![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vakkotaurOr, what is a normal default state? Happiness and sadness both occur and are to be expected. But if a person is sad often and for long time, it might be considered a problem and treated. Part of this treatment can be anti-depressant drugs. But, are there people who are just too happy for too long? Not obsessive, not manic, not hallucinating, but just "too happy" compared to so-called normal people? Do they have some sort of pro-depressants[1] prescribed? Do they get counseling on not being so "up" and all?
I rather doubt it, but it is an interesting thought, looking at it backward from the usual. It's certainly understandable to pick the more pleasant state as the preferred default.
[1]I can't say "depressants" since depressants, as the name is used, are drugs that tend to have a calming effect. These are more anti-anxiety or tranquilizers than something to smooth off the peaks of excess happiness.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 23 Oct 2003 08:45 (UTC)However, remember that a significant portion of the population has a genetic predisposition to depression. I'd say that the human default is "no depression" because in a simpler time, the patterns that led to depression are also the ones Most Likely To Get You Eaten By Felis Smilidon (or stomped on by a mammoth, for that matter.)
well....
Date: 23 Oct 2003 11:25 (UTC)Depression is not only defined as a "state of being sad' but also as a physical problem with the brain chemistry. Current working-theory states that most depressive symptoms are caused by an imbalance in the neurotransmitters in the brain. Most so-called "anti-depressants" are really SSRIs - standing for Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors. They reduce the rate that your body breaks down Serotonin, so that there is more available for the brain to use. This change in the balance of neurotransmitter levels usually results in a decrease of depressive symptoms.
No studies have been made on the brain chemistry of "happiness", probably because people have better things to do than study it! Interestingly enough, people in the manic phase of bipolar disorder often feel wonderful. However, SSRI treatment is NOT effective in these cases, and may often make the condition worse!
Re: well....
Date: 23 Oct 2003 11:32 (UTC)Problem I have with this is that if there is a detectable chemical imbalance, why isn't there some sort of diagnostic based on detecting it? All I've seen is a list of questions. Maybe there is more, but it sounds like "Hrm, yes, probably.. lets see if $drug-1 works, and if not, we can try $drug-2..."
This is certainly a way to do things, but it grates. It's a shotgun approach to a supposed precision problem. Sure, it does help some people, but I wonder how many are "helped" when they don't need it. No one who truly needs the help should be denied it, but neither should it be inflicted on those who do not. And right now, it seems very hit and miss.
Re: well....
Date: 24 Oct 2003 12:10 (UTC)Oh, I totally agree with you there.
The main problem (as it was explained to me) is that neurotransmitter balance varies widely from individual to individual. Also, the only way to certainly test this is to do sampling - a rather invasive, messy, and potentially risky endeavor. Also, you'd have to test over a period of time to determine 'normal' variation for this particular individual. Just as complex. Therefore, since you can't use direct sampling you have to use indirect sampling.
The way they determined that I had a chemical imbalance was twofold. (I have mild depression manifesting itself as anxiety, with a tendancy towards PMS and SAD) First off - behavior-modification therapy had only limited effect. My symptoms were being controlled, but not eliminated. So I was instructed to keep a log of my symptoms. Four times a day, I was to stop and write down how I felt, using a 1-10 scale. After 6 weeks of this, we determined that stresses on my system such as skipped meals or shorting myself on sleep result in symptoms 1-3 days later, depending on the time of the month. I would wake 45-60 minutes after falling asleep with all the symptoms of a panic attack. The precision of the timetables helped them figure out that there was a "short" in the system, as it were. My last crisis (the one you so helpfully called me during) hit 3 days after I changed my allergy meds, and at a particularly "vulnerable" time of my monthly cycle.
Treatment for depression is about the same place that hormone treatment was 10-15 years ago - we have a general idea what works, but refining specifics and dosages is still a ways off yet, and we don't know a lot about the long-term effects.
"Hrm, yes, probably.. lets see if $drug-1 works, and if not, we can try $drug-2..."
Well, that's what they have to do with a lot of meds! Claritin and Allegra do NOTHING for me, but Zyrtec works very well - yet all are related antihisthamines. Singulair is the hot new asthma pill, but I do better on the "old-fashioned" Accolate. When I hurt my hands a few years ago, Vioxx put me to sleep but Celebrex worked - yet they are both Coxx-2 inhibitors. It depends on the individual's reaction.
no subject
Date: 6 Nov 2003 11:58 (UTC)In answer to your post, I believe they call excessive happiness "hyperactivity" and forcibly give children ritalin and other stimulants to calm them down to regular drone levels. No bitterness there on behalf of friends who were forcibly medicated, nope.
The problem with neurological stuff is more complex, and is borderline rant-material for me. The first and biggest problem is that no real neuro-studies were done before the early 1900s. Part of it was due to not having the equipment to read brainwaves and such. The majority of it was due to that bastion of science... religion. Way back when, the powers that be needed proof that humans were better than animals, so they decided that the body was fair game to study, but that the brain was equal to the soul and therefore not to be touched. Eventually this ended up causing the whole stigma of things "Just being in your head" and, better yet, solvable by praying enough.
There are a lot of neuro-*s out there who believe that depression is a symptom rather than an actual disease, just as fevers are now recognized as symptoms of something else rather than afflictions in and of themselves. There is a ton of study going on as to common factors in depression/schizophrenia (Not to be confused with multiple personality disorder, which is dissociation, which may also have some link to depression, and so on) and a ton of other "syndromes" such as Asperger's and even perhaps tying into what were originally considered strictly physical diseases such as diabetes.
It would be helpful if someday there were a clear test to determine if a person is depressed -- it would shut people like my father-in-law up. Despite having a depressed wife, two depressed children, a depressed daughter-in-law, and relatives of his wife's who also exhibit extreme symptoms of depression, he is convinced that we just aren't trying hard enough to overcome it. Heck, even though medication has demonstrably helped his wife, son, and daughter-in-law he still doesn't believe in it because there's no test to prove it. At least with things like, say, my egg and wheat allergies there's a lab test which says "Her blood does <this> when it is introduced to egg protein and gluten". Likewise with diabetes; it's hard to dispute when a blood test over three months indicates that my blood sugar was 2 times that of an average person. But depression can only be diagnosed by describing symptoms, maybe the positive reaction to drugs is simply a placebo.
One other thing a medical student friend of my husband's and mine has noted: it's really hard to test mental stuff on lab mice. Pinky and the Brain aside, you can't ask a mouse if it's sad. He also notes that even if mice could say they are sad, of course someone would be sad if they're cramped up in a cage all day, only taken out to be injected or to run through a maze and get shocked when they try to eat the cheese. There are a lot of rules in place for testing live humans, and mostly they're in place for very good reasons. Unfortunately they prevent doctors/researchers from being able to get a lot of useful feedback, but I am glad the barriers exist.
The medical student friend I mentioned took time off from med school to relax and get a PhD (Yes, this is proof positive of some serious masochism). His dissertation is about a certain hormone's link to diabetes, and the other day he finally got the data to prove his thesis. He's been working, mostly with trial and error, for several years to get these results, since isolating what ended up being the link can only be done by testing every single aspect of every single gene and finding all of the commonalities. Given the medical advances in the past ten years or so it is possible that they may find the underlying cause(s) of various diseases/syndromes in our lifetime.
Heck, neuro-psychology, which is what Asperger's falls under, has only recently been testing for various things. The first few decades of the field were spent figuring out how to test and for what. I guess for now trial and error is all we have for many neuro* problems, and the best that can be done is to be happy when it works.
no subject
Date: 6 Nov 2003 13:01 (UTC)I hope you don't mind.
Not at all. If I didn't want comments, I could turn them off. Comment away!