191–200 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried any supplements? SSRIs aren’t the only promising solution.
> Have you tried any supplements? > SSRIs aren’t the only promising solution. I don't think it's very helpful to vaguely bring up "supplements" like that. There are so many , and they range from being harmful, to being placebos, to being actually helpful. Plus there's a huge amount of utter quackery around them. Do you have any specific "promising" ones in mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, but if meditation has taught me anything, it's that your "conscious rational thought" isn't really conscious. ...like, basically at all. The decisions are getting made unconsciously and then kicked up to your conscious attention, already made.
For additional insight, try floating this idea when the topic of discussion is something other than psychology. Better, test it on a variety of demographics (education level, etc) and see if you detect substantial differences in reaction.
In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems quite foreign to others except those with a background in neurology, meditation, sometimes physics, and Buddhist circles.
People seem especially hostile to this when you start talking about the criminal justice system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dissociatives are the most under-appreciated class of drugs. Mechanisms of action are difficult to be objective about. It is a lot more complicated than dopamine and serotonin regulation and uptake, receptors and antagonists. Today was pleasant, despite every reason not to be. It's like the "hope" qualia.
Thank you, this is what I was looking for. So - on biochemistry level we don’t know why it works. But somehow, controlled temporary disassociation seems to… interrupt negative ideation? Also TIL “qualia” - what a wonderful word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If millions of women haven't noticed a change in behavior in real life my default assumption is the change of behavior only occurs in the artificial conditions created by the researchers themselves.
This assumes most people notice most changes in their behavior in real life. Some may subtly change over time, others may be in blind spots... and it's not like many people are tracking themselves in this kind of way. You might be overestimating people's introspection here. Think of all the people who start overeating without noticing or even start doing something radically different without reflecting.
If scientists had a camera and microphone in every room on earth (which is of course impossible) they would learn a lot more about humans than they would with studies in artificial lab environments where they have to guess if the results have any applicability to real human behavior in real human environments.
Huh, given that something like 15% of Americans are on SSRIs, I wonder how this affects the political landscape (which seems overrun with a new kind of moralizing in the last few decades)
You should be more concerned with the psychological effects of birth control, which in my opinion are drastically understated and underesearched. We are toying with the hormones of tens of millions of women and the vast majority are unaware of the potential differences in decisionmaking and behavior. There are secondary effects as well, for example, women have been shown to select for more dominant, aggressive men wh…
Your second link lists only St. Anthony Family Practice Residency Program as an affiliation.
I can't say one way or the other whether your assertions are valid. But your choice of sources warrants caution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes most people notice most changes in their behavior in real life. Some may subtly change over time, others may be in blind spots... and it's not like many people are tracking themselves in this kind of way. You might be overestimating people's introspection here. Think of all the people who start overeating without noticing or even start doing something radically different without reflecting.
And you may be overestimating the reliability of brain science studies. If scientists had a camera and microphone in every room on earth (which is of course impossible) they would learn a lot more about humans than they would with studies in artificial lab environments where they have to guess if the results have any applicability to real human behavior in real human environments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually hard and absurd not to believe in a Creator.
Who is the Creator’s creator? If you can accept that the Creator came into being and created the universe, you can skip a step and just say the universe came into being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For additional insight, try floating this idea when the topic of discussion is something other than psychology. Better, test it on a variety of demographics (education level, etc) and see if you detect substantial differences in reaction.
This seems leading enough that I'm curious if you have more to add on the subject? In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems quite foreign to others except those with a background in neurology, meditation, sometimes physics, and Buddhist circles. People seem especially hostile to this when you start talking about the criminal justice system.
However, if you take the same people and (at some other point in time) change the topic of conversation to some object level issue, they then behave as if they have no knowledge whatsoever. And if you remind them, it isn't just that they get angry (as would be expected), but they seem literally unable to recall the knowledge that they do possess.
I genuinely believe that to some degree, the default human mind can't really multi-task abstract and object level thinking, so if you throw a bit of emotion and cognitive quirks [1] into the mix, add it all together [2] into one big system, you have a half decent model for explaining why the world is the way it is.
I'm leaving a ton of stuff out of course, but this is one of the more fundamental ideas in my hypothesis.
> In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems quite foreign to others except those with a background in neurology, meditation, sometimes physics, and Buddhist circles.
Agree....I truly think its possible that things like Buddhism are an important aspect: if a person can't "get" Buddhism (or can't take it seriously), I suspect they will also not be able to properly understand this topic.
> People seem especially hostile to this when you start talking about the criminal justice system.
Oh, can you expand on this?
Insert yet another HN thread of people who happily support the covid vaccine because doctors say to get it, but yet in this thread those same people recommend a bunch of alternatives to what someone's doctor suggested/recommended. Medication has absolutely saved my life, and made my life and those around me significantly better. I'm triple vaxxed. Doctors recommended both. YMMV.
I get what you're saying, but that's a sloppy equivalency. The evidence in favor of the mRNA-based COVID vaccines is overwhelmingly positive in terms of efficacy and lack of side effects. (Yes, they exist, but they are extremely rare) And neglecting to vaccinate one's self has serious risks for those around you, particularly at-risk folks. There aren't real alternatives, besides physically separating one's self from…
There are many variables at play, I've only got my one data point to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience was the opposite. In fact, after taking medication to fix it I later stopped because of this naturalistic fallacy. I knew it was bunting some of my emotions and I figured whatever the drugs are doing I can do with lifestyle changes. 10 years later, a daily habit of exercise and cold showers, a variety of daily natural supplements like turmeric and magnesium, and a career later.. I was no different. I'd…
Which one did you take?