211–220 of 396 posts
It was always linked to some stressful event. Loosing a job, not being able to keep the lights on, loosing a partner, or an abusive partner....
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…
The article is right that "chemical imbalance" is a myth as there's no sort of blood tests or normative chemical ranges for any of these mental conditions that people get diagnosed because they are outside of. A quick Google search would show there's no scientific support for chemical imbalance theory, just some pills that affect brain chemicals that people report depression improvement on self-reported survey so a huge, unscientific leap is made that depression is some chemical shortage in the brain. All the psychiatrist diagnoses are basically glorified personality tests, and the criteria are based on the DSM-5 which was made closed door and with heavy influence from pharmaceutical company lobbying.
Mental health is probably one of the most complex aspects of health, things like placebo have a huge impact, it's hard to study, and there's huge bias introduced by a for-profit pharmaceutical industry that pushes treatments to pills.
The field of psychiatry is not that scientific, it's not so long ago it was forcing people into lobotomies and I see the unscientific rush to diagnose everyone into these boxes of depression and ADHD as a similar gaffe that will be looked back on poorly.
I am diagnosed with GAD, ADHD, and bipolar type 1 and I'm doing MUCH better since I went against-medical-advice and quit all meds. For bipolar disorder/anxiety, meditation, yoga, exercise, sobriety, journaling are my key treatments. Mindfulness is key, but not the Hacker News McMindfulness variety where you try to emulate a celebrity monk from Tibet so you can reach Zen all so you can write more code for your startup.
For ADHD, meditation, techniques like pomodoro, and most importantly, just accepting that maybe it's better to achieve less peak productivity than take prescription amphetamines.
I just wanted to provide some counter-perspective as someone who's followed advice like yours much to my detriment.
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…
We think people are 100% responsible for their behavior, so if they do something wrong or inconvenience us, it's their fault, and they're bad people for it. They should just not complain or feel bad, because you're not entitled to sympathy for your mistakes or failings.
You have to have a convincing case for your misery, why you deserve sympathy, and how it's not your fault, and even then, don't you dare complain to much.
Obviously, I'm exaggerating a bit and don't feel that way myself. I really think most people believe some watered down version of this though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Everyone I met who placed all their chips in pursuing a career were pretty much expressing their individuality. It just so happened that their individuality helped them thrive in a particular environment.
And you'd be surprised how material wealth, including as a status symbol, helps people express their individuality.
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…
How can society not be "a cage" in some respects? How about the arguments from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
As disconcerting as it may be, subjective feeling is a range (google "pain indicator charts") as well as professional (for some value of that) psychological analysis.
I think your view is minority view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
https://taaalk.co/t/discussing-eating-disorders
https://taaalk.co/t/exploring-obsessive-compulsive-disorder
Would you like to do one to see if anything comes up? Kind of a public anonymous therapy session...
https://taaalk.co/t/invite/what-s-going-on-with-dukha, invite code: 314798825
(If anyone else is interested my email is in my profile)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 essent…
The only essentialist argument is that there was a 'natural' to begin with, which in this case ought to be obvious. Our 'natural' environment, i.e. the environment in which we evolved to prosper, is far different in which the environment that we live today.
If you fail to see the analogy, you are either being overly reductive or you have very little imagination.
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…