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

#281

Post by Johnjonjoan » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

kazagistar wrote: post #275

Johnjonjoan wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be human is to have a brain, and the brain exists to do technology and social organization. Separating the two is absurd... the human animal, left on its own devices, naturally creates technology and societies, so all these things are just as natural.

To be human is to have something an incredible number of other species have?

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

#282

Post by bserge » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

robotbikes wrote: post #225

bserge wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I'm not denying the creationist idea, either (life seeded by some entities sounds plausible to me; just not the almighty bearded guy in the sky, sounds very dumbed-down). And I think consciousness is more of a virtual machine. Could be compared to a "natural AI" of sorts - that arose on top of our primitive animal selves. But that's just my daydream theories. Groups of people can indeed behave as different/new entities.

It's just that the physical composition of our bodies are knwon down to the protons (and even deeper). How they all work is a different question, but there is a specific way they work. Just have to figure it out.

When I say machine, I mean it as "construct" of any kind, not just electromechanical. Imo, it would be really nice if we could grow and reattach whole body parts, or grow bodies for transplant, but obviously those ideas bring a lot of negative connotations and ethical problems, so we're investing in electromechanical alternatives instead.

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

#283

Post by ip26 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

yomly wrote: post #273

razakel wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

Anecdotally a doctor friend confirmed this same observation to me after doing a psychiatry rotation - they suggested that most people with depression were just sad but wanted a magic pill to cure the unpleasant emotion.

It's hard to know if you are clinically depressed. I've asked myself the question many times, and can never really say for sure.

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

#284

Post by sandgiant » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

This is a fantastic article, thanks for sharing! This part really resonated:

Psychiatric research doesn’t support the notion of simple cause and effect in mental health, instead uncovering a far more complex and indeterminate picture of vulnerabilities. There is no evidence to justify the continued promotion of one-dimensional theories such as ‘chemical imbalance’. Nor does the beneficial use of psychiatric medicines require it. In fact, their precise mechanism of action and relation to troublesome experience remains a mystery. It would be more truthful for mental health professionals and public health campaigns to acknowledge this.

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

#285

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #256

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…

Your comment, "there's nothing wrong with my brain," doesn't clearly define what you mean by "wrong." From a biological standpoint, there is nothing wrong with misery. You can be miserable from birth to death, but as long as you pass on your genes your miserable self is "fit" from an evolutionary perspective. Personally I would absolutely consider persistent misery, or experiencing extreme sadness over minor things,…

>Personally I would absolutely consider persistent misery, or experiencing extreme sadness over minor things, to be a clear proof that there is something wrong with my brain. Whether I treat that with therapy or medication, I think that is very much worth treating, and definitely not worth simply accepting.

I think you are making the assumption that it is treatable, or that the treatment advantages outweigh the disadvantages, which is not always the case.

I think there is a general over-subscription to the idea that everything can be treated or optimized. Some diseases are incurable and sometimes a personal optimal is still poor compared to average.

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

#286

Post by ip26 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

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…

I felt like that for a long time. I can't say that today I am an over-exuberant bundle of joy, but somewhere along the road of fixing my quality of sleep (caffeine, nasal obstruction), eating more fruits & vegetables, and getting regular exercise, the world has become a far more cheery place.

I know it's not an illusion because I very rapidly become dour & flat when I let my diet or exercise slip.

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

#287

Post by Johnjonjoan » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #283

yomly wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally a doctor friend confirmed this same observation to me after doing a psychiatry rotation - they suggested that most people with depression were just sad but wanted a magic pill to cure the unpleasant emotion.

It's hard to know if you are clinically depressed. I've asked myself the question many times, and can never really say for sure.

Usually if everyone around you would say you're one of the happiest people and you think you're also one of the saddest you are depressed.

"Happiness has nothing on the overcompensations for misery" - Huxley

If you're sad for a good/known reason you probably won't feel the need to overcompensate.

Edit: I do not mean to say people who don't meet this criteria aren't depressed in any way shape or form.

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

#288

Post by weknowbetter » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

nastyfilthy wrote: post #247

bserge wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My guess would be MDMA

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502590/

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

#289

Post by welearnednothng » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

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…

I can relate to much of what you're saying. This seems to be the common trapping of modern society - everyone must be happy and care about the same things. I'm not professionally qualified on the subject, but my vote is embrace it - but also try to understand it.

For instance, find a therapist to talk with. Don't feel like you need to settle for the first one you find, find one that feels right to you. It could be that there are deep rooted thoughts or emotions that actually are unhealthy that you may want to get to the bottom of. The goal here isn't change, it's understanding... and through understanding, determine if there's anything you'd like to change or even embrace. For example, I tend to focus on the negatives and everything wrong with the world. I realized I picked these behaviors up from my mother which not only allows me to be more aware of my behavior, but also helps me gently guide conversations with her away from being so negative and help her find positive things in her life.

Psychedelics often come up in these conversations, as well. I know many people whom see their experiences with psychedelics as turning points for them. There's plenty out research out there on the subject that I won't rehash here. If you choose to go down this route, I'd suggest doing your own research and if it seems like something you'd like to try do so in a safe place with one or more persons you feel safe around. Preferably, have an experienced "guide" there with you.

Lastly, I've been digging into the subject of gratitude for awhile now - both giving and receiving. There's a lot of research indicating it can be quite powerful. I tend to focus on the negative and everything that's wrong with the world (or my job, or my partner). Sometimes, just setting aside time to stop and think about something or someone you're grateful for (and especially communicating that) can do wonders. This isn't about not having or getting rid of pessimistic thoughts - it's about finding conscious space for appreciation, which can help balance things out or just help find some sparks of joy that might otherwise get drowned out by the negativity.

We're all on our own journey. Embrace who you are and try to take in the sights along the way.

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

#290

Post by istjohn » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

kazagistar wrote: post #272

jmole wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the analogy is "an environmental condition that significantly modifies 'natural' behavior". 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…

The larger brain is an evolutionary adaptation for the purpose of dealing with unique new environments. Doing so is specifically what is natural for humans, and why they so thoroughly spread across the world. Of course, evolution is basically alway does a half-assed job of everything. I think on average, we are better adjusted to this society then one thousands of years ago. Its hard to be adjusted to not having stab…

I imagine it depends on your socioeconomic status. If you are working night shift 60 hours a week at a mindless sedentary factory job, you're probably more biologically suited to a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Although to be fair, agriculture is much older than 1,000 years. I actually think the vast majority of people are not able to live a life better-suited to them than that of hunter gatherers.