5 ms·

"not to mention you're giving a _depressant_ to a depressed person" Heh, these concepts are unrelated to the point that this statement could make a decent joke

by pierrec 10y ago

"not to mention you're giving a _depressant_ to a depressed person" Heh, these concepts are unrelated to the point that this statement could make a decent joke. As a rough example, it's on the level of "not to mention that you're installing a clock application on a computer that's already overclocked".

tgb 10y ago
Love the example. In reminded of snopes' take on the "the car called Nova failed to sell in Mexico because 'no va' means 'it doesn't go' in Spanish" myth. Their example was of Americans not wanting to buy a car called "Notable" because it had no table.
- 50CNT 10y ago
  Or was "not able".
openasocket 10y ago
At the risk of making an appeal to authority, I got that quote from a clinical psychologist, referring to the effect of alcohol on clinical depression. See my other comment for an explanation.
- pierrec 10y ago
  I see, it makes more sense when you make it more explicit. But then I also have an appeal to authority: the majority of drugs prescribed against depression also happen to be depressants. And sometimes it works, though they all tend to have addiction and habituation potentials as well. I would say the psychologist you're quoting is raising a point that goes against the mainstream, which is not necessarily bad of course, but the phrase in itself remains a (somewhat misleading) play on words.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    >the majority of drugs prescribed against depression also happen to be depressants Can you give a source for that, and some examples? I couldn't find anything (googling "antidepressant depressant" is about as helpful as you'd think). I'd still argue that the effects of depressants (the inhibition of neurotransmission) are in and of themselves not helpful for people depression. I agree my phrasing was a bit confusing, I tend to value poignancy over explicitness :)
    - pierrec 10y ago
      >Can you give a source for that I guess it depends on how strict you are with your definition of a depressant, but looking at this list: http://www.webmd.com/drugs/condition-1022-depression.aspx http://www.webmd.com/drugs/condition-1022-depression.aspx If you establish a depressant <-> stimulant axis, the major drugs here are very much on the depressant side. As for their effectiveness, depressants generally feature a euphoric, "feel good" component. From there it's easy to see how some members of this class might be helpful against depression. It seems paradoxical that you might be worsening the lethargic aspect, but basically the treatment concentrates on the negative mood, loss of pleasure aspect, which appears to be a more effective way of approaching the problem (if you take for granted that chemicals are a good approach at all).
jmstickney 10y ago
Like the mindset that eating fat directly makes a person increase fat percentage. Similarly to the idea around cholesterol.

by pierrec 10y ago

tgb 10y ago

Love the example. In reminded of snopes' take on the "the car called Nova failed to sell in Mexico because 'no va' means 'it doesn't go' in Spanish" myth. Their example was of Americans not wanting to buy a car called "Notable" because it had no table.

50CNT 10y ago
Or was "not able".

openasocket 10y ago

At the risk of making an appeal to authority, I got that quote from a clinical psychologist, referring to the effect of alcohol on clinical depression. See my other comment for an explanation.

pierrec 10y ago
I see, it makes more sense when you make it more explicit. But then I also have an appeal to authority: the majority of drugs prescribed against depression also happen to be depressants. And sometimes it works, though they all tend to have addiction and habituation potentials as well. I would say the psychologist you're quoting is raising a point that goes against the mainstream, which is not necessarily bad of course, but the phrase in itself remains a (somewhat misleading) play on words.
- openasocket 10y ago
  >the majority of drugs prescribed against depression also happen to be depressants Can you give a source for that, and some examples? I couldn't find anything (googling "antidepressant depressant" is about as helpful as you'd think). I'd still argue that the effects of depressants (the inhibition of neurotransmission) are in and of themselves not helpful for people depression. I agree my phrasing was a bit confusing, I tend to value poignancy over explicitness :)
  - pierrec 10y ago
    >Can you give a source for that I guess it depends on how strict you are with your definition of a depressant, but looking at this list: http://www.webmd.com/drugs/condition-1022-depression.aspx http://www.webmd.com/drugs/condition-1022-depression.aspx If you establish a depressant <-> stimulant axis, the major drugs here are very much on the depressant side. As for their effectiveness, depressants generally feature a euphoric, "feel good" component. From there it's easy to see how some members of this class might be helpful against depression. It seems paradoxical that you might be worsening the lethargic aspect, but basically the treatment concentrates on the negative mood, loss of pleasure aspect, which appears to be a more effective way of approaching the problem (if you take for granted that chemicals are a good approach at all).

jmstickney 10y ago

Like the mindset that eating fat directly makes a person increase fat percentage. Similarly to the idea around cholesterol.