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

#311

Post by all_blue_chucks » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #285

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disad…

Not all cases of depression are effectively treated - some end in suicide - but every single case is worth treating. Resigning oneself to lifelong misery is the worst possible choice.

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

#312

Post by mjayhn » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

olyjohn wrote: post #303

mjayhn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been allergy tested? I found out last year (midway into my 30s) that I'm actually allergic to half the foods my mom used to prepare for me. Like tomatoes/nightshade fruits. I would always get itchy, confused and generally feel inflamed and terrible and my mom made me tons and tons of spaghetti as a kid. I had constant GI issues in school and did pretty poorly, bad memory, etc. Prior to allergy testing I got…

Aren't there a lot of pseudoscience-based food allergy tests out there? I've seen ones where you drop blood onto paper cards and mail them in. Somehow they test your old dead blood and then they send back a list of foods and tell you if you're allergic to them... Seems fishy to me, and I could not find how it worked or anything that these tests are legit. Every other type of allergy that causes inflammation in the bo…

I went to an Allergy clinic in a hospital and just got the entire test where they prick sample sites into your back (it doesn't hurt at all). I don't have my paper near me but I hit something like 80-85% of the allergens they tested me with which ran the gamut from pollens to bugs, a few common common foods (tomatoes/nightshades for sure, I forget what else) were also on the list although not that many.

IIRC it was either stupid cheap or covered by insurance. I was a little annoyed my parents didn't take me in when I was younger for it.

It was completely hassle-free and maybe 30 minutes.

Now when I eat pizza with tomato sauce and start scratching my arms and my mouth is burnt and my stomach is destroyed and I have wild brain fog for 3 days I finally know why! Not sure how I never equated it before, I always thought it was the bread and never got gluten tested (could still contribute, but I'm not going through that test).

This is a dogs results but my results looked similar, I just had a food section; https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/18/49/47/07/kyeall11.jpg

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

#313

Post by jac241 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:02 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.

https://www.mdcalc.com/phq-9-patient-health-questionnaire-9 . You deserve to feel happy and enjoy life. Don't let a stigma about mental illness prevent you from getting treatment (therapy and/or antidepressants) if you feel like you could benefit.

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

#314

Post by 6nf » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:03 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.

Clinical depression is diagnosed when 1) its ongoing over 6 months or more and 2) it's having a detrimental effect on your life or the lives of those around you

Roughly speaking of course

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

#315

Post by lovehashbrowns » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

ColanR wrote: post #307

seesawtron wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that you reference him solely as social critic and mathematician. I would recommend one should read his manifesto [0] to form their own opinion. Additionally you might also enjoy the Adam Curtis's documentary series [1]. [0] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Unabomber-Manifest... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04

Ideas should be evaluated on their own merit, unbiased by anyone's view of their originator.

"social critic and mathematician" is very biased

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

#316

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

wolfram74 wrote: post #123

DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

To whatever degree a mental health issue is treatable with drugs, it genuinely is a medical issue. But that's not the only element of actual insanity. Real insanity almost always involves a sick social fabric as well that lies to you about critical information, often blaming you for problems over which you have no real control. They know that schizophrenics often get better with in patient treatment, then go home to…

Many good points, but to clarify, you're arguing that being treatable is merely an obvious indication that it's a medical issue, but not the only indication? Lots of things in non-mental health fields are acknowledge to be medical problems but also remain untreatable.

I'm really tired and I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I did leave a reply earlier, then removed it. I have no idea if you saw that.

I think mental health issues are complex. To whatever degree a pill actually helps, it's legitimate to view it as medical.

I have a lot of medical issues and I deal a lot with somatopsychic side effects. It's a somewhat obscure word meaning you get genuine mental health effects as a side effect of actual medical issues.

I don't use drugs to treat my issues. I mostly treat them nutritionally and there is research into how diet impacts brain chemistry and so forth. I have seen research indicating that nutritional supplements have a better track of treating certain issues than the prescription medication typically used.

I know a lot about the topic and related topics. I spent a few years in therapy for abuse endured as a child. I've done a lot reading and I've thought carefully about how to handle certain things in my life for which there aren't supposed to be any good solutions.

Social fabric and the mental models that it reinforces is another huge element of mental health. My medical issues don't turn into psychiatric issues in part because my two adult sons still live with me and they are abundantly familiar with the somatopsychic issues I am prone to and how to address them. So they do a lot of things that mitigate the issue when I am angsty or depressed or suicidal or whatever. They don't make those things worse by how they respond to them.

So I know from firsthand experience that how people around you response to mental health incidents can magnify or minimize them and it is my observation that most people magnify such problems. They take a lurid interest in the issue. They feel a desire to act like your "savior," thereby actively painting you as more screwed up than you are. Etc. ad nauseum.

So I'm not really sure how to engage your comment because I don't think I really understand it and I didn't like the reply I left earlier and I may end up not liking this one either, but I also wasn't comfortable just leaving no response. :/

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

#317

Post by jlokier » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

verylittlemeat wrote: post #64

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…

Pragmatically, the terminology used affects how people end up treated.

Both therepeutically, and how they are interacted with socially.

If we say it's a chemical imbalance, chemicals will be sought to correct the imbalance, and effective suggestions that require other people to change will be met with resistance.

If we say it's people in distress, other people will start to reflect and accept they play a role in causing the distress and be a bit more open to changing their behaviour.

The best "treatment" is, of course, a combination of things tailored to individual and circumstance. But widespread language greatly affects what is available in practice.

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

#318

Post by XCSme » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:40 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.

I agree. My opinion now is actually that the more a person posts "happy" photos on Facebook/Instagram, the sadder/unfulfilled they actually are IRL.

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

#319

Post by ghostbrainalpha » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:41 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.

I never thought of myself as depressed. Then I tried to sign up to be part of a Stanford Study, and the person reviewing my answers to a questionnaire rejected me for depression and said I should get help.

It was absolutely shocked at the time. But in hindsight the frequency with which I considered ending my life should have been a clue.

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

#320

Post by XCSme » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #292

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 have always been a happy and optimistic person. But I do very often wonder if and what is the objective purpose of life, and having thought of it for a long time, I came to the conclusion that there are no such objective purpose. The goal of life is entirely subjective, while the achievement/advancement of the goal is grounded in logic and hard work, the goal itself is not.

I also came to the conclusion that no one has any idea what the purpose of life is. No one. I like listening to various opinions on "how you should live your life", mostly just out of curiosity, but never really take any of them as the answer. There are people (David Goggins) saying that you should work 24/7 and be the best of version of yourself you can be while working your ass off and suffering a lot. There are others who say you shouldn't give a fuck and just enjoy the life in every way you can. Life has no purpose, just enjoy it and do whatever makes you happy and fulfilled (which could mean either slacking or achieving greatness, depending on what you want).