4 ms·

IMO the terminology of neurochemical imbalance should be avoided. It's the sort of framing that is much preferred by the pharmacological industry, because it su

IMO the terminology of neurochemical imbalance should be avoided. It's the sort of framing that is much preferred by the pharmacological industry, because it suggests that the nature of the problem is well understood and can be directly addressed with their products. In reality there is only a very vague idea of mental illness and related neurotransmitters. To make a computer analogy, it's like calling a problem an "electron imbalance", without even knowing whether hardware or software is to blame.

ahknight 12y ago
In fairness, software runs on hardware and a faulty instruction would send electrons to the wrong place and cause an imbalance... /melvin That said, this has been proven many times over to be rooted in an atypical response to normal levels of neurotransmitters which then results in the appearance of an imbalance or, depending on your perspective, a real imbalance as that specific set of neurons requires higher baseline levels for normal functioning. This isn't Big Pharma vs The People for most of us. Just soccer moms in LA. The rest of us are helped by low doses of magic pills and are happy that solution is out there and infuriated at cases of abuse and overprescription.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  No, nothing has been "proven" about ADHD or other sorts of mental illness. We only have clusterings of symptoms, but know nothing about root causes. Certain chemicals seem to interact well with the symptoms, but again there is no known mechanism that fully explains the mechanism of action. There have been hypotheses that e.g. schizophrenia is explained by dopamine and depression by serotonin, but these have all proven to be too simplistic, because in many patients the levels of these neurotransmitters do change after taking medication, but the symptoms stay. I should say I'm not at all anti-pharma. I just think that the marketing should be honest. It should be "this addresses some of the symptoms", and not "this corrects your imbalances" because the scientific hypotheses about those imbalances have long been disproven. My hunch is that the structure of neural connections also has to play a big role. This would explain why simply changing levels of chemicals does not immediately fix things.
dTal 12y ago
I'd never noticed this before, but you're right - "neurochemical imbalance" sounds convincing but holds no explanatory power by itself, and sounds very much like an updated version of "imbalance of the humours".

ahknight 12y ago

In fairness, software runs on hardware and a faulty instruction would send electrons to the wrong place and cause an imbalance... /melvin That said, this has been proven many times over to be rooted in an atypical response to normal levels of neurotransmitters which then results in the appearance of an imbalance or, depending on your perspective, a real imbalance as that specific set of neurons requires higher baseline levels for normal functioning. This isn't Big Pharma vs The People for most of us. Just soccer moms in LA. The rest of us are helped by low doses of magic pills and are happy that solution is out there and infuriated at cases of abuse and overprescription.

andreasvc 12y ago
No, nothing has been "proven" about ADHD or other sorts of mental illness. We only have clusterings of symptoms, but know nothing about root causes. Certain chemicals seem to interact well with the symptoms, but again there is no known mechanism that fully explains the mechanism of action. There have been hypotheses that e.g. schizophrenia is explained by dopamine and depression by serotonin, but these have all proven to be too simplistic, because in many patients the levels of these neurotransmitters do change after taking medication, but the symptoms stay. I should say I'm not at all anti-pharma. I just think that the marketing should be honest. It should be "this addresses some of the symptoms", and not "this corrects your imbalances" because the scientific hypotheses about those imbalances have long been disproven. My hunch is that the structure of neural connections also has to play a big role. This would explain why simply changing levels of chemicals does not immediately fix things.

dTal 12y ago

I'd never noticed this before, but you're right - "neurochemical imbalance" sounds convincing but holds no explanatory power by itself, and sounds very much like an updated version of "imbalance of the humours".