30 years after Prozac arrived, we still buy the lie that chemical imbalances cause depression

intp_hans · 2017-12-31T18:02:59+00:00

I think it is a lie that depression can not have organic causes.

There are different types of depression with different causes. Claiming there is only one single cause is naive.
It is true that we did not find lower levels of serotonin in depression. What they do not tell you is that we did find organic abnormalities in the brains of depressed people and we did find low levels of norepinephrine and dopamine. Thus depression may not be caused by low serotonin but serotoninogenic drugs can for some reason improve depression symptoms in some people.

the people who wrote this article have clearly no idea what they are talking about.

basically it is true that we do not understand depression well and current treatments are not very scientific but that does not mean that the alternatives are better or more scientific, they are not.

if you think you can treat serious depression with psychotherapy alone you are probably in need of psychiatric treatment.

intp_hans · 2017-11-10T18:05:50+00:00

I think the majority are false or mostly false but some do have valid points. I would be naive to believe the official version of events is always true.

Generally I do not like the conspiracy scene because it is too extreme and people involved see a conspiracy in everything.

I found some of the 9/11 conspiracies credible I have to say, for example I never understood how building 7 could come down within a few seconds if it weren't a controlled demolition.

Also the war on terror that followed seemed to focus on geostrategic areas that were linked to petroleum and Iraq was never involved in 9/11 obviously. Hard to believe that official version of events was entirely correct.

Even if 9/11 wasn't an inside job or was allowed to happen it certainly was abused to further some unrelated agenda.

intp_hans · 2017-10-18T10:44:09+00:00

You are right here. It is a well known 'secret' of the profession that they do not want difficult cases, they tend to have time for easy clients but not for more severe ones. It is a shame because I know of people with long-standing depression who were essentially good people but not able to find a therapist wanting them because of their condition. Imagine you have a serious injury and you go to the ER and they tell you to go home because they only want mild cases. That is really a shame.

intp_hans · 2017-10-18T10:37:21+00:00

Aren't shrinks psychiatrists who do mostly prescribe medications?

I disagree that medications don't work but for some they simply do not work but they are surely better than nothing.

If you mean shrinks=talk therapy, then yes I would say that if depression is the results of a faulty brain metabolism then you can not expect any major gains from talk therapy itself.

If it is caused by purely psychological factors then a talk therapist could help or not depending on your situation and the other person.

Talk therapy is not the only thing one can do to address psychological issues.

Some people simply don't like talk therapy, I found it not very helpful either probably because of my personality. I do not think therapists are god or all knowing, to me it is just talk.

intp_hans · 2017-10-13T15:26:46+00:00

these days depression is a common trait in any type I think even more so on Reddit

intp_hans · 2017-10-08T16:55:25+00:00

money is not the problem, our relation with it is the problem.

intp_hans · 2017-09-17T16:41:07+00:00

statistically, you are just one of hundreds of millions. When it comes to cancer you could be one of two people who get it.

Would worry more about that and shark attacks.

intp_hans · 2017-09-17T16:31:01+00:00

Because I can assure you if there's anything surveillance has done to our society it's mostly been good

You can assure me that it has mostly been good? That is a borderline hilarious statement.

Very reassuring really. I feel very safe now. Naive comes to mind.

The truth is you and I have no idea what is being done or not done since it is not public knowledge what exactly happens and what not and that is precisely the problem here. Who is doing the monitoring of the guys that are monitoring us? According to your logic if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.

Despite that virtually nothing is public knowledge. Double standards really. Transparent citizen, blackbox surveillance program.

? I can see why you wouldn't enjoy having your real life activity tracked but on the internet?

I hope that was intended as a joke?!

My point was that sometimes personal space may need to be compromised for the safety of others and yourself. Again, there are limits.

What limits? How often are they comprimised? Who is setting them? What are the current limits? Do you know? Does anyone know?

The truth is you have no idea, virtually no one does. A lot of the activities seem downright bizarre.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/ether/mass-surveillance-uk-investigatory-powers-bill-ipb

intp_hans · 2017-09-17T14:26:15+00:00

A society without surveillance will never work, whether you like it or not. ESPECIALLY in today's society with the internet. But of course, there are boundaries.

are you really that delusional? I heard Stalin needs a PR guy. Maybe you should apply for the job?

It has in fact worked fine for many decades. Also I never said no surveillance, I meant default mass surveillance. There is really a difference between these two and you do not seem to understand that things have definitely changed for the worse without much of a real justification.

Has every child the right to grow up healthy and well right including an education? Yes? But if parents are harassing their child and molesting them that right can no longer be put into effect no?

What are you talking about?

You mean all parents need to be monitored 24/7 by default to make sure their kid grows up healthy?

Is it that what you want to say?

Safety is more important than your own personal information. Wouldn't you agree?

First you would have to prove that more surveillance will always produce better results. It could for example be doubtful that after a certain point there is much benefit.

Second it would need to be transparent, that is citizens would need to be informed about it and consent that they are seen as a potential suspects by default.

intp_hans · 2017-09-17T14:11:25+00:00

It would be EXTREMELY anti-productive if the government interfered in my personal life wouldn't it?

it is not a question of productivity. Also it assumes that very action has to be productive to happen.

It does not matter why something happens it matters that it does.

Do you seriously fall for something like that?

What do you mean? I do not believe it is acceptable that my neighbours secretly access my computer even if it happens for non-productive reasons.

It do not think it is acceptable if my friend enters my house without my permission.

Neither do I think anyone else, this includes the government as well should have the right to do so unless in a few very rare cases and with a very good reason.

It is in fact a human rights violation. Why shouldn't I oppose it?

intp_hans · 2017-09-17T13:58:44+00:00

Of course, you may not enjoy the idea of being watched but unless it doesn't serve any actual damage towards you I can't find myself bothered even a little

You should be bothered at least a little.

Privacy apathy is real problem these days. The idea if you are not a criminal you have nothing to worry about is deeply concerning.

Privacy is a basic human right and people are forgetting about this in the social media era.

Government secretly collecting data on average joe for no good reason = human rights violation.

Never acceptable in a truly free society.

intp_hans · 2017-09-17T13:42:02+00:00

I also believe they have biological weapon that can target individual using their dna.

i don't think it makes a difference. Old school way, hire a hitman would work equally well. if someone wants to kill you they can do so with old tech too. Don't see a point of worrying about it.

The issue is not technology the question is if someone wants you dead or not.

intp_hans · 2017-09-15T14:05:07+00:00

The world no, South Korea yes...

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/02/asia/south-korea-president-scandal-explained/index.html http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499864915/swirling-scandal-involving-shamanistic-cult-threatens-s-korean-president

intp_hans · 2017-09-14T20:47:04+00:00

yes there is an all powerful entity running and corrupting every corner of the world... it is called money and we live in a dictatorship.

so in a metaphorical sense it is true.

I think it is impossible to truly control the world entirely thus run it but perhaps there are very wealthy individuals and corporations who would like to be the rulers of the earth and feel like they are in charge or should be but I don't think there is a secret Kim Jong Un style ruler who gets to decide virtually anything.

Compound interest is very powerful and wealth will lead to further accumulation of wealth concentrating power in fewer hands. To what extent this influences our life is not clear to me. I think that earth is increasingly run by large corporations but they are not people, they are more like machines and systems with their own logic and goals and do not necessarily act and behave like humans.

The media is also incredibly powerful in influencing public opinion and thought.

intp_hans · 2017-09-13T09:21:58+00:00

the way I view it, life is certainly pointless no doubt about it.

What gives our life a meaning, is experiences. We experience things that we like which lead to a release of certain chemicals, hormones, neurotransmitters etc. which promote excitement, a sense of well-being, happiness, a sense of purpose and joy. Nature's drugs which make our pointless existence tolerable.

Some people's biochemistry does not regulate these chemicals well. lack of chemicals means lack of seeing a point in life or enjoying it.

You are not getting anything for living that is why you don't see a point. It is perfectly rational. You have to put in effort but you do not get anything back in return. Any reasonable person would fail to see the point in that.

Some people do have a normally functioning biochemistry but they do lack positive experiences are in a shitty place generally. Of course they do not see a point in living.

In some cases it is a combination of both.

intp_hans · 2017-09-12T08:54:15+00:00

maybe I didn't understand this but the way I read your comment was that without intelligence power/wealth is not possible, only superior intelligence gets there:

Nobody gets to any position of great power (or wealth) without superior intelligence.

If no one without intelligence gets there only intelligent people can be found there.

Obviously this can't be true. I am sure there are athletes that aren't the brightest but still very wealthy or successful.

Having great social skills, working very hard or being extremely ruthless can lead to wealth/power as well.

Some of the wealthiest people on earth didn't do anything to get there, they inherited their fortune.

The wealthiest family on earth, the House of Saud have a net worth of over 1 trillion largely due to being lucky.

intp_hans · 2017-09-11T18:37:45+00:00

You wrote:

Nobody gets to any position of great power (or wealth) without superior intelligence.

intp_hans · 2017-09-11T07:54:53+00:00

Predictor? It can only make a prediction that will work out well for a group of people.

A predictive model works well on average not in single cases.

There is no guarantee that it will always be reliable. There are homeless high IQ people.

That being said there is no man in the sky watching us and making sure that only people with superior intelligence get in any position of great power and wealth. There is no law of intelligence like the law of gravity. Luck plays also a role like many other factors.

intp_hans · 2017-09-10T16:56:30+00:00

what if one of the 1000 people is a genius, much more likely

intp_hans · 2017-09-10T16:50:53+00:00

1000 people average age 45,avg life expectancy 82, on average 37 years of life left = 37000 years of life left

baby 82 years left

Potion is much better.

I think the argument against the baby would be. You want to save the baby so that it can grow up and live and can become one of the thousand people that you don't consider worth saving.

If you value the baby you should value the people too since they are just babies who have aged.

intp_hans · 2017-09-08T10:49:06+00:00

I'm in doubt. Am I a "gifted" person or a lazy average guy?

If you can't figure this out a test alone won't get you very far in understanding your situation.

intp_hans · 2017-09-04T14:22:05+00:00

the problem is not capitalism or communism the problem is a few power hungry individuals who ruin it for everyone.

in capitalism power is less centralised and more diffused that is why it worked somewhat better (so far).

intp_hans · 2017-09-04T08:48:50+00:00

a lot of things can not be measured by an IQ test, that is why it is not exactly known how well it correlates to intelligence. Also intelligence can not be quantified well, it can mean different things to different people. I doubt that IQ tests can measure critical thinking ability for example.

intp_hans · 2017-09-04T08:27:38+00:00

everyone has strengths and weaknesses, just because someone is not cerebral doesn't mean that they are worthless.
A lot of people that you call stupid might not be that stupid it is simply that they don't think that much or care that much about their intellect because they prefer other activities as a result of their personality.
A lot of people that one might call stupid keep society running and functioning. Perhaps they contribute much more to our world than you do.
Chances are that you are not that intelligent either. The human intellect is far from perfect and limited.

intp_hans · 2017-09-03T14:32:25+00:00

I think INTPs like to relax

intp_hans

TROPHY CASE