4 ms·

Fascinating to watch a brief video from Robert Whitaker [1] The core of his argument appears to be that because the brain tends to compensate for disequilibriu

by themgt 10y ago

Fascinating to watch a brief video from Robert Whitaker [1] The core of his argument appears to be that because the brain tends to compensate for disequilibrium, psych drugs in the long-term paradoxically have the opposite effect that they do short-term - anti-depressants are depressogenic, anti-psychotics increase long-term psychosis, etc [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VBXWdhabuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VBXWdhabuQ

falcolas 10y ago
This makes a certain amount of sense; its something we see in drug addicts. But this doesn't account for cases where there already exists a disequilibrium. Also, the body's ability to correct a disequilibrium is not infinite; it can be overwhelmed and the effects retained (see alcohol, for example).
heisenbit 10y ago
This argument assumes a healthy biology. The body seeks equilibrium - that much is true and messing with it is generally not wise. But that view is limited and assumes some linear or at least monotonic relationship of cause and effect. The bodies myriad biochemical pathways are anything but. As soon as one has non-linear relationships the door is open to latching up etc.. There are ways a person can either through genetic variations or through extreme experiences (chemical, psychological see also epi-genetics) not exhibit a "normal" bio-chemistry. In such cases targeted intervention can help to restore or long term maintain a state that is closer to "normal".
- concinds 10y ago
  Would the psyche be better modeled as a complex system, then? Where mental health isn't an equilibrium but almost an "accident", where everything has to be in alignment? The idea of "decompensation" seems to support psyche-as-a-complex-system theory. Still I don't think that that invalidates Whitaker's point, since pills or other external treatments only add yet another subelement to the psyche "system", rather than fixing those subelements or making the relationships between subelements more functional. Pills only make the system more complex, and compensate for the dysfunction in other subelements of the system, rather than fixing anything at all.

by themgt 10y ago

falcolas 10y ago

This makes a certain amount of sense; its something we see in drug addicts. But this doesn't account for cases where there already exists a disequilibrium. Also, the body's ability to correct a disequilibrium is not infinite; it can be overwhelmed and the effects retained (see alcohol, for example).

heisenbit 10y ago

This argument assumes a healthy biology. The body seeks equilibrium - that much is true and messing with it is generally not wise. But that view is limited and assumes some linear or at least monotonic relationship of cause and effect. The bodies myriad biochemical pathways are anything but. As soon as one has non-linear relationships the door is open to latching up etc.. There are ways a person can either through genetic variations or through extreme experiences (chemical, psychological see also epi-genetics) not exhibit a "normal" bio-chemistry. In such cases targeted intervention can help to restore or long term maintain a state that is closer to "normal".

concinds 10y ago
Would the psyche be better modeled as a complex system, then? Where mental health isn't an equilibrium but almost an "accident", where everything has to be in alignment? The idea of "decompensation" seems to support psyche-as-a-complex-system theory. Still I don't think that that invalidates Whitaker's point, since pills or other external treatments only add yet another subelement to the psyche "system", rather than fixing those subelements or making the relationships between subelements more functional. Pills only make the system more complex, and compensate for the dysfunction in other subelements of the system, rather than fixing anything at all.