Misconception Repair Lab
Treating recurrence of depression, or ordinary better days, as evidence of bipolarity
-
1. The tempting shortcut
"She has good days too, so it's probably bipolar."
-
2. Stop and think
Before you read on: what is wrong with this reasoning? Try to answer in your own words, then reveal the explanation below.
-
3. Reveal — why it fails
Recurrence of depression is F33's own defining feature, not evidence of bipolarity — bipolar affective disorder requires a genuinely impairing elevated-pole (manic, hypomanic, or mixed) episode to have occurred, which is a separate question from how many depressive episodes there have been. A return to one's normal cheerful baseline personality between depressive episodes is not, by itself, evidence of hypomania.
-
4. Reveal — the better reasoning rule
- Has a genuinely impairing elevated-mood period — with decreased need for sleep, grandiosity, or reckless/impulsive behaviour — ever been documented, not just a good mood or a return to baseline personality?
- How many depressive episodes have occurred, and has there been genuine recovery between them (supporting F33) or not (supporting F34)?
- Is the 'up' period a sustained, noticeable change from the person's own baseline, or simply their ordinary personality reasserting itself between episodes?
Corrective example: In the F33 anchor category, a person with four documented depressive episodes and 'cheerful, chatty' periods that are simply her normal baseline personality (no decreased sleep, no grandiosity, no impulsivity) is classified as recurrent depressive disorder, not bipolar.
5. Try the transfer case
Apply the better rule above to a fresh case.