Comment by wu-ikkyu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wu-ikkyu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>“This is an experiment that’s going on, but it’s a completely uncontrolled experiment.”

All psychiatric drugging is a hypothetical experiment because psychiatric diagnoses are based on subjective social observations rather than biological pathology[1]. However the psychiatric/pharmaceutical establishment still assumes biological causes even though they have no real proof. The mind is a metaphysical concept which no one understands, and yet many stand to profit on this fact by making popular but unsubstantiated assumptions.

Mixing multiple psychiatric drugs further compounds the issue, because when the companies selling these drugs are conducting their trials, they don't do so in conjunction with the myriad of other drugs that are usually prescribed to those with mental illnesses.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Diagnosis

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_rights_movement

The mind is a metaphysical concept which no one understands, and yet many stand to profit on this fact by making popular but unsubstantiated assumptions.

Yet in some cases medication can help.

Writing about something I have seen a bit of, ADHD, it is very clear to me that some people get remarkably better lives when the get medication.

Still I hear voices trying to vilify standard ADHD medication.

For the rest of this post here is a disclaimer: I have no formal education in this - I only happen to have reasons to be more than usually interested.

Now I cannot tell you why it works biologically but I have an interesting idea why stimulants are effective against both inattentive and hyperactive variants of ADHD. My idea is that both are caused by a too high (in boring 2017) treshold for "interesting". Hyperactive kids solve this by being unusually active thereby attracting attention or otherwise make things happen. Primarily inattentive kids solve it by zoning out or daydreaming.

If my idea is right the reason why stimulants work in both cases is because it either raises the general interestingness-level or lower the interestingness treshold.

>However the psychiatric/pharmaceutical establishment still assumes biological causes even though they have no real proof.

Yes. I always hear "Chemical imbalance" thrown around but nobody can say which chemicals and how to detect it physiologically and how the medication counteracts it.

You don't hear that from psychiatric doctors about SSRIs because they all know it's bollocks.

In England I've only ever met 3 doctors who said mental illness was purely, or even mostly, biological. All the others, including the ones who focused on the diseases we think are biological (bipolar; psychosis) placed great importance on the psychological and social impacts.

And the alternative? Doing nothing may be even worse, depending on where they are on the spectrum.

I would also note that the ARM isn't really staffed or managed by folks on the spectrum, but by outsiders who think they know what's right for their charges.

> However the psychiatric/pharmaceutical establishment still assumes biological causes even though they have no real proof. The mind is a metaphysical concept which no one understands, and yet those who stand to profit upon still want to make unsubstantiated assumptions.

Yeah, sure. And next you tell me that only in the hands of some supreme being we can find help. This attitude is one of the reasons that people with mental conditions have to suffer. "It's not a real diagnose. They just do it for <'reason' of the day>". Thanks, but no thanks.

Just to entertain your strawman, here is an old zen tale:

>When Bodidharma, the legendary founder of Zen, came to China, a disciple came to him and said "I have no peace of mind. Please pacify my mind." And Bodhidharma said "Bring out your mind here before me and I'll pacify it." "Well," he said, "when I look for it, I can't find it." So Bodhidharma said "There, it's pacified."

Yeah, sure. Let people suffer, at least they can suffer with the knowledge that the 'spiritual' people like wu-ikkyu approve of it.

Mental suffering exists. I'm just suggesting that stigmatization and drugging might not be the best way to deal with it

When I'm not on medication I'm prone to manic/psychotic episodes and usually begin to hear voices. Maybe drugging isn't the best solution, but for me it's the only one that lets me live a normal life.

Stigmatization is certainly not the best way, quite the opposite. But my point is that "it's not a real sickness, just get over it" or "it's not a medical condition" are some of the prime examples that lead to stigmatization of mental illness.

Don't listen to anyone who tells you "just get over it" or acts like mental issues are not formidable, they are indeed talking down to you. That is not at all what I meant.

Being labeled by a psychiatrist as mentally ill is also stigmatizing though, and it often leads to civil rights being taken away from the individual. The fact that they can take away your rights without objective evidence is my concern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com