I find the chemical imbalance metaphor for mental illness the opposite of empowering and an easy well to sell pharmaceuticals.
There is some truth to the metaphor, but I wonder if it’s doing more harm than good.
Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
11–20 of 396 posts
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#12> to defeat this othering and reduce stigma, clinical practice needs to move away from biogenetic causal language This is a pretty big assertion that the piece casually drops without backing. The reasoning as to why "chemical imbalance" is a bad descriptor is apparent* from the study [0] the author cites, but there is nothing that backs up this statement, which seems to be the crux of the whole piece. *Even the study…
If we don’t know then we don’t know. Calling it a chemical imbalance implies knowledge that does not exist.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#13they struggled against the dehumanising notion that their thoughts, feelings or behaviour were mechanistically caused.
Finally, a thread where I can point out my own experiences.
Around four years ago, it would be fair to call me slightly crazy. It was a harmless sort of crazy, but it was quite self-destructive. I used to wake up wishing to die, genuinely, and not knowing why.
All of that changed after going on Prozac. I don't know why, and I've heard from many others that Prozac was harmful to them. But from my point of view, it was nothing short of a lifechanging miracle. I can't remember the last time I've had suicidal ideation.
Most people keep this sort of thing quiet, and I think silence is part of the problem. When I was younger, I might have looked down on someone for saying what I just said. When you have a broken leg, everyone notices and can relate; when you have a broken mind, no one can see it, and so no one can feel sympathy, let alone empathy.
So what's the takeaway here? One: do not lose hope. I came very close to losing hope, and it would have denied me so much. Two: make a doctor's appointment. There's a chance that you'll wind up on something that makes the situation worse; you need to make a followup appointment ahead of time.
Support networks only got me so far.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#14The book "Lost Connections" by Johann Hari (which I discovered through HN) has helped me a lot in understanding so much of the context of what makes so many of us feel depression and anxiety at many points in our lives. A big part of the narrative is that we are too quick to diagnose and provide ourselves with medication without really understanding environmental variables that have impacted our overall well-being.
While I do believe our understanding of how the brain functions still has a long way to go, which includes treatments for mental illness, there is something to be said about acknowledging more the external factors of our modern day lives that fill us with so many problems.
Personally, realizing where I have "disconnected" from people, values, and truly human experiences has been a large step forward in improving my mental health. I hope it's something that others who feel so many emotional challenges can try as well to see if they can make progress with their own mental health.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#15I miss the term neurosis. It seems like we're taking another step on Pinker's Euphemism Treadmill.
Came here to make a similar comment. Scientists are not supposed to be activists - focusing on eliminating words that carry stigma from popular (or scientific) use makes me question not just objectivity but qualifications as a scientist.
Is there any space that ideologues haven't infested yet?
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#16'Chemical imbalance' is an oversimplification used to explain mental disorders to the layman, along with the fact that certain medications that effect neurotransmitters are effective treatments for said disorders.
I agree that, often, these disorders are a product of environment, along with economic, social and material conditions. However, medications can and do improve the quality of life for people who cannot change those conditions due to their station in life.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#17I'm not technical in this field. But "reductionism" shows up all over.
In solid state physics, where reductionism is definitely a powerful and useful tool, the following article seems to be interesting. It's a possible reminder of what you maybe can and can't get from reductionism. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393
No clue how much of that (if any) might apply to psychology.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#18I miss the term neurosis. It seems like we're taking another step on Pinker's Euphemism Treadmill.
Can that be avoided? Eventually any term loses its connection with the best available knowledge, and becomes a way to avoid thinking - an euphemism. We then need a new updated term. Eventually that term too will be outdated, but at least it was useful for a while.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#19I miss the term neurosis. It seems like we're taking another step on Pinker's Euphemism Treadmill.
Came here to make a similar comment. Scientists are not supposed to be activists - focusing on eliminating words that carry stigma from popular (or scientific) use makes me question not just objectivity but qualifications as a scientist. Is there any space that ideologues haven't infested yet?
No, I'm very sorry report that there are exactly zero areas of human action, practice, or thought that aren't infested with ideology.
Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress
#20>She told me she welcomed the diagnosis of a neurobiological disorder, which confirmed her problem was ‘real’ – brought on by a physiological force external to her volition – and that it showed she’s not ‘just a slacker’. That is such an arbitrary distinction. As if being "just a slacker" doesn't have a number of deeper reasons behind it as well. Brains are just machines at the end of the day, every behavior is a res…
Dr. K (a Psychiatrist who is also a Twitch streamer) recently touched on this subject with a very popular streamer (write-up/video linked below). He explains some of what you're saying and I tend to agree with you.
Dr. K suggests the brain is optimized for efficiency. If something is not seen by the brain as being unnecessary, then the brain is unlikely to trigger a response that motivates you to complete the task. The example used was going to the restroom - your bladder fills up and your brain tells you it's time to go. Motivation in areas of life was seen as being similar.
In the case of laziness, the bladder filling up is analogous to, let's say, shame reaching a level to where you're prompted to finally clean your room. Obviously increasing shame would be less than ideal, but there are other means for motivating yourself (e.g., purpose in service to others, duty, dharma, etc). He also draws a distinction between apathy and detachment, which are also part of the problem.
Anyways, I'm not sure I agree with everything he said/says, but it's worth checking out and an interesting perspective nonetheless!
Source: https://www.healthygamer.gg/asmongold-talks-to-healthygamer-...