5 ms·

There is no 'right way round' for so-called symptoms or so-called 'underlying' conditions, because these things are subject to feedback. Positioning in social c

by benched 13y ago

There is no 'right way round' for so-called symptoms or so-called 'underlying' conditions, because these things are subject to feedback. Positioning in social contexts affects brain chemistry, brain chemistry affects behavior, behavior affects positioning in social contexts. To name only a few of the causal lines that can be drawn. As a long time sufferer of all of these things, I've found the illness model of depression to be very nearly useless, sometimes harmful, except during short-lived acute manifestations. I'm aware that the mileage of others varies. Comparing the brain to other parts of the body doesn't work. It's like trying to reason about a CPU by studying a USB port. With other organs, it's relatively easy to understand function and dysfunction. With the brain, it's not as clear cut what constitutes normal functioning. Is it normal to be happy or content in a world where, objectively, there is a lot to feel hopeless about? What if this brain has been in solitary confinement for eight months? Do we still expect it to be functioning normally, or look to the chemistry of the brain to fix the situation? A human is embedded in a society and culture, and it's very hard to treat the organ that is so profoundly affected by that embedding in isolation. Not that it is never appropriate to treat it that way, but I do think the current prevailing attitude does that too much.

rm445 13y ago
Thank you for the very interesting post. You are quite right that these things are tremendously complicated - after all, as you say, even figuring out a 'normal' amount of happiness people should feel leads one immediately down a dozen philosophical and ethical rabbit holes. I don't have the logical background to explore this space without a great deal of feeling my way in the dark, and I certainly don't have any medical insight into the matter. But I remain quite mystified by the original article - it seems so clear-cut that, although what the author experienced was feelings of loneliness, they weren't caused by solitude or isolation, and therefore debating whether the modern world causes solitude and isolation is thoroughly beside the point.
kazagistar 13y ago
I am a bit confused about terms. It seems like the discussion is about two related but separate things. First, there is lonelyness, the social state. This involves not talking to people, not going to meet new people, and not talking about things you find meaningful with those people. This is a set of actions: it is either done by choice (not a problem) or due to some other underlying problem, like a lack of time/effort, depression, fear of social vulnerability, anxiety, or a lack of interpersonal skills. The reason we call these things underlying is because they represent tangible actions that can be taken by the victim of loneliness or someone else to fix the problem Then there is loneliness the emotion, which might exist separate of the actual lack of socialization described above... existential loneliness perhaps... but most often is cause by the above.
nitrogen 13y ago
There is no 'right way round' for so-called symptoms or so-called 'underlying' conditions, because these things are subject to feedback.... I've found the illness model of depression to be very nearly useless... It's good to see someone else who describes these things in terms of feedback rather than simple cause and effect. This is a model of neurology and physiology that needs to become more widespread.

by benched 13y ago

rm445 13y ago

Thank you for the very interesting post. You are quite right that these things are tremendously complicated - after all, as you say, even figuring out a 'normal' amount of happiness people should feel leads one immediately down a dozen philosophical and ethical rabbit holes. I don't have the logical background to explore this space without a great deal of feeling my way in the dark, and I certainly don't have any medical insight into the matter. But I remain quite mystified by the original article - it seems so clear-cut that, although what the author experienced was feelings of loneliness, they weren't caused by solitude or isolation, and therefore debating whether the modern world causes solitude and isolation is thoroughly beside the point.

kazagistar 13y ago

I am a bit confused about terms. It seems like the discussion is about two related but separate things. First, there is lonelyness, the social state. This involves not talking to people, not going to meet new people, and not talking about things you find meaningful with those people. This is a set of actions: it is either done by choice (not a problem) or due to some other underlying problem, like a lack of time/effort, depression, fear of social vulnerability, anxiety, or a lack of interpersonal skills. The reason we call these things underlying is because they represent tangible actions that can be taken by the victim of loneliness or someone else to fix the problem Then there is loneliness the emotion, which might exist separate of the actual lack of socialization described above... existential loneliness perhaps... but most often is cause by the above.

nitrogen 13y ago

There is no 'right way round' for so-called symptoms or so-called 'underlying' conditions, because these things are subject to feedback.... I've found the illness model of depression to be very nearly useless... It's good to see someone else who describes these things in terms of feedback rather than simple cause and effect. This is a model of neurology and physiology that needs to become more widespread.