be around someone that argues (in a constructive lets-compete-for-a-good-solution way) than someone who is just habitually agreeable; in the latter case, you might want someone to test out the strength of your ideas but you end up feeling like you're pushing a string, which is demotivating.
Of course, not all arguments are bad. I prefer to be around someone that argues (in a constructive lets-compete-for-a-good-solution way) than someone who is just habitually agreeable; in the latter case, you might want someone to test out the strength of your ideas but you end up feeling like you're pushing a string, which is demotivating.
Please seek professional help as soon as possible! Remember, it will get better.
After reading this, also checked my writing for Absolutist words, and also will try to consciously avoid them, would be very annoying to see someone replying with "Please seek professional help as soon as possible!" ;-)
It always does.
[deleted]
Making some lifelong pledge to not use any of those words seems to be gross overkill.
You can't even say something like: "I'm full because I ate the entire sandwich."
You can't even say something like: "I'm full because I ate the entire sandwich."
You might be missing the joke in the OP.
In any case the meaning of "full" in "I'm full" is colloquial and not absolutist. It's more like "I'm satisfied" and not "I'm stuffed" (which also isn't used literally).
In any case the meaning of "full" in "I'm full" is colloquial and not absolutist. It's more like "I'm satisfied" and not "I'm stuffed" (which also isn't used literally).
> without totally understanding
Hee! Good one.
Hee! Good one.
ho ho ho
Hi, OP here.
The actual title of the linked article is "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation".
Unfortunately this is well over the 80 character limit for HN titles.
The journal page at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2167702617747074 has the abstract if you don't want to download a PDF.
Edited for minor wording changes
The actual title of the linked article is "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation".
Unfortunately this is well over the 80 character limit for HN titles.
The journal page at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2167702617747074 has the abstract if you don't want to download a PDF.
Edited for minor wording changes
Hi, do you happen to have the list of absolutist and non-absolutists words you have used? I couldn't find it in the publication and the comment below (by slig, which lists the absolutist ones) does not give its source.
Page with links to all the tables: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/21677026177470...
Here's the list of absolutist words: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/21677026177470...
absolutely
all
always
complete
completely
constant
constantly
definitely
entire
ever
every
everyone
everything
full
must
never
nothing
totally
whole
Here's the list of absolutist words: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/21677026177470...
absolutely
all
always
complete
completely
constant
constantly
definitely
entire
ever
every
everyone
everything
full
must
never
nothing
totally
whole
Someone should check for the prevalence in these words in the lyrics that people with suicidal ideas listen to the most. Or the music that suicidal people compose.
For example Chester of Linkin Park was open and public about his battle with depression / suicidal ideas. Talked about it in interviews, etc. Now I want to know how often these words come up in his music, compared to a control.
For example Chester of Linkin Park was open and public about his battle with depression / suicidal ideas. Talked about it in interviews, etc. Now I want to know how often these words come up in his music, compared to a control.
[deleted]
Posted elsewhere in the thread
Funny thing is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) tackles black and white ways of thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
Another article was posted on Hacker News talking about Woebot. It's easy enough to see a pattern in Woebot's discourse and it can help people get out of really tough spots.
Another article was posted on Hacker News talking about Woebot. It's easy enough to see a pattern in Woebot's discourse and it can help people get out of really tough spots.
[deleted]
Fascinating. I'm regularly coaching individuals to avoid absolutist words more as a means so they don't stir the pot with team members. This study points out a correlation that makes me rethink how I approach that advice.
It seems like there's a lot of room for understanding how language can impact behavior. There's the colloqualism "Perception is reality" and I guess with CBT the true mechanism is to change the language of a persons internal dialogue thus changing the way someone perceives the world.
It seems like there's a lot of room for understanding how language can impact behavior. There's the colloqualism "Perception is reality" and I guess with CBT the true mechanism is to change the language of a persons internal dialogue thus changing the way someone perceives the world.
What is the goal for avoiding absolutist words?
I ask because I would much rather work with someone who is decisive than with someone who avoids judgements and "absolutist words." I see the latter as "wishy-washy." I'm sure that says more about me than them, but I find those who always seek a middle ground to be uninspiring and low-energy.
I ask because I would much rather work with someone who is decisive than with someone who avoids judgements and "absolutist words." I see the latter as "wishy-washy." I'm sure that says more about me than them, but I find those who always seek a middle ground to be uninspiring and low-energy.
Real examples "We've never done that." or "That's never a problem for us.", "In my entire career I've never done it that way". At which point there are almost always examples, but really all its doing is shutting down the conversation.
These statements generally come from an emotional reaction (or gut-feel) which are fine since we are humans after all... but really do nothing to help have a rational conversation and make a smart decision.
Wishy-washiness is certainly another problem, but that's a whole different topic.
These statements generally come from an emotional reaction (or gut-feel) which are fine since we are humans after all... but really do nothing to help have a rational conversation and make a smart decision.
Wishy-washiness is certainly another problem, but that's a whole different topic.
In can correlate with lack of ability to think in terms of trade-offs and nuance.
"Wishy-washy" seems like a proxy for a better defined characteristic, but I'm not sure what. Indecisive? Ambivalent? You tell me!
It is a false dichotomy to portray communication as either absolutist or wishy-washy. You can communicate precisely and confidently without falling back on inaccurate hyperbole, which is often what absolutism is.
"Wishy-washy" seems like a proxy for a better defined characteristic, but I'm not sure what. Indecisive? Ambivalent? You tell me!
It is a false dichotomy to portray communication as either absolutist or wishy-washy. You can communicate precisely and confidently without falling back on inaccurate hyperbole, which is often what absolutism is.
Fear of conflict. Fear of mistakes.
If you're curious which absolutist words they picked: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/21677026177470...
Methodology for determining words:
"To construct these dictionaries, we initially brainstormed more than 300 absolutist words and 200 nonabsolutist words (including extreme words). Testing on pilot data (control and test groups) revealed that many of the words on these original lists were too obscure to register with sufficient frequency for analysis. Consequently, the original dictionaries were reduced to the most prevalent 22 absolutist words and 43 nonabsolutist words (including 21 extreme words). Although this was based on a mostly arbitrary cutoff, it was intended that the lists be large enough to produce representative dictionary percentages, but small enough to facilitate independent validation by experts. The 22 absolutist words and 43 nonabsolutist words were combined into a single list of 65 words. Five independent expert judges were asked to categorize them as absolute, nonabsolute, and/or extreme. Two of the judges are clinical psychologists from the University of Reading Charlie Waller Institute and three are linguists from the University of Reading School of Clinical Language Sciences. Judges were permitted to place words into more than one category (i.e., extreme and absolute). The agreement between our original categorization of the words (absolutist/nonabsolutist) and that of the judges ranged between 83% and 94%, whereas the interjudge agreement was 96%. Words were considered absolute, extreme, or nonabsolute on the basis of a majority decision by the judges. Three words, anything, need, and needed, were moved from the absolutist dictionary to the nonabsolutist dictionary as they were not categorized as absolute by the majority of judges. All the words on our nonabsolutist dictionary were judged nonabsolute. Judges showed almost no agreement on extreme words, this category was consequently removed from the analysis (collapsed into the nonabsolutist category)."
Methodology for determining words:
"To construct these dictionaries, we initially brainstormed more than 300 absolutist words and 200 nonabsolutist words (including extreme words). Testing on pilot data (control and test groups) revealed that many of the words on these original lists were too obscure to register with sufficient frequency for analysis. Consequently, the original dictionaries were reduced to the most prevalent 22 absolutist words and 43 nonabsolutist words (including 21 extreme words). Although this was based on a mostly arbitrary cutoff, it was intended that the lists be large enough to produce representative dictionary percentages, but small enough to facilitate independent validation by experts. The 22 absolutist words and 43 nonabsolutist words were combined into a single list of 65 words. Five independent expert judges were asked to categorize them as absolute, nonabsolute, and/or extreme. Two of the judges are clinical psychologists from the University of Reading Charlie Waller Institute and three are linguists from the University of Reading School of Clinical Language Sciences. Judges were permitted to place words into more than one category (i.e., extreme and absolute). The agreement between our original categorization of the words (absolutist/nonabsolutist) and that of the judges ranged between 83% and 94%, whereas the interjudge agreement was 96%. Words were considered absolute, extreme, or nonabsolute on the basis of a majority decision by the judges. Three words, anything, need, and needed, were moved from the absolutist dictionary to the nonabsolutist dictionary as they were not categorized as absolute by the majority of judges. All the words on our nonabsolutist dictionary were judged nonabsolute. Judges showed almost no agreement on extreme words, this category was consequently removed from the analysis (collapsed into the nonabsolutist category)."
List of absolutist words:
absolutely
all
always
complete
completely
constant
constantly
definitely
entire
ever
every
everyone
everything
full
must
never
nothing
totally
wholeIs it just me, or has "definitely" become sort of subtly indefinite in modern language? Consider:
A) We should throw a party for him.
B) We should definitely throw a party for him.
A) We should get together soon.
B) We should definitely get together soon.
Yeah, I think the authors should definitely consider this.
they used a panel of judges to determine whether a word counted as "absolutist" or not, the results of which look at least partly arbitrary to me. Apparently "really" and "anything" did not count as absolutist but "definitely" did.
literally
I used most of these in an application's personal statement to a program at an internationally leading university…
Don't forget "nobody."
> Nobody builds walls like I do.
> Nobody builds walls like I do.
Lot of these words are spoken by politicians to demand authority recognition.
Can we say politicians therefore exploit the anxiety of the population through absolutism?
Can we say politicians therefore exploit the anxiety of the population through absolutism?
I just did a quick grep in a set of Speeches by two different politicians (about 20,000 words each):
So, I'm questioning your assumptions...
#Pol #<absolutely|all|always|...>/#<words>
Trump 0.013
Obama 0.004
Congress 0.011
HN 0.017
So, I'm questioning your assumptions...
Yah that's about right. Thanks for this data. I would expect some positivity from politicians compared to HN nerds.
BTW this really shows how awful Trump is.
BTW this really shows how awful Trump is.
Is this the entire list of 'absolutist' words?
A. It seems very small. B. I'm assuming a lot of research went into choosing that list, I guess I'll have to search for how that works haha.
A. It seems very small. B. I'm assuming a lot of research went into choosing that list, I guess I'll have to search for how that works haha.
The entire list of words used on this specific paper. I just copied/pasted from the PDF here.
They describe the methods for making this set. No, it’s not all. They used their team to brainstorm absolute and non, whittled it down to 65, then these 19.
They narrowed their list down to those that appear above some frequency.
all, constant/ly, nothing are notably common in any workplace. Wait, "any" isn't in there? I'm not hype about this study.
Thank you for posting this, I would have ignored the Supplemental Materials link otherwise.
One thing I am sorta, kind of, sometimes realising is that like - if you preface what you want to say, maybe with a lot of what are potentially unsure phrases, that people - in my opinion, I'm not an expert - won't take you, in certain situations, as seriously.
Brash people who lay things out in absolutes are listened to and respected more. I always suffered under the delusion that people who talked like that must really know what they're talking about and done their research - why else would they speak with such confidence? It took me a long time to realise they don't know anymore than I do, and sometimes less. I can now spot a lot of well-respected people in tech - who are admired widely and quoted endlessly - who are stunningly ignorant of some of the things they talk about.
It's also made me realise that appearance and accent matter a huge amount in tech. If a bald Indian man invented a derivative language and coined a bunch of catch-phrases and neologisms about complexity - he'd be met with memes and derision. But if an American man with thick luscious hair and an educated coastal accent does it, everyone takes him seriously.
Brash people who lay things out in absolutes are listened to and respected more. I always suffered under the delusion that people who talked like that must really know what they're talking about and done their research - why else would they speak with such confidence? It took me a long time to realise they don't know anymore than I do, and sometimes less. I can now spot a lot of well-respected people in tech - who are admired widely and quoted endlessly - who are stunningly ignorant of some of the things they talk about.
It's also made me realise that appearance and accent matter a huge amount in tech. If a bald Indian man invented a derivative language and coined a bunch of catch-phrases and neologisms about complexity - he'd be met with memes and derision. But if an American man with thick luscious hair and an educated coastal accent does it, everyone takes him seriously.
> who are stunningly ignorant of some of the things they talk about
what interests me is that you say "some of" (I have had the same experience). where I struggle is trying to pay attention when these people actually know what they are talking about. it becomes so difficult to know what is bullshit and what is real, and I often miss out on valuable insight because I can't trust what they say 50% of the time.
what interests me is that you say "some of" (I have had the same experience). where I struggle is trying to pay attention when these people actually know what they are talking about. it becomes so difficult to know what is bullshit and what is real, and I often miss out on valuable insight because I can't trust what they say 50% of the time.
Exactly.
There's an old school programmer at work who founded the company, created his own programming language a big application is running on and is widely considered to be a programmer guru.
He has some really strong opinions about programming, some I agree with and others I find difficult to swallow, but he's also firmly against vaccines, believes his kung fu is superior to the MMA in UFC and is generally very positive to pseudo medicine of different kinds.
I find it very difficult to take his programming advice seriously when he follows by saying vaccines are anti science.
There's an old school programmer at work who founded the company, created his own programming language a big application is running on and is widely considered to be a programmer guru.
He has some really strong opinions about programming, some I agree with and others I find difficult to swallow, but he's also firmly against vaccines, believes his kung fu is superior to the MMA in UFC and is generally very positive to pseudo medicine of different kinds.
I find it very difficult to take his programming advice seriously when he follows by saying vaccines are anti science.
Wasn't there a very respected gentleman who has passed on in the past decade, who ran a large company we've all heard of, and who also just happened to believe greatly in pseudo medicine (maybe not vaccines in particular) and odd diets?
What I'm saying is, it takes all kinds to make a village. The person you're talking about's beliefs on vaccines are unlikely to affect many. His genius at programming, however, is.
What I'm saying is, it takes all kinds to make a village. The person you're talking about's beliefs on vaccines are unlikely to affect many. His genius at programming, however, is.
I know you probably can't say who it is but I am bursting with curiosity.
I find common sense and skepticism usually works. I mean say someone is an extremely accomplished operating systems programmer. There's no reason to believe they are any kind of authority on programming language design, or that their ideas on programming language design are noteworthy or well thought-out.
virtuexru(4)
I noticed during a very anxious time in my life that my thoughts (and speech to a certain extent) were most often overly tentative and full of qualifications. (I even wrote a very short story related to the idea which makes use of a similar tack as your first sentence: https://gdoc.pub/doc/1w2Fxd41ptoqD-Qv7NKNK7Yg9pfdE2dg5_ncHmm...)
The way it seemed to me was that I was in a mode where I needed to be very careful about not messing up (and it seemed likely that I would), so I constantly over-analyzed, with the typical result that I found all sorts of ways things technically could go wrong.
I'm guessing an element of paranoia is typically involved as well when you find this pattern of speech/thought.
The way it seemed to me was that I was in a mode where I needed to be very careful about not messing up (and it seemed likely that I would), so I constantly over-analyzed, with the typical result that I found all sorts of ways things technically could go wrong.
I'm guessing an element of paranoia is typically involved as well when you find this pattern of speech/thought.
Did it dissipate naturally or did you start editing yourself to strip those sorts of speech patterns out of your writing and talking?
I noticed in the last year or two that I was abusing absolutist words in written text and have been working to self-correct through heavy editing. It's challenging, these words are what naturally flow from my fingers when I type. Of course, I do have my own personal struggles with anxiety, too, which go back well over a decade. Also, I agree with your thoughts re: over analysis and paranoia, I see that in myself.
I noticed in the last year or two that I was abusing absolutist words in written text and have been working to self-correct through heavy editing. It's challenging, these words are what naturally flow from my fingers when I type. Of course, I do have my own personal struggles with anxiety, too, which go back well over a decade. Also, I agree with your thoughts re: over analysis and paranoia, I see that in myself.
I didn't do anything on the level of speech. I figure it's a form of 'treating the symptom'—of course I'm not a medical professional, though :)
One thing that did seem to help was just changing my values about how much proof one should have in order to act with certainty. I was reading some William James and he talked about the tradeoff between one's ability to act and one's choice to continue contemplating possibilities. I had previously viewed it as without tradeoff to continue analyzing possibilities, never fully committing to one viewpoint—it was just a good thing, an expression of my capabilities as an analytical thinker. I don't see it that way anymore.
I still have some anxiety issues but they don't run my life anymore. I think the biggest thing was regaining trust in the non-conscious parts of myself—seemed like I was living an extended Centipede's Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Centipede%27s_Dilemma). Meditation seems to have helped also (partly in relation to regaining trust). Learning to see anxiety as okay or at least totally beyond one's control, rather than trying to fight it, has also helped.
One thing that did seem to help was just changing my values about how much proof one should have in order to act with certainty. I was reading some William James and he talked about the tradeoff between one's ability to act and one's choice to continue contemplating possibilities. I had previously viewed it as without tradeoff to continue analyzing possibilities, never fully committing to one viewpoint—it was just a good thing, an expression of my capabilities as an analytical thinker. I don't see it that way anymore.
I still have some anxiety issues but they don't run my life anymore. I think the biggest thing was regaining trust in the non-conscious parts of myself—seemed like I was living an extended Centipede's Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Centipede%27s_Dilemma). Meditation seems to have helped also (partly in relation to regaining trust). Learning to see anxiety as okay or at least totally beyond one's control, rather than trying to fight it, has also helped.
> I noticed during a very anxious time in my life that my thoughts (and speech to a certain extent) were most often overly tentative and full of qualifications.
Yes that's definitely a thing. Which is probably why the findings in the article are so surprising (that online among their peers, depressed and anxious people talk much more strongly).
It really puts you at a disadvantage in life too, which is a nasty cycle.
Yes that's definitely a thing. Which is probably why the findings in the article are so surprising (that online among their peers, depressed and anxious people talk much more strongly).
It really puts you at a disadvantage in life too, which is a nasty cycle.
What’s interesting is how ignorant your comment comes off to me
I know a lot of people that speak to crowds about technical topics.
But they don’t come out swinging with jargon, and rely on analogy and metaphor. Since not everyone will get the jargon
It’s almost as if you maybe just don’t know why they talk that way, rather than the extent of their knowledge and skills?
I know a lot of people that speak to crowds about technical topics.
But they don’t come out swinging with jargon, and rely on analogy and metaphor. Since not everyone will get the jargon
It’s almost as if you maybe just don’t know why they talk that way, rather than the extent of their knowledge and skills?
Well I'm honoured what I said inspired you to create an account. Welcome to hacker news.
I don't have a real problem with analogy or metaphor, and that wasn't the point of what I wrote. My issue is with famous people holding forth on areas they're clearly quite ignorant of. I'm trying very hard not to name names to keep my message clear.
I don't have a real problem with analogy or metaphor, and that wasn't the point of what I wrote. My issue is with famous people holding forth on areas they're clearly quite ignorant of. I'm trying very hard not to name names to keep my message clear.
One of the lessons I try to remember from Strunk and White is that "vigorous writing is concise."
It takes more mental energy to parse a sentence that's full of qualifiers, so there is less energy left to understand what is being said.
Likewise it takes more mental energy to parse accented speech, and if both an accent and a lot of extra words are in play, forget about it.
Omit qualifiers. Unless you really need them.
It takes more mental energy to parse a sentence that's full of qualifiers, so there is less energy left to understand what is being said.
Likewise it takes more mental energy to parse accented speech, and if both an accent and a lot of extra words are in play, forget about it.
Omit qualifiers. Unless you really need them.
Definitely. "Never say never. Always give it your all. It's all or nothing." Everyone constantly says these things all of the time, but it's totally untenable. Besides being harmful, it's completely cliche. It's time everyone comes to terms with it. It's the subtle things that kill ya. Everything must be reexamined and reworked -- a complete and full examination of our entire vocabulary -- every jot and tittle. A massive undertaking yes, but we must. Let's face it, we need whole-scale change. Change is the only constant, and it's now or never. We must all pledge to absolutely never ever say these things again. Ever.
odammit beat you to this joke by about 2 hours.
Oh well, dammit. I see that now. It's a zero-sum game, and in first-to-market, winner takes all. Time to pivot.
I think that absolutist thinking has something to do with social signalling and interpretation thereof.
Someone who thinks in an absolutist manner might be more likely to jump to conclusions based on vague evidence instead of collecting more observations before passing judgement. Today with social media, instant communication and expectation to be answered immediately the absence of a like from a friend has the potential to be devastating.
It's as if the observer is doing bayesian inference where his prior is: "everything is either good or evil". With that prior they can never assign probability mass to hypotheses/explanations which lie somewhere in-between. Furthermore, by reacting to their interpretation I suspect that they are more likely to create the circumstances that lead them later to confirm that they where right which then might further sharpen their prior (if it wasn't already extreme in one way or another).
Someone who thinks in an absolutist manner might be more likely to jump to conclusions based on vague evidence instead of collecting more observations before passing judgement. Today with social media, instant communication and expectation to be answered immediately the absence of a like from a friend has the potential to be devastating.
It's as if the observer is doing bayesian inference where his prior is: "everything is either good or evil". With that prior they can never assign probability mass to hypotheses/explanations which lie somewhere in-between. Furthermore, by reacting to their interpretation I suspect that they are more likely to create the circumstances that lead them later to confirm that they where right which then might further sharpen their prior (if it wasn't already extreme in one way or another).
Curious. Wasn't Steve Jobs somewhat infamous for classifying everything as either "the greatest thing ever!" or "shit"?
Jobs as Bayesian classifier! Depending on the corpus, that could be very amusing.
Jobs as Bayesian classifier! Depending on the corpus, that could be very amusing.
That was just marketing, every thing Apple does is great, everything the competition does is shit. He was very quick with his quips about the competition.
Unfortunately, he was this way with even his trusted inner circle of developers and engineers on the Macintosh project, NeXT, etc. He was well known for this binary trait; he could shower with praise, or explode in intense criticism without regard to feelings (ticking quite a few DSM-IV boxes in the process, no doubt!)
I could see where you might draw that conclusion, but I think it more likely that the two things simply aren't correlated at all. I use absolutist language constantly, but it is more along the lines of "strong beliefs, held lightly." It is generally quite useful to get people to challenge your statements if you've making them in a sort of absolutist manner, and then you get to find the difficulties and nooks and crannies.
I agree. The bigger question is which came first:
1. Absolutism led to anxiety/depression and was signaled in speech.
2. Anxiety/Depression led people to think absolutely giving rise to absolutist speech.
3. Absolutist speech created anxiety/depression circumstances.
I go with number 1.
1. Absolutism led to anxiety/depression and was signaled in speech.
2. Anxiety/Depression led people to think absolutely giving rise to absolutist speech.
3. Absolutist speech created anxiety/depression circumstances.
I go with number 1.
Or, for completeness:
4. Absolutism and anxiety/depression have some other common cause, but don't cause each other.
4. Absolutism and anxiety/depression have some other common cause, but don't cause each other.
Lack of self-esteem and perception of your value in others eyes can lead to both.
If you think you're not valued and your opinions not valued you will tend to add expletives (very, extremely) and absolutes to your language.
Of course this can have the opposite effect on the listener. They know to dismiss the speaker (consciously or unconsciously).
Similarly I've heard "arguments" from people on particular controversial topics and they have failed to put forward their view. The language is full of absolutely that and idiotic this but I'm still don't know which side of the argument they're on!
John Lennon had a quote about this tendency. I've so far failed to find it.
If you think you're not valued and your opinions not valued you will tend to add expletives (very, extremely) and absolutes to your language.
Of course this can have the opposite effect on the listener. They know to dismiss the speaker (consciously or unconsciously).
Similarly I've heard "arguments" from people on particular controversial topics and they have failed to put forward their view. The language is full of absolutely that and idiotic this but I'm still don't know which side of the argument they're on!
John Lennon had a quote about this tendency. I've so far failed to find it.
This rings the most true.
I think another way of saying it is that nuanced thinking is a luxury that can only be afforded when there is no imminent crisis.
This corresponds pretty well to the whole System 1/2 framework most people have heard about via Daniel Kahneman.
Calm considered thinking takes time and resources, so it's not employed when people are in a real, perceived, or chemically or physically induced state of crisis.
I think another way of saying it is that nuanced thinking is a luxury that can only be afforded when there is no imminent crisis.
This corresponds pretty well to the whole System 1/2 framework most people have heard about via Daniel Kahneman.
Calm considered thinking takes time and resources, so it's not employed when people are in a real, perceived, or chemically or physically induced state of crisis.
I would also guess number 1 based on personal observations. It looks like their conclusion highlights that cognitive therapy already tries to treat this kind of thinking, so I'd guess that means they agree with you?
I'm happy you made that list.
I'm happy you made that list.
I would think it would be number 2.
People who are anxious/depressed can feel that there are very few options available to them with the trapped sensation increasing the urgency of the choice, so the limited paths that they do see could be presented with more certainty than someone who feels like there's a wealth of alternatives.
People who are anxious/depressed can feel that there are very few options available to them with the trapped sensation increasing the urgency of the choice, so the limited paths that they do see could be presented with more certainty than someone who feels like there's a wealth of alternatives.
I'll go with all of the above.
The cognitive behavioral model would say that our thoughts, behaviors, and emotions all affect each other; changes in one will change the other. So we can effect our anxiety and depression by by fighting against our absolutist tendencies that are being reinforced by our anxiety and depression.
The cognitive behavioral model would say that our thoughts, behaviors, and emotions all affect each other; changes in one will change the other. So we can effect our anxiety and depression by by fighting against our absolutist tendencies that are being reinforced by our anxiety and depression.
Or both could be the result of a common root cause, for example, a perceived deeper or better understanding of a subject.
- To convey the subject to those of perceived lesser understanding, absolute words are employed to underline the understanding of the speaker and the importance of their insight.
At the same time:
- the unwillingness or incapacity of those of perceived lesser understanding to understand the subject can lead to isolation, anxiety, depression, etc. of the speaker, independent of their use of absolutist language.
For example, take someone who believes the world will end. They will likely speak in absolute words about the event. Other people might shy away from such a person, causing isolation. Absolutism and isolation might interact and reinforce each other, but neither would strictly cause the other.
- To convey the subject to those of perceived lesser understanding, absolute words are employed to underline the understanding of the speaker and the importance of their insight.
At the same time:
- the unwillingness or incapacity of those of perceived lesser understanding to understand the subject can lead to isolation, anxiety, depression, etc. of the speaker, independent of their use of absolutist language.
For example, take someone who believes the world will end. They will likely speak in absolute words about the event. Other people might shy away from such a person, causing isolation. Absolutism and isolation might interact and reinforce each other, but neither would strictly cause the other.
That seems a bit simplistic. Consider the situation where my absolutism is a cause of your anxiety and depression, and this in turn modifies your language to reflect the unpleasant circumstances in which you find yourself. As an an example, just picture (or recall) yourself as a member of a disfavored group that's being targeted by a political leader or tendency.
This is helpful. When I hear "always", "never", "all", etc. I tend to tune out or take the remainder of the conversation less seriously as I attribute the absolute language to an issue the speaker hasn't quite fully processed or understood yet.
Of course there are exceptions when absolute words are appropriate but they feel like red flags to me.
Of course there are exceptions when absolute words are appropriate but they feel like red flags to me.
I tend to tune out or take the remainder of the conversation less seriously
Wise if someone is attempting to influence your life choices, not so wise if they're having a problem and you're studiously ignoring their requests for help, however clumsily articulated.
Wise if someone is attempting to influence your life choices, not so wise if they're having a problem and you're studiously ignoring their requests for help, however clumsily articulated.
The recently popular "worst X ever!" idiom, and its variations, pretty much end my ability to take the person who uses them seriously.
It seems like you're taking an absolutist position towards absolutists.
I'm not sure how exactly the simple use of the words "always", "never" and "all" indicate to you that a speaker hasn't fully understood their subject. I'd bet that you hear these words all the time without them even registering. There must be something more to it - Is there a certain setting where you hear these words or a certain type of conversation?
Surely, you're not talking about simple phrases such as "When I dropped the bag of groceries, all of the eggs fell out and broke." Likewise, I doubt that you're nit-picking on the fact that "always" and "never" are not technically observable by any human.
My best guess is that you're using some other unstated conversational cues that have gone unmentioned here.
I'm not sure how exactly the simple use of the words "always", "never" and "all" indicate to you that a speaker hasn't fully understood their subject. I'd bet that you hear these words all the time without them even registering. There must be something more to it - Is there a certain setting where you hear these words or a certain type of conversation?
Surely, you're not talking about simple phrases such as "When I dropped the bag of groceries, all of the eggs fell out and broke." Likewise, I doubt that you're nit-picking on the fact that "always" and "never" are not technically observable by any human.
My best guess is that you're using some other unstated conversational cues that have gone unmentioned here.
>It seems like you're taking an absolutist position towards absolutists.
Nope, parent said they "tend to" and "of course there are exceptions".
Nope, parent said they "tend to" and "of course there are exceptions".
The definition of "tend to" is regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic, which is why I said "it seems like..." instead of "you are".
Anyway, it was kind of tongue in cheek and the main bit of my comment is the set of questions about how these conversational cues actually work.
Anyway, it was kind of tongue in cheek and the main bit of my comment is the set of questions about how these conversational cues actually work.
I understood you were trying to be wry, but you were still incorrect. OP avoided absolute terms in their statement.
The example of “I broke all the eggs” is best used to describe when they all broke and had to be thrown away. I think it’s harder to understand than “I broke most of the eggs.” Etc etc
If it’s any consolation, I thought your expansion of the comment was interesting and your curiosity helps me better understand the overall thread.
The example of “I broke all the eggs” is best used to describe when they all broke and had to be thrown away. I think it’s harder to understand than “I broke most of the eggs.” Etc etc
If it’s any consolation, I thought your expansion of the comment was interesting and your curiosity helps me better understand the overall thread.
A good friend of mine killed himself about 15 years ago. The day before, he used absolutist words like I had never heard him use. So, this idea resonates with me.
Depression and suicide thoughts doesn't come immidiately. Like yesterday everything was cloudless and then boom.
Not OP, but this isn’t always true. Might be true for slow brewing depression, but not for biologically triggered mental changes (triggered by some diseases, some drugs, etc). There’s also the chance that it was a gradual uptick that wasn’t noticed until it was too late.
Sorry for your loss OP.
I'm not sure. Drugs and alcohol related things remains drugs and alcohol related. It's not about depression, but altered consciousness. Even diseases doesn't came immidiately, they slowly developing in years, or at least months.
The flip side to this is that it seems to me many leaders of note abuse these words constantly. I would love to see the study of absolutist words relationship to the ability of leaders to gain followers. Most leaders such as Churchill spoke with heavy use of absolutist words.
Not a coincidence either. Depending on how they are delivered, these words can either be empowering or disempowering with respect to how the speaker is using them.
Interesting to contrast this with certain religious and political leaders who see "equivalencey" as a character weakness and that good and just people will not be conflicted and you can draw a sharp line between the good and evil people in the world.
I can't agree with this. I don't think scraping specific forums for a small dictionary list of words can be an accurate marker of depression, especially when those forums overlap with your control ones; asthma, cancer, and ptsd sufferers would also suffer depression and anxiety as well, and it's hard to say those would be linked to word usage. It feels more like they had an idea and constructed an experiment to bolster it, considering they have no way to verify what the actual rates of depression and anxiety are apart from posting in that forum, nor any way to take into account lurkers and non-posting participants, who make the majority of a forum's inhabitants.
I would have written the headline as "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Could Be a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation" but maybe that's only because I'm in a good mood.
So what is persnicketiness a marker of?
Reading the Internet too much? :)
(I kid...sort of, but more poking fun at myself here)
(I kid...sort of, but more poking fun at myself here)
That's a better title than my submission but sadly over the limit for HN titles.
I started with the original title of "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation" and cut words until it fit.
I started with the original title of "In an Absolute State: Elevated Use of Absolutist Words Is a Marker Specific to Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation" and cut words until it fit.
Comfort and hope often live in doubts, like doubting that cancer will ultimately kill you, doubting that skipping that safety check will hurt anyone, doubting that your wife will actually leave if she catches you doing what she told you not to do, or doubting that you'll get caught during this burglary.
Lacking these doubts may leave one with anxiety and depression, but says nothing about whether these doubts are sound or unsound.
Lacking these doubts may leave one with anxiety and depression, but says nothing about whether these doubts are sound or unsound.
I've been there! Having been there, I've wondered whether this hypothesis is true. Nice to see people attempting to quantify this.
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
Haha, the same phrase came to my mind when I read the title. I love that the phrase itself is also an absolute.
I thought at first that the phrase was opening up a huge mindblower where Obi-Wan was a Sith. Turns out it was just George's shitty writing.
As a non-native speaker, what are absolutist words?
Words which indicate that the author strongly feels that the topic is a black and white issue, and they are on the correct side of the debate. A list of sample words is linked in the top comment. In this context, absolutism basically means the strength of ones convictions as seen in their use of language. The use of absolutes conveys that the author believes their viewpoint applies in all cases.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/21677026177470... table 2, words like:
absolutely all always complete completely constant constantly definitely entire ever every everyone everything full must never nothing totally whole
absolutely all always complete completely constant constantly definitely entire ever every everyone everything full must never nothing totally whole
Thanks! Weird that this was not included in the paper itself.
It’s included in the supplemental material. I was wondering why it wasn’t in the paper itself as I found this the most interesting part and also wanted to read it to see what words to judge the paper’s findings. Glad that vague words weren’t in there.
Only, always, never, nobody, everybody, everything, nothing.
They're arguing that a jump from 1% to 2% of total speech is enough to tell if someone is anxious or depressed: https://imgur.com/a/Eu5sR
While that might be statistically significant, it's practically useless. How on earth can anyone even perceive this day to day?
Also, there's a lot of potential for the results to be drowned out by bias in the study design and other confounding factors.
I really don't think the evidence supports the hypothesis in any meaningful way.
While that might be statistically significant, it's practically useless. How on earth can anyone even perceive this day to day?
Also, there's a lot of potential for the results to be drowned out by bias in the study design and other confounding factors.
I really don't think the evidence supports the hypothesis in any meaningful way.
> While that might be statistically significant, it's practically useless. How on earth can anyone even perceive this day to day?
An always-on, always-on-hand AI assistant might do it fairly easily.
An always-on, always-on-hand AI assistant might do it fairly easily.
Also Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. Sites and apps with lots of user generated text
difference of 1% to 2% = twice as often. Suggests trying to use those words half as frequently. If you see yourself using one of them, flip a coin and leave it be if it lands on tails or reconsider it if it lands on heads.
(insert usual caveats about direction of causality here)
(insert usual caveats about direction of causality here)
I wonder what the avoidance of absolutist words indicates.
Constant waffling and failure to commit.
I don't think expressions in words translate that directly into actions - you can commit but express/explain it diplomatically.
Success in good quality HN comments ?
Another possible illustration of this correlation is the overwhelming displacement of nuance in public discourse over the last decade (eg: absolutist clickbait headlines targeting niche internet audiences), and the growing atmosphere of desperation. It's difficult to pick a definite causal direction, as it seems that each one amplifies the other in turn--a vicious cycle.
I wonder if belief in authoritarian ideologies and authoritarian tendencies are markers of anxiety, depression, and mental illness?
You can't measure even true level of political support of such regimes, so it's unlikely, but interesting question though.
Hehe. I find using 'absolutist' words to be some of the greatest simple joys of life! Hyperbole and absurdism are high art, high comedy, and the best way to explore cultural conceptual spaces. It works for science and other approaches as well, as most novelty is usually found at the fringes and where assumptions break down.
The Buddha patiently answered most people's questions, but there were some he refused to answer at all, saying that they should be put aside.
Many of these were questions about absolutes:
Is the world eternal?
Is the world finite?
Is the self identical with the body?
Does the Buddha exist after death?
In fact in the buddhist path one goal is to see how everything† is impermanent and dependent on conditions for its existence.
†Everything but nirvana.
Many of these were questions about absolutes:
Is the world eternal?
Is the world finite?
Is the self identical with the body?
Does the Buddha exist after death?
In fact in the buddhist path one goal is to see how everything† is impermanent and dependent on conditions for its existence.
†Everything but nirvana.
Very interesting. I wish there was more background on absolutist thinking and mental health. Specifically, is the relationship between absolutist thinking and, say, depression, Whorfian, in the sense that the language used day-to-day impacts their mental health? Or is it symptomatic? My gut says a combination of both.
I wonder what it says about me that I when I read "Absolutist" my brain replaced it with "Absurdist" and I got excited and depressed. I even got to the point where I was wondering what some examples of absurdist words were. And then I read it again with a higher font size.
For absurdism, you might prefer this article: https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf
Interesting. So far my initial reaction to overuse of absolutist words has been to regard the person as relatively incapable of accurate depiction of reality, as absolutist descriptions are usually simply dead wrong. I might start taking a more empathetic approach I think.
This says a lot about the sort of clickbait headlines that are all over Facebook and Twitter:
"This photo of a puppy eating ice cream IS EVERYTHING"
such and such RESTORED/DESTROYED MY FAITH IN HUMANITY
blah blah blah IS EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER WANTED
It's honestly exhausting just to read it.
"This photo of a puppy eating ice cream IS EVERYTHING"
such and such RESTORED/DESTROYED MY FAITH IN HUMANITY
blah blah blah IS EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER WANTED
It's honestly exhausting just to read it.
You should join to some political discussion club then, just to compare levels.
I can't find the dictionaries they used. It's hard to develop any intuition about the utility of research like this, without the actual dictionaries they applied analysis to.
Are the word lists public information? Why or why not?
Are there links to the word lists?
Are the word lists public information? Why or why not?
Are there links to the word lists?
This is confirmed by research in the book Learned Optimism (great read for depression).
The way HN is wholeheartedly glomming onto this is just nauseating. Please don't tell me we're going to start a whole new wave of language-shaming because someone someone linked to an implicit newspeak advocacy PDF once.
Interesting. So what does that mean for logicians and mathematicians?
Well, everything is context and situation specific–isn't it?
bad news for 90% of internet population
But then how would mass media for-profit corporations help to divide and conquer?
Are you absolutely sure about this?
[deleted]
Well I never.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOhZ5wD6u7A
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOhZ5wD6u7A
So did the screenwriters intentionally phrase that one in an absolute way? Or is the irony accidental?
People are constantly using these words without totally understanding how they sound to others. This paper is full of interesting statistics that all people must be made aware of. Now that there is a link to suicide and depression nothing could be more important than sharing this with your whole network, every person.
I absolutely recommend reading the paper in full. It will definitely change everything about the way you speak. I’ll completely change the way I speak and never ever use these words again.
Well, except “constant” which I have to use to refer to software constants.