3 ms·

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

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.