Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 396 posts

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

#171

Post by rusabd »

logicchop wrote: post #157

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…

Some people cannot break a million years of evolution baggage and have a job or friends - it is unnatural. What we think is normal these days hardly even resembles conditions we evolved to thrive in.

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

#172

Post by bserge »

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…

Have you tried other drugs?

I am depressive and pessimistic by nature, too. I have accepted that. But I have to fix the extremes because otherwise I simply can't function.

Different drugs can literally make you feel and think like a different person.

The only problem is side effects and tolerance, you can't go on on drugs for very long. They can be invaluable for building different habits, though.

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

#173

Post by mikkergp »

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…

The problem is the assumption that any one idea is "Right". I in general disagree with the disease model of psychology but most of people don't and they are genuinely helped by that. Trying to teach them to adopt a more existential model of psychology probably won't help them, it's not one-size fits all. I agree with the author but I also acknowledge this approach doesn't work for everyone.

Psychology is based on the idea of "conceptualizations" or in CS lingo, abstractions. No Psych conceptualization actually carves at the joints of nature, they're all imperfect but each works for different situations or people.

(Humanistic Psychology)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_psychology] is great unless you're dealing with a psychopath. (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy)[https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/cognitive-behavi...] is great unless you actually have issues from your childhood to process which surprise surprise most of us do. [Psychoanalysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis) is great unless you're you know, not rich and don't have four days a week to do it.

We can't get away from "euphamisms" as you call them, but it shouldn't be a treadmill, most should exist side-by-side.

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

#174

Post by stanfordkid »

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 think his ideas and cultural critiques are a little more complicated than that — his book Island in particular is worth reading — it is the ideal mirror to the dystopia he describes in brave new world.

Essentialism is a moral critique. If you stick a tiger in a small cage it doesn’t breed — that is an objective observation rather than a moral critique. Huxleys argument is of the same nature — that society is becoming a cage to natural impulse and instinct.

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

#176

Post by HPsquared »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #93
realharo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think calling it a machine is implying that we understand how it works internally (to a much greater extent than we actually do). Or even that we fully understand how it tends to behave in practice, out there in the "real world", as part of larger systems. But I guess if many people view it that way, then using slightly different language might be better. What I was getting at is the fact that there is no fun…

I agree that there is no fundamental difference between you doing it and your illness causing it. A person can identify with the results of a machine or a complex system. My issue with the word machine is that in most people's minds that brings up ideas of cross sections, gears, cogs, repairs and so on. People aught to be thinking of a complex system instead like perhaps the ecosystem in the Amazon rainforest.

Complex systems can be considered to have "chemical imbalances" - the climate, for example.

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

#177

Post by mint2 »

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…

It’s also like the Facebook effect. For the most part, people post only the best photos, so we only see their best 10%. Yet it’s easy to forget that and compare that to all our photos/experiences even though it’s not apples to apples.

And out of 100 friends, if 5-10 post something cool it’s easy to overlook that the other 90-95 didn’t.

fB is but an example. These effects happen more or less with everything.

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

#178

Post by artificial »

Johnjonjoan wrote: post #158
danans wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

AI gets bandied about these days. Would stoplights fall under AI?

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

#179

Post by RHSeeger »

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…

> This idea of "don't say it's a machine, you're oversimplifying it" is what's harmful in my eyes.

And honestly, there's a lot of complexity to even the smallest thing. A particularly good read, "I, Pencil" goes into how nobody knows how to make even a simple pencil.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

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

#180

Post by diehunde »

logicchop wrote: post #157

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…

> I think the move to "chemical" explanations is largely because the "chemical" treatments have been wildly successful

This. The fact that "the mechanism of action remains a mystery" doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it. Those drugs work, and AFAIK they are pretty safe. The same can be said about many other disorders that we don't know the mechanisms of action, but we still use drugs that seem to be successful (schizophrenia, OCD, Tourette, etc.). Depression and anxiety seem to be much more stigmatized when drugs are involved. I agree the diagnostics are all over the place, though. You can be sad and not be depressed, and you can be stressed without having an anxiety disorder. Doctors should be more rigorous and not default to antidepressants for every patient they see.

Post reply on HN