Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress • Hacker News Board

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#101

Post by pantaloony » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

wincy wrote: post #50

sillysaurusx wrote: post #13

they 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 Proza…

I started having disturbing, invasive thoughts a few months before the pandemic hit. I’d be watching a movie with my family after dinner then boom, I’d feel insane. It wasn’t suicidal just things like “soon you will be DEAD!” kind of stuff. Turned out it was me reacting to some of the food we were eating at home. The GP I saw suggested Lexapro which I’ve taken before and it’s not for me. I told him the problem had a…

Hold up. Is the specter of existential angst, rising to outright horror if left unchecked, not just, like, a normal part of life that rises to conscious thought as soon as you’re not distracted, for the entire non-religious population?

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#102

Post by im3w1l » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

xivzgrev wrote: post #95

A lot of people carry a fixed mindset, where we focus on what others think of us. The first girl had this image she had crafted for herself, and when reality split from that she came up with rationalizations that disconnected her from others and herself (and likely prevented her from getting treatment sooner, and may create resistance to “non-pill” treatments). I think it’s really normal to have this mindset because…

I don't think it's good to consciously define yourself like that. We should see ourselves as we are. And realize that things aren't black or white rather than see which stereotype fits best. You may take action most of the time, and struggle to take action regarding something. You may feel deeply generally but sometimes go numb.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#103

Post by richardlblair » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #33

sillysaurusx wrote: post #13

they 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 Proza…

> 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. SSRIs are some of the most widely-used medications. Tens of millions of people in the United States alone use SSRIs regularly with good results. No medication is perfect, obviously, and at scale we're bound to see a percentage of people have negative experiences. The problem is that when ten…

You make a lot of great points.

If I could add anything to the SSRI topic it would be that mental health treatment is incomplete without a form a therapy. If a person's treatment plan includes SSRIs, that's great, but it should always include therapy.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#104

Post by curiousllama » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

verylittlemeat wrote: post #64

Is there any way to get off the euphemism treadmill? First we had to create new terms because the old ones carried baggage. Now we have to righteously and victoriously claim the old ones because we should be proud of our baggage. Call it chemical imbalance or call it people in distress; is any of this language vacillating actually enabling better treatment or is it just a way for people to get honors and headlines wi…

In this more than most things, perception is reality. If people used to be less hesitant to accept the label of "chemically imbalanced" than "distressed," and now preferences are reversed then we should go back precisely to enable better treatment.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#105

Post by virtue3 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:18 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #46

partyboat1586 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brains are not machines like your phone is a machine or your car is a machine. They are complex systems and the result of an emergent process rather than designed systems with discrete components. The analogy that brains are like machines is harmful because it makes it sound like there is some operating manual and simple cause effect relationships that are known. Our knowledge of the brain is in fact very little. It'…

> The analogy that brains are like machines is harmful because it makes it sound like there is some operating manual and simple cause effect relationships that are known. Why? We have complex machines and systems as well, where nobody would claim that there are only simple cause effect relationships and you only need a two-page owner's manual. Drugs work pretty reliably. While you can't predict what exactly is going…

chemical computer is more accurate than "machine" anyway.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#106

Post by seesawtron » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

It reminds me of what Aldous Huxley wrote (about people in distress):

“The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted.”

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#107

Post by asveikau » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:20 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #83

asveikau wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have been close to a psychotic person who refuses to take antipsychotic medication (a common enough problem that I have faced with multiple people), the "just trying to sell drugs" story gets old very fast. A lot of people really do need the drugs in order to stop harming themselves. I think this article does a disservice by suggesting that people on such drugs are trying to get over a minor breakup. And actua…

There’s a difference between antipsychotic medication and medication like SSRIs or anxiety medication. Not only in effects/potentially in necessity, but antipsychotic medication can be very dysphoric and sedating, whereas some people experience SSRIs positively and others negatively, and where anxiety meds are generally well liked (to the point of dependence becoming a real risk). Also whereas antipsychotics and anti…

Fair points.

Just want to add I have heard people say they avoid antipsychotics due to what you describe as "dysphoria" and "sedating" qualities but one must also recognize that for many, a symptom of their illness is that they do not think they are ill or that anything is wrong.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#108

Post by billman » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #74

sillysaurusx wrote: post #13

they 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 Proza…

> 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. This hits home and almost moved me to tears. I went through a trauma about 3 years ago, I was Kidnapped/abducted from a gas station at gun point and was forced to drive my attacker for nearly 30 minutes at gun point under threat of death before opening the…

Thank you for sharing. I'm glad your still here to relate your story. I think speaking these things is an important part of the healing process. Pax et bonum.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#109

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

To whatever degree a mental health issue is treatable with drugs, it genuinely is a medical issue.

But that's not the only element of actual insanity. Real insanity almost always involves a sick social fabric as well that lies to you about critical information, often blaming you for problems over which you have no real control.

They know that schizophrenics often get better with in patient treatment, then go home to their screwed up families and get worse again.

My sister took graduate courses in psychology for a time. She once said to me "We clearly don't have the genes for schizophrenia in the family or someone would have it because the family would have driven them crazy by now." Dad fought in two wars. Mom grew up in a war zone. These were haunted people who could be rather difficult to deal with.

I can understand people wanting to make this distinction "that I just need a pill, it's not like I'm crazy." People who are seriously crazy aren't typically fixable with just a pill. It's more complicated than that and our current system isn't really all that effective at bringing people back once they've gone nuts.

This is part of why I object to the "homeless people are all junkies and crazies" meme: it actively helps make vulnerable people crazy. It actively blames them for things they don't control and denies the existence of systemic issues to the faces of the victims who have such a low social status and are so openly disrespected that they aren't in a good position to argue with it. They are expected to kowtow and agree with everyone hanging their crap on them.

So it actively helps drive homeless people insane and makes it a self fulfilling prophecy. It deepens the problem and is actively abusive of our most vulnerable citizens.

Re: Let’s avoid talk of ‘chemical imbalance’: it’s people in distress

#110

Post by CivBase » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #32

nsl73 wrote: post #11

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.

If you have been close to a psychotic person who refuses to take antipsychotic medication (a common enough problem that I have faced with multiple people), the "just trying to sell drugs" story gets old very fast. A lot of people really do need the drugs in order to stop harming themselves. I think this article does a disservice by suggesting that people on such drugs are trying to get over a minor breakup. And actua…

I get where you're coming from, but we cannot just ignore the obvious incentives at play here. Pharmaceutical companies do want to sell drugs and many have a history of being not-so-ethical about it.

Of course there are people who legitimately have disorders who legitimately benefit from the drugs. But we also need individuals who cast a critical eye on drug prescriptions. The hard part is making sure those critical individuals are sufficiently trained.

If you have a friend who refuses to take drugs prescribed by a medical professional, maybe it would be best to get a second or third opinion from another medical professional.