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

201–210 of 396 posts

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

#201

Post by viburnum »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #194
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 looked into the possibility that you have ADD/ADHD? I ask because your description sounds spot on for how I have felt throughout life. The 'fog', lack of motivation, and sensitivity to even the slightest stimulus especially ring true. When I first took medication for ADD, I felt like I had been driving through a downpour my whole life and finally discovered the window-wipers - the storm didn't stop, but I co…

There’s a view that ADHD is badly named, because many ADHD people have incredible focus (at times), and many are not hyperactive in the least. It’s more of an issue about emotional dysregulation, which can be exceptionally painful for those who suffer.

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

#202

Post by roywiggins »

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.

There's a good argument that technology, specifically control of fire, probably made us human in the first place by allowing us access to cooked food, which we became physically dependent on. Our biology was probably significantly influenced by early technology.

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

#203

Post by danans »

stanfordkid wrote: post #174
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 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 becomi…

> 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.

That's a false analogy because it uses things that aren't related to each other in the same way. The society=>cage analogy isn't an objective observation, it is your opinion, and also an essentialism.

Furthermore, the objective functional effect of a cage on tiger breeding has no demonstrable comparison to human existence in society, except in your attempt to essentialize it that way.

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

#204

Post by ditonal »

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.

It's not an apt descriptor at all because there's no test for a normal range of a chemical that depressed people are outside of.

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

#205

Post by coldtea »

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…

>one the techniques that authors like Huxley and many from his era employed

No, it's one of the beliefs they held. The weasel phrasing "technique (...) that they employed" means they didn't believe in those, but used them cunningly to dupe people.

Second, merely saying "is an example of essentialism" doesn't solve anything, as if the case for essentialism or not is a solved one and we should now dump it. It's just a different school of thought. And can be far more nuanced than its given credit for, it's not just some caricature.

>There is no normal/abnormal spectrum as Huxley would have us think. Just a complicated web of complicated agents, sometimes in harmony with their society and other times not. When the net entropy to the agent is relatively low, that's "normal".

Well, normal could just as well be people adjusted (e.g. by the passage of time, cultural norm, brainwashing, etc) to horrendous conditions. There would have been many "normal" people by your definition in USSR, for example. Slavery was also normal once -- and not just free citizens consider it as such, and based on accounts many later generation slaves internalised this as "just the way things are" (the "Uncle Tomas" variety).

Without a degree of essentialism, that is, an idea of what is normal and what a person/society should strive for, you can accept anything.

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

#206

Post by _ywdj »

EE84M3i wrote: post #170
_ywdj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be blunt: why? Your reply reads to me like you're recruiting for a cult and/or selling something.

Fair enough, I expanded my comment with more explanation and detail.

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

#207

Post by Johnjonjoan »

danans wrote: post #187
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.

> 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 busines…

I didn't mean to imply that all technology is "dehumanising" but I'd argue that most if not all that influences you has done something to your humanity/technology balance.

Fully human being is very hard to explain. According to my knowledge of Huxley is that it's someone who has essentially reached an ego state that has certain values(life, beauty, suffering). All is each which is all. I think if you haven't really dug into Huxley this could be confusing but fully human being is a specific thing.

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

#208

Post by mistermann »

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…

A lot of philosophers have had similar (but different) takes on this phenomenon over time.

Plato:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/

Jiddu Krishnamurti:

https://charleseisenstein.org/video/it-is-no-measure-of-heal...

https://www.wildmind.org/blogs/quote-of-the-month/krishnamur...

Terence McKenna:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7391624-we-have-gone-sick-b...

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5998836-the-reason-we-feel-...

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/9243.Terence_McKenna

Interestingly, this sort of phenomenon is rarely if ever discussed in the mainstream - rather, when any such ideas are discussed, they are typically mocked, trivialized, discredited, misrepresented, framed, "debunked", etc. It makes one wonder why things are this way - is this consensus perspective accidental, or might something else be going on? Can we point to any other historic examples of people being deliberately (mis)led, by coordinated and powerful actors, to believe certain things to be true, that are not actually true?

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

#209

Post by Delk »

pantaloony wrote: post #101
wincy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think it is.

I've had times in my life when I certainly didn't constantly distract myself, and being of a contemplative type, sometimes also delved into existential thoughts. But I didn't automatically (or generally) feel angst about it.

I'm not religious and haven't been since I was 15 or so. (I don't deny possibly having something of a mildly spiritual side, but I consider that different as it doesn't require belief in anything other than various kinds of feelings and experiences being part of the human experience. It also doesn't provide an externally assigned meaning.)

In times when my mental health and wellbeing have generally been worse, existential questions have also become much more distressing.

So yeah, maybe for some or even many people, existential questions may amount to angst, but in my experience it has depended a lot more on my other emotional and psychological state.

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

#210

Post by Johnjonjoan »

roywiggins wrote: post #202
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.

There's a good argument that technology, specifically control of fire, probably made us human in the first place by allowing us access to cooked food, which we became physically dependent on. Our biology was probably significantly influenced by early technology.

Of course technology made us who we are today.
Post reply on HN