Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suicidal Software Developer

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 258 posts

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#241

Post by cubensis »

xamebax wrote: post #56
codeshaman wrote: post #30

It might sound outrageous, but you're in a good spot in life right now. I've been there a couple of times, I've even had a suicide attempt at 17 and ended up spending 2 months in the hospital with kidney failure. But each time depression crept it on me again, I was better and better equipped to deal with it. The last time I was depressed towards suicidal (about 2 years ago), two things helped me: This book: http://ww…

> That's how the hit of LSD or psilocybin (mushrooms) might help, but you need to know what and how you're doing it. I figured out your LSD therapy was a form of self-help, but as someone who is under constant, long-term care of a psychiatrist, I have been told more than once that in the case of depression drugs and habitual alcohol intake are a no-go. LSD is especially dangerous. Please don't advise suicidal and men…

Magic mushrooms' psychedelic ingredient could help treat people with severe depression

Drugs derived from magic mushrooms could help treat people with severe depression. Scientists believe the chemical psilocybin, the psychedelic ingredient in magic mushrooms, can turn down parts of the brain that are overactive in severely depressive patients. The drug appears to stop patients dwelling on themselves and their own perceived inadequacies.

However, a bid by British scientists to carry out trials of psilocybin on patients in order to assess its full medical potential has been blocked by red tape relating to Britain's strict drugs laws. Professor David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, will tell a conference today that because magic mushrooms are rated as a class-A drug, their active chemical ingredient cannot be manufactured unless a special licence is granted.

"We haven't started the study because finding companies that could manufacture the drug and who are prepared to go through the regulatory hoops to get the licence is proving very difficult," said Nutt. "The whole field is so bedevilled by primitive old-fashioned attitudes. Even if you have a good idea, you may never get it into the clinic, it seems."

And here is some info about the history of Shrooms: http://www.growmagicmushroom.com/2013/07/the-magic-mushroom-...

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#242

Post by DanBC »

gobots wrote: post #237
gress wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are more than an atheist. You are an anti-religionist, regardless of the content of the religion.

What is your point?

That if you had said that you are learning about "atheism" at the start of this subthread you could have avoided a lot of confusion and suggestions from people offering advice about books to read about religion.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#243

Post by mreiland »

gobots wrote: post #235
mreiland wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it. You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that sometimes.

"By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it." That is a very weak argument. One cannot learn about religion because all you have to do is believe.. and since I don't believe, I can't learn it? Edit: so there is no proof or evidence needed for religion – you just have to believe. Would you like to buy this rock i have? it keeps tigers away...

I'm glad you agree that it's a weak argument. It also just happens to be the argument you made in reverse. That was actually the point.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#244

Post by mreiland »

gobots wrote: post #238
mreiland wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you deal with the baggage that comes from such a label, and clarifying that you're a 'secular humanist' doesn't give you the right to expect to avoid that baggage.

So a non-believer has less rights than a believer?

2 problems with your comment.

1. 'baggage' is not a synonym for 'rights' (legal? social?) 2. While an Atheist is necessarily a non-believer, a non-believer is not necessarily an Atheist.

Furthermore, you tell people you're an Atheist specifically because it conveys a lot with a little. Some of what it conveys is definitely not secular humanism, if that's how you prefer being viewed, you should start with that.

Not only is that not an offensive observation, it should be common sense.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#245

Post by saraid216 »

mreiland wrote: post #221
gobots wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed – or more to the point: I wasn't clear in my original statement. I am learning about certain aspects of religion – not learning comparative religion. I am not however "learning atheism" as others have decided to claim in this thread. I stopped believing in god years ago, at that point by definition I was an atheist. I am interested in the origins of religion, the scientific reasons that it exists, and the nega…

By definition you can't learn about religion either because the only thing required for religion is to believe in it. You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that sometimes.

No, he's deliberately misreading me in order to feel that his self-identification is infringed upon.

According to him, if a Christian believes in God, and then reads about Christianity to learn about Christianity, said Christian is not a Christian because they're "learning about Christianity". The sheer quantity of stupid required to believe this has disinterested me in continuing any conversation.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#246

Post by gress »

gobots wrote: post #237
gress wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are more than an atheist. You are an anti-religionist, regardless of the content of the religion.

What is your point?

Atheists do not believe in god.

Anti-religionists do not believe in god, and wish to attack ideas connected with religion whether they have anything to do with believing in god or not. Anti-religionists are therefore willing to dismiss ideas simply because of who presents them rather than on their merits, and are thus subject to a pervasive ad-hominem bias.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#247

Post by gress »

gobots wrote: post #236
gress wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are painting everything connected with religion as if it is fundamentalism.

explain.

You: "I am more interested in the psychological damage that is done to people by fundamentalist religion and the negative impact it has on their lives."

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#248

Post by phillmv »

agumonkey wrote: post #172
phillmv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common depressive symptom. DFW had a great and unsettling short story on the topic: http://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-1998-0...

I skimmed through this a bit, but failed to understand your point. Care to explain ?

>The amount of self reflection in trying to find your own solution while in the deep is frankly impressive.

The short story follows a Depressed Person being neurotically introspective yet incapable of escaping her toxic and destructive behaviour. It's pretty spot on with how it feels to be depressed, as DFW was an expert on the subject matter.

Further, there is some evidence that it may be an adaptive behaviour, rather than maladaptive http://bigthink.com/focal-point/is-depression-an-adaptation - this is to say, introspection and depression go hand in hand.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#249

Post by etjossem »

nomedeplume wrote: post #226
etjossem wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at what you wrote. You're not attempting to explain a difference in the standard deviation of male and female test scores - backed by data - in an exercise of positive scholarship. Putting aside the hilariously sexist conclusions other people drew from that data, you are not Larry Summers. All you're doing is giving normative advice about what men and women's identities should look like. You're claiming t…

(1) This is the most vacuous and wrong thing you wrote > men can think women are people too Implying that I do not think that women have agency.. What a ridiculous and exacerbated claim. (2) All you're doing is giving normative advice about what men and women's identities should look like. Not whatsoever... are you kidding me... it is descriptive analysis; neither normative nor prescriptive (3) You're claiming that w…

> And for happiness and identity, I just said, there's a single point of failure. I mean.. we're on a hacking forum, I thought that people would grasp the metaphor.

I agree with you on this. Regardless of gender, it's probably not healthy to have all of your identity defined by your partner, for exactly the reason you mention. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency.

But codependency can happen to all genders, and it's equally harmful for both men and women. When we break that cycle and start defining ourselves by our own free choices (rather than someone else's), it's immensely empowering. It's called agency.

> Implying that I do not think that women have agency.. What a ridiculous and exacerbated claim.

> That's totally ridiculous, I'm not a misogynist, I resent being called that, and I absolutely do not categorically hate women.

Some stuff you wrote was misogyny, because it supported the idea that heterosexual women (categorically) ought to be defined by someone else if they want to be happy. The original comment claims an identity based on independent choices is good/advisable for men, but not for women.

To be clear: I'm calling foul on that statement, not the person behind it. I recognize that you can change your mind about it at any moment, and I also recognize that you're more than one post on HN. I'm not going to slap a label on you.

> Anyway, generally in day to day life, I approach things on a situation by situation basis.

Good. In the future, it's probably best to make this your advice up front, rather than try to speak for what heterosexual women want as a whole.

Re: Suicidal Software Developer

#250

Post by was_hellbanned »

hashbanged wrote: post #178
was_hellbanned wrote: post #160

With regards to the relationship, I've been in a similar place. I'd say it takes about five years to truly get over such a profound loss. It's really true that ending a deeply-felt romantic relationship is not much different from grieving a death. I've heard good things about the book, "How to Survive the Loss of a Love" ($7 on Amazon). Also, Zoloft worked wonders for me at a similar time in my life. Also, get off /r…

I recently started on Zoloft, and despite how afraid I was of it and how many bad experiences I read online, it's been fantastic. Could you elaborate more on your experience?

Could you elaborate more on your experience?

Well, I had absolutely no negative effects from it, and many positive effects. It stopped the internal negative feedback loop. It improved my mood. It allowed me to focus on my work. I had no feelings of being emotionally dead, or whatever such effect people like to claim SSRIs gave them. It was an entirely positive experience.

While I don't like the idea of general practitioners handing out anti-depressant prescriptions (instead, they should refer to a psychiatrist who will take responsibility for a full-course treatment), I don't think people should be basing their medical decisions on negative anecdotes they find online. Really, that sort of nonsense plays directly into feeding the depression.

Post reply on HN