A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants • Hacker News Board

Re: A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants

#41

Post by mumbi » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:16 PM UTC

aspensmonster wrote: post #23

mumbi wrote: post #2

After being on just about everything that can be prescribed, I can safely say that they all make you into somebody you're not. Yes, it might make some people happier. But, you know what? So does heroin. In the end, the only thing that can fix you is you.

Well that's the kicker isn't it? These drugs do alter who the user is, to an extent. But presumably, the user wasn't entirely happy with how they were doing beforehand. Trying to wade throw a mess of external variables that are impacting your psyche while remaining simultaneously open to the possibility that the problem is within is a special level of hell that those dealing with depression are all too familiar with.…

If you must take the pill to become the new you, is it really you you're becoming? I feel that it's the pill, not your self, that becomes the identity.

I suppose we could take this further, for the sake of making a point, and ask if one receives a lobotomy, is one his or her self?

I'm glad you typed it up, it made me think.

Re: A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants

#42

Post by mistercow » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:33 PM UTC

mumbi wrote: post #5

mistercow wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exciting to hear that your personal subjective experience with "everything that can be prescribed" generalizes perfectly to the other 7 billion humans on the planet. This should save a ton of time and money on medical research.

I think it's obvious that any psychoactive substance will change one's self. Hence the word psychoactive .

By the same technical semantics parsing, it is either impossible or trivial for anything to "make you somebody you're not", depending on how you parse it.

If it means that you aren't the person that you are after taking it, then that's obviously contradictory. You are always the person you are.

If it means that you aren't the person you were before taking it, then the medication is not necessary for that. At any given moment, you are always a different person than you were in the previous moment.

And even if you (erroneously) reject the latter, you would still have to concede that you are not the same person, after "fixing" yourself through non-pharmacological means, as you were when you were depressed.

Re: A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants

#43

Post by mistercow » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:38 PM UTC

mumbi wrote: post #12

ehmish wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not too concerned if my "true self" dies, growth means change, and change can mean death of a previous "self"

I think you misunderstand what I mean by true self. Yes, our self does change at every moment and is "reborn." However, it is still a true self as it is not artificially modified .

I find it extremely doubtful that you can actually give a definition of "true self" which meets the following conditions: 1) coherent and non-contradictory, 2) in accordance with reality, and 3) something a person should care about preserving.

I find it even more doubtful that you can give a definition of "artificially modified" which is meaningfully distinct from natural change.

Re: A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants

#44

Post by thelettere » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 7:59 PM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #31

thelettere wrote: post #15

Meh. Some people like it, some people don't. Works for some people, doesn't for others. To each his/her own. But every drug has side effects and you're not actually changing anything permanently - the minute you're off the drug you're right back where you started. Psychotherapy actually changes the brain, and there are no negative side effects. That's why I prefer the later and not the former (for any issue).

> you're not actually changing anything permanently Antidepressants can cause real and permanent changes to the human body. Like any drug, some of the side effects cannot always be reversed when you come off them. For example, there is thought to be a link between some antidepressants and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. And if you stop taking some anti-depressants without weaning down the dose you can have seve…

I meant positive changes - i.e. curing depression. And I don't have depression - I'm speaking broadly about solving problems with pills vs. non-pills.

Re: A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants

#45

Post by mistercow » Sun, Oct 13, 2013, 5:01 AM UTC

entropyneur wrote: post #28

I am very tempted to add my personal anecdote to the pile, but let me make a humble request instead... If you are not a medical professional, please stop spreading unscientific memes and try to keep your opinion on mental diseases to yourself. The question of whether the drugs work is better left to the actual scientists and not be allowed to cloud the basic fact that one should always seek medical attention if they…

I agree that personal anecdotes are best left untold unless they illustrate documented effects that you can back with evidence. But I strongly disagree that only professional doctors and scientists should discuss any form of science. That is anathema to an Enlightened world.

Re: A Confederacy of Quacks: The War Against Antidepressants

#46

Post by jessriedel » Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 11:44 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #22

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the highly disputable value judgement that someone crippled by depression is somehow more authentic.

It is more authentic, the question is whether that means anything. Having invasive surgery without sedatives or anesthetics is more authentic , but we don't do it.

I disagree. I think you've only pointed out that depression and surgery with anesthetics require less intervention, but I don't think less intervention = more authentic.

Flourishing with other humans, whether in a tribe or NYC, is more authentic than starving to death in the wilderness.