Live data from Hacker News

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

psyche.co

321–330 of 396 posts

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

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The concept of "hyperfocus" as a symptom of ADHD is relatively recent idea

Hyperfocus is a symptom of ADHD, ASD, and schizophrenia [1]. So a person who experiences hyperfocus may be experiencing one or more of those conditions. (Although, when I say "symptom", not necessarily a diagnostic one – conditions can have both diagnostic symptoms, which form part of the diagnostic criteria, and non-diagnostic symptoms, which don't, but nonetheless have been commonly observed clinically and/or in research in those formally diagnosed.)

Since it is possible to have subclinical manifestations of psychiatric diagnoses, a person who experiences hyperfocus without meeting the diagnostic criteria for any of these diagnoses may have such a subclinical manifestation of one or more of them. The formal name for subclinical ASD is "Broad Autism Phenotype" (BAP) [2]; I don't think subclinical ADHD [3] or subclinical schizophrenia [4] have distinctive names, but both have been researched. (A lot of people who incorrectly self-diagnose themselves as having X despite not actually meeting the diagnostic criteria, may in fact be correctly identifying the existence of subclinical traits of X in themselves.)

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31541305/

[2] e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5949081/

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2547346/

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

#322
post #181

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.

>Without admin access or an operating manual.

I think there is some admin access. The problem is it probably isn't a good idea to sudo | grep | awk > overwrite_file.model very often. Brains might just be a jumble of extremely efficient and over-fitted regression models and neural nets with a really shitty training dataset.

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

#323

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…

Reminded me of the more succinct:

> It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

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

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> When we start diagnosis a disorder notorious of lack of attention in people who demonstrate an abundance of attention, there's a problem.

Inattention in ADHD has always been the lack of ability to appropriately direct attention, not the absence of attention to anything.

While “hyperfocus” by name is a fairly recent association, at least as far back as the DSM III-R ADHD has included both tendency to be easily distracted by extraneous stimuli (inability to maintain appropriate attention) and that of not having attention drawn by stimulus that should draw it (appearing not to listen.)

Hyperfocus is simply the latter.

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

#325
As an adult survivor of MSbP (both of my worst abusers were psychiatrists) I have to say this is amazing to hear.

It has always disturbed me greatly that pharmaceutical companies can go around claiming disorders in the DSM based on tons of research, but where is the pathway testing done? Why don't we see that happening with regular patients? There is a very strong disconnect between how these diseases are agreed upon AND treated VS the Hippocratic oath, objectivity, scientific, methodological reasoning.

What's even more disturbing is how completely normal mental health issues are then twisted in main stream culture, and used to control or hurt people, rather than help them. Mental health virtue signaling amongst psychiatrists is at an all time high with people bragging about how wonderful their disorder is and how proud they are. Does nobody else see something wrong with that? These doctors are convincing people they are permanently damaged (DNA/hereditary) and then pumping them full of drugs that don't quite do the trick. And this is happening in MASS. Mutagenic drugs fed to children and industry insiders have been blowing the whistle on overdiagnosis and overmedication for decades. And people wonder why our country is going crazy... wow.

Just. wow.

Mental health professionals in our society are failing us hard as a group and as individuals. I would cry myself to sleep, tears of sweet joy if I knew this was getting fixed and regulated and that psychiatrists had to undergo psychiatric evaluations themselves because I know several who are downright sociopaths and think that it's their right to tell other people they're permanently damaged and therefor wrong about . It's honestly scary as hell because psychiatrists have made my life a living nightmare and nobody seems to want to listen or help, or the ones that do can't or don't know how. I even talked to Monica W. of proxy project and she is only putting money she gets into research or legal testimony. MSbP victims aren't being helped on a big scale and this is an issue serious enough that if left unchecked is going to (and already is) cause untold damage to our culture and society, shit I'd wager our ability to survive even.

I do blame fakes like Dr. Phil for making everyone afraid of MSbP victims. He sensationalized the case about the girl and her boyfriend who killed her mom. Then he just makes it seem like some horrifying rare condition. No other cases to go over, no suggestions about how we can tackle this problem. Just straight up fear mongering. he's a real big piece of . While in fact this is happening all the time everywhere in front of our noses, but we somehow went from blindly trusting in Pastors who rape boys to Psychiatrists who convince everyone they need to pay them the rest of their life and take pills that will permanently alter their body chemistry in unintended ways.

Find out more about medical abuse at proxy project.

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

#326

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…

Language matters. It has far reaching consequences. Right now in mainstream culture mental health is used as a weapon to drag people down, or as virtual signaling and advertising conditions/medications/lifestyles with mental illnesses. It's being glamorized.

No it's not okay to use misleading language to describe, discuss, debate or eve refer to an extremely complex problem. That's how you get even more unintended problems: by not looking at the hard truths and operating off of them.

It matters because people think that most mental illnesses make the person less than, or they become insecure or fearful of people with basic mental issues and then become afraid to talk about their own.

Psychiatrists have been taking advantage of people with normal, run of the mill problems for decades. Their own industry insiders have been calling them out for years on over diagnosis. There is a very real incentive for psychiatrists to make poeple sick, or convince someone who is perfectly healthy otherwise to go on medications that will completely change their body chemistry and life.

Your attitude and approach to this problem is ignorant at best. You should speak to people before coming to such baseless conclusions and spewing them forth.

This isn't a euphemism treadmill. This is science and it makes perfect sense. Tons of people are experiencing chemical imbalances because of habits, and because of the way they are treated or disconnected with others throughout our culture. If you abuse someone emotionally and mentally enough, it will show physically, and it doesn't take much pal. I don't know what universe you're living in but maybe get out of the macho "i'm so badass" comic books metality for two seconds and realize medical abuse and corruption within our medical industries is FUBAR.

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

#327
This article points out a really crucial thing: we talk about "chemical imbalances", and this language subtly implies we know what we're talking about when we really don't. It's scientific sounding language: it's precise sounding.

It lends the impression that you're saying something like: "Brains of well-adjusted humans have a dopamine to seratonin ratio of X, but my brain puts out X + epsilon. So, I take this pill, and it moves the dopamine amounts down to normal, and leaves everything else the same."

But, as everyone cringing right now at that statement knows, not only do we laymen not understand how the brain works well enough to make any such statement, but no one can make any such statement. There are multiple levels of problems involved:

1. Determine with certainty that a given psychological problem to one that is purely solved by altering brain chemicals in principle (vs. neuronal structure or environment, etc)

2. Determine that this living individual, whom you cannot crack open the brain of, is suffering from this psychological disorder because of a brain chemical imbalance.

3. Synthesize a drug that alters this chemical imbalance, leaving everything else the same. This would involve understanding both the immediate effect of the drug, and the eventual ramifications as the brain reacts and compensates for the drug's presence, such that the final steady state of the drug is the desired brain chemical balance.

The state of our science is such that we really can't do any of these with the precision the "chemical imbalance" framing implies. Compared with this unrealistic standard, we're barely better than alchemists. We know that in principle, some psychological problems are caused at least in part by brain chemical imbalances. But I agree with the article that we should stop giving the impression that this awareness implies an ability to diagnose and solve these imbalances.

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

#328
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a patient's symptoms are treated instead of the cause, most people will have subpar results. The SSRI Lexapro [0] helped my girlfriend relapse on cocaine, before i met her. Cocaine is a much stronger anti-depressant than the SSRI's due to its effects as a Mono-Amine Oxidase Inhibitor [2] (1st generation anti-depressants). Eventually the professionals figured out she is a poor methylator, and can't convert folic…

What makes you think cocaine is an MAOI?

I read something that compared cocaine's mood-lifting effects to those of the MAOI's. I remember it further said the MAOI's were generally safe for short-term use, unless you consumed certain types of fine cheese, and that they fell out of favor as their patents expired, not because they didn't work anymore.

I have a hard time keeping track of where I read what; I haven't found a source on a cursory search.

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

#329
I agree in general that prescription antidepressants are over-prescribed. Unfortunately there are few medications that can ameliorate shit life syndrome.

That said, some people do have genuine chemical imbalances. I've had bipolar disorder all my life. My cocktail of medications has allowed the last 11 years of my life to be the most productive, stable and happiest. There are of course side effects - and I can understand why some people find them intolerable. I have tremendous difficulty ejaculating, for example. But on balance it's worth it as a) I'm alive and b) my quality of life has improved.

Likewise for my grandmother, my mother, my aunt and my cousin. Bipolar disorder ravaged our families at various points and medication has improved our lives immeasurably in various ways. I just feel for earlier generations that didn't have an explanation (let alone cure) for their woes.

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

#330
post #329

I agree in general that prescription antidepressants are over-prescribed. Unfortunately there are few medications that can ameliorate shit life syndrome. That said, some people do have genuine chemical imbalances. I've had bipolar disorder all my life. My cocktail of medications has allowed the last 11 years of my life to be the most productive, stable and happiest. There are of course side effects - and I can unders…

I haven't read the article - am just about to - so this may be addressed in it, but:

I'd like to add that even if you do suffer from some aspect of SLS rather than crossed wires, medication can be key in enabling other forms of improvement.

Medication can be what enables you to seek other forms of therapy, what gives you enough energy to make it to the next appointment, what enables you to sort out other factors in your life, be it self esteem, socioeconomics, or relationships.

At least a few years back there was a pretty big sentiment against "happy pills" and medication, which I believe is harmful. That said, I don't believe solely in medication either, but want to maintain that it's an important tool that can serve either as a solution, or as the enabler of a solution.

Post reply on HN