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

#221

Post by koheripbal » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

pravus wrote: post #146

koheripbal wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People in distress" is even more useless. "in distress" could mean anything from having fallen down the stairs, to running out of gas on the highway. I don't mind changing language, as long as we're become more precise, not less. If "chemical imbalance" is bad, suggest something better. I think a bigger problem is that people are fixated on word definitions and offending others instead of solving problems.

How is "distress" not the correct term? It is defined as extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain which can be caused by any of the factors you described as well as many more you are not even aware of. It is an emotional state that is perceived on the part of the person suffering rather than observers outside of them regardless of the actual physical realities involved. The term "chemical imbalance" can describe anything fro…

> The problem is people aren't interested in using correct definitions for anything anymore.

Really? That's the problem? Not the mental disorder itself?

These semantic debates are less than worthless.

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

#222

Post by bradlys » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

mint2 wrote: post #177

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.

The culture in America shames those who post upsetting things or express those feelings. It’s a whole thing where you have to always be happy and “positive”.

I’ve rebelled against this for a long time. I post happy things here and there but since my life isn’t particularly happy, I post the more upsetting things more frequently and express those feelings in real life. I like to think I’m adding balance but I know I’m just being ignored because the culture doesn’t like to hear about suffering.

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

#223

Post by logicchop » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

boucher wrote: post #190

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…

You might have an Aristotelian sense of "success" in mind here (meaning that it covers something like the long-term overarching benefit of the person), but I don't. I just mean success as in, anxiety medication actually improves anxiety; depression medication actually improves depression; attention deficit medication actually improves attention. Whether there are better ways for us to achieve long-term outcomes is a different issue.

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

#224

Post by Supermancho » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #119

Supermancho wrote: post #92

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.

I don't think it is though. For example, one of the things we know is that IBS can cause depression/anxiety (or perhaps more accurately, people with IBS are more likely to have depression/anxiety). In this case chemical imbalance would be objectively wrong. Their brain is being affected by another part of the body entirely, but you would have doctors selectively treating the symptoms (the 'chemical imbalance') rather…

> In this case chemical imbalance would be objectively wrong.

I disagree. Chemical imbalance is not necessarily a solitary cause, it's describing a condition regardless. shrug

> you would have doctors selectively treating the symptoms (the 'chemical imbalance') rather than the cause

Typically they treat both or in most cases, the easier problem with less severe treatment consequences (classic House MD - live in constant pain from muscle death vs lose a limb).

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

#225

Post by robotbikes » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

bserge wrote: post #181

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'…

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.

I think that statement "ultimately a machine" is hinged upon a philosophical view that existence is simply the result of various material interactions, chemistry, physics and what have you that is pretty common in our culture but also originates from the view of a clockwork universe with divine creator. Nowadays the idea of a creator is often omitted and people suggest that its just everything is just caused by the consequences of the big bang or what have you. I have been suspicious of this kind of reductionist view but also found that a lot of alternatives fly way too quickly into nonsensical dogma without acknowledging that they are just making up something to feel better. The "truth" I like to embrace is kind a panpsychic panspermia pantheism that recognizes that we as humans with limited perception and knowledge are probably part of much larger processes and there are emergent entities created in part through our minds/bodies. These entities can be us as individual humans or something like a family, church, company or government composed of many individuals but acting in concert as a larger entity.

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

#226

Post by danans » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

Johnjonjoan wrote: post #207

danans wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

> 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.

Defining fully human as being in the nihilistic ego-destroyed state where differentiation between the Self and all existence is nullified is another fictional ideal. Huxley himself borrowed from eastern philosophy of Vedanta, of which Huxley was a student.

It's a deeply interesting path of thought to go down as an individual, but it shouldn't be mistaken as a prescription for how to be fully human in society a practical way, or a principle around which to configure society.

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

#227

Post by dpweb » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:15 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…

Also, what is the appropriate threshold where we call it mental illness. The article, Jenna's boyfriend cheated. She's seriously depressed. That ain't illness, it's normal. That doctor is a quack.

I feel part of the problem is the expectation that humans are supposed to be happy. Happy is just a state of mind, not necessarily our default state. Depression and mental pain have their uses. They alert us, something is wrong - make a change! Working through pain, not self-medicating, strengthens you. Even if you 'don't know what's wrong', the unconscious WILL act out on, repressed childhood trauma, for instance.

We're destined to suffer, if for no other reason the horrific reality that we will all be annihilated one day. Everything beautiful in the world will be taken from us. Our existence will end. So happiness is not our default state, or even where we SHOULD get to. Why would it be?

There are certainly people who need intervention before they suicide, and people with real chemical imbalances (for people prescribed meds - -is this EVER proven scientifically? EEG? blood test?), but we conflate those people with others who are just very rightfully sad about the circumstances in their lives. Often these people (alcohol, food, drugs, phone) instead of making the difficult changes.

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

#228

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

ditonal wrote: post #212

twojacobtwo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's very common for people on HN to tout the benefits of their ADHD diagnosis and I feel compelled to point out that getting on ADHD meds was one of the worst mistakes of my life. They triggered a manic episode. The psychiatrist solutions to all my problems was always more meds, different meds, etc. I've mentioned this a few times and I'm always accused of abusing them but the truth is I took a small dose as prescri…

I would like to recommend the book 'crazy like us' it's about how mental health functions differently in different cultures and how we been exporting western conception of mental health and they've actually changed the symptoms people report to their therapist. It also touches on the pharmaceutical industries influence. Really a fascinating reas

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

#229

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

viburnum wrote: post #201

twojacobtwo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do like the category ADHD is put in though. It's a form of 'executive disfunction' which I think describes it much better.

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

#230

Post by aristophenes » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

I think the problem is misidentified in the article. I agree that giving people the idea that they need a pill to function normally is not great. But the 'chemical imbalance' explanation itself is very helpful, and doesn't require discounting a person's experience, a dependency on medication, or a fear of being labeled as crazy.

I had severe depression as a young man, and I remember being confused about it, as when I objectively examined my life there was no reason for it. But I was drowning in despair. When depression was explained to me, with the idea of a chemical imbalance, it all clicked. It enabled me to fight back appropriately and win back my mind. Without medication. It took a few years to get back to normal but I am a much, much stronger person for it, and have never had a hint of a relapse despite actually going through difficult times since then.

Humans are, as much as we hate to admit it, fundamentally emotional thinkers. And when we have emotions we immediately conjure up logical reasons for those emotions to exist, whether they are truly justified or not. And then we tell ourselves the reasons came first, and caused the emotions. Depression can be a bad feedback loop of chemicals that color the way we see the world, and then we justify how bad we feel, making us feel worse.

This might not be the solution for everyone, but for me the trick was not to try to understand my emotional suffering, but to ignore it. I would think, "that's the depression talking, its meaningless, you will feel bad today but it doesn't matter, get on with life". It was very hard, but as I stopped feeding the beast it slowly died away. Of course there are those that truly have reasons to be depressed, but I still think, after processing what happened, the best approach is to move on.