6 ms·

There isn't one because a sprained ankle is a binary diagnosis. One of the biggest problems with psychiatry is that every diagnosis is a spectrum, and over tim

There isn't one because a sprained ankle is a binary diagnosis. One of the biggest problems with psychiatry is that every diagnosis is a spectrum, and over time it's become more and more obvious that the boundaries for what is considered "neurotypical" are way too narrow. Depression being a chemical imbalance was a complete lie to sell more medication, and how prolific this type of occurrence is within the industry is not hard to see. At the very least, a plurality of phycological diagnoses are manifestations of physical behavior: diet, exercise, exposure to sunlight, etc We're so overprescribed on medications to try to feel a certain way within far too narrow of a spectrum. Why do you presume that there has to be an equivalent to a sprained ankle? Maybe the answer to your question is yes, only the catastrophic is worth addressing. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030318 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

KPGv2 1y ago
> only the catastrophic is worth addressing This is a very privileged view of the mind. I have ADHD (and autism). But I also have a quite high IQ, if one cares about such things. I'm pretty successful, professionally. But it took until around 40yo to get the ADHD diagnosis and get a prescription for medication that has been life-altering. Was I suffering from catastrophic failures? Absolutely not: married, have kids, in the 1%, etc. But have the meds had an incredibly positive influence on my life? Hell yes. I can do things that everyone else acted like was normal, but I straight up couldn't do it before. Housework is a prime example. It was like torture. Sitting around waiting for people to finish their sentences because they're "talking as slow as molasses" made for often unenjoyable social experiences. But with the meds, this stuff is either tolerable or fun. My life is significantly better thanks to medical interventions. Instead of my wife blowing up because I didn't do something like mop the kitchen floor, I actually get it done (without meds I straight up cannot hold that kind of task in my mind if I'm not in the room looking at the mess; I will flit between ten other things in a different part of the house, then walk through the kitchen to get into my car to pick up the kids, see the kitchen, and think "ah, fuck me") I'm happy that you're neurotypical and have a great life, but that's not true for a lot of us, and the idea that "only catastrophic mental issues should be dealt with by professionals" is you just telling on yourself and your ignorances.
- suggestion 1y ago
  Why do you presume I'm neurotypical and undiagnosed with any psychiatric disorder? I'm formally diagnosed with severe OCD, depression, and ADHD. I was on SSRI, then SNRI and additionally methylphenidate for years. Eventually I got tired for feeling like a shell of a human being, and weaned off of the SNRI. It took a lot of effort to induce neuroplasticity and ease my OCD and depression, but I did it. Eventually, I weaned off the methylphenidate because I believed I could do it if I tried. Later in life, I also gained and eventually lost weight, which was a similar acceptance that "bad" things, like hunger, are ok and a symptom of something good, my body consuming fat. Then the same for sore muscles at the gym. Over time, I accepted discomfort and the fight or flight my brain was constantly trying to force onto me was a lie, and eventually my brain and nervous system caught up. My physical and mental health improved, my social life, my professional life, etc. I bet if you knew your house would burn down if you didn't do "normal" things you would have done them no problem. Stimulants make otherwise unenjoyable things enjoyable? Who would have thought? Do you think people that do "normal" things enjoy them? Is it necessary to enjoy everything all the time?
  - interstice 1y ago
    If I knew my house would burn down if I forgot where my keys where it wouldn't do much more than turn me into a paranoid barely functional mess. Higher stakes do not automatically help. Although ironically part of being ADHD is functioning well in high stakes situations, it's not healthy to create high stakes situations in order to function (although some people do this).
    - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
      This is one of the most personally compelling reasons why I agree with my ADHD diagnosis - I've known for a long time that I work better in a state of chaos than not. I actually often enjoy it. And others have commented on that about me as well. Edit: by chaos I mean things breaking down, going wrong, catching fire, etc. I accomplish things easily once I've taken so long to get to them, that they're seriously urgent.
  - 1y ago
ben_sisko 1y ago
“Chemical imbalance” lol. You have inadvertently outed yourself as not having a clue by your reply. It’s nothing personal but you just clearly don’t have a clue and/or don’t have skin in the game. It’s fine. I don’t know anything about professional juggling because I have zero skin in that game. Paging Dr. Brochacho: fMRI and brain networks have been around for a while!
- suggestion 1y ago
  You're behind the times https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/debunking-two-chemical-imbalance-myths-again https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/debunking-two-chemical... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202207/depression-is-not-caused-chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/2022...
  - ohthehugemanate 1y ago
    Not sure if you noticed that your sources disagree with your thesis, with the limited exception that theres no convincing evidence that seratonin is the single causal factor for depression, which myth was heavily promoted by the relevant pharma companies. Your articles also say that: - depression medication does appear to be effective in some cases regardless, indicating some other neurochemical mechanism at work. - the existence of a "neurochemical imbalance myth" underpinning psychology as a whole is, itself, a myth. - the idea that this mythical myth about neurochemical imbalance has been debunked, is also a myth. - that the psychological scientific consensus has, since the first peer-reviewed mention of the word "neurochemical" in the 60s, quite consistently been aligned with the 1978 synthesis statement by the then president of the APA: > "Psychiatric disorders result from the complex interaction of physical, psycho-logical, and social factors and treatment may be directed toward any or all three of these areas." Your second article is particularly clear in explaining all this.
    - suggestion 1y ago
      Why are you just making stuff up? Exact quote from second article "Furthermore, the SSRIs were accorded a rock-star status as effective antidepressants that they did not deserve. Most troubling from the standpoint of misleading the general public, pharmaceutical companies heavily promoted the “chemical imbalance” trope in their direct-to-consumer advertising." There second article admits the overuse of the term while trying to defend psychiatry for never officially adopting it, but everyone who's been on them knows that's exactly what they were told about their effectiveness, so whether the trope originated with the pharmaceutical companies (my assertion) or not, they were still way over prescribed and there's no statistically significant evidence they actually work when controlling for confounders, as the first meta analysis clearly demonstrates.

KPGv2 1y ago

> only the catastrophic is worth addressing This is a very privileged view of the mind. I have ADHD (and autism). But I also have a quite high IQ, if one cares about such things. I'm pretty successful, professionally. But it took until around 40yo to get the ADHD diagnosis and get a prescription for medication that has been life-altering. Was I suffering from catastrophic failures? Absolutely not: married, have kids, in the 1%, etc. But have the meds had an incredibly positive influence on my life? Hell yes. I can do things that everyone else acted like was normal, but I straight up couldn't do it before. Housework is a prime example. It was like torture. Sitting around waiting for people to finish their sentences because they're "talking as slow as molasses" made for often unenjoyable social experiences. But with the meds, this stuff is either tolerable or fun. My life is significantly better thanks to medical interventions. Instead of my wife blowing up because I didn't do something like mop the kitchen floor, I actually get it done (without meds I straight up cannot hold that kind of task in my mind if I'm not in the room looking at the mess; I will flit between ten other things in a different part of the house, then walk through the kitchen to get into my car to pick up the kids, see the kitchen, and think "ah, fuck me") I'm happy that you're neurotypical and have a great life, but that's not true for a lot of us, and the idea that "only catastrophic mental issues should be dealt with by professionals" is you just telling on yourself and your ignorances.

suggestion 1y ago
Why do you presume I'm neurotypical and undiagnosed with any psychiatric disorder? I'm formally diagnosed with severe OCD, depression, and ADHD. I was on SSRI, then SNRI and additionally methylphenidate for years. Eventually I got tired for feeling like a shell of a human being, and weaned off of the SNRI. It took a lot of effort to induce neuroplasticity and ease my OCD and depression, but I did it. Eventually, I weaned off the methylphenidate because I believed I could do it if I tried. Later in life, I also gained and eventually lost weight, which was a similar acceptance that "bad" things, like hunger, are ok and a symptom of something good, my body consuming fat. Then the same for sore muscles at the gym. Over time, I accepted discomfort and the fight or flight my brain was constantly trying to force onto me was a lie, and eventually my brain and nervous system caught up. My physical and mental health improved, my social life, my professional life, etc. I bet if you knew your house would burn down if you didn't do "normal" things you would have done them no problem. Stimulants make otherwise unenjoyable things enjoyable? Who would have thought? Do you think people that do "normal" things enjoy them? Is it necessary to enjoy everything all the time?
- interstice 1y ago
  If I knew my house would burn down if I forgot where my keys where it wouldn't do much more than turn me into a paranoid barely functional mess. Higher stakes do not automatically help. Although ironically part of being ADHD is functioning well in high stakes situations, it's not healthy to create high stakes situations in order to function (although some people do this).
  - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
    This is one of the most personally compelling reasons why I agree with my ADHD diagnosis - I've known for a long time that I work better in a state of chaos than not. I actually often enjoy it. And others have commented on that about me as well. Edit: by chaos I mean things breaking down, going wrong, catching fire, etc. I accomplish things easily once I've taken so long to get to them, that they're seriously urgent.
- 1y ago

ben_sisko 1y ago

“Chemical imbalance” lol. You have inadvertently outed yourself as not having a clue by your reply. It’s nothing personal but you just clearly don’t have a clue and/or don’t have skin in the game. It’s fine. I don’t know anything about professional juggling because I have zero skin in that game. Paging Dr. Brochacho: fMRI and brain networks have been around for a while!

suggestion 1y ago
You're behind the times https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/debunking-two-chemical-imbalance-myths-again https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/debunking-two-chemical... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202207/depression-is-not-caused-chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/2022...
- ohthehugemanate 1y ago
  Not sure if you noticed that your sources disagree with your thesis, with the limited exception that theres no convincing evidence that seratonin is the single causal factor for depression, which myth was heavily promoted by the relevant pharma companies. Your articles also say that: - depression medication does appear to be effective in some cases regardless, indicating some other neurochemical mechanism at work. - the existence of a "neurochemical imbalance myth" underpinning psychology as a whole is, itself, a myth. - the idea that this mythical myth about neurochemical imbalance has been debunked, is also a myth. - that the psychological scientific consensus has, since the first peer-reviewed mention of the word "neurochemical" in the 60s, quite consistently been aligned with the 1978 synthesis statement by the then president of the APA: > "Psychiatric disorders result from the complex interaction of physical, psycho-logical, and social factors and treatment may be directed toward any or all three of these areas." Your second article is particularly clear in explaining all this.
  - suggestion 1y ago
    Why are you just making stuff up? Exact quote from second article "Furthermore, the SSRIs were accorded a rock-star status as effective antidepressants that they did not deserve. Most troubling from the standpoint of misleading the general public, pharmaceutical companies heavily promoted the “chemical imbalance” trope in their direct-to-consumer advertising." There second article admits the overuse of the term while trying to defend psychiatry for never officially adopting it, but everyone who's been on them knows that's exactly what they were told about their effectiveness, so whether the trope originated with the pharmaceutical companies (my assertion) or not, they were still way over prescribed and there's no statistically significant evidence they actually work when controlling for confounders, as the first meta analysis clearly demonstrates.