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

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

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–396 of 396 posts

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

#391

Post by sfink »

logicchop wrote: post #223
boucher wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overstating the success of chemical treatment. I'm not extremely well versed in the subject, but I've read a number of books and articles that seriously call into question that idea. It would seem that "talking about it" is actually more effective than medication in many circumstances (e.g. the research on cognitive behavioral therapy versus medication). The consensus at this point seems to be that we…

You might have an Aristotelian sense of "success" in mind here (meaning that it covers something like the long-term overarching benefit of the person), but I don't. I just mean success as in, anxiety medication actually improves anxiety; depression medication actually improves depression; attention deficit medication actually improves attention. Whether there are better ways for us to achieve long-term outcomes is a…

Except sadly that's not true. Anxiety medication usually does not improve anxiety. Same with the rest. But sometimes they do, and when it works it's enormously valuable to people.

Medication and talk therapies (including CBT) are more or less tied, from what I've heard.

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

#392

Post by kazagistar »

istjohn wrote: post #290
kazagistar wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That person is still not dying of basic infections and disease, exposure, starvation, etc or suffering its effects nearly as often. So it seems clear they are better adapted to boring factory life in many ways.

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

#393

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

kirsebaer wrote: post #390
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people never ever think about suicide. You might consider if you fit with "complex PTSD" or "childhood emotional neglect". This seems common among high-achieving tech people.

"Most people never ever think about suicide"

That was such a huge insight to me that I still struggle with it almost 15 years later.

It's like a Fish out of the fishbowl moment, discovering that other peoples inner dialogue can be so much more positive.

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

#394

Post by ryneandal »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #47
ryneandal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fantastic you found the right SSRI for you immediately, that's incredibly rare. I second the sentiment that when you find the one for you and everything clicks, it's a truly life-changing experience. One thing to watch out for with Prozac is diminishing sensitivity in the nether regions, that's probably the biggest reason I tried a few others and transitioned to another medication.

> That's fantastic you found the right SSRI for you immediately, that's incredibly rare. It's not accurate to say that it's "incredibly rare". Most people can expect at least some dosage adjustments, if not a few trials of different medications. However, most people will see some improvements from any antidepressant treatment, even if it's not full remission. Getting to full remission is the challenge that requires f…

> It's not accurate to say that it's "incredibly rare".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Both my psych and GP said it generally takes at least three different medications to find one that's effective for someone.

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

#395

Post by ixtli »

closeparen wrote: post #271
ixtli wrote: post #37

Not to reduce a complex topic to an aphorism but: if the world is configured in a way thats antagonistic towards you, a negative response is understandable. A lot of this stuff fits neatly into a tradition of blaming people for their conditions that, by and large, they have little control over. Oh, another aphorism that's always stuck with me is "the difference between 'crazy' and 'eccentric' is a million dollars."

If you look at outcomes instead of responsibility, you get the opposite conclusion. If your suffering is a defect, then maybe we can fix it. If your suffering is a correct response to your circumstances, then it's right and proper for you to experience that suffering fully and indefinitely.

I think you might be missing my point: often the conditions are not correctable by the individual. They can only be resolved by collective action, and we can’t really start on that until we stop holding people responsible for things they don’t have meaningful control over.

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

#396

Post by closeparen »

ixtli wrote: post #395
closeparen wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at outcomes instead of responsibility, you get the opposite conclusion. If your suffering is a defect, then maybe we can fix it. If your suffering is a correct response to your circumstances, then it's right and proper for you to experience that suffering fully and indefinitely.

I think you might be missing my point: often the conditions are not correctable by the individual. They can only be resolved by collective action, and we can’t really start on that until we stop holding people responsible for things they don’t have meaningful control over.

Whenever I read this, I hear "I need people to stay miserable so that they will be willing to join my revolutionary army."

Something really slimy about pivoting from human suffering to your pet critique of society & insisting that the only worthwhile course of action is your political agenda.

Post reply on HN