Whenever I read a comment like this, I’m always curious if the commenter did some basic searching of their own. Just searching “chemical imbalance debunked” yields a wide array of sources. So why ask? It seems almost like a form of Socratic questioning. You want to debate the point, but for whatever reason, are not doing so directly.
I'll take this sincerely, and ask you, is this really something you've a continuing curiosity about? I have a suspicion you understand what is taking place, but for whatever reason, are not expressing so directly. Are you asserting there is nothing more to discuss after one parses the search results for “chemical imbalance debunked”. The parent is quite clearly, at the minimum, meeting their parent's level of input, which essentially amounted to "this thing is debunked". As an onlooker and after a quick skim of the search query you suggested, I am still not exactly clear on what "neurochemistry issue [theory]" entails. What would help, is a more clear underpinning for what is being discussed, which your parent is suggesting, through question, before attempting to respond. I appreciate this personally!
Ah, well-put! I think we may be reacting differently to the same articles. My understanding is that while various neurochemical theories have not been proven as the general public seems to think, they have also not necessarily been disproven or debunked. Certainly it has not been proven that neurochemistry has no role at all.
I wouldn't recommend searching for "chemical imbalance debunked" unless you intend to confirm an existing bias. The internet will show you whatever you want, and there are enough people who distrust medical professionals that any search for "debunking" will be a minefield of fringe theories and grifters. I'd recommend someone start generally, searching for information about clinical depression, and then build on that to look at root causes and how the medical understanding of those root causes has changed over time.
One of the first search results for me was a paper published in Nature. Other top results were from respected institutions like the NIH and Harvard University. Hardly grifters or crazies.
The caveat you cite applies to basically any and all internet (or even media) consumption, and is therefore a non-argument.
Maybe chip on their shoulder, but the claim of conspiracy theorist is completely unwarranted. The impression you give off is that you decided upfront their sources are bad and you're going to knee-jerk reject their evidence no matter what.
Sad how people start frothing at the mouth during a relatively anodyne conversation. You don’t see it often on HN - more of a Reddit thing - but apparently it does happen.
drugging society is a method of proxying community responsibility , I personally completely understand why people react vitriolically to being told that drugs are not the solution , because without drugs we would have to help each other , and most people dont realize that cooperative multi tasking is the most efficient solution , or they give up because bad actors easily ruin functional cooperative societies , or they are lazy
I think their rhetorical approach to this subject is bad and I have no respect for someone who tries to lead someone to a conclusion while being circumspect about their own biases. This is the internet; one should assume negative intent in these cases.
This all started with someone asking for their sources, and the person hasn't given any except to say to Google... which means for all we know the person who then googled ended up in a situation with lots of conspiracy theories. Google famously gives personalized results to an extreme degree especially when you add in differences in search terms.
I will say if you search for "chemical imbalance debunked" as discussed, the first result for me is a paper that also says dyslexia cannot be proved to be a disorder. Which just from vibes feels really conspiratorial, even without making comments on the veracity of the academic paper.
The person who was asked for sources was a different person than the one who quipped that finding said sources yourself is trivial.
> Google... which means for all we know the person who then googled ended up in a situation with lots of conspiracy theories.
If people have low enough media literacy that they cannot distinguish between scientific research published in refereed journals and conspiracy theories, then I cannot help them and it is not my responsibility to pander to their lack of competence.
> just from vibes feels really conspiratorial
Just from vibes? Clearly you are a scientific luminary.
Yeah, the person making the claim never responded. But I was more responding to your comments, specifically:
"Just searching 'chemical imbalance debunked' yields a wide array of sources. So why ask?", and "One of the first search results for me was a paper published in Nature. Other top results were from respected institutions like the NIH and Harvard University. Hardly grifters or crazies."
Those both trivialize the process of finding sources and interpreting them. I picked my top result which was from nih.gov and gave an example of why it's hard for a lay-person to interpret journal entries because it uses field specific terms that come across as wrong or conspiratorial. Heck the paper itself references other papers on other journals that appear legitimate that argue for the chemical imbalance theory, eg an article from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) from 1993. Just because the source has NIH in it or is in a journal does not guarantee correctness or reliability because time passes and new science is done. The link in question was of a paper from 2006, which we are now further from than the 2006 paper was from the 1993 paper.
I am not claiming to be a scientific luminary and even agree that the chemical imbalance theory that was espoused for years was probably incorrect for many issues. I was just arguing against thinking it's easy to investigate and source claims. It's much easier for the person who is making the claim to provide their sources, and preferably they have a large body of evidence behind them and are recent or even better a source that has done that leg work of reviewing it and distilling it down.
Argue? I considered it a conversation, before your very rude and unwarranted ad hominem.
It seems that you really have no clue what you’re talking about, and are merely lashing out due to your own immaturity and insecurity. Maybe you can find a doctor who will prescribe you a pill that will fix your personality defects. It would certainly be easier than acknowledging your (massive) intellectual and emotional deficits.
Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find. "Do your own research" is a fucking plague on our modern world and is why the internet is like wall to wall grifters now.
By all means, Google whatever you like, but if you show up to a doctors office waving WebMD sheets in a medical professionals face, you are going to be mocked and you deserve it.
I witnessed a pair of doctors prescribe a family member an incredibly dangerous drug for an off label use. The company had been fined $500 million dollars for various illegal schemes to convince doctors to write such prescriptions, but I’m sure the doctors in question were unaware of this. When this family member began to exhibit textbook symptoms of an extremely dangerous (life threatening) condition which could only be caused by the drug in question, the doctors failed to notice, and in fact repeatedly increased the dosage, and added more drugs on top to treat the symptoms caused by the initial drug. It was not until I accompanied my relative to a doctor’s appointment and delivered a carefully designed incantation that they made the correct diagnosis and halted the prescriptions.
>Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find.
The average medical professional is worst-placed to judge the veracity of any studies they find than the average engineer or mathematician who's done a solid statistics and probability course. Medical students are assessed on their ability to memorise and regurgitate facts, not on their ability to conduct statistical analysis.
I both agree and disagree. The issue is not independent thinking and research - it’s the low media literacy of the average person that makes them vulnerable to frauds, grifters, and crazies.
With that said, the first few search results for the query were from the journal Nature, the NIH, and Harvard university. Hardly the loony or malicious caricature that you attempt to paint.
