Why are people so ignorant about suicide and depression?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by GodspeedGehenna
Aspirin reduces my headache. Does that mean headaches are caused by a lack of aspirin?
This quote is one of my faves. Apparently we read similar literature.
Original post by jumpingjesusholycow
Aren't you a self proclaimed right wing Thatcherite? :hmm:
Pot calling the kettle black....
Pot calling the kettle black....
Hey Maggie had a heart.....it might have been coal wrapped in barbed wire, but she had a heart.
Just think what she would do to Dave or Nick if she was around now.
Original post by kratos90
It is not counter-evidence in any way, shape or form. It is evidence that SSRE's will alleviate depression in some people. Nothing more and nothing less. Just as there is evidence that SSRI's will aleviate depression in some people. Why? We don't know. Dopamine, Noradrenaline, GABA, glutamate... (the list goes on and on) all play a part in mood, anxiety etc. as well as receptor densities etc. You have already stated one way in which medictions correct imbalances. SSRE's reduce serotonin. That corrects an imbalance for some people but not most. I see not logic in your arguments.
It is counter-evidence against the claim that "Depression is caused by a lack of serotonin" which is the typical basis of elaboration for the "chemical imbalance" theory which is ultimately what I am trying to show to be far too simplistic. This was the explanation that I quoted when I stated that information about SSREs. You are taking it out of context by applying it to the broader claim of "chemicol imbolonocnce".
In this paragraph, you are essentially being so vague and broad in what causes depression that you may as well have just said "its in the brain". You aren't explaining anything here because you have failed to rule out anything.
The whole concept of an 'imbalance' is utter nonsense though. It implies a balance, and a balance implies opposing forces that reach equilibrium. What exactly are these forces? Where are they? Can you empirically show that medications are acheiving this 'equilibrium'?
The whole pop-theory is utterly reductive and does not reflect the true nature of the brain.
Original post by hippieglitter
I may get flamed for this and i don't care. Those who claim to be depressed and moan and moan and moan and moan about it, i don't believe are really depressed, those who are really depressed, who have been medically diagnosed and had treatment for depression (like myself and my best friend) are actually really good at hiding it, for the most part they don't want people to know hence why so many depressed people go without treatment for so long.
Hun why would you get flamed for this. Not only was it really helpful, you had the bravery to post without going anon to something that is clearly very personal to you.
You have my respect.
Original post by my_username_was_taken
LOL, why do you always argue over the smallest things and care so much about it, and believe people actually care? Do you enjoy wasting your time like that?
I can imagine you getting annoyed behind your computer and being like GRRR HE SAID CHEMICALS ARE BALANCED AND THEY AREN'T GRRRRR and asserting your superiority over him as I mean come on this is just general knowledge, not like you learn it on a degree course or something is it..
I can imagine you getting annoyed behind your computer and being like GRRR HE SAID CHEMICALS ARE BALANCED AND THEY AREN'T GRRRRR and asserting your superiority over him as I mean come on this is just general knowledge, not like you learn it on a degree course or something is it..
It annoys me when it is pushed as empirically confirmed fact. It's not. Quite the opposite.
It shouldn't be general knowledge though. It only exists in general knowledge because it was pushed by advertising companies and it has since spread like wildfire. I'm not expecting the general public to have an understanding of the molecular neuroscience, but I don't expect them to perpetuate BS either.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by GodspeedGehenna
It is counter-evidence against the claim that "Depression is caused by a lack of serotonin" which is the typical basis of elaboration for the "chemical imbalance" theory which is ultimately what I am trying to show to be far too simplistic. This was the explanation that I quoted when I stated that information about SSREs. You are taking it out of context by applying it to the broader claim of "chemicol imbolonocnce".
In this paragraph, you are essentially being so vague and broad in what causes depression that you may as well have just said "its in the brain". You aren't explaining anything here because you have failed to rule out anything.
The whole concept of an 'imbalance' is utter nonsense though. It implies a balance, and a balance implies opposing forces that reach equilibrium. What exactly are these forces? Where are they? Can you empirically show that medications are acheiving this 'equilibrium'?
The whole pop-theory is utterly reductive and does not reflect the true nature of the brain.
In this paragraph, you are essentially being so vague and broad in what causes depression that you may as well have just said "its in the brain". You aren't explaining anything here because you have failed to rule out anything.
The whole concept of an 'imbalance' is utter nonsense though. It implies a balance, and a balance implies opposing forces that reach equilibrium. What exactly are these forces? Where are they? Can you empirically show that medications are acheiving this 'equilibrium'?
The whole pop-theory is utterly reductive and does not reflect the true nature of the brain.
OK your logic is very weak but I expect that from a psychology student who simply regurgitates facts without truly understanding. So I will sum it up:
What does medication do? It changes the balance of chemicals in the brain, (which ones is irrelevant for this argument). When the balance of chemicals changes, depression is gone. So so simples.
Original post by kratos90
OK your logic is very weak but I expect that from a psychology student who simply regurgitates facts without truly understanding. So I will sum it up:
No need to cry and get personal.
Original post by kratos90
What does medication do? It changes the balance of chemicals in the brain
What balance? What forces are opposing each other here? How are you defining the equilibrium of this balance? Where exactly does this balance occur?
(By the way, I previously asked you how the medications change this balance, and you basically responded by saying "It changes the balance". Right.)
Original post by kratos90
When the balance of chemicals changes, depression is gone. So so simples.
Here is the logic that this claim is employing:
1. Depression is caused by an imbalance in the brain.
How do you know that?
2. Because when you reduce the imbalance the depression goes.
How do you know you have reduced the imbalance?
3. Because the depression has gone.
So how did you know there was an imbalance in the first place?
4. Because when you reduce the imbalance the depression goes.
It's circular, brah.
Original post by kratos90
And there are no 'forces' there are receptor densities in certain parts of the brain which mean some people get less dopamine, for example, in that part of the brain.
Oh. So if there are no forces there is no opposition and there is no equilibrium? So why are you trying to tell me that it is a chemical imbalance?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by GodspeedGehenna
No need to cry and get personal.
What balance? What forces are opposing each other here? How are you defining the equilibrium of this balance? Where exactly does this balance occur?
(By the way, I previously asked you how the medications change this balance, and you basically responded by saying "It changes the balance". Right.)
Here is the logic that this claim is employing:
1. Depression is caused by an imbalance in the brain.
How do you know that?
2. Because when you reduce the imbalance the depression goes.
How do you know you have reduced the imbalance?
3. Because the depression has gone.
So how did you know there was an imbalance in the first place?
4. Because when you reduce the imbalance the depression goes.
It's circular, brah.
Oh. So a balance does not exist? So why are you trying to tell me that it is a chemical imbalance?
What balance? What forces are opposing each other here? How are you defining the equilibrium of this balance? Where exactly does this balance occur?
(By the way, I previously asked you how the medications change this balance, and you basically responded by saying "It changes the balance". Right.)
Here is the logic that this claim is employing:
1. Depression is caused by an imbalance in the brain.
How do you know that?
2. Because when you reduce the imbalance the depression goes.
How do you know you have reduced the imbalance?
3. Because the depression has gone.
So how did you know there was an imbalance in the first place?
4. Because when you reduce the imbalance the depression goes.
It's circular, brah.
Oh. So a balance does not exist? So why are you trying to tell me that it is a chemical imbalance?
You just ask really unthought through questions.
'How do medications change the balance'? Are you actually serious? Some reduce serotonin (changed balance), some increase serotonin (changed balance), some increase dopamine (changed balance) etc.
'What forces are opposing each other'? None. Receptor densities vary and mean different people have different amounts of dopamine, serotonin etc. in different parts of the brain.
Noone knows what is the optimal balance (or as you weirdly put it, 'equilibrium') and it does not matter either. What matters is that when you change the balance (and for the love of God if you ask how you know you have changed the balance you are officially retarded; INCREASE DOPAMINE IS ONEEXAMPLE), then depression is gone in many people. You have changed the balance, you have got rid of depression. SO SO simples
An imbalance of chemicals doesn't require there to be opposing forces to an equilibrium. What on Earth are you talking about? It is simply referring to people having too much or too little of something such as dopamine. I hate to get ad hominem but your logic is so so flawed, I'm cringing.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by .Ali.
Depression is a chemical imbalance for Gods sake, I don't know why people see it any differently from any other illness. Having it does NOT make you weak in any way, no more than having any other illness does. Why the ignorance and the judgement?
Depression is a chemical imbalance for Gods sake, I don't know why people see it any differently from any other illness. Having it does NOT make you weak in any way, no more than having any other illness does. Why the ignorance and the judgement?
Althought I agree with what you've said you cannot say depression is a chemical imbalance. It is not proven that the lack of serotonin in the brain actually causes depression. Depression can be caused by a number of psychological factors too.
Sorry for being so picky. I completely agree with everything else you say though
Those arguing that depression is a result of a chemical imbalance in the brain are the same morons who respond to threads such as "feeling down ):" with "go to the doctor and get anti-depressants!" like they're a cure-all candy. It's so unnecessary and bloody annoying.
I've studied a bit of psychology, and I was under the impression that no one knows exactly what causes depression? It's like GodspeedGehenna said, in reference to medication - if you take aspirin for a headache, does that mean a lack of aspirin caused it?
(Although in our example it was paracetamol.
)
But to answer the OP's question, it's basically a lack of understanding. I don't think it's something you can really comprehend until you go through it, and you can't blame people for not understanding it. Plus, in this day and age, where the word 'depression' is bandied around so freely, it gets harder and harder to have any sympathy for sufferers when silly teenagers are convinced they have it after a bad week and whine non-stop.
I've studied a bit of psychology, and I was under the impression that no one knows exactly what causes depression? It's like GodspeedGehenna said, in reference to medication - if you take aspirin for a headache, does that mean a lack of aspirin caused it?
(Although in our example it was paracetamol.
)But to answer the OP's question, it's basically a lack of understanding. I don't think it's something you can really comprehend until you go through it, and you can't blame people for not understanding it. Plus, in this day and age, where the word 'depression' is bandied around so freely, it gets harder and harder to have any sympathy for sufferers when silly teenagers are convinced they have it after a bad week and whine non-stop.
Original post by kratos90
Noone knows what is the optimal balance (or as you weirdly put it, 'equilibrium') and it does not matter either. What matters is that when you change the balance (and for the love of God if you ask how you know you have changed the balance you are officially retarded; INCREASE DOPAMINE IS ONEEXAMPLE), then depression is gone in many people. You have changed the balance, you have got rid of depression. SO SO simples
Noone knows what is the optimal balance (or as you weirdly put it, 'equilibrium') and it does not matter either. What matters is that when you change the balance (and for the love of God if you ask how you know you have changed the balance you are officially retarded; INCREASE DOPAMINE IS ONEEXAMPLE), then depression is gone in many people. You have changed the balance, you have got rid of depression. SO SO simples
So, what your argument essentially boils down to is this:
Depression is caused by a deficiency of X neurotransmitter and you believe this because if you increase X transmitter then some patients are alleviated of depression. Therefore, that patient must have a deficiency of X neurotransmitter! And, if it does not work then it must be Y neurotransmitter! And if that does not work it must be Z neurotransmitter!
Firstly, increasing a neurotransmitter and seeing an alleviation of depression does not neccesarily mean that the depression is caused by a lack (or an imbalance, or whatever buzzword you choose) for the same reasons that headaches are not caused by a lack of aspirin. It's dodgy logic.
Secondly, you are claiming (using the above faulty logic) that depression is caused by lots of different NTs in lots of different people. So why is it that in rotational clinical trials, patients can respond to two different drugs that act on completely different NTs? Why is it that patients can suddenly change to which NT they respond to? Let me guess, you're going to add more post-hoc modifications to your theory by claiming that depression can be caused by a lack of X and Y neurotransmitters! What if I told you that icecream can alleviate depression, are you going to tell me that depression is caused by a lack of icecream? What if depression is alleviated when the patient is on serotonin and dopamine RIs but only when they eat icecream? Are you going to tell me that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, dopamine AND icecream!!!? What if I told you that depression can be alleviated when all of the icecream is taken away? Are you going to tell me that depression is also caused by too much icecream!!!?
To be honest, the theory falls at the first hurdle (point one) by employing dodgy logic. The evidence suggests that the picture is far far more complex than clumsy explanations of global neurotransmitter quantities. Current advancements in computational and molecular neuroscience can not yet accurately explain depression and at best we can resort to clumsily flooding the network with arbitrarily selected neurotransmitters. Subsequently, we are better off resorting to cognitive explanations and therapies for now until further developments in neural learning and molecular mechanisms that underpin said cognitive approaches. The reality is, a biological explanation of depression will be far more subtle and specific than quantities of global and arbitrary neurotransmitters, but instead will most likely refer to the synaptic weightings and potentiation of specific neural networks. This approach would be far less rigid and more capable of explaining specific depressive behaviours and beliefs, as well as being more able to explain the diversity of the condition.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by kratos90
You just ask really unthought through questions.
'How do medications change the balance'? Are you actually serious? Some reduce serotonin (changed balance), some increase serotonin (changed balance), some increase dopamine (changed balance) etc.
'What forces are opposing each other'? None. Receptor densities vary and mean different people have different amounts of dopamine, serotonin etc. in different parts of the brain.
Noone knows what is the optimal balance (or as you weirdly put it, 'equilibrium') and it does not matter either. What matters is that when you change the balance (and for the love of God if you ask how you know you have changed the balance you are officially retarded; INCREASE DOPAMINE IS ONEEXAMPLE), then depression is gone in many people. You have changed the balance, you have got rid of depression. SO SO simples
An imbalance of chemicals doesn't require there to be opposing forces to an equilibrium. What on Earth are you talking about? It is simply referring to people having too much or too little of something such as dopamine. I hate to get ad hominem but your logic is so so flawed, I'm cringing.
'How do medications change the balance'? Are you actually serious? Some reduce serotonin (changed balance), some increase serotonin (changed balance), some increase dopamine (changed balance) etc.
'What forces are opposing each other'? None. Receptor densities vary and mean different people have different amounts of dopamine, serotonin etc. in different parts of the brain.
Noone knows what is the optimal balance (or as you weirdly put it, 'equilibrium') and it does not matter either. What matters is that when you change the balance (and for the love of God if you ask how you know you have changed the balance you are officially retarded; INCREASE DOPAMINE IS ONEEXAMPLE), then depression is gone in many people. You have changed the balance, you have got rid of depression. SO SO simples
An imbalance of chemicals doesn't require there to be opposing forces to an equilibrium. What on Earth are you talking about? It is simply referring to people having too much or too little of something such as dopamine. I hate to get ad hominem but your logic is so so flawed, I'm cringing.
I'm wondering if you're aware of the fact that you come across as an idiotic ******* with that badly-structured piece of rubbish that you call an argument.
Original post by hippieglitter
I may get flamed for this and i don't care. Those who claim to be depressed and moan and moan and moan and moan about it, i don't believe are really depressed, those who are really depressed, who have been medically diagnosed and had treatment for depression (like myself and my best friend) are actually really good at hiding it, for the most part they don't want people to know hence why so many depressed people go without treatment for so long.
I agree
. In most respects anyway.But in the same way there's people with bipolar etc who blag all the time and use it as excuses who do generally have their conditions...but again them doing that in a way masks when they are actually serious and it's dismissed as 'them being stupid again'...
happend with my aunt lol, especially when she got drunk, she'd ring people up and say she was gonna kill herself etc etc. Eventually my mum got sick of it and hung up. Loadsa people did the same...aaaaand then she jumped off a bridge. To be fair she had attempted several similar things before...but people just got sick of getting phonecalls at 4am literally every other night for 2 years.
But I think society in general seems to be heading towards a feeling of 'we are all hard done by'...People just don't try to find the bright side of anything anymore which feeds depression/sadness...A lot of the older generations (70+) seem to have a much more 'get on with it' attitude...or maybe that's just the ones i know.
I've always tried to find the brightside of everything.
Heck i've been homeless and still found some silver lining to cling too, no matter how small it was. Quite simply, because you have too.
Ima chuck this out there:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/28/depression-serotonin-neurogenesis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/28/depression-serotonin-neurogenesis
Original post by Captain92
Ima chuck this out there:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/28/depression-serotonin-neurogenesis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/28/depression-serotonin-neurogenesis
It's an interesting article. As far as I'm aware though, neurogenesis in the human dentate gyrus is a little more controversial as opposed to in the rat brain in which it has been more empirically established. The rat brain has shown to be a very good model for the human brain in the past, so it wouldn't be surprising if it followed through. Obviously it is much harder to establish in the human brain due to the subject nature.
Interesting approach though.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by EggmanD
So many natural ways to release different chemicals in the brain without taking anti depressants, i think they should only be available to those who are severely effected by a deficiency not an 'imbalance' or bi polar.
Antidepressants aren't recommended for treatment of Bipolar, and are only used in rare cases in conjunction with other medications.
Original post by GodspeedGehenna
It's an interesting article. As far as I'm aware though, neurogenesis in the human dentate gyrus is a little more controversial as opposed to in the rat brain in which it has been more empirically established. The rat brain has shown to be a very good model for the human brain in the past, so it wouldn't be surprising if it followed through. Obviously it is much harder to establish in the human brain due to the subject nature.
Interesting approach though.
Interesting approach though.
Indeed.
I always find it refreshing when the media reports on people who are stepping back and taking a different angle on issues such as mental illness. I like to keep on top of the research when I can understand it lol.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Suicides at Oxford
- Absolutely furious with the NHS
- Trauma following an attempt to 'end it'?
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- school/mental health
- Appeal for masters dissertation marking
- Has anyone read the Cass report yet?
- Gap year
- Desperately need career + life advice
- Telling my parents that I take antidepressants
- If you have overcome depression, what helped?
- Police
- Why was I so lonely in my final years of school?
- Uni work building up, stressing me out, lifes getting too much, help?
- Why is he doing this to me?
- Low feelings
- Mental health struggle
- I haven't revised for my exam tomorrow, and I'm panicking not sure what to do
- Am I making the wrong decision?
- why do I hate humans so much?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
