Anti-depressants doing more harm than good, killing the elderly

[mijopaalmc]

OK Tubba the new understaning of evolutionary psycholgoy and depression is much bigger than you or me, and I don't pretend to be as intelligent about it as say... David Buss. Not addressing the subject.

Stop appealing to authority. Name-dropping is not a valid substitute for an argument

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm not name-dropping, I'm directing you to further research from far more qualified people. This is a joke. Evolutionary medicine is decades behind where it should be due to ******** shoving philosophical ******** down our throats. ******** that like rules and systems of thinking.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not name-dropping, I'm directing you to further research from far more qualified people. This is a joke. Evolutionary medicine is decades behind where it should be due to ******** shoving philosophical ******** down our throats. ******** that like rules and systems of thinking.

Yes you are name-dropping. You said that Richard Dawkins supports evolutionary medicines and then mentioned David Buss as a prominent evolutionary psychologist. You provided no links and, more impotantly, no original publications. Making a passing reference to someone without evidentiary suppirt as to what their position acutally is is by definition name-dropping. You quite clearly expect to stop being questioned simply because you have uttered the name of someone famous.

 

[Joey McGee]

Is your google and youtube broken?

This is a forum not a scientific journal.

I would suggest watching the interviews between dawkins and buss and dawkins and pinker to understand the issues I'm talking about.

 

[Joey McGee]

I am literally *********** sick of people asking me for evidence like it's an argument. When are people going to get off their asses and answer their own questions? I guess when it serves them to.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is your google and youtube broken?

This is a forum not a scientific journal.

I would suggest watching the interviews between dawkins and buss and dawkins and pinker to understand the issues I'm talking about.

If you're going going to make extraordinary claims, you need to provide the extraordinary evidence.

Simply telling people who ask you for evidence to "google it" or "youtube it" doesn't an argument make. Presumably, you have done the research, so you know where the relevant publications are. However, you appear to have fallen victim to scientific faddism and are disguising your own ignorance with accusations of "philosophical" opposition to evolutionary medicine, rather than present evidence that evolutionary medicine in a productive scientific endeavor.

It's also fun to watch scientific illiterates like you meltdown when you are held to a minimal level of scientific integrity.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I am literally *********** sick of people asking me for evidence like it's an argument. When are people going to get off their asses and answer their own questions? I guess when it serves them to.

If it's not an argument, don't open with an accusation.

 

[madurobob]

I am literally *********** sick of people asking me for evidence like it's an argument. When are people going to get off their asses and answer their own questions? I guess when it serves them to.

Um... it actually *is* an argument. In the classical sense of the term. That is to say, the philosophical definition of an argument is exactly what you are attempting to do here: attempt to persuade by giving reasons or evidence for a particular conclusion.

The problem is, you refuse to give much in the way of evidence. How can you possibly expect to persuade people that you are correct if you refuse to give any evidence? Thats the basic premise behind an argument, behind this site, and behind critical thinking in general. Offer no evidence for your claims and you will be dismissed as a crackpot. Offer compelling evidence, links to journals and research, etc.. and you will be shown respect and your claims thoughtfully considered. Its really that simple (well, mostly).

 

[Dancing David]

I think that many researchers do look at how partial expression of traits could have some benefit to the organism, the issue is that redefining a term like 'depression' has little merit to it.

Arousal is a good example, we can't spend all day in a state of arousal, if we are then we become 'stressed' rather quickly. So it would appear that there are mechanism, mostly conditioned , that create states of arousal in humans. Obviously the arousal state labelled 'fear' is going to have certain states where it occurs and the body organism is going to enter high levels of arousal. This can be very beneficial if you have to fight or escape.

However in some people this level of arousal occurs in odd situations that seem to have little benefit to the individual. Phobia with panic attacks being a good example.

Now there may be reasons why some people have strange things have to their circadian rhythms on a seasonal basis. If one lives in a higher latitude there could be benefit to states of sleepiness during winter and less sleep during the summer. But it would be really hard to parse that out from the behavioral components, but it could have an actual mechanism related to the length of day.

But just disturbed sleep cycles are the greatest reason people seek treatment, insomnia has many variations and forms, all just related to the disruption of the normal sleep wake cycle, not even getting into the delayed sleep phase people.

So if there are complex mechanisms in place that regulate levels of arousal, attention, sleep/wake cycles there are a myriad of possibilities for partial aberration that have either some minor benefit potentially or some minor detriment, say the large number of people in families with bipolar disorder who have hypomania. They are productive, they work long hours, they get by on six hours of sleep, now they may have some detriment in low impulse control and addictions.

However these traits as partial expressions are one thing, the same traits in full expression that produce florid mania, psychosis and impulsive acts of a detrimental nature, often with little regard for danger or conversely severe vegetative depression or psychotic depression, these are not beneficial to the individual.

It is even harder to look at possible links to reproductive success, outside of just individual benefits and detriments.

The point being, yes partial traits associated with symptoms of depression could have potential benefits or detriment of a mild nature. However full blown depression is dysfunctional by definition.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I am literally *********** sick of people asking me for evidence like it's an argument.

Then perhaps this is not the place for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the article cited by Gord, post #3:

antidepressants could have

The authors cite some side effects and speculate using the basis that everything which evolved is naturally selected for a survival benefit.

One problem: we know from a better understanding of the genetic process that everything selected does not have a survival advantage, some stuff actually is just random and doesn't get weeded out during reproduction.

And another problem is listing side effects without comparing them to benefits is a one sided analysis when risk/cost benefit is the proper analysis format.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am literally *********** sick of people asking me for evidence like it's an argument. When are people going to get off their asses and answer their own questions? I guess when it serves them to.

People are not asking a question because they seek an answer. They know the answer. They are using a question to point out a problem with your assumptions.

Asking a question is a way of challenging a false assumption. If X is true then you would expect Y to be true yet we can see Y is false. You made this same mistake about questions challenging your conclusion in the Pink Slime thread.

 

[epepke]

From DSM IV - Major Depressive Episode:

OK, not sure what you are saying here. The DSM people are pretty careful.

The thing is that anti-depressants are widely (yes, I said widely) prescribed without anything remotely resembling care taken toward doing a diagnosis. I know for certain of one case where it was done purely based on statements from third parties.

I realize that there are people even in the industry who think that anti-depressants are da BOMB! and go apoplectic when any caution is given. Those who are not already aware that there is overprescription should gently be encouraged to seek their life's fulfillment elsewhere and scorned if adamant.

@Dancing_David's insistant refusal to consider the possibility that 11% is widespread is rather eye-watering. I doubt that as many people take NSAIDs. As I think I have stated before, I am not aware of any psychotropic medications that can treat a condition such as this.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, not sure what you are saying here. The DSM people are pretty careful.

The thing is that anti-depressants are widely (yes, I said widely) prescribed without anything remotely resembling care taken toward doing a diagnosis. I know for certain of one case where it was done purely based on statements from third parties.

I realize that there are people even in the industry who think that anti-depressants are da BOMB! and go apoplectic when any caution is given. Those who are not already aware that there is overprescription should gently be encouraged to seek their life's fulfillment elsewhere and scorned if adamant.

@Dancing_David's insistant refusal to consider the possibility that 11% is widespread is rather eye-watering. I doubt that as many people take NSAIDs. As I think I have stated before, I am not aware of any psychotropic medications that can treat a condition such as this.

As I said I was over the top that morning.

So many of my statement were widely exagerated.

I agree that too many people without proper understanding are prescribing psychotopics, and I am sorry to read about prescribing without a first party assesment.

I do not feel that ADs or any psychotropic should be prescribed wholesale, nor willy nilly.

My main concern when doing assesments was that the vast majority of people chose to only see the doctor and did not seek counseling at the same time. Most people who seek medication could benefit from at least life style changes and CBT.

 

[mijopaalmc]

One problem: we know from a better understanding of the genetic process that everything selected does not have a survival advantage, some stuff actually is just random and doesn't get weeded out during reproduction.

Traits that are selected by definition confer a survival advantage. Traits that are fixed in a population, however, are not necessarily selected.

 

[Elizabeth I]

To bring this down to the disturbingly individual level, I'd like to know how sitting around in a sort of conscious stupor thinking about suicide but not doing anything about it because I simply didn't have the energy was somehow conducing to evolution. Or, alternatively, going around in a constant near-rage to the point that sometimes it was dangerous (for others) for me to drive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Traits that are selected by definition confer a survival advantage. Traits that are fixed in a population, however, are not necessarily selected.

What do you mean by "fixed"?

Traits are sometimes neutral, or they are disadvantageous but have not been weeded out of the population, and sometimes they are piggybacked on to genes that have some other survival advantage. Genetic mutations can be amplified for purely non-genetic reasons such as a rich man in a culture that supports polygamy might have lots of offspring amplifying traits for reasons purely unrelated to the genetic mutation.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What do you mean by "fixed"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_%28population_genetics%29

Traits are sometimes neutral, or they are disadvantageous but have not been weeded out of the population, and sometimes they are piggybacked on to genes that have some other survival advantage. Genetic mutations can be amplified for purely non-genetic reasons such as a rich man in a culture that supports polygamy might have lots of offspring amplifying traits for reasons purely unrelated to the genetic mutation.

Or non-linked traits can drift to fixation.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

OK Tubba the new understaning of evolutionary psycholgoy and depression is much bigger than you or me, and I don't pretend to be as intelligent about it as say... David Buss. Not addressing the subject.

Richard Wiseman! Deepak Chopra! Plato!

Anyway, you need to be careful in your wording. If you say "Look at these studies, apparently some of the symptoms of depression are not beneficial to medicate away! Does this mean we should re-evaluate our treatment, or maybe our diagnostic criteria for clinical depression?" then I think most people will discuss it with you.

When you say...

"Well David I suggest you take a long, hard look at what people like Randolph Nesse and other evolutionary medicine proponents have to say about depression. To put it simply, depression can be an evolved function that serves a purpose, that sometimes doesn't work, or becomes disordered."

That's actually nonsense. Depression is defined operationally. That means, some psychiatrists decided that "degree of depression" is what's measured by this form or these criteria. That's what Depression IS. There's no arguing about it.

It's always interesting to look if we ought to revise our operational definitions, but you can't call old definitions "wrong". The photon as a particle or light as a wave aren't wrong, they're reasonable operational definition, though neither is how we define electromagnetic radiation today.

 

[Modified]

To bring this down to the disturbingly individual level, I'd like to know how sitting around in a sort of conscious stupor thinking about suicide but not doing anything about it because I simply didn't have the energy was somehow conducing to evolution. Or, alternatively, going around in a constant near-rage to the point that sometimes it was dangerous (for others) for me to drive.

For me it is even more clear cut. Without antidepressants, I would be unable to eat due to constant nausea, unable to sleep due to severe hypnic jerks at 30 second intervals, and in a few weeks I'd be dead. Yet, with a very low dose of a common antidepressant, I have essentially zero symptoms.