5 ms·

It’s not either/or. The psychological shit is real, but the physical damage to the brain is real also. Both things are true.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
Physical damage to the brain can easily cause phycological problem. It wouldn't make psychological problems any less real, merely help to prevent them better.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
A lot of the medication for psychological issues is aimed at altering the bio chemistry in the brain to mitigate physical problems. The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined. It's also true that certain disorders (e.g. psychosis) actually cause brain damage when left unchecked. This technically is not a single thing but more like a group of disorders with widely varying symptoms. My understanding is that a lot of PTSD complaints overlap in terms of symptoms and are probably related. Or that some PTSD patients actually become psychotic. So not surprising to see some brain damage in navy seals. Of course the question is what comes first, the brain damage or the ptsd. And whether something can be done before brain damage happens in terms of medication or therapy.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined Psychological doesn't mean "imagined", just means "in the realm of thought". Your thinking is not "imagined", nor is the impact of decisions, ruminating, etc to you.
- adrianN 2y ago
  The distinction between physical and psychological problems just betrays our abysmal understanding of how the brain works.
  - brinefine 2y ago
    Maybe, but some kind of property dualism still seems plausible to me.
coldtea 2y ago
>It’s not either/or. The psychological shit is real Depends, because we had millenia of wars, even much more gruesome (but without explosions), and much fewer accounts of psychological shit. It was just a fact of life, and most people carried on.
- andybak 2y ago
  Fewer accounts - yes. "Carrying on" - well, maybe. But the way you've phrased it implies a bit more and you should probably clarify.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I think cultural context can make the difference between a psychological traumatic event and another day at the office. Somebody who grew up on a farm might snap a chicken's neck without a thought, while a vegan city slicker being made to do the same might plausibly suffer severe psychological trauma. It may be the case that being from a society in which violence is glorified and made into a virtue makes people less susceptible to war-induced PTSD. Or the circumstances of the war could make the difference; if you are fighting a just war you earnestly believe to be in the direct defense of your family and community, or whether you were drafted into a war that has nothing to do with you and society tells you is cynically or foolishly motivated.
  - hnbad 2y ago
    Based on psychological research we know that early childhood trauma can help develop sociopathy. It's easy to see the effect of perpetual violence in terrorist hotspots like Palestine where children grow up to become terrorists because of the violence they experience in "counter-terrorism", which their existence as terrorists of course feeds into, repeating the cycle. As the saying goes "hurt people hurt people". I think it's a mistake to look at a civilisation past or present that is defined by widespread violence and death and think of it as anything other than dysfunctional. It's just that the baseline of suffering is so high it drowns out all the easily identifiable forms of suffering we're accustomed to. You often hear people talk about the cultural trauma of Japan, Russia, or Germany. As an outsider there's also a clear circle of violence in American society which pervades and informs cultural attitudes, social policy and conflict resolution. This shouldn't be surprising given the US's history of widespread suffering throughout its history: indentured servitude, religious prosecution, chattel slavery, genocide, disease, civil war. American hyperindividualism as well as both the Cold War and War on Terror "world police" eras of foreign policy and the more recent popularity of isolationism have all the trappings of a trauma response. Meat is violence. This is why slaughter is often highly ritualized in "primitive" societies, often thanking the animal for its part and being deeply aware of the interplay of life and death that meat eating requires but also the importance of the slaughter for the survival of that society. Both the meat-eating urbanite having an existential crisis over having to kill an animal for sustenance as well as the farm hand thoughtlessly killing an animal are in unhealthy positions - one from the detachment of mass production, the other from the desensitization of their involvement in it. The vegan might be in a healthier space but given modern industrial production is likely as detached from the food they consume and the suffering and death that enables it (be it the field hands working in bad conditions for low pay, the animals dying in the process of industrial farming or the ecological damage caused by shipping exotic or out-of-season produce around the globe). I say that as a city dwelling meat eater living in Germany, which is a deeply unwell country scared of understanding its own history beyond easy platitudes and simple stories of good and evil people. Humans are not a virus but humanity is very sick and it will take a long time and a lot of effort for it to get any better - if ever. More to the point: as someone who has had a justified need for therapy before, I think it's important to recognize that of course you can often simply "push through it" because if you can't, you simply break. But importantly you won't get any better, you will just appear more functional for as long as you can keep it up. Therapy was a taboo in my lifetime and I'm not even 40. Suicide is still often a taboo but only started being acknowledged a few short decades ago because a number of celebrity deaths became widely publicized (in Germany it was a soccer player, the stoic masculinity equivalent of an American quarterback). That didn't mean these things didn't happen before. It just meant we didn't acknowledge they did and we didn't know how to get help.

alexey-salmin 2y ago

Physical damage to the brain can easily cause phycological problem. It wouldn't make psychological problems any less real, merely help to prevent them better.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

A lot of the medication for psychological issues is aimed at altering the bio chemistry in the brain to mitigate physical problems. The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined. It's also true that certain disorders (e.g. psychosis) actually cause brain damage when left unchecked. This technically is not a single thing but more like a group of disorders with widely varying symptoms. My understanding is that a lot of PTSD complaints overlap in terms of symptoms and are probably related. Or that some PTSD patients actually become psychotic. So not surprising to see some brain damage in navy seals. Of course the question is what comes first, the brain damage or the ptsd. And whether something can be done before brain damage happens in terms of medication or therapy.

coldtea 2y ago
>The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined Psychological doesn't mean "imagined", just means "in the realm of thought". Your thinking is not "imagined", nor is the impact of decisions, ruminating, etc to you.
adrianN 2y ago
The distinction between physical and psychological problems just betrays our abysmal understanding of how the brain works.
- brinefine 2y ago
  Maybe, but some kind of property dualism still seems plausible to me.

coldtea 2y ago

>It’s not either/or. The psychological shit is real Depends, because we had millenia of wars, even much more gruesome (but without explosions), and much fewer accounts of psychological shit. It was just a fact of life, and most people carried on.

andybak 2y ago
Fewer accounts - yes. "Carrying on" - well, maybe. But the way you've phrased it implies a bit more and you should probably clarify.
lupusreal 2y ago
I think cultural context can make the difference between a psychological traumatic event and another day at the office. Somebody who grew up on a farm might snap a chicken's neck without a thought, while a vegan city slicker being made to do the same might plausibly suffer severe psychological trauma. It may be the case that being from a society in which violence is glorified and made into a virtue makes people less susceptible to war-induced PTSD. Or the circumstances of the war could make the difference; if you are fighting a just war you earnestly believe to be in the direct defense of your family and community, or whether you were drafted into a war that has nothing to do with you and society tells you is cynically or foolishly motivated.
- hnbad 2y ago
  Based on psychological research we know that early childhood trauma can help develop sociopathy. It's easy to see the effect of perpetual violence in terrorist hotspots like Palestine where children grow up to become terrorists because of the violence they experience in "counter-terrorism", which their existence as terrorists of course feeds into, repeating the cycle. As the saying goes "hurt people hurt people". I think it's a mistake to look at a civilisation past or present that is defined by widespread violence and death and think of it as anything other than dysfunctional. It's just that the baseline of suffering is so high it drowns out all the easily identifiable forms of suffering we're accustomed to. You often hear people talk about the cultural trauma of Japan, Russia, or Germany. As an outsider there's also a clear circle of violence in American society which pervades and informs cultural attitudes, social policy and conflict resolution. This shouldn't be surprising given the US's history of widespread suffering throughout its history: indentured servitude, religious prosecution, chattel slavery, genocide, disease, civil war. American hyperindividualism as well as both the Cold War and War on Terror "world police" eras of foreign policy and the more recent popularity of isolationism have all the trappings of a trauma response. Meat is violence. This is why slaughter is often highly ritualized in "primitive" societies, often thanking the animal for its part and being deeply aware of the interplay of life and death that meat eating requires but also the importance of the slaughter for the survival of that society. Both the meat-eating urbanite having an existential crisis over having to kill an animal for sustenance as well as the farm hand thoughtlessly killing an animal are in unhealthy positions - one from the detachment of mass production, the other from the desensitization of their involvement in it. The vegan might be in a healthier space but given modern industrial production is likely as detached from the food they consume and the suffering and death that enables it (be it the field hands working in bad conditions for low pay, the animals dying in the process of industrial farming or the ecological damage caused by shipping exotic or out-of-season produce around the globe). I say that as a city dwelling meat eater living in Germany, which is a deeply unwell country scared of understanding its own history beyond easy platitudes and simple stories of good and evil people. Humans are not a virus but humanity is very sick and it will take a long time and a lot of effort for it to get any better - if ever. More to the point: as someone who has had a justified need for therapy before, I think it's important to recognize that of course you can often simply "push through it" because if you can't, you simply break. But importantly you won't get any better, you will just appear more functional for as long as you can keep it up. Therapy was a taboo in my lifetime and I'm not even 40. Suicide is still often a taboo but only started being acknowledged a few short decades ago because a number of celebrity deaths became widely publicized (in Germany it was a soccer player, the stoic masculinity equivalent of an American quarterback). That didn't mean these things didn't happen before. It just meant we didn't acknowledge they did and we didn't know how to get help.