Reader Responses – Justin and “Avid Reader” (Core beliefs)

For those of you who haven’t done so already, please check out Justin’s and Avid Reader’s responses to my post “On Our Social Venture – Core beliefs.”

Given the overlap b/w their replies, I will respond to that overlap in this post. For your convenience, I will recap their thoughts (and hopefully I will do them justice):

Justin said (in part 6 of his reply),

“Science shows that we are a product of chemical processes and biological structures that exist in a physical world.” Given that fact, depression very well may be, to some degree, “a problem of chemistry, biology, or physics.” He then posited, “If we can document brain patterns for when we think, why can’t we track the chemistry behind depression and perhaps understand alterations based on drugs?”

He then advocated reconciling my emphasis on human agency in overcoming depression with an acceptance for “the agency of chemical alterations in changing the way our minds work.”

Avid Reader drew the analogy (from his/her high school physics class) of trying to find an approximation for physical phenomena via an equation, to trying to find an approximate solution for depression, viewing “each human being as a problem that does have a solution.”

He said, “Though our initial equation may be an approximation, in fact, that serves to generally describe many of the problems (or most people) that we observe, and we can begin to make better and better approximations, adding more specific terms, so that our equation only describes the single problem we began with.”

He continued to say that “Psychiatry, given this analogy, is about trying to figure out how to write an equation that represents most people, and perhaps provides further approximations that can be made for given specific characteristics of the person being observed.”

He acknowledged the human limitations of time and energy in dealing with the complexity and variety of human beings (who suffer from depression), but concluded that “though psychiatry, and thus medication, may be an impractical way to help everyone, it is probably a very effective way of helping most people” and “every person can be logically figured out to a very close approximation.”

Lastly, he advocated that people try to do just that – try to “figure themselves out, so that they can logically help themselves through hard times.”

Here is my response:



Justin, I absolutely agree that depression is to some (probably large) degree a problem of chemistry, biology, physics, etc. I’m fully ready to accept the scientific literature that speaks of chemical imbalances.

I just believe that medication is not the best way to address the chemical imbalance. I believe it can better be done through life changes and adopting a good and strongly hopeful outlook on life.

The somewhat applicable analogy I would draw here is that building muscle is also about chemical changes (hormones and whatnot), and while we certainly can use steroids/HGH to accomplish this, it is better in the long run for most people to develop the will and discipline to exercise.

In short, I agree with your reconciliation of agencies (chemical and human), but would add that they may not even need to be reconciled at all if you look at it in a certain way – human agency drives chemical agency, and everything you do (even merely existing and maintaining homeostasis) involves chemical changes in your body.

Avid Reader, your post is the strongest argument for therapy/medication I’ve ever come across. I suppose (I would hope) that was the original intention of therapy and medication in the first place, though my intuitive sense (based on very limited reading of articles and listening to a few speakers) tells me that they’ve sold out and gone commercial. For instance, you hear these days about how pharmaceutical companies make minor irrelevant changes - and disguise those changes as “innovation” – all for the sake of upping the prices of newer medications.

In short, I entirely agree with you that therapy and medication have enormous potential to help people out, at least in theory. However (and you have already pointed all of this out), it is a matter of time and feasibility. To adequately approximate the “equation” would take an enormous amount of time, and I’m not so sure the powers-that-be are quite willing to devote their lives and energies to it (sure, psychiatry is young, but it seems it’s going in an awful direction).

I would add also the caveat that I still believe that therapy and medication are fundamentally too passive, and that the same chemical changes (solutions to the problem, solutions that exist for each and every individual, as you say) can be accomplished through taking action to embrace your passions and develop your sense of self-worth.



Lastly, while I personally greatly value logic and introspection, and try to understand and even analyze myself as much as possible (go “meta” on myself), I’m not so sure everyone else has the time/willingness/ability to do that.

I believe that sometimes it’s not so important to be able to articulate exactly how you are changing, and that you can act your way into new ways of thinking in enormously healthy ways without even being completely aware of or articulate about what exactly that new way of thinking is. I believe that it’s more important to change and overcome your difficulties than it is to be able to logically explain the process of how you’ve done so, though a thorough logical understanding certainly would help in future similar (and not-so-similar) situations.

In short, I’d say that a thorough logical understanding of oneself is just icing on the cake.

So there it is. Thank you so much for your replies, Justin and Avid Reader. I can hardly believe I have such legit people reading my blog, and look forward to hearing more from you!

-David

[nsn_quick_feedback]

Reader Responses - On Justin's comments

For those of you who haven’t read Justin’s response to my post on Patch Adams, please go do so now. I feel privileged to have such a great mind reading my blog, and the insight he packs into his response will be well worth your time.

Though his comments are not long, I will summarize them here for reference (and hopefully I will do them justice):

1 While revolutionary ideas often run counter to established professional opinion and come packaged with an “exclamation point,” they are also (and more importantly) justified on logical grounds.

My response to contrary professional opinion was immature, and I missed the biggest point of all – I failed to turn criticism into useful constructive criticism. Instead, I dismissed her and missed out on an opportunity to improve my idea.

2 I should take more care to understand where professional opinion comes from. “Not many professionals can stomach the idea that those who have not studied their field for as long as they have will have better insight than they do.” I am quite unqualified. Furthermore, I should recognize that professionals are extremely busy, and they may be too occupied with other things to “have the patience to entertain every radical idea that comes [their] way.”

3 I have not given readers any way to judge the situation – there lacks content, and no one even knows what my team’s idea actually is.

4 While strong assertions aren’t inherently bad, they have consequences for people. I borderline name-called, without much justification, and this was hypocritically reactionary. I should have been more considerate.

Here is my response to Justin’s comments:

1 I completely agree that substance trumps marketing for a venture like this. Although getting people to participate in our idea is very important (and here the revolutionary factor comes into play), no amount of participation will do anyone any good if the idea itself is weak. I certainly have not provided (on this blog) any hint of what my idea is, and therefore have not justified it on logical grounds. Hopefully I will do this soon – we turn in our application by December 15^th, and as long as no one on my team objects, we likely will post our idea on this blog. I firmly believe that while it is inspired, it is also grounded heavily in logic. Sometimes I can’t believe it’s not mainstream already. Perhaps I am ignorant and am not aware that it has been tried and has failed. If that were the case, I would immediately think it to have been a failure in implementation. I truly believe that our idea, while radical compared to traditional interventions, is first and foremost a good idea. Intuitively and logically.



I agree, my post makes me sound like I failed to make use of her criticisms to improve my idea. Unfortunately, our conversation was so short (and over the phone), I really did not have much to work with. I would have loved to try to prod and pry more – both at her ideas and at my own (using her ideas). She truly did not offer much substantive criticism on the spot beyond what I have written on my blog. I actually took notes. Here is what she offered:

-I need to beware of the differences in types of stigma

-I should study the help-seeking process

-I should in general learn the science more

-In a brief discussion of the “HalfofUs campaign,” she warned that I shouldn’t “normalize being depressed,” which she believes is what the HalfofUs campaign (halfofus.com) does.

-What is most important is to “normalize getting help” – I agree with this completely, but I do not see how it is different from “overcoming the stigma.” When people use the phrase “overcome stigma,” they generally refer to the stigma to accept that one has a problem and then seek help for that problem. I think this is just a matter of semantics.

I am confident I would have made constructive use of her criticism if it had been at all possible. This is a personal philosophy I live by – I think it’s intuitively obvious that making good use of criticism is essential to learning. And there really was not enough substance for me to do this. She offered to send me some links to resources, but in the end she did not.

2 You are absolutely right. The fact is, she was incredibly kind to take time out of her busy schedule to speak with me in the first place. I feel so fortunate that there are people out there who are willing to help a random (uncredentialed) stranger like myself. And it is entirely possible I caught her at a bad moment (although we did schedule the conversation a week ahead of time).

3 You’re right. Perhaps I should not have written this post before posting my idea. It really is unfair for the readers, and I am sorry about that. I did want to post the bit about Patch Adams while it was fresh in my memory though. That was sort of time-sensitive.

4 You’re entirely right. I was completely out of line here. I am thoroughly disgusted with myself for disguising my anger with clever words. Words are powerful tools, and I’m sorry to have used them for crooked purposes. There is no justification for what I’ve done, except to say that I won’t let it happen again. And you’re right, I should listen to what everyone has to say (I’ve already addressed this a little – I really don’t think she offered much substance in our conversation, though I don’t mean this in an uppity way, and am simply doing my best to be objective). And there certainly are some fantastic psychiatrists/psychotherapists out there, who have helped many many people, and saved many many lives. I formally apologize to all of them.

So there it is.

Justin – I can’t properly express how much I appreciate your response. As I already mentioned in my immediate reply to your post, you have not only added great value to my blog, but have helped me develop as a person. I am incredibly grateful to you for this, and hope that I can return the favor someday.

I sincerely hope everybody learned as much as I did from this whole situation.

-David

[nsn_quick_feedback]