S/O Gender Identity Thread: Suicide. Why do some choose it but not others?

[Joanne]

So everyone who is depressed has a brain that doesn't function properly?

Everyone who has depression does.

[TranquilMind]

Everyone who has depression does.

And the difference between "one who is depressed" and "one who has depression" is...?

[*Lulu*]

And the difference between "one who is depressed" and "one who has depression" is...?

Chemistry.

[Joanne]

Seriously.. you place obesity and substance abuse in the same category as cancer and asthma?

Yes. They are in the same category - disease. Clearly you don't know that.

 

Physiologically they are by every criteria disease.

[obsidian]

So everyone who is depressed has a brain that doesn't function properly?

Everyone with depression has a mental illness. So, no, their brain does not function as it should. Just the same as someone with heart disease has a heart that does not function as it should. Often, in both cases, various treatments can help, but some types of disease are treatment resistant.

[Joanne]

And the difference between "one who is depressed" and "one who has depression" is...?

Depression is a disease, irrespective of life circumstance.

 

A person can be depressed In Grief, trauma, stress, etc.

[Mrs Mungo]

And the difference between "one who is depressed" and "one who has depression" is...?

http://psychcentral.com/ask-the-therapist/2009/02/09/difference-between-being-depressed-and-having-depression/

[TranquilMind]

Yes. They are in the same category - disease. Clearly you don't know that.

 

Physiologically they are by every criteria disease.

Well, sure, they are under the general category of "disease" if you mean they don't function correctly at this time, but things one does to his own body is a far cry from stuff that happens to an unfortunate victim (like cancer). 

 

Of course, we won't agree on that either. 

 

For example, I weigh more than I should right now because I put more food in my mouth than I should this season, not because it just happened to me randomly. 

 

I used to put more alcohol into my mouth than anyone should too, and I wasn't a victim there either, though it would have been easy to disclaim responsibility. 

 

But we are digressing into the usual personal responsibility v. victimhood argument here, and I'm not going there on this particular thread. 

 

I do appreciate the many thoughtful replies that were made by those who made them.  I've always found" survivor" types, for lack of a better term, very interesting.  Perhaps they don't even have any idea why they are survivors or what makes them different. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Everyone with depression has a mental illness. So, no, their brain does not function as it should. Just the same as someone with heart disease has a heart that does not function as it should. Often, in both cases, various treatments can help, but some types of disease are treatment resistant.

But what if someone is situationally depressed.  Say someone lost a close family member?  Is that "disease"? Or just a rational response to a current stimulus that will fade? 

[TranquilMind]

http://psychcentral.com/ask-the-therapist/2009/02/09/difference-between-being-depressed-and-having-depression/

This would not load for me, for some reason.

[TranquilMind]

Depression is a disease, irrespective of life circumstance.

 

A person can be depressed In Grief, trauma, stress, etc.

So you are contradicting the poster who said that anyone who is depressed has a disease....mental illness.   

 

I don't think that is true. 

[Joanne]

Well, sure, they are under the general category of "disease" if you mean they don't function correctly at this time, but things one does to his own body is a far cry from stuff that happens to an unfortunate victim (like cancer).

 

Of course, we won't agree on that either.

 

For example, I weigh more than I should right now because I put more food in my mouth than I should this season, not because it just happened to me randomly.

 

I used to put more alcohol into my mouth than anyone should too, and I wasn't a victim there either, though it would have been easy to disclaim responsibility.

 

But we are digressing into the usual personal responsibility v. victimhood argument here, and I'm not going there on this particular thread.

 

I do appreciate the many thoughtful replies that were made by those who made them. I've always found" survivor" types, for lack of a better term, very interesting. Perhaps they don't even have any idea why they are survivors or what makes them different.

The irony is that I an ultimate survivor type.

 

Clearly, though, you do not care about learning that obesity, substance anise and depression are in fact diseases and not "lifestyle issues" that you'd like to continue to believe.

 

They are not disease "in general terms" but the very same way we use cancer, diabetes, and asthma.

[obsidian]

But what if someone is situationally depressed.  Say someone lost a close family member?  Is that "disease"? Or just a rational response to a current stimulus that will fade? 

I think you will find the link Mrs Mungo posted helpful. However, yes, it is certainly possible to be situationally depressed without having depression.

[Joanne]

So you are contradicting the poster who said that anyone who is depressed has a disease.

No I am not.

[Mrs Mungo]

So you are contradicting the poster who said that anyone who is depressed has a disease.

Are you talking about STEM? Because she said anyone who has depression has a disease. Being situationally depressed is not the same as having depression.

[TranquilMind]

The irony is that I an ultimate survivor type.

 

Clearly, though, you do not care about learning that obesity, substance anise and depression are in fact diseases and not "lifestyle issues" that you'd like to continue to believe.

 

They are not disease "in general terms" but the very same way we use cancer, diabetes, and asthma.

Did you mean to say that you are an ultimate survivor type?

 

How? 

[Dory]

But what if someone is situationally depressed.  Say someone lost a close family member?  Is that "disease"? Or just a rational response to a current stimulus that will fade? 

 

Yes and yes. It is a rational response and for most people it will fade over time and most people will grieve loss in a normal way. For some people it could be a triggering event and they end up unable to move beyond it. Or some people will already be struggling with depression and losing a family member is too much to handle.

[Mrs Mungo]

This would not load for me, for some reason.

Try this shorter url:

http://tinyurl.com/kmoguuo

[obsidian]

Are you talking about STEM? Because she said anyone who has depression has a disease. Being situationally depressed is not the same as having depression.

Yes, this. It is possible to be situationally depressed without having depression. 

[Little Nyssa]

Just a couple of thoughts: I don't know if the belief that suicide is wrong or a sin really influences someone who is severely depressed. If someone is that Ill, they are not able to reason with themselves: "oh, that is wrong, so I won't do it." They just want the awful pain to stop. It overwhelms normal thought and belief. It would be much easier to start thinking "it may be wrong for other people, but not for me because I am so badly off" or "I don't care anymore if it is wrong." So I really don't think that lack of faith is the problem.

 

Another thought: I think that what TM May be getting at is that gray area between sickness and health where we are able to help ourselves with self-care: thinking good thoughts, reasoning with ourselves, eating right, being in community, praying, getting enough sleep etc. If we are mildly down, these things may be enough and these are good things in general. IMHO. But in severe depression they aren't enough and trying and failing could be worse.

[Mrs Mungo]

Just a couple of thoughts: I don't know if the belief that suicide is wrong or a sin really influences someone who is severely depressed. If someone is that Ill, they are not able to reason with themselves: "oh, that is wrong, so I won't do it." They just want the awful pain to stop. It overwhelms normal thought and belief. It would be much easier to start thinking "it may be wrong for other people, but not for me because I am so badly off" or "I don't care anymore if it is wrong." So I really don't think that lack of faith is the problem.

 

Another thought: I think that what TM May be getting at is that gray area between sickness and health where we are able to help ourselves with self-care: thinking good thoughts, reasoning with ourselves, eating right, being in community, praying, getting enough sleep etc. If we are mildly down, these things may be enough and these are good things in general. IMHO. But in severe depression they aren't enough and trying and failing could be worse.

Definitely telling clinically depressed people they just need to get over themselves or think happy thoughts is actively harmful. Aggregate statistics and studies do tell us that much.

[LucyStoner]

No one is discounting luck here. That isn't the topic.

Maybe you don't realize this but there seem to be a number of people who feel that your posts are making what is really luck/happenstance/whatever an issue of morality or strength. You might consider that you're not communicating your ideas very well if so many of us are misunderstanding you.

[Dory]

I don't know if I would call that "damaging", standing alone.

 

Some of us had to be independent from an early age, for various reasons.  Some kids have been all alone from a very early age, especially in the past, and seemed to do ok over time. 

 

Like anything else, it can be a good thing.  It could be a bad thing too, I suppose, if you refuse to find someone to help you if you do need help with something.   

 

We are not made to be independent. Humans are social creatures. Psychologically we do better if we have social interaction and bonding moments. Just because someone has had to be independent doesn't mean it's the healthiest thing for them, any more then the people who eat lots of fast food and are 'ok'. It will still affect them in some way that is less then optimal, they are just able to cope with it and work with it. Sometimes they might not even realize they are not living optimally because they have never known different and their brains have been able to work around it and cope (a healthy brain is really an amazing thing. It can cope with a lot).

 

There have been enough studies about the need for social interaction with kids and the need to learn trust and the ability to depend on people that for me to rehash it all here is rather unnecessary. If we just shoot for 'ok' then all the people that struggle are going to fall through the cracks a little easier. If we shoot for the optimal, then the kids that end up struggling have a much better chance at making it to 'ok'. The ability to trust others is big deal. And it isn't 'refusing' to find someone to help. If you have had it drilled into you that you need to be independent, you'll fight with that until you suddenly crash and then it's too late. It's hard to recognize when you have to have someone if you have been taught that you should've have someone, and it's hard to find someone trustworthy when you need them if you haven't built those trusting relationships ahead of time.

[MBM]

Richard Davidson, who is well-regarded neuroscientist and professor of psychology and psychiatry at UW Madiscon where he oversees two labs, has written about what he has observed in his brain imaging studies. In his book The Emotional Life of Your Brain, he explains that people have six neural circuits that determine the way we think and feel, and ultimately how we act. Each of these circuits is a continuum that can be nudged one way or another. The brain is definitely changeable but in order to change, the right treatment needs to be used.

 

Depression is one area of Davidson's expertise. He's studied it -- and various treatments -- extensively. In general, depressed people have more right-side than left-side activity in their prefrontal cortex. Non depressed people have more activity in the left side than right side. (Buddhist monks have extraordinary left side activity.) Other areas of the brain play a role as well, but the iimbalance of activity in the right side is one of the main problems. Davidson has devised treatments to beef up activity in the left side, which causes a physical build up of gray matter and buffers electrical activity. He can measure this and see when his patients are improving and they usually do. Even very resistant cases. This is the same idea behind transcranial magnetic stimulation which has helped very resistant cases of depression.

 

If you want to understand this better, I highly recommend Davidson's book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Life-Your-Brain-Live/dp/0452298881

 

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

Cool. I've put that on my wish list. How interesting!!

[albeto.]

We are all human.  We all have bodies that are made to work the same way (undamaged, that is - obviously, we have experienced things that somewhat alter that in some cases, such as thyroids that don't work or legs that might not work after an accident,or brain injuries etc). 

 

I don't think it is speculation to state that the way the human body works is to preserve itself at pretty much all costs.   

 

So you are talking about aberrations, not the way humans work or are built. 

 

I think you'll always have a tough time understanding this if your premise comes from the two sources I would assume are your go-to sources for information. That is 1.) the bible, and 2.) your own experiences. So long as these two are on your bookshelf, nothing else will make sense. They won't because the bible explains the natural world through the concept of an agent that willfully makes things happen. It supports the idea that behavior is indicative of intent, and the two are always directly related. Objective research does not confirm these ideas, not even a little. Using your own experiences to try and explain other experiences will blind you to the information you seek.

 

Some things we do know (can be confirmed again and again, regardless of the individual researching, their own personal religious or political beliefs, gender, or any other personal variable). We know the brain experiences electrochemical events occurring at each of the trillion synapses in your brain at this moment. We know we are aware of a precious few stimuli, sights, sounds, temperature, and other information gained through the sensory organs. We know we are aware of thoughts and moods, things that don't seem to be gained through sensory organs, but are created through some physical reaction, a long string of cause and effect events at the cellular level, from the time before birth. We are not aware of the individual behavior of individual cells, organelles, and atoms. These things all contribute to a thing we call consciousness.

 

We have yet to reliably identify, much less explain what consciousness even is, and yet we all experience it. We know it exists, we know how it works. Or do we?

 

As neurologist Sam Harris explains:

 

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something†to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

 

So we continue exploring what we can objectively explore: the mechanics of the brain. We know, for example, that decisions are not as simple as thinking a thought, then executing it, free from interference or manipulation. Researchers can manipulate a subject's opinion - their thoughts - about another person by simply controlling the temperature of a hand held drink. " In study 1, participants who briefly held a cup of hot (versus iced) coffee judged a target person as having a “warmer†personality (generous, caring); in study 2, participants holding a hot (versus cold) therapeutic pad were more likely to choose a gift for a friend instead of for themselves." We know, for example, that researchers can predict simple behavior up to seven seconds sooner than the subject reports making the decision. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings."

 

These are not beliefs. No one has to accept these ideas on faith. They have been, and they will continue to be examined, re-examined, the research tweaked, minute details separated and examined separately. It's how we gain understanding of the world around us, systematically and methodologically. As this process continues, as individual experiments undergo peer review, repeated experiments, falsification, they are modified as new information is uncovered. This new information is similarly, painstakingly analyzed and explored. The field of neurology is quite young, but there are some wicked fascinating things that we have already discovered.

 

 One way in which the brain makes choices is to make sense of various perceptions experienced (sight, sound, proprioception, etc). These perceptions are stored immediately in short term memory, and then in longer term memory, paired with other memories, emotions, and other things we don't consciously think about. You say the human body works to preserve itself at pretty much all costs, but what you don't seem to understand is how the mechanics works. You have to understand evolution to understand how the body is built to persevere, much less such details as why some brains will assign a stronger emotion to the same event as another brain. I understand "resilience" in this context to not be a conscious effort, but a matter of the brain not assigning emotions to an overwhelming degree, allowing other pieces of information to be processed, analyzed, and utilized. This isn't a conscious effort, although like any thing the body does, the more we practice a skill the more refined we get. That doesn't mean those whose brains determine death is a lesser pain than continued, painful experiences are trying less, it just means the limitations [bad word...maybe mechanics?] of their brains are seen in ways that has a profound effect on others.

 

On the other hand, some people can undergo some crazy-terrible experiences and yet their brains can effectively compartmentalize these pieces of information in such a way as to not create new problems. In the same way all legs have evolved to walk and run, but some legs can carry the body tremendously fast, all brains have evolved to protect life, but some legs can protect it tremendously effectively. The same goes in the other direction. If you understand the brain has many functions, one of which is to make sense of the experiences of the body, then you might understand how the organ does not function equally throughout the human species any more than the legs do. But the brain does so much more complex things, the variations in its operations are much easier to see.

 

I think what you want is to understand human behavior. We have a subscription to American Scientific Mind, but there are other publications that also summarize the latest research for those who find the topic interesting.

[Corraleno]

I'm not blaming them, if that is the case.  You are making the assumption here that everyone who commits suicide is a victim of his malfunctioning brain.  I don't make that assumption. 

 

Obviously, no one is responsible for his malfunctioning brain, if that is indeed the case. 

 

You don't see the contradiction in saying, on the one hand, that everyone's body works basically the same way and all humans are hard-wired for survival at all costs, and on the other hand saying that there isn't necessarily a malfunction in the brain of someone who kills himself? The truth is that (1) no two people have exactly the same wiring and biochemistry, and (2) there is, by definition, some sort of physical, biochemical malfunction in people who suffer from depression.

 

Some people win the genetic/biochemical lottery — their bodies produce lots of serotonin that make them feel content, plenty of melatonin so they sleep well, they get plenty of Vit D (the lack of which is strongly correlated with depression) from their diet or from a few minutes in the sun every day. No mutations in the genes that control methylation pathways, no dopamine processing deficits, no intestinal issues that might severely impact neurotransmitters (95% of your body's serotonin is in the intestines), etc.

 

Other people are less lucky — they don't make enough serotonin, or the serotonin receptors don't work properly, or they're so deficient in melatonin that they suffer from chronic, lifelong insomnia at a level that would render most people totally nonfunctional. Their Vit D levels may remain in single digits no matter how much sun they get or how many supplements they take. Some people have a genetic mutation that causes a dopamine processing deficit that predisposes people to addiction — the same genetic mutation has been implicated in addiction to smoking, alcohol, drugs, gambling, and even gaming. Some people have an adrenal malfunction that causes them to respond much more intensely to stress, creating much higher levels of anxiety and panic compared to people with normal adrenal function. Etc.

 

The fact that one person's neurochemistry & brain structure allow them to cheerfully endure many hardships in life, while another's makes life seem unbearable, does not mean that the first person is stronger (or more "moral") than the second. Some people can weather horrible circumstances and still get up every morning glad to be alive, while for others, even if they seem to "have everything," their neurochemistry makes each day a misery they wish they could end. Assuming that the first person is strong and brave, while the second is weak and needs to just "suck it up and deal" evidences an ignorance of human biology, as well as a lack of empathy for those whose biochemistry, brain structure, and experience of life may differ profoundly from your own.

[Mrs Mungo]

Another important point about evolution/genetic mutations/survival of the fittest that we don't understand is how some sets of chemicals or genetics or cells that seem harmful had a protective benefit in the past. For example, I mentioned Cystic Fibrosis earlier.

 

Geneticists are pretty sure that the genetics behind CF had a protective quality for some people (against TB and cholera to name two diseases the function of *one* CF mutation protects against).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/07/us/clue-to-why-cystic-fibrosis-has-survived.html

 

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may98/niaid-06.htm

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10013-cystic-fibrosis-gene-protects-against-tuberculosis.html

 

They don't understand why some sets of mutations harm some people and not other people. Two siblings can have the exact same genetic mutations-one will develop CF symptoms and one will not. Doctors and scientists do NOT understand this yet.

 

We don't know enough about genetics or the human body *at all* to make absolute statements, especially when it comes to the brain.

[Tsuga]

I don't know if I would call that "damaging", standing alone.

 

Some of us had to be independent from an early age, for various reasons.  Some kids have been all alone from a very early age, especially in the past, and seemed to do ok over time. 

 

Like anything else, it can be a good thing.  It could be a bad thing too, I suppose, if you refuse to find someone to help you if you do need help with something.   

 

You're assuming that you, yourself, are not damaged.

 

That's a pretty big statement to make coming from someone who can't even comprehend why some people choose suicide, and others, not.

 

Maybe you're missing more than you think.

[Tsuga]

Not enough likes.

 

I think you'll always have a tough time understanding this if your premise comes from the two sources I would assume are your go-to sources for information. That is 1.) the bible, and 2.) your own experiences. So long as these two are on your bookshelf, nothing else will make sense. They won't because the bible explains the natural world through the concept of an agent that willfully makes things happen. It supports the idea that behavior is indicative of intent, and the two are always directly related. Objective research does not confirm these ideas, not even a little. Using your own experiences to try and explain other experiences will blind you to the information you seek.

 

Some things we do know (can be confirmed again and again, regardless of the individual researching, their own personal religious or political beliefs, gender, or any other personal variable). We know the brain experiences electrochemical events occurring at each of the trillion synapses in your brain at this moment. We know we are aware of a precious few stimuli, sights, sounds, temperature, and other information gained through the sensory organs. We know we are aware of thoughts and moods, things that don't seem to be gained through sensory organs, but are created through some physical reaction, a long string of cause and effect events at the cellular level, from the time before birth. We are not aware of the individual behavior of individual cells, organelles, and atoms. These things all contribute to a thing we call consciousness.

 

We have yet to reliably identify, much less explain what consciousness even is, and yet we all experience it. We know it exists, we know how it works. Or do we?

 

As neurologist Sam Harris explains:

 

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something†to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

 

So we continue exploring what we can objectively explore: the mechanics of the brain. We know, for example, that decisions are not as simple as thinking a thought, then executing it, free from interference or manipulation. Researchers can manipulate a subject's opinion - their thoughts - about another person by simply controlling the temperature of a hand held drink. " In study 1, participants who briefly held a cup of hot (versus iced) coffee judged a target person as having a “warmer†personality (generous, caring); in study 2, participants holding a hot (versus cold) therapeutic pad were more likely to choose a gift for a friend instead of for themselves." We know, for example, that researchers can predict simple behavior up to seven seconds sooner than the subject reports making the decision. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings."

 

These are not beliefs. No one has to accept these ideas on faith. They have been, and they will continue to be examined, re-examined, the research tweaked, minute details separated and examined separately. It's how we gain understanding of the world around us, systematically and methodologically. As this process continues, as individual experiments undergo peer review, repeated experiments, falsification, they are modified as new information is uncovered. This new information is similarly, painstakingly analyzed and explored. The field of neurology is quite young, but there are some wicked fascinating things that we have already discovered.

 

 One way in which the brain makes choices is to make sense of various perceptions experienced (sight, sound, proprioception, etc). These perceptions are stored immediately in short term memory, and then in longer term memory, paired with other memories, emotions, and other things we don't consciously think about. You say the human body works to preserve itself at pretty much all costs, but what you don't seem to understand is how the mechanics works. You have to understand evolution to understand how the body is built to persevere, much less such details as why some brains will assign a stronger emotion to the same event as another brain. I understand "resilience" in this context to not be a conscious effort, but a matter of the brain not assigning emotions to an overwhelming degree, allowing other pieces of information to be processed, analyzed, and utilized. This isn't a conscious effort, although like any thing the body does, the more we practice a skill the more refined we get. That doesn't mean those whose brains determine death is a lesser pain than continued, painful experiences are trying less, it just means the limitations [bad word...maybe mechanics?] of their brains are seen in ways that has a profound effect on others.

 

On the other hand, some people can undergo some crazy-terrible experiences and yet their brains can effectively compartmentalize these pieces of information in such a way as to not create new problems. In the same way all legs have evolved to walk and run, but some legs can carry the body tremendously fast, all brains have evolved to protect life, but some legs can protect it tremendously effectively. The same goes in the other direction. If you understand the brain has many functions, one of which is to make sense of the experiences of the body, then you might understand how the organ does not function equally throughout the human species any more than the legs do. But the brain does so much more complex things, the variations in its operations are much easier to see.

 

I think what you want is to understand human behavior. We have a subscription to American Scientific Mind, but there are other publications that also summarize the latest research for those who find the topic interesting.

 

[fraidycat]

Not enough likes.

Agree.

I'm quite ready to throw a big steamy temper tantrum over my lack of "likes".

[MBM]

Another important point about evolution/genetic mutations/survival of the fittest that we don't understand is how some sets of chemicals or genetics or cells that seem harmful had a protective benefit in the past. For example, I mentioned Cystic Fibrosis earlier.

 

Geneticists are pretty sure that the genetics behind CF had a protective quality for some people (against TB and cholera to name two diseases the function of *one* CF mutation protects against).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/07/us/clue-to-why-cystic-fibrosis-has-survived.html

 

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may98/niaid-06.htm

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10013-cystic-fibrosis-gene-protects-against-tuberculosis.html

 

They don't understand why some sets of mutations harm some people and not other people. Two siblings can have the exact same genetic mutations-one will develop CF symptoms and one will not. Doctors and scientists do NOT understand this yet.

 

 

The same is probably true for people with hereditary hemochromatosis (when too much iron gets absorbed through the intestines) which tends to affect people of northern European descent. The theory is that at some point, those people were not able to get enough iron from their local food supply, so their genes eventually changed allowing them to absorb more iron in their intestines. Nowadays, most people in the US and Europe don't have a problem with too little iron in their diets so those with HH have to be careful that their ferritin especially doesn't get too high. I'm one-half Norwegian and am iron avid (low ferritin but all my other iron numbers are high) which is why I know too much about this.

 

Genes aren't always destiny, though. For example, having the short form of the MAOA gene, sometimes called the "violence gene," does not mean a person will become a criminal. The gene has to be turned on (expressed). Abuse in childhood can express the gene. 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5582/851

 

I have to add this study on epigenetics and mindfulness just because it's so interesting.

 

http://www.news.wisc.edu/22370

 

 

 

We don't know enough about genetics or the human body *at all* to make absolute statements, especially when it comes to the brain.

 

 

 

Neuroscientists are stating what they find in their studies, not making absolute statements. Some of the studies are actually very hopeful.

 

[Joanne]

It seems that several of us are "arguing" with one poster. It seems to me that that poster is not interested in learning the science behind what many of us are saying.

 

I'm not interested in continuing to try to engage that poster with the content of my posts. I have been posting in this and the other thread mainly to present evidence based, scientifically sound content.

 

If there are people who are interested in knowing more about substance abuse or depression as actual diseases, please let me know. It's not that I am the only source of information on it, but it is a specialty of mine. Neither are a matter of strength, will, or choice but biological imperatives.  The same seems to be emerging in cases of obesity as well. I am less familiar with that, except through lived experience. ;)

[Laurie4b]

But what if someone is situationally depressed.  Say someone lost a close family member?  Is that "disease"? Or just a rational response to a current stimulus that will fade? 

 

One can have some symptoms of depression and not have a diagnosis depression. One can have all the symptoms for several days and not have depression. The diagnosis requires that 5 symptoms be present for 2 weeks. Once you cross that line, even if it is kicked off by something situational, you have depression and it is a disease. There are changes that happen in one's brain chemistry and even in the size of certain parts of the brain. (Blanking right now as to which part(s) but don't want to go look it up.) Once that happens, there is no difference in experience between someone whose depression was stimulated by the environment and someone whose depression was not. It's like you could lose functioning of your leg from a stroke or an accident. One originates from the body and one originates from the environment. They can both have the same effect.

[albeto.]

It seems that several of us are "arguing" with one poster. It seems to me that that poster is not interested in learning the science behind what many of us are saying.

 

I disagree with this. I think she's incapable of learning the science behind what many of us are saying because it doesn't click, for whatever reason. When my son was in 6th grade we bumped into negative numbers. He couldn't grasp it. It just didn't click. He couldn't comprehend the rules, they didn't make sense, so he couldn't recall them. He tried figuring out the pattern but he was unsuccessful. It wasn't wilful defiance. He wasn't trolling me. The information just didn't click. With my son, it was developmental. With TM I think it's informational. I think she values certain information over others, and is trying to reconcile the new information in light of her current information. The current information is wrong, objectively so, but until she can let that go I don't think this really will make sense to her. I think she is interested in learning the science behind all this, but is bound by her current beliefs. That's not refusing or trolling, that's human nature. Fox news makes an enormous profit out of exploiting this, just to suggest some perspective.

[Laurie4b]

I think you'll always have a tough time understanding this if your premise comes from the two sources I would assume are your go-to sources for information. That is 1.) the bible, and 2.) your own experiences. So long as these two are on your bookshelf, nothing else will make sense. They won't because the bible explains the natural world through the concept of an agent that willfully makes things happen. It supports the idea that behavior is indicative of intent, and the two are always directly related. Objective research does not confirm these ideas, not even a little. Using your own experiences to try and explain other experiences will blind you to the information you seek.

 

No one can take their experiences off their bookshelf. The Bible is certainly on my bookshelf and I understand the neursoscience and don't see a contradiction.

[Mrs Mungo]

Neuroscientists are stating what they find in their studies, not making absolute statements. Some of the studies are actually very hopeful.

I was not suggesting that scientists are making absolute statements. Some people here were making absolute statements and/or value judgments about mental health issues and diseases.

[TranquilMind]

Richard Davidson, who is well-regarded neuroscientist and professor of psychology and psychiatry at UW Madiscon where he oversees two labs, has written about what he has observed in his brain imaging studies. In his book The Emotional Life of Your Brain, he explains that people have six neural circuits that determine the way we think and feel, and ultimately how we act. Each of these circuits is a continuum that can be nudged one way or another. The brain is definitely changeable but in order to change, the right treatment needs to be used.

 

Depression is one area of Davidson's expertise. He's studied it -- and various treatments -- extensively. In general, depressed people have more right-side than left-side activity in their prefrontal cortex. Non depressed people have more activity in the left side than right side. (Buddhist monks have extraordinary left side activity.) Other areas of the brain play a role as well, but the iimbalance of activity in the right side is one of the main problems. Davidson has devised treatments to beef up activity in the left side, which causes a physical build up of gray matter and buffers electrical activity. He can measure this and see when his patients are improving and they usually do. Even very resistant cases. This is the same idea behind transcranial magnetic stimulation which has helped very resistant cases of depression.

 

If you want to understand this better, I highly recommend Davidson's book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Life-Your-Brain-Live/dp/0452298881

Thank you for the substantive comment.  Interesting stuff. 

 

I still wonder why...does the thought process cause the lesser brain activity or does the lesser brain activity on that side inspire the thought process? 

[TranquilMind]

No one can take their experiences off their bookshelf. The Bible is certainly on my bookshelf and I understand the neursoscience and don't see a contradiction.

Exactly. 

[albeto.]

No one can take their experiences off their bookshelf. The Bible is certainly on my bookshelf and I understand the neursoscience and don't see a contradiction.

 

Two people starting with the same factors can come away with two different perceptions and experiences. In the same way person A can experience depression following events that don't promote depression for person B, person A can experience confusion following a conversation that doesn't promote confusion for person B, even though both share major factors.

 

Ironic, ain't it?

 

;)

 

 

(ETA: I don't mean that to sound snarky, I just find it ironic that in a conversation in which one person is struggling with making sense of something not being directed by intent, another struggle is identified and yet it's okay to assume intent, kwim?)

[TranquilMind]

I think you'll always have a tough time understanding this if your premise comes from the two sources I would assume are your go-to sources for information. That is 1.) the bible, and 2.) your own experiences. So long as these two are on your bookshelf, nothing else will make sense. They won't because the bible explains the natural world through the concept of an agent that willfully makes things happen. It supports the idea that behavior is indicative of intent, and the two are always directly related. Objective research does not confirm these ideas, not even a little. Using your own experiences to try and explain other experiences will blind you to the information you seek.

 

Some things we do know (can be confirmed again and again, regardless of the individual researching, their own personal religious or political beliefs, gender, or any other personal variable). We know the brain experiences electrochemical events occurring at each of the trillion synapses in your brain at this moment. We know we are aware of a precious few stimuli, sights, sounds, temperature, and other information gained through the sensory organs. We know we are aware of thoughts and moods, things that don't seem to be gained through sensory organs, but are created through some physical reaction, a long string of cause and effect events at the cellular level, from the time before birth. We are not aware of the individual behavior of individual cells, organelles, and atoms. These things all contribute to a thing we call consciousness.

 

We have yet to reliably identify, much less explain what consciousness even is, and yet we all experience it. We know it exists, we know how it works. Or do we?

 

As neurologist Sam Harris explains:

 

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something†to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

 

So we continue exploring what we can objectively explore: the mechanics of the brain. We know, for example, that decisions are not as simple as thinking a thought, then executing it, free from interference or manipulation. Researchers can manipulate a subject's opinion - their thoughts - about another person by simply controlling the temperature of a hand held drink. " In study 1, participants who briefly held a cup of hot (versus iced) coffee judged a target person as having a “warmer†personality (generous, caring); in study 2, participants holding a hot (versus cold) therapeutic pad were more likely to choose a gift for a friend instead of for themselves." We know, for example, that researchers can predict simple behavior up to seven seconds sooner than the subject reports making the decision. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings."

 

These are not beliefs. No one has to accept these ideas on faith. They have been, and they will continue to be examined, re-examined, the research tweaked, minute details separated and examined separately. It's how we gain understanding of the world around us, systematically and methodologically. As this process continues, as individual experiments undergo peer review, repeated experiments, falsification, they are modified as new information is uncovered. This new information is similarly, painstakingly analyzed and explored. The field of neurology is quite young, but there are some wicked fascinating things that we have already discovered.

 

 One way in which the brain makes choices is to make sense of various perceptions experienced (sight, sound, proprioception, etc). These perceptions are stored immediately in short term memory, and then in longer term memory, paired with other memories, emotions, and other things we don't consciously think about. You say the human body works to preserve itself at pretty much all costs, but what you don't seem to understand is how the mechanics works. You have to understand evolution to understand how the body is built to persevere, much less such details as why some brains will assign a stronger emotion to the same event as another brain. I understand "resilience" in this context to not be a conscious effort, but a matter of the brain not assigning emotions to an overwhelming degree, allowing other pieces of information to be processed, analyzed, and utilized. This isn't a conscious effort, although like any thing the body does, the more we practice a skill the more refined we get. That doesn't mean those whose brains determine death is a lesser pain than continued, painful experiences are trying less, it just means the limitations [bad word...maybe mechanics?] of their brains are seen in ways that has a profound effect on others.

 

On the other hand, some people can undergo some crazy-terrible experiences and yet their brains can effectively compartmentalize these pieces of information in such a way as to not create new problems. In the same way all legs have evolved to walk and run, but some legs can carry the body tremendously fast, all brains have evolved to protect life, but some legs can protect it tremendously effectively. The same goes in the other direction. If you understand the brain has many functions, one of which is to make sense of the experiences of the body, then you might understand how the organ does not function equally throughout the human species any more than the legs do. But the brain does so much more complex things, the variations in its operations are much easier to see.

 

I think what you want is to understand human behavior. We have a subscription to American Scientific Mind, but there are other publications that also summarize the latest research for those who find the topic interesting.

Right, gotcha.  Because your antitheism and personal experiences play absolutely no role in how you view subjective things.....sure they don't. 

 

Of course, the objective factors can be measured, but as you say, some things are just unknown, like consciousness, which is a good example.    Interesting because, ironically...God is kind of like that.  No objective, replicatable evidence except to those who experience Him. 

 

I am interested in those compartmentalizing brains and how they function more effectively for some than others - and why. 

[TranquilMind]

Two people starting with the same factors can come away with two different perceptions and experiences. In the same way person A can experience depression following events that don't promote depression for person B, person A can experience confusion following a conversation that doesn't promote confusion for person B, even though both share major factors.

 

Ironic, ain't it?

 

;)

 

 

(ETA: I don't mean that to sound snarky, I just find it ironic that in a conversation in which one person is struggling with making sense of something not being directed by intent, another struggle is identified and yet it's okay to assume intent, kwim?)

Well, only if Person A and Person B start from different fundamentals, whether language, or beliefs, or experiences. 

[albeto.]

Thank you for the substantive comment.  Interesting stuff. 

 

I still wonder why...does the thought process cause the lesser brain activity or does the lesser brain activity on that side inspire the thought process? 

 

Because of cause and effect; yes and yes. A thought process can inspire certain brain activity. We know the effect exercise has on thinking, for example. And the brain activity does inspire thoughts in the way I shared above, as well as the example given above regarding seratonin and dopamine.

[TranquilMind]

You don't see the contradiction in saying, on the one hand, that everyone's body works basically the same way and all humans are hard-wired for survival at all costs, and on the other hand saying that there isn't necessarily a malfunction in the brain of someone who kills himself? The truth is that (1) no two people have exactly the same wiring and biochemistry, and (2) there is, by definition, some sort of physical, biochemical malfunction in people who suffer from depression.

 

Some people win the genetic/biochemical lottery — their bodies produce lots of serotonin that make them feel content, plenty of melatonin so they sleep well, they get plenty of Vit D (the lack of which is strongly correlated with depression) from their diet or from a few minutes in the sun every day. No mutations in the genes that control methylation pathways, no dopamine processing deficits, no intestinal issues that might severely impact neurotransmitters (95% of your body's serotonin is in the intestines), etc.

 

Other people are less lucky — they don't make enough serotonin, or the serotonin receptors don't work properly, or they're so deficient in melatonin that they suffer from chronic, lifelong insomnia at a level that would render most people totally nonfunctional. Their Vit D levels may remain in single digits no matter how much sun they get or how many supplements they take. Some people have a genetic mutation that causes a dopamine processing deficit that predisposes people to addiction — the same genetic mutation has been implicated in addiction to smoking, alcohol, drugs, gambling, and even gaming. Some people have an adrenal malfunction that causes them to respond much more intensely to stress, creating much higher levels of anxiety and panic compared to people with normal adrenal function. Etc.

 

The fact that one person's neurochemistry & brain structure allow them to cheerfully endure many hardships in life, while another's makes life seem unbearable, does not mean that the first person is stronger (or more "moral") than the second. Some people can weather horrible circumstances and still get up every morning glad to be alive, while for others, even if they seem to "have everything," their neurochemistry makes each day a misery they wish they could end. Assuming that the first person is strong and brave, while the second is weak and needs to just "suck it up and deal" evidences an ignorance of human biology, as well as a lack of empathy for those whose biochemistry, brain structure, and experience of life may differ profoundly from your own.

Well, there are sometimes values that outweigh the instinct for survival.  Saving someone else, for example.   You read of spies in WW II who carried suicide pills, not because they were afraid or had malfunctioning brains, but because they didn't want to endanger others by exposing the operation, and they knew they would, under torture. 

 

I'm not saying that no chemical imbalance could possibly exist but I don't think it explains the huge swell of depressed people on medications today, unless we have poisoned the food, water, or air (also a possibility, and the others simply haven't fallen victim yet). 

[albeto.]

Well, only if Person A and Person B start from different fundamentals, whether language, or beliefs, or experiences. 

 

That's a good way to think of it - in terms of the fundamentals. Every single brain is a unique, biological organic organ, developed under unique circumstances, set into unique environmental conditions. As so each person does start with different fundamentals.

[MBM]

I was not suggesting that scientists are making absolute statements. Some people here were making absolute statements and/or value judgments about mental health issues and diseases.

 

Thanks. I see what you mean now. :)

 

[fraidycat]

I'm not saying that no chemical imbalance could possibly exist but I don't think it explains the huge swell of depressed people on medications today, unless we have poisoned the food, water, or air (also a possibility, and the others simply haven't fallen victim yet).

You may very well be on to something here. It's a whole new (still rather controversial, we start talking diet and evolution - hot topics for sure) discussion, but is a very good possibility for the why. The systematic nutrient deficiency we experience as a society (factory farming, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, feedlots, etc) can and probably does have very profound effects on brain chemistry that we haven't even begun to study or understand.

[Rosie_0801]

You may very well be on to something here. It's a whole new (still rather controversial, we start talking diet and evolution - hot topics for sure) discussion, but is a very good possibility for the why. The systematic nutrient deficiency we experience as a society (factory farming, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, feedlots, etc) can and probably does have very profound effects on brain chemistry that we haven't even begun to study or understand.

 

As a society, we don't treat our children very well. Many spend much of their childhood stressed and that will change how the brain functions too.

[fraidycat]

As a society, we don't treat our children very well. Many spend much of their childhood stressed and that will change how the brain functions too.

Absolutely.

 

There is no *one right answer*. We've managed to muck up our existence in pretty much every way imaginable from how we started out. Busy-ness, diet, poor exercise, false rhythms (unnatural light, etc.), even what we sleep on. The list goes on.

[albeto.]

You may very well be on to something here. It's a whole new (still rather controversial, we start talking diet and evolution - hot topics for sure) discussion, but is a very good possibility for the why. The systematic nutrient deficiency we experience as a society (factory farming, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, feedlots, etc) can and probably does have very profound effects on brain chemistry that we haven't even begun to study or understand.

 

I don't think it is considered controversial. There are ongoing trials that experiment on just this correlation - between the gut and the brain. So far, it seems to be a positive, verifiable correlation. Researchers are discovering just how it works out, what variables are at play here. I suspect we'll learn a lot in the next few decades about just how inconvenient all these conveniences really are.  With the consistent increase in human population, a return to pre-industrial human society just isn't feasible, so we'll have to figure something else out.