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

#261

Post by vharuck » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #33

sillysaurusx wrote: post #13

they struggled against the dehumanising notion that their thoughts, feelings or behaviour were mechanistically caused. Finally, a thread where I can point out my own experiences. Around four years ago, it would be fair to call me slightly crazy. It was a harmless sort of crazy, but it was quite self-destructive. I used to wake up wishing to die, genuinely, and not knowing why. All of that changed after going on Proza…

> All of that changed after going on Prozac. I don't know why, and I've heard from many others that Prozac was harmful to them. SSRIs are some of the most widely-used medications. Tens of millions of people in the United States alone use SSRIs regularly with good results. No medication is perfect, obviously, and at scale we're bound to see a percentage of people have negative experiences. The problem is that when ten…

I was "lucky" to have been majoring in psychology right before getting diagnosed with major depression. So I went into treatment knowing things like this that helped me stick with it.

Which was a literal lifesaver, because the first SSRI I took gave me severe stomach pains. I spent at least 2 hours every night spitting into the dorm room sink with the lights out.

Instead of quitting, I knew to ask for a different SSRI. I also knew to switch therapists when the first one just talked at me the whole time. I then got one who listened a lot at first, then started challenging things I said after we had some trust.

And one more helpful thing J knew: medication was like a crutch. And, despite that usually being a negative metaphor, I saw it as a positive. If you break your leg, you use a crutch while it heals. Your treatment should be the crutch (meds) and therapy. The therapy works better when you can think better.

I ended up not needing my meds anymore. I still have overall flattened affect and bouts of depression, but I can deal with them. To torture the metaphor, it's like having a slight limp from the broken leg. I'll never be "back to normal" but still find life worth living.

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

#262

Post by maevyn11 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

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?

No man, that's just one line of thinking. I'm not religious in the least, and I love spending time alone and unoccupied. I know about existential angst and have indulged in it in the past, but my mind just wanders to other more pleasurable things when it's undistracted.

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

#263

Post by koheripbal » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #116

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.

>I think a bigger problem is that people are fixated on word definitions and offending others instead of solving problems. I agree, and this is pretty much unavoidable when the current clinical term is vague enough to be used as a generic insult. The general pattern I see 1. A vague term is used to describe symptoms of an issue we have a poor understanding of. 2. That term becomes associated with the symptoms, but is…

I would say this cycle happens regardless of how vague the term is.

Terms like Black, Dwarf, Gay, etc... were all, at some point, considered insults despite being specific. (note: I'm not saying these are illnesses - just that the same phenomena exists - there are probably much better examples of what I'm trying to say).

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

#264

Post by razakel » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:35 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…

Some more food for thought - occasionally doctors will privately admit that many of their patients aren't really depressed, they're in fact suffering from "shit life syndrome" - in other words, their mood is the normal and natural response to the circumstances they are in.

Here's an FT article about Blackpool, a deprived seaside town in the north of England. It has the highest unemployment rate, some of the lowest life expectancy, highest rate of prescription of antidepressants, and highest rate of hard drug abuse (heroin and spice) in the country:

https://www.ft.com/blackpool

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

#265

Post by bjornsing » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

css wrote: post #6

> to defeat this othering and reduce stigma, clinical practice needs to move away from biogenetic causal language This is a pretty big assertion that the piece casually drops without backing. The reasoning as to why "chemical imbalance" is a bad descriptor is apparent* from the study [0] the author cites, but there is nothing that backs up this statement, which seems to be the crux of the whole piece. *Even the study…

> If we do not understand the processes, how can the author make the assertion that the characterization they are against is wrong?

Generally, in a scientific context, characterizations are wrong if they lack any scientific basis.

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

#266

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

I had a clinical depression. I took anti-depressants for it, but they were never intended to be a cure. I got into therapy, and got through it.

I was aware, though,of the yawning abyss between my mood disorder and "real" mental health issues. I have a very good friend who is very affected by bipolar disorder, and while they maintain that depression and bipolar are as debilitating as each other, I see the shit they go through and shudder. But then, I've seen the shit they went through and shudder. Correlation is not causation, but everyone I've met who is working their way through mental health problems has a proportionate amount of trauma to go with it.

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

#267

Post by closeparen » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:48 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…

Antidepressants are not much more effective than placebo, which is a problem if you're a drug researcher, but as a patient it doesn't really matter that your relief actually comes from placebo effect.

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

#268

Post by duderific » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #52

sillysaurusx wrote: post #13

they struggled against the dehumanising notion that their thoughts, feelings or behaviour were mechanistically caused. Finally, a thread where I can point out my own experiences. Around four years ago, it would be fair to call me slightly crazy. It was a harmless sort of crazy, but it was quite self-destructive. I used to wake up wishing to die, genuinely, and not knowing why. All of that changed after going on Proza…

they struggled against the dehumanising notion that their thoughts, feelings or behaviour were mechanistically caused. The realization that thoughts think themselves was one of the most profound moments of my life. Identification with your thoughts is a recipe for unhappiness.

I've seen bumper stickers: "Don't believe everything that you think."

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

#269

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #235

coldtea wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Essentialism is a tool, at most a particular lens that should be viewed through, but what is seen should not taken as a truth, but only a highly filtered and downsampled representation of it. Essentialism is also what kept slavery justified (under the theory that Africans were "…

>Essentialism is also what kept slavery justified (under the theory that Africans were "essentially" fit for forced labor), before a different essentialism took over.

Yes. It can't be written off as "essentially" (pun intended) bad. It depends on the use - and as everything in social life, it's complicated.

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

#270

Post by analyte123 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

_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…

Having never really heard of any of these people and just skimming DDG and Wikipedia, I think you're probably being a bit too reticent. As far as I can tell, every topic on HN easily devolves into futile arguments with motivated skeptics. EMDR and Sarno-like treatment for RSI have definitely received productive discussion on HN. Jung and depth psychology (given the quote in your bio) are certainly less dangerous than psychedelics, which are constantly being lauded here.