bipolar compulsive liar — 1 thorough investigation

the apartment lighting argues with itself this morning. dave called about money on his way in. mom called, as she does, about doctors. the article on my screen wants me to think about the phrase “bipolar compulsive liar” as if it were one thing, like a sandwich, when in fact it’s two coats hung on the same hook by somebody who didn’t read the label on either.

writing this from the desk. carla is in an annual planning meeting on the third floor. door propped with a chair, which, on a friday at 12:14pm, i interpret as a sign she expects the meeting to leak.

so. bipolar compulsive liar. the search bar serves it up like a phrase that has earned the right to exist as a phrase. it has not. somebody, somewhere — possibly an algorithm, possibly an aunt — glued two unrelated descriptions together and the glue dried before anybody was asked. the topic, before me, on a desk that wobbles when i type fast, is whether the glue should hold. my working theory of what a liar actually is, which i drafted on a friday in the spring, says it should not.

bipolar compulsive liar, the careful comparison

let me set the table. on the left side of the table sits a mood pattern: long stretches of low energy interrupted by stretches of unusually high energy. on the right side sits a different thing: a verbal habit of saying small invented answers, not for clear gain, but because the invented answer is faster than the real one. these two things can sit at the same table. they are not, by virtue of sharing chairs, the same person.

the search phrase wants you to believe they are. it wants you to believe that one rung of the chart causes the other. it doesn’t. you can be on the mood-pattern rung without ever inventing a thing. you can invent things daily without any mood pattern at all. the venn diagram has overlap, like all venn diagrams of human behavior, but the overlap is a coincidence, not a definition.

i am, to be specific, allergic to phrases that fuse two descriptions and then sell the fusion as a diagnosis. that’s not investigation. that’s filing. and the editorial line in this house, as has been noted in previous installments, is that we do investigations, not filings.

dave’s theory, mom’s theory, my theory

dave, who debt-wise owes me $300 and time-wise owes me a sunday, has a theory. dave’s theory is that the phrase “bipolar compulsive liar” is the kind of phrase a person types into a search bar at 11pm when they have just been lied to by somebody and want the search engine to confirm the somebody is also broken in some other, more medical-sounding way. dave laughed for nine straight minutes when he said it. i timed it. the laughter was a defense mechanism with a beard.

mom’s theory, delivered on a sunday call between her asking if i’d seen a doctor and her asking if i’d seen a different doctor, was simpler. mom said: “people use big words to make small problems sound official.” mom is, as she frequently is, correct. she knew. mothers know. it’s their power. it cannot be defeated.

my own theory, drafted at this desk over what is now several fridays, is that the phrase exists because the modern audience wants two-for-one labels. one label feels like it doesn’t say enough. two labels stapled together feels like a verdict. but a verdict is supposed to follow evidence. these two labels were stapled together by traffic, not by evidence. and traffic, as you know, will staple anything.

tom would book the appointment, i would not

here is where tom comes in, because tom comes in everywhere eventually. tom, from college, owns a house. tom drives a volvo and a wife, in roughly that order. tom, when faced with a phrase like “bipolar compulsive liar” applied to somebody he loves, would do the responsible thing: he would book an appointment with a person trained to take the phrase apart. tom’s appointment would happen on a tuesday. it would last fifty minutes. it would cost what tom can afford. it would, in tom’s life, work.

i, faced with the same phrase, would do something different. i would write 1500 words about why the phrase is wrong. i would build a small theory of why two coats should not share a hook. i would call dave. i would not call dave’s recommended professional. i would, broadly, talk myself out of needing the appointment, then i would have a glass of water, declare it overrated, and put the unopened mail pile slightly to the left of the door instead of slightly to the right. that’s a coping mechanism. it has been good for me. it has, by tom’s standard, also been free.

tom and i are both valid. mine has more naps. mine has, more importantly, fewer appointments. that’s a feature, depending on how you score it. on most scorecards, it isn’t.

the unopened mail pile, the more reliable witness

the pile, by the door, is where i go when i want a second opinion that doesn’t talk back. the pile, as of this morning, is fourteen envelopes thick. seven of them are red. of the seven, two are from places that have started to use serif font, which, per the canon of this newsletter, is a sign you have entered the bureaucratic late innings.

i bring up the pile because the pile is honest. the pile does not invent. the pile does not have moods. the pile is a stack of facts that have been delivered to my address and, technically, are mine to deal with. when somebody asks me, in passing, “are you on top of things”, i say “broadly, yes, i have a system.” the word “system” is doing the work of a small european bridge. that is, on a strict reading, a small lie. it is also, in the way most adult lies operate, a postponement, dressed up as confidence.

but here’s the part that matters: a postponement is not a compulsion. i am not, when i say “broadly yes,” inventing an answer because the inventing feels good. i am inventing an answer because the alternative is a forty-minute conversation about the pile. that’s strategic. that’s economical. that’s not the rung the search phrase is selling.

the receipts in the wallet, the silent jury

another witness. the receipt wallet. this is a wallet that, at last audit, contained nineteen receipts and one library card. the receipts are mostly coffee. some are takeout. a small minority are from a hardware store i have not visited in 2026, which raises questions, mostly for me. the receipt wallet is what i keep instead of a journal. the receipt wallet does not lie. the receipt wallet, in fact, has a perfect attendance record, which is more than most witnesses can claim.

the receipt wallet does not have a mood pattern. the receipt wallet does not have a verbal habit. the receipt wallet has a paper habit, and the paper habit is the result of me, a person, making small choices on small days, none of which add up to a phrase you would put in a search bar. they add up to coffee. they add up to a thursday.

i mention the receipts because, in the same way, most people accused of being a “bipolar compulsive liar” are, on close inspection, people whose actual receipts — the small choices on small days — don’t add up to either label. they add up to a person, on a thursday, doing thursday things imperfectly. that’s a different chart. that chart doesn’t trend on the search results page. it should.

verdict, the comparison is a coat that doesn’t fit

so. here we are. 7:42am. annual planning meeting still going on the third floor. carla, last seen, had her water bottle. water is the most overrated drink, by the way, and yet here she is, taking it to a meeting, which tells you everything about how a meeting is structured and almost nothing about hydration. i note this because the smallest details, on a friday, often hold more truth than the biggest phrases.

the comparison i was asked to draw, between bipolar and compulsive lying as if they were the same coat, does not draw. the coats are different fabrics. they hang on different hooks. they were sold in different stores. you can own both. you can own neither. you can own one and not the other. the phrase that pretends otherwise should be returned to the rack with the tags still on.

cinematically, the closest thing i’d point to — for the bipolar half of the phrase, not the lying half — is the 1996 film about the painter who lived inside his own weather. that movie does the mood pattern justice. it does not, helpfully, fuse it to a different label. it lets the painter be the painter. that, in 2026, is a quietly radical editorial choice.

i’d also point at the smaller, quieter rule i live by at this desk: when somebody describes another human being using two stapled labels, ask which one came first, and ask who did the stapling. nine times out of ten the stapler is an article, the article is an algorithm, and the algorithm is, broadly, an aunt. the aunt means well. the aunt is wrong. so is the article. so, often, am i. that is not a defense. that is a description.

↑