That first bit is totally untrue. Do you think our grief is not chemical? That we can’t have neural rewiring occur following the loss of a loved one? Don’t dichotomize experience and neurochemistry. They’re two sides of the same coin.
This is some ableist shit right here. Some of us have real debilitating disabilities. It’s like saying a broken leg is the same thing as being permanently in a wheelchair.
MDD is a real disability. It can and often is precipitated by environmental triggers, and episodes can resolve once the environment is changed. Just because someone experiences remission in such a case doesn’t mean they don’t have a disorder that should be treated prior to another episode. Dichotomizing chemical and psychological/environmental is harmful.
Don’t reframe my statement addressing someone’s specific situation into a blanket comment. That person said their depression had a reason (that could be addressed, and once addressed, the depression was resolved.)
Speaking to that instance, it probably wasn’t chemical, because if it was, it wouldn’t have resolved with action taken independent of chemical treatment, but only with a combination.
I am not the person to try and strawman about depression.
Laymen differentiate between addressing things in their environment that cause increases in things like norepinephrine by the cause, environmentally, and not by the resulting chemical release in the brain.
Referring to both chemical treatment, such as taking medication, and environmental treatment, such as quitting a job that causes you stress (or depression, as in the conversation above) as “chemical” is the kind of nitpicky BS that would only further obfuscate the discussion, serving absolutely zero purpose unless you were the type to want to start a fight over nothing.
You may as well refer to everything the brain ever experiences as “chemical.” It’s would be the most literal interpretation, and would serve zero purpose as a method of communication. Much like your conversation with me.
My point is that such a lay interpretation isn’t helpful, and it may be harmful. Plenty of people with MDD have an environmental trigger prior to their first episode, and have their episode remit after that precipitating factor is managed. Convincing someone that their experience isn’t chemical suggests against treatment seeking during remission, such as seeking therapy, which could help prevent another episode (and one that may not have an environmental trigger). A depressive episode can be fatal. Telling someone that because their prior episode remitted spontaneously or after the environmental trigger changed might prevent them from getting the proactive and preventative treatment that they need to keep them from experiencing another episode and thus keep them alive. Don’t gatekeep depression.
At what point did I gatekeep depression by agreeing with someone else about their diagnosis?
You’re being a little ridiculous right now.
For the second time, stop trying to turn my reply to someone else into a blanket statement. I understand picking needless fights with strangers on the internet qualifies as dopamine seeking behavior. Maybe you should be looking inward.
When have we been talking about anyone’s diagnosis? We’ve been talking about the common misperception that depressive episodes caused by environmental triggers are not a result of treatable neurochemical dysfunction. MDD can certainly be a result of environmental triggers, and there are a wide variety of neurochemical bases of it. I distinctly said in my first comment that I was referencing a small part of your reply.
I’m a neuroscience professor at an R1 university. I’m not trying to have a needless fight, I’m trying to correct a common public misperception that you reiterated. I do that whenever I see a misunderstanding of science; I care about public science education, especially on topics important enough as psychiatric conditions that are often fatal without treatment. If you feel like this is a pointless fight, sorry. I only commented because I understood your comment to mean something that, no matter my read of your wording, you clearly say you weren’t meaning.
Go reread the person I responded to before you entered the conversation. They said their depression was caused by an external factor. That is who I replied to, and the reply you’ve been desperate to strawman ever since.
That first bit is totally untrue. Do you think our grief is not chemical? That we can’t have neural rewiring occur following the loss of a loved one? Don’t dichotomize experience and neurochemistry. They’re two sides of the same coin.
This is some ableist shit right here. Some of us have real debilitating disabilities. It’s like saying a broken leg is the same thing as being permanently in a wheelchair.
MDD is a real disability. It can and often is precipitated by environmental triggers, and episodes can resolve once the environment is changed. Just because someone experiences remission in such a case doesn’t mean they don’t have a disorder that should be treated prior to another episode. Dichotomizing chemical and psychological/environmental is harmful.
Don’t reframe my statement addressing someone’s specific situation into a blanket comment. That person said their depression had a reason (that could be addressed, and once addressed, the depression was resolved.)
Speaking to that instance, it probably wasn’t chemical, because if it was, it wouldn’t have resolved with action taken independent of chemical treatment, but only with a combination.
I am not the person to try and strawman about depression.
And how do you think addressing stressors works? Some non-chemical means?
This is precisely the pedantic reply I expected.
Laymen differentiate between addressing things in their environment that cause increases in things like norepinephrine by the cause, environmentally, and not by the resulting chemical release in the brain.
Referring to both chemical treatment, such as taking medication, and environmental treatment, such as quitting a job that causes you stress (or depression, as in the conversation above) as “chemical” is the kind of nitpicky BS that would only further obfuscate the discussion, serving absolutely zero purpose unless you were the type to want to start a fight over nothing.
You may as well refer to everything the brain ever experiences as “chemical.” It’s would be the most literal interpretation, and would serve zero purpose as a method of communication. Much like your conversation with me.
My point is that such a lay interpretation isn’t helpful, and it may be harmful. Plenty of people with MDD have an environmental trigger prior to their first episode, and have their episode remit after that precipitating factor is managed. Convincing someone that their experience isn’t chemical suggests against treatment seeking during remission, such as seeking therapy, which could help prevent another episode (and one that may not have an environmental trigger). A depressive episode can be fatal. Telling someone that because their prior episode remitted spontaneously or after the environmental trigger changed might prevent them from getting the proactive and preventative treatment that they need to keep them from experiencing another episode and thus keep them alive. Don’t gatekeep depression.
At what point did I gatekeep depression by agreeing with someone else about their diagnosis?
You’re being a little ridiculous right now.
For the second time, stop trying to turn my reply to someone else into a blanket statement. I understand picking needless fights with strangers on the internet qualifies as dopamine seeking behavior. Maybe you should be looking inward.
When have we been talking about anyone’s diagnosis? We’ve been talking about the common misperception that depressive episodes caused by environmental triggers are not a result of treatable neurochemical dysfunction. MDD can certainly be a result of environmental triggers, and there are a wide variety of neurochemical bases of it. I distinctly said in my first comment that I was referencing a small part of your reply.
I’m a neuroscience professor at an R1 university. I’m not trying to have a needless fight, I’m trying to correct a common public misperception that you reiterated. I do that whenever I see a misunderstanding of science; I care about public science education, especially on topics important enough as psychiatric conditions that are often fatal without treatment. If you feel like this is a pointless fight, sorry. I only commented because I understood your comment to mean something that, no matter my read of your wording, you clearly say you weren’t meaning.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13163168
Go reread the person I responded to before you entered the conversation. They said their depression was caused by an external factor. That is who I replied to, and the reply you’ve been desperate to strawman ever since.