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

241–250 of 396 posts

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

#241

Post by staplers »

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…

"There is no normal life that is free of pain. It’s the very wrestling with our problems that can be the impetus for our growth."

-Fred Rogers

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

#242

Post by toomanybeersies »

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 was diagnosed in my mid-20s with inattentive-type ADHD. I had never even considered that I had ADHD until about a year prior to seeing a doctor, because I don't "look" like I have ADHD. There's this stereotype of people with ADHD being unable to sit still, constantly bouncing off the walls, which isn't really me at all.

There's so much more to ADHD than that though. I'm smart enough that I never struggled academically, and wasn't hyperactive enough to cause significant enough disruption in the classroom, so externally it was never picked up that I might have ADHD. But now that I'm aware of it, I've come to realise how significant of an impact it's had in my life, all the self-destructive and self-sabotaging behaviour, the instability of my relationships, the abuse of drugs and alcohol, the lack of internal motivation, emotional hypersensitivity, a lack of emotional and object permanence, and more. I could go on for days (and have) about the less obvious effects and symptoms of ADHD.

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

#243

Post by MR4D »

newacct583 wrote: post #198
MR4D wrote: post #195

I disagree, and do so on my personal experience with Keto (yes, you read that correctly). Just to give one case - last month I tried to get back into keto, as the lockdown had worn away my resistance to junk food and bad eating habits began. In the process, I bounced in and out of ketosis, and my emotional state was all over the map. Crying, ecstatic, and everything in between. It was like being bipolar (I have a fam…

The article isn't denying a biochemical basis on emotional regulation. It's saying that building the language of treatment around that framework is harmful, because it stigmatizes sufferers (even by simply making them fear the stigma), increases anxiety, and tends to act against recovery. It's an article about the best way to practice psychiatry.

I get that, and I disagree. I think the discussion about food should happen first.

The food you eat affects your chemical balance, and therefore your ability to process information when you are making a decision or analyzing a situation by overloading your circuits.

You can actually try this by eating a bunch of sugar and carbs for a few days, and then going without carbs or sugar for a few days. I guarantee your ability to process information will change, and your personality probably will change as well. If you have a spouse or roommate, ask them if they notice - I'll bet they will.

My point is about causality. We are basically (no pun intended) a big bag of chemicals, and those chemicals are used by our brain to do its work. Simply having the wrong level of salt in your body (not just NaCl, but any salts) can significantly affect your brain.

I just looked up the word because I couldn't remember it, but Hyponatremia is caused by not enough salt in the body and can make your brain physically swell. Think about that for a moment - just one chemical can make your brain change in size - imagine what the effects are from all foods you take in.

So to me, psychiatry has it wrong. It's like a mechanic trying to diagnose why your engine doesn't work when you put molasses in the gas tank, or why a heart surgeon talking to a 500 pound obese person and without discussing their eating habits. Why should the brain be any different?

--------

EDIT - Check out this page at the Mayo Clinic [0]. They list some of the symptoms of hyponatremia, which include, * "Confusion, Loss of energy, drowsiness and fatigue, Restlessness and irritability "*

[0] - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyponatremia/...

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

#244

Post by grugagag »

dpweb wrote: post #227
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 w…

I somewhat agree that depression could be a good thing under certain circumstances, circumstances that can be fixed and are not outside the control of the subject.

Also I feel that I need to add that there are different personalities, and disorders of personality. In a lot of cases the narcissistic usually comes on top exploiting and causing depression and insecurities in others. I don’t find that this type of depression is useful. And generally society is becoming more narcissistic which rises the level of distress in others and that can’t be easily fixed.

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

#245

Post by PragmaticPulp »

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.

> because many ADHD people have incredible focus (at times)

The concept of "hyperfocus" as a symptom of ADHD is relatively recent idea. It didn't appear in any medical literature for a long time. The first appearance I could find was in some author's book about ADHD, which wasn't even targeted at medical professionals.

It might be a symptom for some people, but misinterpreting it as a symptom of ADHD leaves the door wide open for misdiagnosis and over-diagnosis. When we start diagnosis a disorder notorious of lack of attention in people who demonstrate an abundance of attention, there's a problem.

The pop-psychology definition of ADHD is so broad that it's rare to find an HN commenter who hasn't self-diagnosed as maybe having ADHD at some point in their lives.

As you said, pathological ADHD (as diagnosed by a medical professional) can have a severe impact on people's lives. It's best that we leave the diagnosis to professionals and not give people the impression that the regular ups and downs of focus (studying/focus/mental endurance is work for everyone) are indicators of a mental health disorder.

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

#246

Post by PragmaticPulp »

DataWorker wrote: post #44
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #28

Many depressed people are very resistant to accepting treatment. In a perfect world, people would have no hangups about scheduling an appointment with a therapist and/or trialing antidepressant medication as an adjunct to their recovery. However, in the real world many people are resistant to the idea of therapy and/or medication as it feels like admitting defeat. Or perhaps they've read cherry-picked horror stories…

It seems like anybody familiar with the history of the profession would be wise to not so easily “accept treatment.” But then again, even insiders like Jordan Peterson will “accept treatment” that nearly kills them. The hubris isn’t unique to any one branch of medicine, but consider that not very long ago shock treatment for homosexuals was the accepted treatment. That should give you pause if nothing else.

> It seems like anybody familiar with the history of the profession would be wise to not so easily “accept treatment.”

It's amazing how mainstream the anti-psychiatry movement has become. Please ignore it and focus on the modern science. The attempts to dismiss modern science with questionable historical references is non sequitur.

> But then again, even insiders like Jordan Peterson will “accept treatment” that nearly kills them.

Jordan Peterson is not an insider. He's not even a good representative of the industry. Please don't interpret anything he says or does as representative of the field. He's a social media star, not a recognized expert.

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

#247

Post by nastyfilthy »

bserge wrote: post #172
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.

What other drugs are you referring to? Other types of antidepressants or acid.

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

#248

Post by PragmaticPulp »

nsl73 wrote: post #11

I find the chemical imbalance metaphor for mental illness the opposite of empowering and an easy well to sell pharmaceuticals. There is some truth to the metaphor, but I wonder if it’s doing more harm than good.

> an easy well to sell pharmaceuticals.

It's easy to forget that modern generic SSRIs are dirt cheap.

$4-5/month is typical. These compounds are trivial to produce. Many pharmacies don't even operate as money makers. They just want you to pick up groceries while you're in the store.

Picking up a couple of apples while you wait for a prescription to be filled might cost more than the medicine itself.

It's true that there are more expensive on-patent medications available, but it's reasonable (and encouraged) to start with the cheap generics first.

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

#249

Post by luckylion »

jimbokun wrote: post #159
realharo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a metaphor. Because the way it works can be viewed as inputs (sensors, environment, external chemicals) + current state ---> outputs (behavior) + new state kinda like computers or robots, in a deterministic manner (except it is practically impossible to recreate the exact same inputs, or the exact same state). You don't have to take it too literally, people who read it generally understand what it means.

> inputs (sensors, environment, external chemicals) + current state ---> outputs (behavior) + new state It's just not a very helpful metaphor, because we are nowhere close to having a way to simulate or compute that function. So treating people as agents with goals, desires, personalities, experiences and histories and traumas, and drawing on our hard wired abilities for empathy, can be a far more useful model for ac…

> So treating people as agents with goals, desires, personalities, experiences and histories and traumas, and drawing on our hard wired abilities for empathy, can be a far more useful model for actually helping and healing people than just giving them a pill.

But that's not a dichotomy. Nobody is saying to either disregard biochemistry and believe that God gave us free will by some magical act or just throw random pills at people.

You can see people as all that and still not reject the idea that chemical imbalances can negatively influence their goals, desires and personalities, and that chemicals can also positively influence them,

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

#250

Post by newacct583 »

MR4D wrote: post #243
newacct583 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article isn't denying a biochemical basis on emotional regulation. It's saying that building the language of treatment around that framework is harmful, because it stigmatizes sufferers (even by simply making them fear the stigma), increases anxiety, and tends to act against recovery. It's an article about the best way to practice psychiatry.

I get that, and I disagree. I think the discussion about food should happen first. The food you eat affects your chemical balance, and therefore your ability to process information when you are making a decision or analyzing a situation by overloading your circuits. You can actually try this by eating a bunch of sugar and carbs for a few days, and then going without carbs or sugar for a few days. I guarantee your abi…

So... the science of diet isn't nearly as well understood as you're presenting. It's like "back pain" -- everyone tends to suffer in some way from it, so everyone relates to statements like yours and wants to believe in a simple resolution. But in practice, everyone suffers in different ways, and everyone responds differently to the same treatments. It's not really "a thing" in a medical sense.

Like... that hyponatremia link is almost the definition of this kind of thinking: it's a real syndrome, it's documented, it's worth understanding and studying. But come on: EVERYONE has "Confusion, Loss of energy, drowsiness and fatigue, Restlessness and irritability" at some level, and of those how many are actually sodium deficient? That's a non-diagnosis.

Post reply on HN