The truth and Prozac will set you free

[Uno Lee]

What I am suggesting is that the loss may come with a price. Perhaps there is more disillusionment in life than many people can handle. Perhaps the healthy or normal brain invents fantasy as a defense mechanism against reality.

I think that we made/make up stories for that what we couldn't/can't explain, and those/these stories are passed down from generation/multi-media conglomerates to generation/general public, but we're getting smarter and figuring more and more things out and now have provable explanations/good reason to see them for what they really are, stories. As long as this conflict exists I fear that more people will need medication.

 

[Joel]

Perhaps the healthy or normal brain invents fantasy as a defense mechanism against reality. Since it has been such an integral part of cultures throughout history, it would seem that fantasy, be it Santa or religion, is an evolved trait. This tells me that this might have given us some advantage over the nearly extinct homo-skeptica.

First off, very interesting thread and good posts! Thanks everyone!

I also think a healthy brain invents fantasy (tautology, eh? ) and I remember a study where depressed and non-depressed people where asked to evaluate some measurable property (can't remember what) of themselves. The depressed group could evaluate their actual talents much better than the non-depressed group, who constantly judged themselves higher than their measured talent. So, in psychological terms, depressed people tend to have low self-esteem and low self-efficacy, both of which are important to take on difficult tasks, including scientific problems. (In a way, I think studying science requires more faith (in our own abilities) than many other tasks. Or at least it feels that way sometimes...)

Anyway, I can also relate to what Hyp is saying about spirituality's motivating effect in science and its education. A very good point.

One more thing about education; Ivan, I agree that (science-) education can cause distress to religiously raised children, when their views can be shown untenable, as Hyp says. But if we turn the issue, science education also gives these children better means to cope with challenges later on in life, when the damage of finding views untenable may be even bigger. So, I think it's a double edged sword.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind.

This article also came to mind...

A peek into one of the most intriguing childhood mysteries reveals that imaginary playmates are a staple of early development and persist well into the school years -- later than researchers once thought.

"I'm beginning to think it never goes away," said Marjorie Taylor, head of psychology at the University of Oregon and a leading researcher on children's pretend play. "What I think is it morphs into a different form."

Taylor and University of Washington researcher Stephanie Carlson explored the hidden world of imaginary companions in a study that appears in the current issue of the journal Developmental Psychology.

"The phenomenon of the imaginary friend is really misunderstood," Taylor said. "People thought it was rare -- it's not. People thought it was a red flag -- it's not." [continued]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/202632_imaginary07.html

Here is a citation for the paper mentioned. I thought that I saw the entire paper online for free but I lost the link and could never find it again.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9249959&dopt=Citation

 

[Type 7]

I don't think Prozac symbolizes anything, but that Ivan has a good point...are we ignoring a need to be spiritual (with Hyp's definition of spirituality as being emotional/perceptual), thus many of us become depressed and "cure" it by using anti-depressants? I know many people who are on depressants, I would say about 1 in 4 people I interact with day to day are on some kind of anti-depressant-and those are just people who are open about being prescribed and using it! Are these people supressing some sort of need we have psychologically as human beings?

First I think we have to distinguish between depression resulting from congenital brain chemistry and depression resulting from environmental and experiential factors. I believe it's the latter that we are discussing here, so I'm addressing your question from that perspective.

If we accept Freud's postulate that depression is anger turned inward, then yes, these people are suppressing the psychological need to express anger. Psychotherapy alleviates depression by enabling the patient to express and release anger, often anger that they didn't even know they had. Prozac and the other meds treat the chemical symptoms of depression while ignoring the cause.

Religious tenets and spiritual practices emphasize peace, faith, acceptance, all of which displace anger and fear (that leads to anger). Throughout human history, religion and spirituality has been, in its essence, a means to psychological well being. To the extent that science undermines it, a primary coping mechanism has been lost.

Is it in the best interest of an individual to rely on medication with accompanying side effects rather than relying on a belief system? We do have psychotherapy, but not many have access to it for reasons of time and money, and geography.

I think society as a whole would benefit from a greater accomodation of religion/spirituality by science and vice versa. That may be the main social challenge of science in this century.

 

[Kerrie]

First I think we have to distinguish between depression resulting from congenital brain chemistry and depression resulting from environmental and experiential factors. I believe it's the latter that we are discussing here, so I'm addressing your question from that perspective.

If we accept Freud's postulate that depression is anger turned inward, then yes, these people are suppressing the psychological need to express anger. Psychotherapy alleviates depression by enabling the patient to express and release anger, often anger that they didn't even know they had. Prozac and the other meds treat the chemical symptoms of depression while ignoring the cause.

Religious tenets and spiritual practices emphasize peace, faith, acceptance, all of which displace anger and fear (that leads to anger). Throughout human history, religion and spirituality has been, in its essence, a means to psychological well being. To the extent that science undermines it, a primary coping mechanism has been lost.

Is it in the best interest of an individual to rely on medication with accompanying side effects rather than relying on a belief system? We do have psychotherapy, but not many have access to it for reasons of time and money, and geography.

I think society as a whole would benefit from a greater accomodation of religion/spirituality by science and vice versa. That may be the main social challenge of science in this century.

Good point in the differences of the causes of depression. Many though who have surpressed anger carry it for years, thus possibly causing a reaction of low seratonin, don't know this for a fact however. Perhaps prozac is then prescribed for these instances.

I agree though about society benefiting from interlocking a sense of spirituality with science, and that is is a huge challenge in our "modern" society.

 

[Type 7]

Good point in the differences of the causes of depression. Many though who have surpressed anger carry it for years, thus possibly causing a reaction of low seratonin, don't know this for a fact however. Perhaps prozac is then prescribed for these instances.

You are right, of course. I'm all for using meds as a therapeutic tool in conjunction with traditional psychotherapy, just not as a substitute for it. For instance, there are cases where meds can enable a patient to be more open and talkative with the therapist, which speeds progress. And there are times when meds can give some immediate relief and/or stability to a patient so that psychotherapy can then proceed.

To everyone, about the whole rainbow thing. In Chapter 9 of Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi there is as good an explanation of the ignorance-is-bliss idea as exists anywhere. The chapter is short and worth reading.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If we are replacing religion with anti-depressants, I'd say it's long overdue. I doubt there will be any wars started over whether little Billy takes Zoloft or Prozac.

 

[Type 7]

You are probably right.

Replacing religion with drugs would result in billions of consumers which means trillions of dollars and the power that goes with that kind of wealth. Money and power are what most wars are about. The global market for drugs would fuel conflicts between nations. The drug companies would have more money, power and political influence than the oil companies have now, and would just as surely want their interests (sources of supply, etc) protected.

What was it Lenin said, religion is the opiate of the masses? Something like that. As a drug, religion is cheaper, more readily available, and doesn't concentrate power in the hands of the few.

 

[Telos]

Ivan, the problem is not in knowing either scientific truth or magic, but in the lack of freedom imposed on one mind from another. The person who is explaining the physics of the rainbow may unintentionally be communicating, "this is the way to interpret it, and no other way." The "no other way" is what causes the discomfort, not the science. In a way this person would be committing the same fundamental crime that many religions have in the past...

... and the same fundamental crimes that almost all schools and colleges commit today. "This is the way learn about this, and no other." This is the source of all discomfort with schooling. The difficulty of any subject is eroded by the positive emotional involvement of the student, and this involvement is stunted when freedom is stunted - the freedom to see or do things another way.

Somewhere along our industrialization we have forgotten the importance of freedom. Probably leftover from our theistic roots, we've bought into the "one way" notion of standardizing the world and each other.

I love science. So much that I want to be my own scientist. I want to do my own experiments, no matter how rudimentary. I want to make my own theories, learn on my own, with my priorities. Moreover, I want to do it at the pace I want. Unfortunately, none of this is possible under our current standard. We must not have to go through the trouble of getting to know and evaluate one other - we must have standardized institutions do it for us.

Why can't we let children act like Ph.d.'s, if they want to? Why must we herd them and imprison them like cattle in a mind-factory? Between our love for science and our love for freedom, something has gone awry.

Instead of growing the spiritual and philosophical balls to proclaim that all people are born with the inalienable right of freedom, we have stupidly and shamefully declared the opposite - that children must receive a liberal education in order to earn freedom, and only after about a full two decades of life.

School has taken the role of setting people free instead of protecting the already existing freedom. In the rainbow example, science has taken the role of imprisoning the mind instead of providing food for it.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't know if we're really replacing religion with Prozac. I do think that people are generally uncomfortable with the unknown. How we handle that discomfort with the unknown seems to be what differs. Some of us, the scientists, address this by trying to discover what makes things work and turn the unknown into the known. Knowing how something works doesn't spoil the beauty of it because we can find another level of beauty in the intricacies of how things around us function. A rainbow isn't any less beautiful because it is generated from refraction patterns of sunlight through water droplets rather than from the leprechauns' pots of gold, though it does spoil the fun of trying to chase the rainbow to that pot of gold. But isn't it just as wonderful to know that ordinary rain drops can treat us to something as eye pleasing as a rainbow?

On the other hand, if you don't know enough about science, or aren't in a position to see these intricacies of how things work unfold before you, then you need another way to comfort that need to understand the unknown. Having faith that there is a higher purpose can make the unknown less frightening, as can having faith that there is a "being" in charge making sure things happen for a reason.

On a more whimsical note, I recently read Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, and while the science was somewhat laughable, the overall message of the book struck a chord with me, because it agrees very much with the way faith and science have come together in my life. I guess I'd best be called agnostic, though periodically waiver closer toward atheism. Nonetheless, don't scientists also have faith that everything happens for a reason? We just believe those reasons may be something other than the handiwork of a supreme being.

But, I suppose Ivan's question is more about those who are caught in the middle. Those who have some of the mysteries of our universe unveiled, but who can neither see the next level of beauty and mystery that is revealed nor return back to the blind faith they held before they were given deeper knowledge. Do I think that causes depression? No. I think someone who is already depressed or predisposed to depression may find themselves caught in this middle ground, but I think the cause and effect are that the depression leads to the inability to have faith or to find beauty in every day events rather than the other way around.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But, I suppose Ivan's question is more about those who are caught in the middle. Those who have some of the mysteries of our universe unveiled, but who can neither see the next level of beauty and mystery that is revealed nor return back to the blind faith they held before they were given deeper knowledge. Do I think that causes depression? No. I think someone who is already depressed or predisposed to depression may find themselves caught in this middle ground, but I think the cause and effect are that the depression leads to the inability to have faith or to find beauty in every day events rather than the other way around.

That's an interesting and well-put perspective. My experience with depression has been somewhat different from this, in that I'd have to say I never lost the ability to see beauty, I just lost the ability to be made happy by it. That is, I saw a rainbow (for example), thought it was beautiful, but remained overwhelmed by gloom and depression. I think this may be why the movie American Beauty struck such a chord with me. The whole thing has a very gloomy vibe to it, like the whole world was steeped in depression, yet it's all about beauty, all about appreciating the simple things in life.

Reflection like this just reaffirms my feeling that the disorder is almost purely chemical, at least in my case. I love exploring the world, particularly the scientific aspects, and I find it extremely beautiful, yet I can't always keep a positive attitude. I do think that depression is probably overdiagnosed, but I also think that people who genuinely suffer from it should try medication, at least for a while. There is something to be said for being able to keep yourself going without it (just as their is with any disorder), but I don't think we should be pressuring the depressed to do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think Ivan's intention of this thread was to speculate how/if Prozac/anti-depressants patches over our need/desire to have some sort of spirituality. That we have taken modern day medications as a substitute for a spiritual outlet (I feel religious and spiritual are slightly different definitions, although Webster Dictionary doesn't agree).

That is exactly the gist of what I was thinking. Also, I realize that antidepressants are doing chemistry. I also know that this is all clinical. One question in my mind is whether or not we are affecting people's brain chemistry by forcing proof based paradigms on belief based brains. If not, then how could anyone ever experience a genuine crisis in beliefs? This can drive a person to suicide.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But, I suppose Ivan's question is more about those who are caught in the middle. Those who have some of the mysteries of our universe unveiled, but who can neither see the next level of beauty and mystery that is revealed nor return back to the blind faith they held before they were given deeper knowledge. Do I think that causes depression? No. I think someone who is already depressed or predisposed to depression may find themselves caught in this middle ground, but I think the cause and effect are that the depression leads to the inability to have faith or to find beauty in every day events rather than the other way around.

The statistics on depression and suicide would seem to indicate that beauty is more elusive than not. We here are a unique crowd. You know what you mean, and I know what you mean, but, for example, no one else in my family would know what you mean. What I hear time and time again is that people struggle to find meaning in life, whereas the limited and popular proof based paradigms tells us that there is none.

 

[SpaceTiger]

That is exactly the gist of what I was thinking. Also, I realize that antidepressants are doing chemistry. I also know that this is all clinical. One question in my mind is whether or not we are affecting people's brain chemistry by forcing proof based paradigms on belief based brains. If not, then how could anyone ever experience a genuine crisis in beliefs? This can drive a person to suicide.

I took Prozac for a while and I certainly didn't notice any change in my belief structure. I think the changes it makes are pretty superficial when you get down to it; that is, it seemed like little more than a mood enhancer. It is true, however, that people will often change their set of beliefs in a desperate attempt to cope with the pain of depression. If anything, I would say that religion is doing much more of a mindjob on people than antidepressants. The belief-based brain, as you put it, may be more analogous to the immune system's response to germs, activated when we experience a mental crisis. If there's no more crisis, however, there's no more need for an immune response.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, in fairness to my own beliefs, I believe that my faith is logical. But I won't get into that.

 

[motai]

It is true, however, that people will often change their set of beliefs in a desperate attempt to cope with the pain of depression.

Yes, but often this works at cross-purposes to end the pain... changing one's worldview so drastically has the tendency to do much more damage than anything else. One of the problems with being in a state of depression is that one's rational sense is gone, and logical thought is no longer possible. It seems to the person that the pain will never end, and time works counter to ease it.

I'm not exactly sure about regular "feeling down" depression (which antidepressants may work well with), but when there is a psychological problem that needs to be addressed, no drug can make them go away.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Yes, but often this works at cross-purposes to end the pain... changing one's worldview so drastically has the tendency to do much more damage than anything else.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at, that the mind's coping mechanism is not something we should necessarily view as desirable.

 

[Joel]

The statistics on depression and suicide would seem to indicate that beauty is more elusive than not. We here are a unique crowd. You know what you mean, and I know what you mean, but, for example, no one else in my family would know what you mean. What I hear time and time again is that people struggle to find meaning in life, whereas the limited and popular proof based paradigms tells us that there is none.

MB knows, you know, many here know, even I may know something, but I think another important question is, about what? However enlighted we are in ways to obtain scientifically based knowledge and reason our way foreword in our fields of interest, do we really do it in discussions like these and other more personal questions? And what about the fields we aren't interested in? I may not be caught in the middle ground between science and faith (that much), but having studied social sciences and moved towards engineering I realize how different these approaches can be and how they can reflect upon one's person. I may have more theories and obscure terms at my disposal when approaching social problem than my engineer(student) friend who may argue based on stereotypes and common belives (the leprechauns), but I do not always correct him out of respect for his approach and because of my desire to hear his point, which he couldn't formulate in a social scientific terms that he doesn't know. For the wellbeing of my engineering friend it is important that he formulates -some- understanding of his relationship with his girlfriend, even it has nothing to do with theories about interpersonal relations. Otherwise he will just feel miserable and may end up in a depression. And at some level, I think that goes for most of us, we are all caught in some middle ground, when we are faced with a question we aren't experts in. Those are the areas I think we may need some pure imagination, spirituality, humour, faith or some other non-scientific approach into easen insecurity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just in the news.

...Spirituality and religion, too, seem to be somehow beneficial to health. Last week at the American Academy of Neurology meeting in Miami Beach, Florida, Yakir Kaufman, director of neurology services at Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital in Jerusalem, presented results suggesting that spirituality and the practice of religion may help slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease. [continued]

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67243,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2