/sci/ - Science & Math

>Psychiatry is Pseudoscience
Literally no one on this board has ever claimed differently.

>>11370708
psychology, psychiatry, sociology

>>11370674

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRj9CxkVrz0

https://archive.is/aCwbz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMi_s8hYRSg

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-wMP2Q0Ifs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3JQ8OVHVWA

https://ssristories.org/ssris/

https://ssristories.org/category/cause-of-death/suicide/

https://breggin.com/medication-madness-how-psychiatric-drugs-cause-violence-suicide-and-crime/

https://breggin.com/the-hazards-of-psychiatric-diagnosis/

About SSRI drugs 01: https://files.catbox.moe/kpb2n2.mp3

About SSRI drugs 02: https://files.catbox.moe/8m8pbk.mp3

About SSRI drugs 03: https://files.catbox.moe/vdmjym.mp3

About SSRI drugs 04: https://files.catbox.moe/ddto2f.mp3

About SSRI drugs 05: https://files.catbox.moe/kak1pq.mp3

About SSRI drugs 06: https://files.catbox.moe/c42tmy.mp3

About SSRI drugs 07: https://files.catbox.moe/ma0v43.mp3

About SSRI drugs 08: https://files.catbox.moe/nm4ifq.mp3

About SSRI drugs 09: https://files.catbox.moe/u8zobq.mp3

About SSRI drugs 10: https://files.catbox.moe/14ldse.mp3

About SSRI drugs 11: https://files.catbox.moe/hgnzor.mp3

> Creating Your Own Mental Disorder

> First, let’s choose some common human experience that most people find unpleasant. How about boredom? Most people experience boredom as...

> unpleasant

> So — let’s get started and substitute the word “pathological” for /unpleasant/

> Doesn’t that simple switch start to give it that ‘disease feel’ already? Pathological boredom!

> The next step is to name our disease. How about “interest deficit disorder” or “motivation deficit disorder”? Better yet, let’s find a medical-sounding word from Latin to substitute for boredom. How about “Dysmoveria”? /Movere/ is Latin for motivation. By naming our disease, we are practically all the way to creating it. When you open a door to a new mental disorder millions of people will rush headlong right in and embrace it, as if they’d been waiting their whole life for just this opportunity. Suddenly they aren’t sad or anxious or bored—they’re afflicted with something.

> We have our disease named: dysmoveria. It sounds a little strange now but it won’t when tens of millions of people start using it and chatting about their disorder. “I’m taking Moveritol for my dysmoveria and it’s working wonders!”

> Next we need a symptom picture. What does it look like and feel like when you’re bored? Well, a bored person would probably experience some or all of the following:

> 1. A lack of interest in usual pursuits
> 2. Apathy about life
> 3. A pessimistic attitude
> 4. Feelings of “emotional instability”
> 5. Difficulty concentrating on ordinary tasks
> 6. A lack of energy
> 7. Chronic fatigue
> 8. Sleeping too much or too little
> 9. Feelings of boredom

>>11370780

> How many of these must be present in order for us to “diagnose the mental disorder” of dysmoveria? Since obviously we want more rather than fewer people to fit the diagnostic criteria so that we can create plenty of patients and plenty of drug buyers for Moveritol, let’s make sure that only a few symptoms are needed in order to qualify—let’s say, five. Let’s continue pulling numbers out of thin air and say that these five symptoms must have been present for at least two weeks. Five symptoms, two weeks—sounds good.

> Let’s also make this negotiable. If only four symptoms are present and if they’ve only been present for twelve days, we’re not going to quibble. Heck, if the “primary” symptom is present—feelings of boredom—that’s really enough! We’ll call that looseness “professional discretion.”

> Officially you will need to display five symptoms and have displayed them for two weeks. We offer no rationale for these numbers, as no rationale is needed when creating a new mental disorder. Nor could any rationale conceivably be provided. Unofficially, all you need to do is announce that you’re bored—that’s all we really need to hear!

> Next, if we were doing this “for real,” we would gather a panel of clinicians—some psychiatrists, psychologists, family therapists, and clinical social workers—and we’d ask them, “Do your clients or patients ever report this symptom picture?” “Yes!” they’d cry in unison. “We see this all time!” “Great!” we’d reply. “We have ourselves a genuine disorder!”

>>11370783

> Next we’d work on “differential diagnosis criteria,” that is, on distinguishing dysmoveria from, say, clinical depression, which it quite resembles in its symptom picture. How would we know which was which? Naturally enough, we would know according to the self-reports of patients. The primary differential diagnostic criterion would be that if you reported feeling sad we’d go with depression and if you reported feeling bored we’d go with dysmoveria. Simple enough!

> Next, how shall we treat dysmoveria? Well, with some “combination” of treatments—this allows everyone with a clinical practice to have patients. Whatever your license says you are allowed to do, we will say “works.” Those clinicians like psychologists, family therapists and clinical social workers who can’t prescribe medication will be permitted to “talk it away.” Those clinicians like psychiatrists who can prescribe medication will be permitted to prescribe. We need not provide any rationale as to why a mental disorder should be treatable just by talking about it. Talking is a completely customary way to treat mental disorders and needs no rationale.

> Of course we’d get drug researchers right on it to create a drug that can reduce or eliminate the symptoms of dysmoveria. This is much simpler than it sounds, since there is no actual underlying disease to be treated. If you had a malignant tumor, you’d need to treat the tumor and not just the symptoms of its presence. Here we are just treating symptoms, since there is nothing present “underneath” except boredom. So our drug research can be up and running instantly, since our goal is the relatively simple one of eliminating or masking certain symptoms.

>>11370741
Oh, you mean the softest of the sciences? Yea, I think the jury is still out on whether or not they should even be considered sciences.

>>11370786

> An additional option, if we happen to have a few neuroscientists among our friends, would be to have them do a little brain scanning. You know what? They would discover that a brain looks different according to whether you do or don’t have dysmoveria! Wow. When you’re bored fewer parts of your brain light up than when you’re excited. This kind of observation thrills people and sounds very scientific. It is completely meaningless in and of itself—of course your brain will light up in different ways depending on whether you’re watching the shopping channel or doing calculus—but people take it to mean something. This is muddy cause-and-effect in action. So it’s quite a useful add-on!

> Naturally it helps in this process of creating mental disorders to be in a position of authority. Being a psychiatrist or having some association with a drug company wouldn’t hurt. But, really, anyone can pull off the feat. Just write a book that makes the case for your new mental disorder, hire a publicist, and let’s see how long it takes before patients line up! Wouldn’t millions of people suddenly discover that they were suffering from “email distraction disorder” or “post-retirement dysthmia” as soon as they heard about it? You bet they would!

>>11370789

> Any unwanted human experience can be turned into a mental disorder by following the simple steps I’ve just outlined. Try it yourself with envy (invidia), rage (furorism), loneliness (infrequentia), or doubt (dubitarism). You can turn any normal human experience into a mental disorder following these steps. Sleeping more than usual? Going through the motions? Not interested in what’s going on around you? Apathetic? Bored? That exactly describes a teenager on a two-week summer vacation with her parents! But now we have a better name for it: dysmoveria. Isn’t it nice that soon there will be a drug to give your daughter so that she will be more pleasant and pliable when she accompanies you on your annual vacation to Nebraska?

> I think you can see the basic ruse. What is the phrase “mental disorder” supposed to connote? As it is currently used, it means precisely the following: anything not wanted. All you need to do is give the unwanted experience a medical-sounding name and describe its look and you’ve created a disorder. That look is called a “symptom picture” but that’s just a fancy phrase meant to sound more impressive than “look.” Give a human experience a fancy name and describe its look—that’s all that’s needed. The unwanted, troubling experience is surely real, but calling it a mental disorder is just a profitable naming game.

>>11370674
About Sigmund Freud & Education: https://share.dmca.gripe/F1j8ZslwmZ3PLid8.webm

>>11370741
the hardest science there are. facts only when you come through that door.

>>11370674

If psychiatry is pseudoscience how hooped I'm I as a schizophrenic, how much bullshit are my anti psychotics I take

Also I'm not a typical schizo poster ranting about crazy BS I usually just browse for EE stuff since I was doing a dumbed down version of that in college before I developed my disorder.

>>11370847
heavy socialization would probably be far more beneficial than the drugs you take

>>11370863
How will I deal with the psychosis then?

>>11371266
OP went full Szasz when he could have quoted what Allen Francis said about DSM-5.

>>11370674
>>11370708
>>11370741
>mistaking psychology, the actual pseudoscience, with psychiatry, a branch of medicine

>>11371266
by valuing peaceful co-existence and polite common courtesy moar than whatever the fuck your faggoty mind is trying to conjure up

>>11371468
>If we add powerful psychiatric drugs we don't fully understand to the equation that legitimizes it!!!
Uhh, no, sorry retard, that's not how it works.

>>11372219
psychology is shit as it only proposes theories.
neurology has it far better as it has direct feedback and is more reliable.

>>11370674
While you are right OP that antidepressants are bullshit depression is indeed not.

It is well documented how certain cases of genes and external events provokes depression.

However as society is changing these events (such as loneliness and alienation) increases and depression therefore increases.

I always hated the kind of argument that denies illness based on nosology. Ofcourse the same kind of illness that exists today existed before in time because we have the same brain. However the societal context has changed dramatically and therefore the conditions to which it arises.

And the faggots that call soft sciences pseudoscience what cunts you are. Just because the object of investigation - the human mind - is harder to quantify than electrons in a piece of metal it still is investigated through specific methodology in research.

Psychology isn't a pseudoscience it's a more complicated and harder science than say chemistry and physics.

Astrophysics... Now that's a real pseudoscience.

>>11372219
Who are you quoting, newfag?

>>11370674
While I despise psychiatry for some things, I don't think at all that antidepressants are purely a placebo, and I say this from having taken them myself.

It's definitely certain that doctors don't exactly know how SSRIs work. They don't know how the make someone happier.

But from my experience of taking SSRIs, as well as my experience of taking many other psychoactive drugs (mostly illegal ones), I know what it's like to feel high. Of course all drugs have a different sort of high / psychoactive effect. The psychoactive effect of alcohol is very different to nicotine. But you can still feel the distinct pyschoactive effect.

SSRIs absolutely had a distinct psychoactive effect for me. So I do not at all believe they're just placebos.

I also think SSRIs fucking suck, and ideally it's better to not take them, but if you want to, that's your choice.

>>11370674
Psychiatry does not create or study meaningful models of natural phenomena it is divorced from the precision of a science like physiology, the abundance of empirical evidence of a science like geology and the predictive power of genetics. Comparing it to chemistry, which it borrows only the grossest technical terminology and engineering principles from, or to physics, which it has no relation with whatsoever methodologically or spiritually, it is not even really a pseudoscience, much closer to folk magic.

>>11372555
>It is well documented how certain cases of genes and external events provokes depression.
I'm not OP but I don't think that's true. There have been twin studies, and on the basis of these, scientists think that 38% of your risk of depression is genetic. But we have NO IDEA what those genes are, or what they do specifically. They could be genes that make you ugly, which would make you more likely to be unhappy in life, compared to someone who is attractive. Or they could be genes that give you other health conditions, which might also take an emotional toll upon you.

>denies illness
"Illness" is such a vaguely defined term that it's only right and proper to question what should deserve that label. Some people refer to "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as an illness (it's used to describe liberals getting angry about Trump). Some people refer to crime as an illness or disease of society.

>>11370674
All these descriptive methods of brain healing are the worst kind of charlatanism under the cover of "mind science".

Only brain biochemistry is real important in healing of brain.And when it comes to brain disorders, it is enough to adjust the level of several things to restore the state of order instead of telling patients some pseudo-motivated nonsense. Biochemistry has better answers than pseudo-motivated nonsense of psychology and psychiatry who are only able to encourage to take SSRI which are depriving of feelings and real motivation by lowering dopamine and norepinephrine level. Serotonin = feeling of happiness, endorphin = reward, norepinephrine = stress, dopamine = motivation and main reason for the anhedonia is too high acetylcholine level.

>>11372588
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HTTLPR

Theres a short (S) version and a long (L) version of this allele. If you have the (S,S) gene you're more likely to develop stress and depression from mildly stress inducing events than if you're a (S,L) and (L,L). It's well documented.

>>11372627
"Hard sciences cannot be argued with reasonably"

He said adding a argument reasonably "they are as close to facts as we can get"

>>11370674
depressed people aren't ill. they simply are not as delusional as the non depressed, and see the world and their place in it for what it actually is

>>11372646
>The 5-HTTLPR, or serotonin transporter promoter gene's short allele has been associated with increased risk of depression. However, since the 1990s, results have been inconsistent, with three recent reviews finding an effect and two finding none.[47][54][55][56][57]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder#Genetics

I really don't know anything about this gene, I haven't read those papers, I'm just noting what Wikipedia says about this.

>>11372574
His corporate American overlords.

>>11372666
whilst doing fuckall about it except being depressed and waiting for a miracle, when their supposed enlightened state of mind should already dictate taking action to get rid of the ailment

>>11372666

>>11372570
If you can't accurately quantify something, you cannot reliablt know anything about it other than its basic form. You can't compare it to anything else or transfer information between colleagues or generations because everything is subjective.

>more complicated and harder science than say chemistry and physics
I'd like some quantitative evidence of that.. see above. What the fuck does "complicated and harder" have to do with anything anyway? Any field can be as complicated as you make it, depending on how much you learn and whether you're doing research or learning previously-developed material.

>>11372666
This: >>11372992

If someone really saw the world for what it is, they'd realise that they need to get their arse into gear

>>11372581
Whilst I concur with everything you say and have experienced a similar effect,
>purely anecdotal evidence
>it's not a placebo because it works!!!
>reeeeee

>>11373088
>purely anecdotal evidence
Testimony can still be evidence, it often is in criminal trials. And I'm just saying from experience that SSRIs made me feel high. Non-SSRI antidepressants have also had a noticeable psychoactive effect for me. And you say you've noticed a psychoactive effective from SSRIs too.

>>11373093
Testimony is useless when testing for placebo effect - the whole point is that a patient could testify either positive or negative regardless of whether they've had a placebo or an active drug. There needs to be actual quantitative testing of the expected working mechanism of the drug. And a psychoactive effect may still be caused by a placebo.

>>11373100
>a psychoactive effect may still be caused by a placebo
All I can say is my experience and you can choose to believe it or not: I am very sure that SSRIs are not just placebos, based on the psychoactive effects I felt, and based on the fact that I have taken many other psychoactive drugs in the past (e.g. recreational ones), so I have experience feeling the different psychoactive effects of different drugs.

But also, if you want something more objective, there was a study that came out a couple years ago that said that antidepressants definitely are more effective than placebo. I'm not saying I can vouch for the study, because I can't. I haven't read it. I'm just saying that I read about it in the news. Who knows whether it's a good study, read for yourself if you want:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43143889

>>11373080
>just boot straps your way out of things
OK retard

>>11370674
>he got pleb filtered by the DSM
Obviously depression is a blanket term
There are enumerable neurological abnormalities that re-uptake inhibitors do help though
The problem is the cashgrabbing jews in the medical industry

>>11372555
This is OP. You have misunderstood the difference between diathesis (factors such as genetics that correlate to symptom prevalence) and diagnosis. The finding that certain genetic patterns correlate with depressive affect (a finding which is tenuous, I must add) does not mean that “depression” itself is a legitimate diagnosis. Suppose I defined “introversion” as a disease. Most people would call this pseudoscience. There are myriad reasons that a person could act introverted ranging from social anxiety to literal head trauma. Lumping all of these disparate situations together into a single diagnostic category is clearly ridiculous. Nevertheless, there likely are genes which correlate to the symptom of introversion.

The point I’m trying to get at is that depression is clearly a symptom, not a disease. There are thousands of things that could cause this symptom. To fabricate a single diagnosis to cover all of them is illegitimate nonsense. Sure some people have genes that correlate with depressive symptoms. What about the people the don’t. If you don’t have those genes, why are you being diagnosed with the same disease - and even given the same medications! - as those that do.

>>11370708
Yeah except the 1000 IQ threads posted every month here

>>11372646
See: >>11374284

>>11374291
iq threads are not /sci/
/sci/ is not iq threads

>>11373491
You can keep crying like a little bitch if you want, but it won't change reality.

>>11373518
>There are enumerable neurological abnormalities that re-uptake inhibitors do help though
Like what? Science does not fucking know this yet. We're only just looking at what genes might increase your risk of depression (genes are thought to contribute to 37% of your risk of depression, based on twin studies; the other 63% is thought to be invidual environmental experiences that you've had). But I don't think scientists have identified any genes with certainty yet. Some have been proposed, but the evidence is not unanimous:

>The 5-HTTLPR, or serotonin transporter promoter gene's short allele has been associated with increased risk of depression. However, since the 1990s, results have been inconsistent, with three recent reviews finding an effect and two finding none.[47][54][55][56][57]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder#Genetics

As it says, "results have been inconsistent".

And identifying the genes is only the first step. Then you need to identify the MECHANISM by which those genes are increasing someone's risk of depression. Or to put it in your terms, you'd have find specific "neurological abnormalities" that those genes are causing.

I do not think any specific "neurological abnormalities" have been found with certainty yet.

Also, when a person is diagnosed by their doctor with depression, does that person get diagnosed with a specific "neurological abnormality" through an objective test, like a CT scan or something? Most of the time, no. So the doctor and the patient just ASSUME "oh, maybe you've got some brain problem?" because, for some people, that is somehow more comforting than facing up to the reality that they're probably depressed because their life is shit.

I am not a believer in jumping to unfounded conclusions. I am a believer in evidence.

>>11374284
FUCKING THIS, thank FUCK there are other THINKING people on this planet who realise that "depression" is NOT a specific, identifiable, physical disorder of the human body, in the same way that something like "diabetes" is.

And the thing about the genes is that we have NO IDEA what the specific genes that increase someone's risk of depression ARE, nor do we know HOW (i.e., by what biological mechanism) they might increase someone's risk of depression.

All we know is that, from twin studies, it's thought that 37% of your risk of "major depressive disorder" / "major depression" (a clinical diagnosis in the DSM) might be genetic. The other 63% is thought to be from your environment. So even if you had the shittest genes, it looks like the majority of the cause of depression is still your environment (then again the 37% might just be an average, so for some people maybe their risk is 53% genetic, I don't know, but you don't know either, because nobody knows).

>>11372555
>It is well documented how certain cases of genes
No, scientists are only just looking at specific genes. Also, I think most scientists would say that even if you have specific genes, it's only going to increase your risk. It doesn't automatically make you depressed. It's still the events in your life that make you depressed. But some genes might increase your risk of reacting in a depressive way to those events, rather than some other way.

Here's how unsure we are about the genes:
>The 5-HTTLPR, or serotonin transporter promoter gene's short allele has been associated with increased risk of depression. However, since the 1990s, results have been inconsistent, with three recent reviews finding an effect and two finding none.[47][54][55][56][57]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder#Genetics

>>11372570
OP's post was about psychiatry, not psychology.

Also, why are you butthurt about astrophysics? It is absolutely not a pseudoscience. The physics of astronomical entities, like black holes and shit, is definitely not a pseudoscience.

Are you thinking of ASTROLOGY which is all the shit about the zodiac? E.g. "if you're a Taurus then you're going to have such and such personality"? Because yes, ASTROLOGY is a psuedoscience. But that isn't astrophysics, you fucking moron.

>>11371468
>only one of two similar things can be fake, the other has to be real
Nice fallacy faggot.

>>11375001
That's not necessarily his logic. We don't know what his logic is for calling psychology a pseudoscience, because he didn't provide any.

Given that he provided no reasoning for his claim, we can just dismiss it.

While I'm not a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens, given that he was a fat alcoholic, I think he was right when he said this:
>What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

>>11374626
The real problem of genes and depression is that people assume that we *should* lower the risk of depression, rather than look at what it tells us about our society.
There is a reason why people get depressed: millions of years of evolution has created extremely complex systems we don't understand at all. We fuck with those systems at our peril.
A society wherein no one can get depressed (through medications, genetic modification, eugenics, or whatever) would probably always eventually collapse.

>>11375828
Exactly, people get depressed because of their goddamn environment; events in the world making them unhappy.

Although I freely admit that twin studies have found that genes can affect your RISK of getting depressed, apparently. 37% of your risk of major depressive disorder is thought to be genetic; the other 63% from your environment. 37% is only just over a third though, so the majority of the risk, according to that research, should surely be from your environment.

Also we don't even know what those genes are, or what they do. They might be nothing to do with the brain. They might be genes that give you other health problems, or detrimental traits (I dunno, maybe poor eyesight, poor hearing, other health conditions that might contribute to you feeling unhappy and hopeless in life).

I think some of the genes ARE believed to relate to the brain, but we don't even know how yet.

So the evidence of brain problems causing depression is quite scant at the moment. With time it might become fuller, but at the moment, it's pretty scant.

>>11370674
>psychiatry isn't as exact a science as physics, since so many experiments in it would be unethical or illegal to undertake.
>therefore, every completely arbitrary and subjective piece of superstitious bunk that I or any other moron ideologue or vicious demagogue prefers, is exactly as valid.
>>11370708
Poltard, gas thyself.

>>11377037
Psychiatry is an absolutely fucking terrible field.

Why are they so fucking incompetent that they can't work out the cause of something like schizophrenia? Diabetes has known physical mechanisms doesn't it? Well then, with all our fucking supercomputers today, how fucking difficult can it be to find genetic mutations that bring about schizophrenia, and to understand exactly what mechanisms those genes cause?

Same with other mental conditions.

Instead it's just a big load of "WE DON'T KNOW". All they know is that genes are thought to contribute to your RISK of getting certain conditions, but those genes could be anything! They could be genes that make you short, make you ugly, whatever, and THOSE traits could make you unhappy, or more likely to snap and lose your mind due to the stresses of life.

Not only this, but the drugs in psychiatry are horrible, have terrible side effects, and IT'S NOT EVEN KNOWN HOW SOME OF THEM WORK.

When other sciences are using scalpels, all psychiatry has is blunt meat cleavers.

Not only this, but psychiatry can lock you up and drug you against your will, even if you committed no crime.

I am all in favour of proper brain research and understanding things like schizophrenia. Perhaps neurology is the better field for that, though.

>>11370674
>a nebulous emotional condition involving excessive sadness
>In one hundred years, no one will take "depression" seriously.
i've heard idiots saying that anyone feeling "sadness" needs a good beating because actual "depression" is solely a lack of motivation without sadness ayylmao

and when i say link me your source i get crickets and tantrums

>excessive sadness for no clear reason
it can be for literally no reason or a trauma

in the same fashion that you can't randomly start hearing voices without taking LSD. if your brain is properly wired you absolutely can't, but some people can

>>11377108
>i've heard idiots saying that anyone feeling "sadness" needs a good beating because actual "depression" is solely a lack of motivation without sadness ayylmao
Not a beating no. But anyway, my strong opinion is that depression is simply learned helplessness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

If people fight harder and think more positively then they can improve their lives. Or they can take a drug (antidepressants) if they wish. I hate the latter, but each to their own. There really is no correct answer about which method is better, it's personal opinion. I would personally argue the former solution is better, because the latter clouds your thinking and makes you a drugged up zombie without their full faculties (from my experience). But to each their own.

>it can be for literally no reason or a trauma
No mate. Nothing in our universe happens for no reason (apart from possibly the Big Bang but that's a unique case and a topic not worth going into). You can pretend to yourself all you like that something "just happens" with no cause, but your pretending won't make it true.

Everything has a cause. And if you're depressed, it's because your life is shit, or has made you unhappy in some way. Such problems include:
>Job problems (stress, someone putting too much on you, etc.)
>Relationship problems (unlucky in love, arguments with your spouse, etc.)
>Physical health problems (e.g. lack of exercise, lack of sunlight, or other physical health problems)
>Social problems (loneliness, ostracisation, etc.)
>Diet problems (poor diet)
And it could obviously be a combination of a few of these problems.

I will answer your bit about hearing voices in another post.

>>11377108
>in the same fashion that you can't randomly start hearing voices without taking LSD. if your brain is properly wired you absolutely can't, but some people can
It's not as simple as your brain being "wired", that's claptrap.

There are genes that are thought to contribute to your RISK of schizophrenia, but they don't automatically make you schizophrenic:
>Many people who appear to carry "schizophrenia genes" may not develop the disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia

It's true that schizophrenia is quite highly heritable (80% of your risk of schizophrenia is thought to be genetic). But still, as said, this doesn't automatically make you schizophrenic.

And then there are other major risk factors that bring about schizophrenia:
>Prenatal malnutrition (your mother didn't / couldn't eat well during pregnancy)
>Living in a city (maybe because it increases stress?)
>Having an older father
>Socioeconomic disadvantage
>Social exclusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia

So I guess it's a combination of having certain genes, and then suffering setbacks like poor nutrition, shitty life circumstances / significant psychological stresses, that kind of thing.

ALSO, just to point out, you were comparing schizophrenia and depression. But the heritability of "major depressive disorder" is estimated at only 37%, so that means 37% of your risk is thought to be genetic, with the other 63% resulting from your personal experiences. So with depression, the "wiring" of your brain is even less important. The main risk factors are the events in your life.

that "study" you posted is the opposite of scientific and apparently the person who wrote it has zero understanding of the principles of psychiatry.
refute this bro
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext

>>11377102
>Diabetes has known physical mechanisms doesn't it?
Only type 1 diabetes, which has a simple mechanism: the pancreas can't produce enough insulin. Type 2 diabetes is way more complicated, and we still don't know how it works.
Schizophrenia involves the brain, by far the most complex organ in the body.

>and IT'S NOT EVEN KNOWN HOW SOME OF THEM WORK.
It's even worse: we don't know how any of them work.

>>11377453
I assume you mean this in reply to the OP, but your study does not fully refute what his study says.

Your study does show that antidepressants are more effective than placebo, yes (this also is coherent with my personal experience; I have felt noticeable psychoactive effects from antidepressants).

HOWEVER. OP's study (at least the abstract he posted) specifically talks about serotonin. It claims that some antidepressants raise serotonin levels, some LOWER serotonin levels, and some have no effect on serotonin.

So I think OP's study is mainly concerned with dismissing the notion that depression is simply due to a lack of serotonin. It specifically mentions "the serotonin theory".

>>11377488
>Type 2 diabetes is way more complicated
It's still understood to some degree isn't it? I think I read the other day that it's something to do with cells not responding to insulin properly?

>It's even worse: we don't know how any of them work.
Ah right fair enough.

All this shit people on sci constantly saying this is pure , this is umpure
THis Is NOt scIenCE

Just know this
You are all pathetic little asocial and retarded babies

Go ahead, spend all of your days alone, in the lab or doing math.. Yeess you are so pure
Psychology is not a science because no verifiable results and bla bla

That makes it a challenge
Its easy to fix a bridge

Go to it - it is dead - it will not fight back when you try to measure or fix it
Paper and math are forever your friends, you have absolute control over them

Once you have enough life experience and wisdom , to actually be able to help other people, let me know

Once you go full schiszo and need meds, let me know

Once you need a surgery let me know

Once you think you are normal but somehow that edge seems more closer every day, but thats impossible because psychoilogu is bullshit and they are all wrong , because they cannot test they stuff, while we are so right, we are kings, we are gods, we are better than you

Working with humans is the hardest thing one can do. Try working with junkies or crazy peolple. Try volunteering for autists and special needs children, something many of my psychologist friends did
Its easy to overcome a rock
Try to master a human

>>11377505
Firstly, why are you so butthurt? Looks like you're a psychologist getting offended?

OP said PSYCHIATRY not PSYCHOLOGY you fucking retard.

And even if he had said psychology, you're literally just having a butthurt tantrum.

I mean, you probably do have some points in what you're saying, but the way you're saying it just screams of butthurt.

>>11377424
kek i don't even know what your point is
>problems
>problems
>problems
feeling "unhappy" is completely normal. you're talking about a minuscule percentage of a population that may or may not develop depression as a result of some kind of trauma (which can be also attributed to their genes)
someone showing symptoms for "no *apparent* reason" is also possible. reason being genes again (you said it yourself in your post but you wanted to be obtuse).

>depression is simply learned helplessness
then you should look for the etymology of that word, so that you can understand that depression isn't defined by "helplessness" or "sadness". this also ties to OP saying that "depression won't be taken seriously in the future" this is already happening and you're the proof

>>11370674
Psychiatrists get to pick dependents from the population on whom they depend on having continued "illness" to justify receiving their government paychecks. They're in league with the pharmaceutical corporations who profit handsomely selling the drugs.

These people tend to be violent criminals who are released because they are "not criminally responsible", people who suffer a mental breakdown for whatever reason, young boys whose mothers vindictively encourage the "gender dysphoria" psychosis in their sons, and political dissidents who oppose government and societal norms. Their victims (possibly the wrong word for the former) end up becoming morbidly obese, emotionally inert lumps of complete and utter uselessness, completely dependent on the state, and who should be referred to as BLOBS. BLOBS are the bread and butter of psychiatrists and their pharmaceutical corporation partners in crime. They literally feed on the life essence of BLOBS, depending on them for their livelihood somewhat like vampires.

The amount of brainwashing, rationalization, virtue signaling that must go on in the heads of all involved parties in this is truly disturbing. You wonder how true evil starts down that road and realize that this is probably about as close as it gets.

>>11377594
>which can be also attributed to their genes
No it can't. We don't even know what genes are associated with a higher risk of depression yet, let alone what they actually DO - it could be that they cause other physical problems in the body (I dunno, bad metabolism, other physical health problems, which might in turn cause someone to get unhappy and depressed).

And people who get diagnosed with "depression" by their doctor do not have their genes checked in a standard diagnosis. So how the fuck do you know whether they've got good genes or bad genes (not that you'd really know what the "bad genes" are anyway because science hasn't identified them yet)?

>someone showing symptoms for "no *apparent* reason" is also possible
There will be a reason. Maybe they find facing the reason too uncomfortable. But it's there. Because people don't get unhappy for no reason.

>you said it yourself in your post
No, I said that genes (apparently) can increase someone's RISK of getting depressed, but we don't even know how - they could be genes that make you ugly, who the fuck knows, and maybe being ugly is making you unhappy. There are some genes that have been identified as maybe increasing depression risk, but some studies say they don't increase risk at all. It's an area where our knowledge is severely lacking.

And as I said before, how the fuck would you know whether a patient has these genes, unless you sequence their genome? Which isn't done in a routine depression diagnosis.

>>11377594
>then you should look for the etymology of that word
I'm not sure "etymology" is the word you mean to use. I'm wondering if perhaps you mean I should look at the clinical definition of "major depressive disorder" - it seems from the context that that's what you might be getting at. But sure, let's look at the etymology of "depression":
>depression
>Origin
>Late Middle English from Latin depressio(n-), from deprimere ‘press down’ (see depress).
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/depression

So it means to be "pressed down", sort of. Emotionally pressed down. I think that's pretty synonymous with "helplessness" and "sadness".

>this also ties to OP saying that "depression won't be taken seriously in the future"
He said that because he thinks our understanding will get better, and I think he's absolutely right. As he said here - >>11374284 - "depression" is basically a symptom, not a condition in itself. There's a few different things that could cause it (some types of brain damage can increase irritability and depression - obviously most people who get depressed don't have brain damage, they just have shit lives that they're unhappy with).

>you're the proof
What I'm proof of is that people want hypotheses to be substantiated by evidence. Which is the whole idea behind science.

>>11370674
Like always /sci/ seem totally incapable of understanding mental illnesses and they demonstrate their complete misunderstanding of them in almost every post.
I really think you need to work with the mentally ill to be able to grasp things in that domain.

I mean, the effect of antidepressants are due to the placebo effect ? Give a potent antidepressant to someone with bipolar disorder in a depressive phase and watch what happens.
Or watch the guy with melancholic depression getting up from his chair for the first time in a month because the drug give him enough of a boost to go jump in front of a train.

But yeah, continue to read articles that fuel your confirmation bias, that'll help.

>>11377725
is it typical for you to whine liek an immense faggot?

>>11377499
understandable, but i am getting jordan peterson "man up" vibes from op's post and that's the retarded.
depression is still not understood but it's not nonexistent because you can have two individuals who have very similar conditions but one is more happy while the other is not, and by happy i mean less likely to commit suicide, able to produce more, has more willpower, happier family, etc. SSRIs work on MOST of these depressed people (the energy and motivation a person gets might result in them getting motivation to kill themselves or others but that's rare).
in the end it results in improvement of the individual's well being but most importantly productivity and benefit to society while not bringing the same risks as opioids and other psychoactive substances. basically it's too good to be removed and you don't go to a doctor just to get told to man up.

>>11377781
>Yes goy, take these pills, don't worry about the side effects, just think of how good they will make you feel!
I watched Harmful Opinions have his breakdown.
For the love of god, do not get started on antidepressants.

>>11377781
>but i am getting jordan peterson "man up" vibes
To be honest, it isn't bad advice.

>depression is still not understood but it's not nonexistent
People get low, yeah. Because life has difficulties. But we can choose how we respond to them. We do have the power to change ourselves, and our lives.

>you can have two individuals who have very similar conditions but one is more happy while the other is not
Well firstly I'll mention genetics because I know that gets mentioned. Some study reported that 37% of your risk of "major depressive disorder" is thought to be genetic, and the other 63% is though to be from your environmental experiences. So all we know is that genes could maybe make you more likely to get depressed, but it doesn't mean you DEFINITELY WILL get depressed. Also, we don't even know what these genes are - it could be genes that make you ugly, or give you some other physical health problems, which in turn might make you unhappy about life.

Even if a person has bad genes (which they can't really know, given that we don't usually sequence people's genomes, nor do we really know the genes associated with depression), they're still getting depressed due to EVENTS in their life. We haven't found a mechanism in the brain that would just randomly make people depressed.

The person with the similar life but getting more depressed - not every life is the same. The depressed person probably has a crappier life. Maybe they're stressed at work, people aren't really taking them seriously, dunno, stuff like that.

>in the end it results in improvement of the individual's well being but most importantly productivity and benefit to society
Yeah true. I have no problem with people taking antidepressants, if that's what they WANT. I just want people to know that it isn't the only option. They DO have the power to change their lives without drugs, if they want to. It's hard, but anything good in life is hard to get.

>>11377781
if you think that is what Peterson advocates, then you haven't watched his videos: https://youtu.be/JuQgJxYriYI

I'm partial to disagreeing with him (and you), because anti-depressants don't work long term. Worse even, they work negatively if you take them too long. And stopping after having used them for a relative short time induces withdrawal and make you worse off than if you hadn't taken them.

>>11377822
Actually yeah you make a good point, Peterson actually takes antidepressants himself, so he's definitely not someone who says antidepressants should never be taken.

>>11377822
that's pre 12 rules for life Peterson. tbqh i liked his older lectures and maps of meaning and it was a legitimate good read, things just went downhill once was he became popular for BTFOing feminists and after releasing 12 rules for life. he used to speak more scientifically and reasonably and he didn't try to appeal to any audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REjUkEj1O_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzBwkM0-joI

>>11377860
this, he used to be a badass. now he's a crying little faggot

>>11377860
I like both. In his older videos, he's more casual and less serious. But I don't think he has become less scientific or reasonable. He has become more serious, more precise, but also hurt, which made him more alert for potential threats.
But I understand what you mean. I also like more videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjtBDa4aSGM..

If you haven't seen this video, I think you'd like it: https://youtu.be/OgqcrwIVgvM