A rational approach to depression, addiction, etc?

[Aimless]

Psychiatric issues such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse or addiction, etc, are relatively common and account for a great deal of both suffering and decreased productivity. They are frequently insidious, and may not be diagnosed until a person's life is already very much on the wrong track (eg. due to poor performance in school, run-ins with the law, crappy job record, etc).

Many of these people may well be helped by interventions based on an awareness and understanding of their problems, in terms of medicine, psychology, and sociology.

Are we helping them as well as we can/should?

[Loki]

I think not enough has been done to destigmatize mental illness, especially within certain communities. If you know your neighbors will look down on you for seeking mental health, you're far less likely to do it.

[Aimless]

I'm not sure we can remove the stigma as looking as we continue to cat such problems as character-flaws by default. or implement good interventions for that matter... ie interventions that don't rely exclusively on providing or withholding welfare.

[GGT]

I'm not sure we can remove the stigma as looking as we continue to cat such problems as character-flaws by default. or implement good interventions for that matter... ie interventions that don't rely exclusively on providing or withholding welfare.

It may land within the realm of hard science to prove that neuro-science and behaviorism are related. Many of our stigmas are outdated.

In the 1700s people just assumed women were frail, needed less food or calories, and women were "naturally" incapacitated. They fainted often or had a case of "the vapors". No wonder, if they had to retire to their room during menstruation, were tied into corsets or hobbled into tiny shoes.

Even in the 1970s a menstruating young woman was excused from swimming class in school. Too delicate a topic, monthly bleeding, personal and intimate things, and all that. Couldn't expect a young lady to insert a tampon. Never mind that female athletes didn't scratch an event just because they were menstruating.

Same thing applies to mental illness, IMO. A certain population will always exhibit "mental illness", but science can show us why, and how to treat it, so it doesn't have to be a disability.

[Lewkowski]

My problem is disorders seem to be over diagnosed. Some people are more perky then others. Some people are just more introspective. Some have shorter tempers. Medication is not always the answer.

[Aimless]

My problem is disorders seem to be over diagnosed. Some people are more perky then others. Some people are just more introspective. Some have shorter tempers. Medication is not always the answer.

Overdiagnosis is a problem with some disorders, eg. ADHD. But addiction, depression, anxiety, etc are underdiagnosed, despite the existence of good guidelines for both diagnosis and treatment. You're right, medication isn't always the answer. But some sort of outside intervention is often necessary, and many (most?) sufferers have to go without (at least until they pass a tipping point I guess). Leaving people to deal with everything alone isn't always the answer

Take addiction for example. Watchfulness, compassion, and well-developed therapy methods can go a long way towards helping a person out of addiction, but you need to find out about it first, and then you need money and willingness to help. One of the most effective interventions against alcohol abuse or addiction takes something like ten minutes with a doctor, and then some repeat visits. But if people rarely meet physicians eg. due to not having money insurance or time then that doesn't work.

I've been very bothered by the number of women I've met recently who had their teen years (junior high, highschool) ruined by undiagnosed anxiety disorders. In addition to emotional suffering their education--and therefore their chances at a better adult life--suffered greatly. Wasteful

[Lewkowski]

Take addiction for example. Watchfulness, compassion, and well-developed therapy methods can go a long way towards helping a person out of addiction, but you need to find out about it first, and then you need money and willingness to help. One of the most effective interventions against alcohol abuse or addiction takes something like ten minutes with a doctor, and then some repeat visits. But if people rarely meet physicians eg. due to not having money insurance or time then that doesn't work.

Addiction is easy to solve. Just stop it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

[Aimless]

Addiction is easy to solve. Just stop it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

It's a great skit, unfortunately we live in the real world, and not in your idealised fantasy world

[rumrunner]

Damnit. Here again I must agree with Lewk (I am not a right-wing s.o.b.). I quit using meth by just quitting using meth. I'm not saying it was easy or just so simple. Just one of those free will thingies some people don't agree with. Strength of character my mom calls it. but then, she is kinda' biased. if the individual can 'stick their decision to stop no matter how hard it is, they will get past the withdrawals. I know that some people find it easier to just give in to their cravings, they are weak. Of course, I am also kinda' biased. yay me.

[Aimless]

hi,

in the past few decades we have gotten a much better understanding of and appreciation for the biological underpinnings of addiction. a study conducted by one amateur on one participant doesn't have as much explanatory power as we'd like

With that said, most addicts spontaneously recover from their addiction, while many others don't. The question is how long it takes and what the consequences are.

Speaking of free will in the presence of significant coercion is not quite on, I think. It's like talking about being free to not pay taxes.

[LittleFuzzy]

hi,

in the past few decades we have gotten a much better understanding of and appreciation for the biological underpinnings of addiction. a study conducted by one amateur on one participant doesn't have as much explanatory power as we'd like

With that said, most addicts spontaneously recover from their addiction, while many others don't. The question is how long it takes and what the consequences are.

Speaking of free will in the presence of significant coercion is not quite on, I think. It's like talking about being free to not pay taxes.

If "most addicts spontaneously recover from their addiction" then I suspect the experts have pathologized "normal" behavior too freely and are seeing addiction where there wasn't one.

[Aimless]

I don't know about spontaneous, i just mean that most manage it without professional help within five years. Some addictions are easier to beat than others! There is nothing to say that addictions can't ever resolve without psychiatrists.

[Hazir]

Don't know about substance abuse, but I do know that depression is best served by not wasting your time on it. Depressed people whining about how bad their life is nowadays annoy me.

[Aimless]

Look, being stuck on it and "whining about how bad their life is" is a part of depressive disorders, it's like saying that you're annoyed by how armless people have no arms and their armlessness would be better served by not being armless.

In real life "depression is best served" by helping people address the cognitive and emotional problems associated with depression eg. by using good coping strategies, possibly with the assistance of medication or ECT.

[Nessus]

Addiction is easy to solve. Just stop it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

Is that the same as how depression is easy to stop, too, just get a hold of yourself and cheer up?

[GGT]

There've been many articles lately about college-aged people showing high levels of emotional stress, depression, and addictions, in higher numbers than ever before. Several student health centers are overwhelmed and understaffed.

No clear reason why. Anything from arriving at university unprepared with no coping skills, too much stimulation and/or isolation, lack of close support systems. Plus a higher awareness of binge drinking, eating disorders, suicides.

I don't think "bootstraps" has anything to do with it, though.

[Lewkowski]

Is that the same as how depression is easy to stop, too, just get a hold of yourself and cheer up?

Nah being addicted to something is a choice. You can stop anytime you like. Depression as I understand it is a chemical imbalance in the brain. You can't simply change your brain chemistry.

[Khendraja'aro]

Nah being addicted to something is a choice. You can stop anytime you like. Depression as I understand it is a chemical imbalance in the brain. You can't simply change your brain chemistry.

You do know that addiction changes your brain chemistry as well? It's why you need ever increasing doses of your favourite drug to get that kick.

[GGT]

Nah being addicted to something is a choice. You can stop anytime you like. Depression as I understand it is a chemical imbalance in the brain. You can't simply change your brain chemistry.

Addictions also cause a chemical reaction in the brain that can cause a dependency or addiction. Ask anyone "addicted" to computer games or their crackberry.

[Steely Glint]

But addiction alters the brain chemistry, so, uh...

edit: ninja'd

[Loki]

I think this goes back to the taxation argument: just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect people to do it. As I understand it, different people get a different severity of withdrawal from drugs, people have different tolerance levels for pain/lack of comfort, and people had different life experiences. So while anyone in theory can stop taking drugs, the reality is that they don't have the physical or mental capacity to do so. It doesn't mean they're lazy or bad people, though there are some who do meet those criteria.

[Lewkowski]

You do know that addiction changes your brain chemistry as well? It's why you need ever increasing doses of your favourite drug to get that kick.

The choice to continue the addiction is up to the individual.

[Lewkowski]

I think this goes back to the taxation argument: just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect people to do it. As I understand it, different people get a different severity of withdrawal from drugs, people have different tolerance levels for pain/lack of comfort, and people had different life experiences. So while anyone in theory can stop taking drugs, the reality is that they don't have the physical or mental capacity to do so. It doesn't mean they're lazy or bad people, though there are some who do meet those criteria.

A drug user has no one to blame but himself. A chain smoker has no one to blame but himself. Ditto for alcoholics.

People who choose to let their vices control them are to blame for their situation. The whole mentality of "its not their fault" actually makes it worse. It gives them a mental escape route of "well I can't help myself" instead of owning up to their own pathetic lack of willpower and desire to take the easy route.

[Lewkowski]

Addictions also cause a chemical reaction in the brain that can cause a dependency or addiction. Ask anyone "addicted" to computer games or their crackberry.

And additions can be broken simply by stopping the consumption of the addicting influence. Brain chemistry can not simply be altered by will power however. That is why I consider depression to be *completely* different then addiction.

[Steely Glint]

I don't see how you can freely admit that depressive people can't change their brain chemistry, but then expect addicted people to be able to just overcome their altered brain chemistry and no act on their overpowering compulsion to take more of the drug they're addicted too.

But then, I guess depressives aren't on the list of designated right wing hate figures.

[GGT]

The choice to continue the addiction is up to the individual.

The addicted brain's chemistry can also change the person's perceptions and insights. Often, the addict doesn't recognize their own problems, until their life falls apart. Denial is strong in most addictions, and "intervention" is often needed.

You don't really know a damn thing about addictions or addictive personalities, do you?

[Loki]

A drug user has no one to blame but himself. A chain smoker has no one to blame but himself. Ditto for alcoholics.

People who choose to let their vices control them are to blame for their situation. The whole mentality of "its not their fault" actually makes it worse. It gives them a mental escape route of "well I can't help myself" instead of owning up to their own pathetic lack of willpower and desire to take the easy route.

I think it's fair to blame them for starting the habit, but it's not always reasonable to blame them for not being able to kick it without assistance.

[Khendraja'aro]

The choice to continue the addiction is up to the individual.

Not exactly. The choice to begin the addiction is up to the individual. After that choice is made, it becomes difficult. You just admitted that you don't see depression as a choice. Addiction is the same in that regard - it also works through altered neural pathways.
Just take a look at what Benzodiazepine-withdrawal looks like - it even includes an epileptic attack called a withdrawal seizure!

Some types of withdrawal can be actually life threatening! Take delirium tremens, one possible symptom of alcohol withdrawal. Delirium tremens has a lethality of 25% if it's not treated...

[Aimless]

Hi,

Lewk, addiction's biological underpinnings are as clear if not more so than those of depression. I agree with you that encouraging people to feel powerless is not a good strategy. Similarly, blaming addicts and heaping abuse on them is a proven bad strategy.

Acknowledging that they may feel powerless/unable to break their addiction is not a bad thing. Encouraging them to seek help and to start a therapeutic process is a good thing. Showing them that they are wrong about many of their perceived limitations and that there are good strategies available to help them break their addiction sooner--well that's fantastic.

In addiction an individual's free choice is limited. It's akin to physical and mental coercion. You're free to talk about addiction being a choice, but the narrow view you've espoused in this thread misses the big picture. If all of society holds such big-picture-missing narrow views then we don't stand much of a chance in the fight against addiction.





I think Loki's post was a very good summary I encourage you to read it and to fight your trolling addiction

[GGT]

And additions can be broken simply by stopping the consumption of the addicting influence. Brain chemistry can not simply be altered by will power however. That is why I consider depression to be *completely* different then addiction.

You're using the word "Addictions" only in the narrowest sense, as in vices like drinking/smoking/illicit drugs. Just so you can call Addicts lazy people with character flaws, or something.

Marathon runners are also 'addicted' to the endorphin high. Men and women are naturally 'addicted' to their hormones. Humans have to get sleep, insomnia or sleep deprivation actually alters the brain. Brains run the whole show, chemicals and neurons, we're all victims of our brains and neuro-science.