4 ms·

> How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There is an implication inherent to

> How else is it supposed to be manifest? Is there supposed to be drastic change in psychology without change in the brain? There is an implication inherent to "chemical imbalance" that assumes a normative range. Modern medicine is universally based on normative ranges. If you are outside this range, it is considered a problem. Chemical imbalance is a generic and apt descriptor.

nicky0 6y ago
It might be a descriptor of a state but it does not explain the cause. The argument here is against the notion that depression is caused by chemical imbalance.
fzeroracer 6y ago
I don't think it is though. For example, one of the things we know is that IBS can cause depression/anxiety (or perhaps more accurately, people with IBS are more likely to have depression/anxiety). In this case chemical imbalance would be objectively wrong. Their brain is being affected by another part of the body entirely, but you would have doctors selectively treating the symptoms (the 'chemical imbalance') rather than the cause.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > In this case chemical imbalance would be objectively wrong. I disagree. Chemical imbalance is not necessarily a solitary cause, it's describing a condition regardless. shrug > you would have doctors selectively treating the symptoms (the 'chemical imbalance') rather than the cause Typically they treat both or in most cases, the easier problem with less severe treatment consequences (classic House MD - live in constant pain from muscle death vs lose a limb).
DubiousPusher 6y ago
There are normative ranges but being outside of such a range alone is usually not enough for a diagnosis. Especially in the arena of mental illness, "abnormal" behavior must also present as interfering with life to earn someone a diagnosis as nearly everyone has some "abnormal" behavior and it would be counter productive to literally diagnose everyone.
Barrin92 6y ago
That was not my point. Obviously it's a descriptor of a problem, but not an appropriate explanation for a cause. Say you have high blood pressure. That may be because you weigh 400 pounds, or because you have a genetic condition, or because you smoke, or because you are stressed 18 hours a day, but it's not an explanation for anything, and everyone knows that. Assuming you had an omniscient scientific tool every abnormal change in behaviour by definition has a correspondence to an abnormal state of the brain, that's just saying the same thing at a different level of abstraction. When everyone is obese and has high blood pressure the correct cause of correction is probably setting different social incentives to fix a systemic problem, not mass producing insulin and betablockers, because you stopped at an overly reductionist level of description and mistook it for insight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ditonal 6y ago
It's not an apt descriptor at all because there's no test for a normal range of a chemical that depressed people are outside of.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > It's not an apt descriptor at all because there's no test for a normal range of a chemical that depressed people are outside of. As disconcerting as it may be, subjective feeling is a range (google "pain indicator charts") as well as professional (for some value of that) psychological analysis. I think your view is minority view.
  - derangedHorse 6y ago
    > I think your view is minority view. It may be a minority view but only because of people's blind faith in a medical authority's ability to distinguish a patient's mind as 'abnormal'. What Barrin92 said is logically sound, an empirical diagnosis of the behavior coming from an individual is not a very precise measure of any type of chemical imbalance. That's not to say individuals suspected to have of mental illness shouldn't get treated, but that medical professionals shouldn't jump to medications as a primary end-all treatment (which is what I believe is what the linked article was trying to say).

nicky0 6y ago

It might be a descriptor of a state but it does not explain the cause. The argument here is against the notion that depression is caused by chemical imbalance.

fzeroracer 6y ago

I don't think it is though. For example, one of the things we know is that IBS can cause depression/anxiety (or perhaps more accurately, people with IBS are more likely to have depression/anxiety). In this case chemical imbalance would be objectively wrong. Their brain is being affected by another part of the body entirely, but you would have doctors selectively treating the symptoms (the 'chemical imbalance') rather than the cause.

Supermancho 6y ago
> In this case chemical imbalance would be objectively wrong. I disagree. Chemical imbalance is not necessarily a solitary cause, it's describing a condition regardless. shrug > you would have doctors selectively treating the symptoms (the 'chemical imbalance') rather than the cause Typically they treat both or in most cases, the easier problem with less severe treatment consequences (classic House MD - live in constant pain from muscle death vs lose a limb).

DubiousPusher 6y ago

There are normative ranges but being outside of such a range alone is usually not enough for a diagnosis. Especially in the arena of mental illness, "abnormal" behavior must also present as interfering with life to earn someone a diagnosis as nearly everyone has some "abnormal" behavior and it would be counter productive to literally diagnose everyone.

Barrin92 6y ago

That was not my point. Obviously it's a descriptor of a problem, but not an appropriate explanation for a cause. Say you have high blood pressure. That may be because you weigh 400 pounds, or because you have a genetic condition, or because you smoke, or because you are stressed 18 hours a day, but it's not an explanation for anything, and everyone knows that. Assuming you had an omniscient scientific tool every abnormal change in behaviour by definition has a correspondence to an abnormal state of the brain, that's just saying the same thing at a different level of abstraction. When everyone is obese and has high blood pressure the correct cause of correction is probably setting different social incentives to fix a systemic problem, not mass producing insulin and betablockers, because you stopped at an overly reductionist level of description and mistook it for insight.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ditonal 6y ago

It's not an apt descriptor at all because there's no test for a normal range of a chemical that depressed people are outside of.

Supermancho 6y ago
> It's not an apt descriptor at all because there's no test for a normal range of a chemical that depressed people are outside of. As disconcerting as it may be, subjective feeling is a range (google "pain indicator charts") as well as professional (for some value of that) psychological analysis. I think your view is minority view.
- derangedHorse 6y ago
  > I think your view is minority view. It may be a minority view but only because of people's blind faith in a medical authority's ability to distinguish a patient's mind as 'abnormal'. What Barrin92 said is logically sound, an empirical diagnosis of the behavior coming from an individual is not a very precise measure of any type of chemical imbalance. That's not to say individuals suspected to have of mental illness shouldn't get treated, but that medical professionals shouldn't jump to medications as a primary end-all treatment (which is what I believe is what the linked article was trying to say).