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

#131

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #62

css wrote: post #6

> 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…

'Chemical imbalance' as a causal explanation seems to me almost useless because every severe change in behaviour pretty much by definition corresponds to change in the brain. How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There can be a company pouring lead into a river, psychological hazard during a civil war, and it will always manifest in t…

Yes, but you have to see it in the historical context. Not that long ago, mental sickness was caused by various demons, curses and so on. Things change a lot faster now, but it is still taking a while. Hell, being gay was a mental sickness was only 30 years ago.

In other words, it is not useless. It may seem obvious now, but it is not useless.

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

#132

Post by oldsklgdfth » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

"The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress."

I think that contemporary society puts a lot of pressure and expectations on people at a young age. I suspect this is not a very healthy way to find your way in the world. Some people conform, some people follow the rules of the game, some people rebel to the rules, some are not even aware of the game. A little compassion and empathy would go along way, rather than treating each other as automata.

> that mental illnesses are ‘just like’ other chronic physical ailments, such as ‘heart disease or diabetes’

I would argue that in most cases chronic ailments (including mental illness) are not a consequence of "the way a person is made", but their lifestyle. Many people with chronic ailments accept the medication as a solution and don't make the necessary changes in their lives. I think making mental illness comparable to chronic illness made people think of it as something that can be addresses with just a pill.

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

#133

Post by _ywdj » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

ifend wrote: post #126

_ywdj wrote: post #120

I've written several comments about this topic on HN before, but here goes again. I've had a lot of mild/moderate anxiety and depression since early in life, and whilst it's never been severe enough for me to be at risk of doing harm to myself or others, it has been a major complication in achieving good outcomes (i.e., always showed some promise and early success at intellectual, sporting and social pursuits, but co…

> I discovered deep subconscious emotional healing techniques Can you elaborate on this? Can you recommend any resources?

I usually get asked this and my standard reply is that I don't prefer not to get into discussions about specifics here, but I'm happy to share info via email, and I also host a Discord group where people interested can discus and share their own experiences with different techniques.

So, please feel free to email me (address is in my profile).

Edit: the reason I’m reticent about getting into details here is that I’ve learned from years of experience that discussions on HN about unconventional health approaches can (a) easily devolve into futile arguments with motivated skeptics, and (b) be unconducive to sharing the material with sufficient detail and caution, given that some people seeking this kind of info are at risk.

And whilst there are some materials around to point to, they’re not very specific about techniques, whereas I’ve done extensive experimentation with different techniques and documentation of my learnings, including tracking of physiological indicators, and can present/explain it in a way that is more palatable to HN-types who are genuinely interested.

But if anyone wants to read published authors on the topic, try Gabor Mate, Bruce Lipton, John Sarno and Bessel Van Der Kolk as starting points.

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

#134

Post by cheerlessbog » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

partyboat1586 wrote: post #36

realharo wrote: post #5

>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…

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'…

If a space probe discovered some vast alien structure clearly acting fulfilling some strange purpose by some opaque means... would we not usefully describe it as a machine?

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

#135

Post by realharo » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

nathan_compton wrote: post #115

nathan_compton wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view its a simple category error, though of a subtle kind. Machines are similar to biological systems in only the most superficial ways: they are non-static systems which exceed a certain complexity and they both follow the laws of physics (see footnote). There are a lot of ways to think about the differences between machines and people. One very simple one is that machines typically function in only a very lim…

Another thing: to assert that biological systems are just machines is to subscribe to the same error which allows creationists or intelligent design people to put forward the argument that we ought to take the complexity of life as evidence of a designer. It conflates two totally different phenomena by observing a superficial similarity between the two and ignoring all of their manifold and salient differences.

It's just a metaphor. Because the way it works can be viewed as

inputs (sensors, environment, external chemicals) + current state ---> outputs (behavior) + new state

kinda like computers or robots, in a deterministic manner (except it is practically impossible to recreate the exact same inputs, or the exact same state). You don't have to take it too literally, people who read it generally understand what it means.

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

#136

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #92

Barrin92 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Chemical imbalance' as a causal explanation seems to me almost useless because every severe change in behaviour pretty much by definition corresponds to change in the brain. How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There can be a company pouring lead into a river, psychological hazard during a civil war, and it will always manifest in t…

> How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There is an implication inherent to "chemical imbalance" that assumes a normative range. Modern medicine is universally based on normative ranges. If you are outside this range, it is considered a problem. Chemical imbalance is a generic and apt descriptor.

[deleted]

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

#137

Post by oldsklgdfth » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

dukha wrote: post #56

I've always been depressive and pessimistic person as far as I can remember. I've been looking at other people only to see how happy they are and how content they with their life. They feel motivated, want something from life and in generally think that being alive is alright, which I just couldn't internalize no matter how hard I tried. Essentially, I've come to the conclusion that there _must_ be something wrong wi…

Aside from medication and therapy, what other avenues have you explored?

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

#138

Post by bsev » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

It is an oversimplification, but there is a lot of evidence behind it. I suspect it's very unlikely for someone to fall into clinical depression from a quick breakup as in the article without something also being mechanically wrong. Fix that issue and they are likely to bounce back to a normal state like everyone else, with or without counseling. Depression is very nuanced and has many possible causes, but has high heritability and is very strongly associated with things like inflammation, nutritional deficiencies, and side effects of medication.

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

#139

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

What if it's both a chemical imbalance and people in distress? I'm a materialist. I don't draw a distinction between the machinery of the brain and the substance of consciousness. When you're happy, that's what one electro-chemical configuration feels like. When you're unhappy, that's what another, different configuration feels like.

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

#140

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #92

Barrin92 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Chemical imbalance' as a causal explanation seems to me almost useless because every severe change in behaviour pretty much by definition corresponds to change in the brain. How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There can be a company pouring lead into a river, psychological hazard during a civil war, and it will always manifest in t…

> How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There is an implication inherent to "chemical imbalance" that assumes a normative range. Modern medicine is universally based on normative ranges. If you are outside this range, it is considered a problem. Chemical imbalance is a generic and apt descriptor.

[deleted]