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

181–190 of 396 posts

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

#181

Post by bserge »

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'…

They are much more complex, but ultimately, a machine. Without admin access or an operating manual. We don't understand how it works.

It's kind of like trying to put a rocket into space in the stone/bronze age. Or figuring out the Google codebase if it was handed to you in Assembly.

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

#182

Post by aSplash0fDerp »

The human condition is unique to individuals the world over.

If lifestyle and/or environmental conditions were not enough to derail a healthy mind, the information streams run with psychopath+ variables are sure to catch many who didn`t fall through the cracks (given enough time).

If the imbalance is artificial or synthetic in nature, the corner to turn is now.

The quality of an individuals information diet holds the key for many (IMHO). This also leaves room for medical conditions and other reasonable observations that may cause an imbalance of this type.

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

#183

Post by Johnjonjoan »

artificial wrote: post #178
Johnjonjoan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure. I wouldn't say the decisions they influence affect our humanity a great deal though.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

wolfram74 wrote: post #123
DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

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…

Many good points, but to clarify, you're arguing that being treatable is merely an obvious indication that it's a medical issue, but not the only indication? Lots of things in non-mental health fields are acknowledge to be medical problems but also remain untreatable.

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by cj »

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.

Technology has definitely changed what it is to be human. But I don’t think that means what we are today is less human than before.

Technology is a very powerful tool we created. But so was the “invention” of the wheel.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

_ywdj wrote: post #133
ifend wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by danans »

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.

> We are no longer fully human beings

This gets thrown about quite a bit without defining what "fully human" means. Given that it is a superlative, does it mean "free from the pressures of modern technological society"? Then it must also mean giving up the benefits of modern technological society, right?

There are few true primitivists out there, and for many today it is a sort of technology enabled lifestyle business. I know because I'm an avid watcher of many of their YouTube channels.

> Technology had changed what it is to be human even in Huxley's time; nowadays I wonder has AI already taken over?

Technology has always done this. That's not to say all technology is a net benefit. We should absolutely as a society scrutinize and regulate the use of some tech, but to cast it all as dehumanizing in the essentialist manner using the ever poorly defined "full human" as a foil seems highly reductive.

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

#188

Post by epx »

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…

Not sure if this is always the solution, but yes, so many people take antidepressants and let the fundamental problems of their lives go unfixed.

And being a pessimist is not a problem that should be medicated. The world needs us!!

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

#189

Post by bserge »

RHSeeger wrote: post #179
luckylion wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I agree, but that seems like a poor example. I could make a pencil out of coal and wood. Wouldn't be as good as a factory one, but good enough. Also, chalk and many other stones/minerals can be used.

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

#190

Post by boucher »

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 you're overstating the success of chemical treatment. I'm not extremely well versed in the subject, but I've read a number of books and articles that seriously call into question that idea.

It would seem that "talking about it" is actually more effective than medication in many circumstances (e.g. the research on cognitive behavioral therapy versus medication).

The consensus at this point seems to be that we do not have any real causal theory for most mental illnesses, including depression.

Post reply on HN