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

#151

Post by wincy » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

488643689 wrote: post #82

wincy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initially I suspected carbon monoxide poisoning, because it correlated to when I’d come home. The symptoms were that bad. Turns out it was the dinner I was cooking every night for the family, I’d sit down to relax and eat and just a few minutes after eating asparagus feel completely bonkers. I went to the emergency room, they gave me a few Xanax; then the GP who wanted to prescribe me Lexapro and referred me to a Gas…

So what's in asparagus to cause this? Sounds like you have some enzyme defect. Do you know any specifics?

Well I know asparagus is on the list of high FODMAP (fermentable) foods along with beans and flour, which also cause similar problems for me.

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

#152

Post by Johnjonjoan » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

seesawtron wrote: post #106

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…

I've studied this quote a lot and I do think it's very hard to realise who Aldous is talking about, but I don't think he's talking about those in distress. Rather those that gave in to this world and can live with willful ignorance at it's pitfalls rather than distress.

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

#153

Post by realharo » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #142

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…

Consequentialists often point out that whether things like laziness are moral failings or are physiological problems with no moral bearing, it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around. There was an SSC article that had some good discussi…

>it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around

When compared to doing nothing and tolerating them, I can definitely see that. But I still think there have to be more effective approaches than either (even if we don't know what some of them are yet).

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

#154

Post by seesawtron » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #145

seesawtron wrote: post #106

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…

I tried going back to normal life but 6 weeks were enough to erode my mind way too deep.

I think the challenging part is definition of "normal life". The burden of fitting in with the "norms" of the society by suppressing your own internal beliefs for the short-term gratification of feeling normal comes back to bite you in the long-term.

Over the centuries the society has mostly been unaccommodating to those who fall on the tails of this normal distribution, ostracizing them, punishing them, so on and so forth. But I still have faith in humanity to become more accepting and understanding those who are different instead of pressuring them to be the same.

So the first step is to believe that your life is not abnormal but just different from most people. I hope you find your solace in this ever-evolving world.

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

#155

Post by spyder » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #28

Many depressed people are very resistant to accepting treatment. In a perfect world, people would have no hangups about scheduling an appointment with a therapist and/or trialing antidepressant medication as an adjunct to their recovery. However, in the real world many people are resistant to the idea of therapy and/or medication as it feels like admitting defeat. Or perhaps they've read cherry-picked horror stories…

Yes, it's like the illness affects the ability to ask for help to treat the illness. Something like expecting people who fall down a cliff to walk to the doctor with broken legs. If there is nobody there to help them it's very hard to do it themselves, and even if there is someone it's harder to help a "broken" brain than a broken leg.

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

#156

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

kilroy_jones wrote: post #124

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…

Your view on this and your username are linked I assume?

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by logicchop » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

The author's point is well-taken; but I don't think the problem is simply that psychological problems have become "de-personalized," and I think the move to "chemical" explanations is largely because the "chemical" treatments have been wildly successful (especially in comparison to, what? psychotherapy? talking about it?).

I think the actual crisis is a lack of good judgment in the scientific arena. There are obvious cases we can imagine where a "chemical" explanation is simply bone-headed. Joe's dog dies, his house burns down, he is laid off from his work. His resultant emotional distress surely involves chemistry; he's a person, after all. But it is depersonalizing, naive, and a bit creepy, to suggest that his distress is "just chemical" and should be treated with a drug. That's just gross, and I take it the author's point.

But consider another example. Terry has great friends, rewarding job, engaging hobbies, etc., but spontaneous and overwhelming anxiety over the possibility of being hit by a meteorite. This is now entering the territory of an irrational psychological reason, and it isn't "de-personalizing" or naive for a doctor to suggest that there might be a purely chemical explanation. We seek the chemical explanation when there just isn't any other sufficiently motivating factor.

There's a time for both approaches.

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

#158

Post by Johnjonjoan » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #149

seesawtron wrote: post #106

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…

> if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted The myth/ideal of being "fully human" is an example of essentialism, and is one the techniques that authors like Huxley and many from his era employed. It preys upon the inner authoritarian desire to normalize the world for oneself above all else, even though ironically Huxley opposed authoritarianism himself. A different take is that people's mental he…

I disagree. Human beings as you say are products of their circumstances and one circumstance that seems very pervasive is technology.

We are no longer fully human beings.

Technology had changed what it is to be human even in Huxley's time; nowadays I wonder has AI already taken over? The prevalence of computer run algorithms in human beings decision making seems to imply it has started at least.

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

#159

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

realharo wrote: post #135

nathan_compton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's just not a very helpful metaphor, because we are nowhere close to having a way to simulate or compute that function.

So treating people as agents with goals, desires, personalities, experiences and histories and traumas, and drawing on our hard wired abilities for empathy, can be a far more useful model for actually helping and healing people than just giving them a pill.

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

#160

Post by seesawtron » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

Johnjonjoan wrote: post #152

seesawtron wrote: post #106

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…

I've studied this quote a lot and I do think it's very hard to realise who Aldous is talking about, but I don't think he's talking about those in distress. Rather those that gave in to this world and can live with willful ignorance at it's pitfalls rather than distress.

Yes of course. He is talking about the people who have been "normlised" to be what the society or those in power need them to be: the masses who never oppose their governments, the people who give up their individuality to pursue a career to buy things they might not need, and so on. It is a reflection on those people who are NOT in distress but they ought to be rather than be ignorant.