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.
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.