![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 14:29:34
Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
Any others floating out there?
Posted by juniper on May 28, 2000, at 16:50:45
In reply to Useless words, posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 14:29:34
i agree, the clinical definitions have meshed with the everyday to create something stigmad and subdued. it is not easy to say to people that you are depressed, and it is even harder to explain what this means apart from the colloquial definition.
how do you distinguish words from the ordinary while still integrating mental illness as a biological and treatable condition (without shame and stigma)?juniper
> Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
>
> Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
>
> Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
>
> Any others floating out there?
Posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:22:39
In reply to Re: Useless words, posted by juniper on May 28, 2000, at 16:50:45
I suspect many regulars on the board can anticipate the following perspective as soon as they see boBB spelled backwards, but biological and treatable are somewhat useless terms too. DuPont said "Without chemicals life itself would be impossible." The biologial and treatable poems recited in modern clinics serve to divert attention from sociocultural factors that contribute to these widespread "diseases." A society able to double atmospheric carbon dioxide levels then deny either culbability or adverse effect seems just as likely to deny the disruptive influences of overgrown ambition, and the corrisive effect on human relatioships of high-speed transportation and mass communication.
Were slaves depressed? Concentration camp jews depressed? Residents of the Soviet gulag? Would medications sufficiently "treat" their depression?
It amazes me how many of us are articulate at the neurochemistry and neurobiology associated with medication and mental pathology, but how few can articulate basic human needs in neurochemical and neurobiological terms. Has anyone here read any of the late 1990's text about the social and psychological impact of worldwide convergance of industrial capitalism?
> i agree, the clinical definitions have meshed with the everyday to create something stigmad and subdued. it is not easy to say to people that you are depressed, and it is even harder to explain what this means apart from the colloquial definition.
> how do you distinguish words from the ordinary while still integrating mental illness as a biological and treatable condition (without shame and stigma)?
>
> juniper
>
> > Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
> >
> > Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
> >
> > Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
> >
> > Any others floating out there?
Posted by johnturner77 on May 28, 2000, at 20:25:47
In reply to Re: Useless things, posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:22:39
> Were slaves depressed? Concentration camp jews depressed? Residents of the Soviet gulag?
And if they remained cheerfully optimistic were they in denial or even delusional? Would slavery have survived if the owners had better psychotropics?
Posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 20:33:17
In reply to Re: Useless things, posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:22:39
>boBB,
Allow me to paint with a wide brush. The first thing I thought of after reading your post was e.e. cummings:
pity this busy monster,manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim(death and life safely beyond)plays with the bigness of his littleness
--electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange;lenses extendunwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on itself.
A world of made
is not a world of born--pity poor fleshand trees,poor stars and stones,but never this
fine specimen of hypermagicalultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if--listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's goAdvances in technology are comfortable diversions, I sometimes think. But there's more to it than that. I also think of that well-worn quantum physics phrase--you can't observe without affecting that which is observed, or something like that. We are complex, sensitive, thinking animals. Our interrelationship with the world is dynamic. We change the world and it changes us. We're not constants in a changing world. We are part of our own experiments.
I think that at least the detrimental effects to the individual by industrialization are pretty well documented. Noxious fumes from chemical plants, industrial and nuclear waste -- all these have caused great physical damage. Why not depression, anxiety, etc? If science has revealed the mechanics of the human body, it has yet to tap into the infinite complexity of the brain and the mind. Nobody knows why most antidepressents relieve pain in X percent of patients, only that they do. Occasionally. So why should we assume that environmental factors (or rather, unnatural factors of modern civilizaton)have no effect on us psychologically?
And what about the other, "imperceptable" effects of modern life. Can we be so bold as to assume our ability to assimilate to technology? Modern transportation, you noted. I've often wondered if dogs stick their heads out of the windows of moving cars to make the experience more like running, and hence more acceptable. Can we adapt to this speed so easily? How about the effects of television--and not just violence or sex, or any of that stuff people occasionally get so excersized about? I'm talking about the simple flashing of images, of information coming fast and furious, to be sorted, stored, assimilated, understood by our brains? I think that this is a very valid factor for our anxieties, our depressions.
I mistrust any psychological school of thought that favors 'the bigness of our littleness' over the world to account for psychological ills. Sure, a dearth of seratonin in neuronal synaptic gaps can be a feature of depression, buy why? What might be other causes? Such a view, is in my opinion, myopic. And sometimes it can feel pretty damned claustrophobic.
There is a lot of intelligent people contributing to this board. People who know much more about brain physiology than I do. But, sometimes I am struck by a cerebral stillness--this feeling of paralysis that is expressed by fervent concerns about drug dosages, hereditary factors, brain areas that show decreased or increased activity in this or that illness. (By the way, I don't exclude myself) Indeed, as somebody else here pointed out to me, it is somewhat comforting to find a physical basis for psychological symptoms. But what about technology, what about an aura of pain in the world brought on by this technology, industrialization, modern civilization, impersonal violence, staggering poverty?
Perhaps we're a bit more like the monkey in the experiment than we'd care to admit.
I suspect many regulars on the board can anticipate the following perspective as soon as they see boBB spelled backwards, but biological and treatable are somewhat useless terms too. DuPont said "Without chemicals life itself would be impossible." The biologial and treatable poems recited in modern clinics serve to divert attention from sociocultural factors that contribute to these widespread "diseases." A society able to double atmospheric carbon dioxide levels then deny either culbability or adverse effect seems just as likely to deny the disruptive influences of overgrown ambition, and the corrisive effect on human relatioships of high-speed transportation and mass communication.
>
> Were slaves depressed? Concentration camp jews depressed? Residents of the Soviet gulag? Would medications sufficiently "treat" their depression?
>
> It amazes me how many of us are articulate at the neurochemistry and neurobiology associated with medication and mental pathology, but how few can articulate basic human needs in neurochemical and neurobiological terms. Has anyone here read any of the late 1990's text about the social and psychological impact of worldwide convergance of industrial capitalism?
>
> > i agree, the clinical definitions have meshed with the everyday to create something stigmad and subdued. it is not easy to say to people that you are depressed, and it is even harder to explain what this means apart from the colloquial definition.
> > how do you distinguish words from the ordinary while still integrating mental illness as a biological and treatable condition (without shame and stigma)?
> >
> > juniper
> >
> > > Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
> > >
> > > Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
> > >
> > > Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
> > >
> > > Any others floating out there?
Posted by shar on May 28, 2000, at 20:46:17
In reply to Re: Useless things, posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:22:39
"Better living through chemistry."
What a time that was, people going along and creating more and more chemicals thinking they were helping solve "problems." Other people being grateful to have solutions to what they considered "problems." Then in the sixties, came "Silent Spring" but nobody listened. People --including the innocents -- are now living with what has been wrought, and that seems pretty just, that people live in the sewer they created, it is analogous to natural selection.
Some people have an interest in making things better, turning things around, but they can't turn back time, or the clock, or go home again, and they are stopped in the first place by the military-industrial complex. The earth is in wheels within wheels within wheels of poison, and people want to use more chemicals to solve the problems created by chemicals in the first place. People are full of poison, and who will consider what this has done to biology in the world village and culture? Has anyone even thought about it?
> I suspect many regulars on the board can anticipate the following perspective as soon as they see boBB spelled backwards, but biological and treatable are somewhat useless terms too. DuPont said "Without chemicals life itself would be impossible." The biologial and treatable poems recited in modern clinics serve to divert attention from sociocultural factors that contribute to these widespread "diseases." A society able to double atmospheric carbon dioxide levels then deny either culbability or adverse effect seems just as likely to deny the disruptive influences of overgrown ambition, and the corrisive effect on human relatioships of high-speed transportation and mass communication.
>
> Were slaves depressed? Concentration camp jews depressed? Residents of the Soviet gulag? Would medications sufficiently "treat" their depression?
>
> It amazes me how many of us are articulate at the neurochemistry and neurobiology associated with medication and mental pathology, but how few can articulate basic human needs in neurochemical and neurobiological terms. Has anyone here read any of the late 1990's text about the social and psychological impact of worldwide convergance of industrial capitalism?
>
> > i agree, the clinical definitions have meshed with the everyday to create something stigmad and subdued. it is not easy to say to people that you are depressed, and it is even harder to explain what this means apart from the colloquial definition.
> > how do you distinguish words from the ordinary while still integrating mental illness as a biological and treatable condition (without shame and stigma)?
> >
> > juniper
> >
> > > Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
> > >
> > > Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
> > >
> > > Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
> > >
> > > Any others floating out there?
Posted by Cam W. on May 28, 2000, at 22:01:18
In reply to Useless words, posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 14:29:34
> Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
>
> Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
>
> Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
>
> Any others floating out there?Isn't language just an objective way to communicate subjective (abstract) "feelings"? As one more precisely tries to describe an emotion, it seems that fewer people understanding the definition. Is this expertise? Being so different in each of us (due to slightly different physiologies?) can feeling and emotion really be communicated precisely from one being to another; or do we have to stick with approximations (anxiety, depression, mania, etc.)? People may collectively feel through poetry, but the (objective) feeling elicited by poetry is still felt differently (subjectively) by the reader. - Cam
Posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 22:46:15
In reply to Re: Useless words, posted by Cam W. on May 28, 2000, at 22:01:18
> > Depression: Wimpy, misleading word. It gives the impression that someone with depression simply has the blues. What did Styron in "Darkness Visible" suggest instead? Was it "Mental Storm?"
> >
> > Anxiety: Same thing. Too tied up in everyday language.
> >
> > Crazy: Ridiculous word, used as frequently, randomly and unhealthily as table salt.
> >
> > Any others floating out there?
>
> Isn't language just an objective way to communicate subjective (abstract) "feelings"? As one more precisely tries to describe an emotion, it seems that fewer people understanding the definition. Is this expertise? Being so different in each of us (due to slightly different physiologies?) can feeling and emotion really be communicated precisely from one being to another; or do we have to stick with approximations (anxiety, depression, mania, etc.)? People may collectively feel through poetry, but the (objective) feeling elicited by poetry is still felt differently (subjectively) by the reader. - CamRight. And using associations between temporary emotional states and true mental illness neglects, for example, a qualitative difference between chronic depression and the Sunday blues.
What if all illnesses were based on the various subjective feelings of the afflicted. I would imagine that accurate diagnosis and treatment would be impossible.
Posted by juniper on May 29, 2000, at 3:23:36
In reply to Re: Useless words, posted by Cam W. on May 28, 2000, at 22:01:18
a few more useless words as i procrastinate, of all things, sleep:
i think that the evils of progression have less to do with environmental factors (poisons?) affecting our brains and bodies, than with progression affecting and confusing our minds. i imagine that it has always been somewhat difficult to grow up confident enough in one's abilities to disregard others' opinions and shoulds and to follow one's dreams. (and since i know little of other generations, i am making a leap to say that it is harder now) (but in the late 1700s a rabbi mourned--wide spread atheism and immortality in the world today, and in the 1500s St. Teresa wrote to her brother--there is so much worldliness nowadays that i simply hate having posessions)
but now it seems, at least in the united states, that there is a new breed of cookie cutter followers who walk around with their identical suits, cell phones, and palm pilots. if it is, and rightly so, difficult to capture an individual and subjective feeling
succinctly in words (because, i am assuming, people and their feelings differ widely), how is it that we have masses of people who spend their days exactly like thousands of others? it seems to me that variety is molded to serve a purpose most useful to the few extreme upper class, but the molding is barely perceptable because it is hardly different from society. blurs on TV, cell phones, call waiting, lap tops, palm pilots, beepers are all perfectly fine in their own right, but i think that too many people rely on them as not to miss a bit of information then to prioritize their time that is dwindling because now they need to DEAL with all this new information. our lives are creating problems and solutions to problems. we are changing technology faster than we can change ourselves.
maybe this is leading to increases in depression, maybe not. my depression felt too viseral to be explained away like this---a chemical explanation gave me validation that what i was feeling was not attributable to weakness or laziness. but since i do not live in a vaccuum, my surroundings will always influence and affect my moods, thoughts, ideas, feelings (and hence my hormones, neurotransmitters etc.)--isn't it more comforting though to think about changing tiny particles that have been manipulated in labs than to take on the predominant culture?
Posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 12:21:55
In reply to Re: Useless things, posted by boBB on May 28, 2000, at 18:22:39
> ... DuPont said "Without chemicals life itself would be impossible."
Which only proves he was more a business man than a scientist. That statement can only be deemed profound if one ignores that fact that all matter has chemical properties, whether living or not.
> The biologial and treatable poems recited in modern clinics serve to divert attention from sociocultural factors that contribute to these widespread "diseases."
But are you putting the cart before the horse? Sociocultural institutions and artifacts are essentially biological -- Without biology, sociocultural factors would be impossible.
Perhaps the people most in need of ECT or frontal lobotomies, or thorazine or just paxil (aCk!) are our Captains of Industry. What would be the sociocultural impact of successfully treating Bill Gates and Donald Trump -- just those two men -- for their obvious megalomania?
Now, as for useless words/things, here's one for conversation:
Hope.
Cheers,
bob
Posted by andrew on May 29, 2000, at 17:30:26
In reply to what shall we do with all this useless beauty?, posted by juniper on May 29, 2000, at 3:23:36
>>>>>--isn't it more comforting though to think about changing tiny particles that have been manipulated in labs than to take on the predominant culture?
Maybe for you it is. I get a little edgy if people try to take away the comfort I find dealing with the dominant culture. Others get to define culture, why shouldn't I? My tiny particles will soon die, but the culture will continue to effect the tiny particles of my childrens childrens children.
Working on particle patterns defined in laboraties is cool, too, if that makes you comfy. When lab rats start to define how I should find comfort, that is when I call my Earth First! friends.
Posted by Noa on May 30, 2000, at 14:35:38
In reply to Useless words, posted by brian on May 28, 2000, at 14:29:34
Styron called in a "BrainStorm", a term I like a lot, as long as you can get past the commonly used meaning.
Finding the language to describe my inner experiences has been challenging, frustrating, because it is hard to truly convey the experience of despair, fright, suffering. I often feel quite clumsy in the attempt.
Posted by CarolAnn on May 31, 2000, at 8:56:02
In reply to Re: Useless words, posted by Noa on May 30, 2000, at 14:35:38
>
>> Finding the language to describe my inner experiences has been challenging, frustrating, because it is hard to truly convey the experience of despair, fright, suffering. I often feel quite clumsy in the attempt.>>
O yeah, Noa. And just try to explain it all to people who cannot get past the question(and their theories) of *why* these feelings are happening to me! They simply cannot comprehend the idea that depression can just 'happen', and does not necessarily need a "reason". CarolAnn
Posted by brian on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:56
In reply to Re: Useless words, useless confidants..., posted by CarolAnn on May 31, 2000, at 8:56:02
> >
> >> Finding the language to describe my inner experiences has been challenging, frustrating, because it is hard to truly convey the experience of despair, fright, suffering. I often feel quite clumsy in the attempt.>>
>
>
> O yeah, Noa. And just try to explain it all to people who cannot get past the question(and their theories) of *why* these feelings are happening to me! They simply cannot comprehend the idea that depression can just 'happen', and does not necessarily need a "reason". CarolAnnI'm glad that there are people here trying to understand why they are depressed. I think that it's normal and healthy to question thought processes that might lead to depression, or aggravate an existing condition. For my money, these people make thoughtful confidants.
bob and ginny make a great point-counterpoint team. Sure, their conclusions are different, but how enriching it is to read the reasoning behind their beliefs! If this place simply accepted a psychopharmological viewpoint, I'd suggest that Dr. Bob change the site to Drug-Babble, and I'd say that as my parting shot!
Posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:09:10
In reply to Re: Useless words, useless confidants..., posted by brian on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:56
CA, sometimes that frustrates me, too--the automatic "why" if I am depressed. Thing is, sometimes, there is a trigger, but often there is no discernible trigger, other than what is going on physiologically. It is hard, but I can understand that these people are just trying to be helpful. When I can manage it, I try to educate them about what it is like to have "reason-less" depression.
Posted by Janice on May 31, 2000, at 17:08:11
In reply to Re: Useless words, useless confidants..., posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:09:10
Carol Ann and Noa
My experience has been that it seems impossible for folks who have always been mentally healthy to understand mental illnesses.
They want to, they think they can, they try to…but they can't. At best, I think they can be sincere and educated about mental illness, but I never expect them to really understand.
hope I've made some sense, Janice
Posted by CarolAnn on June 1, 2000, at 8:22:36
In reply to Re: Useless words, useless confidants..., posted by brian on May 31, 2000, at 9:49:56
>> I'm glad that there are people here trying to understand why they are depressed. I think that it's normal and healthy to question thought processes that might lead to depression, or aggravate an existing condition. For my money, these people make thoughtful confidants.>>
>Brian, I'm sorry my statement was a little misleading regarding the "why" people. I wasn't refering to patients who are trying to figure out their depression, or those who are genuinely trying to be helpful. I was refering to people in our lives who invalidate our illness, by insisting (even after I tell them that 2 yrs of therapy resolved my 'issues') that I can't really be depressed if there is no reason. You know, the type who when you say, "I suffer from depression", reply things like, "What have you got to be depressed about?". Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm like that in person too, a stream of babble, in search of a point! Smiles, CarolAnn
Posted by brian on June 1, 2000, at 9:49:02
In reply to Re: Useless words, useless confidants... » brian, posted by CarolAnn on June 1, 2000, at 8:22:36
>
> >> I'm glad that there are people here trying to understand why they are depressed. I think that it's normal and healthy to question thought processes that might lead to depression, or aggravate an existing condition. For my money, these people make thoughtful confidants.>>
> >
>
> Brian, I'm sorry my statement was a little misleading regarding the "why" people. I wasn't refering to patients who are trying to figure out their depression, or those who are genuinely trying to be helpful. I was refering to people in our lives who invalidate our illness, by insisting (even after I tell them that 2 yrs of therapy resolved my 'issues') that I can't really be depressed if there is no reason. You know, the type who when you say, "I suffer from depression", reply things like, "What have you got to be depressed about?". Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm like that in person too, a stream of babble, in search of a point! Smiles, CarolAnnCarolAnn,
I got your meaning - after I responded, of course. I read it again, thinking, "oh, maybe she meant it this way." Well, here's to careful reading.
When I was younger (about 12-13 years ago), a friend, Paul, developed a set of disorders. I'm not sure what he had, because I was never really close enough to him that he would let me in on specifics. But, looking back, I'd say that a fundamental component was OCD. This kid went from being an athletic, scrappy kid with a black belt in Karate to a pale and quiet guy. He lost well over 60 pounds, he wouldn't eat in public, and in fact even the smell of food could be too intense for him. Anyway, I was a pretty thoughtful kid. I used to listen non-judgmentally when Paul would talk to me and a friend about some of what he was going through. One of his big frustrations was that he had a bunch of other friends who simply wouldn't accept what was happening to him. They had all sorts of "cures" for him; everything from "snap out of it" to other "pull your self out of it" kinds of advice.
Another friend and I really listened to Paul. We didn't -- because we couldn't -- offer any "cures." I was 19 and healthy, I knew nothing about neurochemicals. I wasn't a dumb kid; I just didn't need to know about this stuff. But one thing Paul said to us, really stuck with me. He said: "I wish I could give people what I have just for one day. It's the only way they could understand what I'm going through."
About four years later I started getting panic attacks, anxiety and serious episodes of depression. Believe me, I've thought about what my friend said quite a bit. Then, I couldn't understand his distress because I had no point of reference. When I heard "anxiety" or "depression" I related them to the layman's definitions. Well, isn't everbody depressed sometimes? Don't we all get anxious? I tried not to judge my friend, but others certainly did. Many gave the impression that they regarded his inability to handle depression and anxiety as a character flaw. That he was weaker.
What a terrible addition to all of his symptoms: the disease of being misunderstood, of being dismissed. Having since gone through some of what Paul suffered, I have experienced the frustration that comes from being misunderstood. When someone gets cancer, people say, "oh, how terrible." When someone has some form of mental illness, people say, "well, what's wrong with him?" -- they offer advice, and even leave out of frustration.
That's one of the reasons I started this thread. I think people devalue mental illness because it is subjective and relatively intangible. But I also wonder if the language itself throws people off. "depression," "anxiety," "panic," "obsession," these are all terms borrowed from everyday language. Everybody experiences shades of these various symptoms. So, what makes us so different?
Paul killed himself one day about 12 years ago. I hope that he knew that at least two people gave him enough respect to try to understand his illness.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.