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

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I opened this thread predicting that people would make baseless accusations against evolutionary theory and there you have it folks. I mean would you go into a forum and claim something is junk science without offering qualifications as to why?

It's not evolutionary theory that people are criticizing; evolutionary psychology, evolutionary medicine, and evolutionart psychiatry. You would do well not to naively conflate the former one with the latter three.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You're promoting "novel science" over well-established science, because it takes a radically different approach to old questions.

Prove your opinion.

Quote:

You're essentially promulgating pseudoscience becuase it's "shiny.

I am? What is this pseudoscience called?

Quote:

While I'm not found of some of the anti-science and anti-intellectualism of the various 12-step programs, I would have thought that someone who is so insistent that addictiom recovery and addiction medicine be "science-based" would be more circumspect about the science they themsleves try to promote.

Hank Campell at Science 2.0, he's your new best friend, trust me.

http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/1...t-science-2-0/

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

So when people try and tell you that evolutionary science is just a bunch of atheists trying to make themselves feel better, you'll remember this thread.

No, when someone tries to tell me that major psychiatric disorders are "evolutionary adaptations", I'll remember this thread as an illustration of what crap evolutionary psychiatry is.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

It's not evolutionary theory that people are criticizing; evolutionary psychology, evolutionary medicine, and evolutionart psychiatry. You would do well not to naively conflate the former one with the latter three.

That's your opinion. If you think this is a fringe position, I''d like to share with you that Dawkins shares virtually all of my positions on this topic, so maybe you should focus your debunking tactics on him since Joey is an ex cult-member.

BOOOORRRINNGGG

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

No, when someone tries to tell me that major psychiatric disorders are "evolutionary adaptations", I'll remember this thread as an illustration of what crap evolutionary psychiatry is.

Well you didn't read it properly. No one is saying that disorders are adaptions. WHAT A *********** JOKE

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

That's your opinion. If you think this is a fringe position, I''d like to share with you that Dawkins shares virtually all of my positions on this topic, so maybe you should focus your debunking tactics on him since Joey is an ex cult-member.

Maybe you should stop appealing to authority and inform yourself of the debates within evolutionary biology. The fact that Dawkins agrees with you isn't as much of a ringing endorsement as you think it is.

[Joey McGee]

The most hollow statement ever. My point was that it's not a fringe position. You think Dawkins is the only one? Come on, who are the critics, where do they post, what are their books called? Getting funnier by the moment. I mean FFS, a jumbo jet just can't assemble itself out a junkyard. Gawd

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Ok guys, do some honest research into the creation of truehope and get back to me.

So, no answer as to why anyone's family would have anything to do with this and nothing but pigheaded bluster for many, many posts thereafter. You're really doing very little to make your case here. You are far more like the redheaded kid who expects everyone to pick on him because of his red hair, so he picks fights with everyone in the room before they get a chance.

As someone recently said... BOOOOOOOORING!

Why not just answer an honest question with an honest answer, rather than trying to make enemies of everyone?

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, no answer as to why anyone's family would have anything to do with this and nothing but pigheaded bluster for many, many posts thereafter. You're really doing very little to make your case here. You are far more like the redheaded kid who expects everyone to pick on him because of his red hair, so he picks fights with everyone in the room before they get a chance.

As someone recently said... BOOOOOOOORING!

Why not just answer an honest question with an honest answer, rather than trying to make enemies of everyone?

[Hides behind madurobob] Yeah, why not do that?

[Joey McGee]

I feel some resentment at a community that expects me to do detailed research for them when I have tipped them off to how to research the issues involved.

[Joey McGee]

I'm also sick of people using me as the basis for whether or not I'm right about what I say instead of the facts.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

The most hollow statement ever. My point was that it's not a fringe position. You think Dawkins is the only one? Come on, who are the critics, where do they post, what are their books called? Getting funnier by the moment. I mean FFS, a jumbo jet just can't assemble itself out a junkyard. Gawd

The fact that a prominent scientist supports a specific field of science doesn't mean the field being supported isn't fringe. Linus Pauling supported vitamin C megadosing, and Cary Mullis is an HIV denialist.

If you want to talk about the merits of evolutionary medicine, you should actually present an exmple of a hypothesis it has advanced and that has resisted falsification. Telling me that famous scientists support evolutionary medicine is just an appeal to authority, espicially since your sole citation hasn't publish any primary literature in evolutionary biology in the past decade and isn't a researcher in evolutionary medicine when he does publish original research.

[TubbaBlubba]

Joey McGee, you're (or the people you're quoting) really just trying to redefine the operational definition of depression.

I could change the operational definition of intelligence to mean shoe size, but that wouldn't really change the validity of previous intelligence research.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I'm also sick of people using me as the basis for whether or not I'm right about what I say instead of the facts.

Then you might want to try not to be so adversarial, especially in you OP's.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, no answer as to why anyone's family would have anything to do with this

I showed you where to direct your research because you claimed you cared about it. I was wrong I guess.

Quote:

Why not just answer an honest question with an honest answer, rather than trying to make enemies of everyone?

I've consistently pointed out how anti-EP is holding back the speicies here, many tenured scientists at prestitious universities are saying the exact same goddamned things as me so your attacks on me aren't helping you a smidgen.

Oh yeah I'm so mean to you all expressing my opinions about science, give me a break.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I feel some resentment at a community that expects me to do detailed research for them when I have tipped them off to how to research the issues involved.

So, you say something that appears to be a complete non sequitur. Someone asks you to clarify... and somehow is their fault for asking. That sort of behavior is common of hucksters and woo peddlers, so you can understand the negative reaction to it.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Then you might want to try not to be so adversarial, especially in you OP's.

You're admitting that your impressions of personalities are winning out in your mind over the facts presented? I guess that's my fault here, not giving a **** about petty interpretations.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Joey McGee, you're (or the people you're quoting) really just trying to redefine the operational definition of depression.

I could change the operational definition of intelligence to mean shoe size, but that wouldn't really change the validity of previous intelligence research.

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.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, you say something that appears to be a complete non sequitur. Someone asks you to clarify... and somehow is their fault for asking. That sort of behavior is common of hucksters and woo peddlers, so you can understand the negative reaction to it.

I can understand this. But seriously look how this thread started out, it's about people not accepting that depression can have an evolutionary origin that continues in it's expression to this day. People are asking me things that don't make sense to ask unless you're trolling or attacking. That you can't ignore.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You're admitting that your impressions of personalities are winning out in your mind over the facts presented? I guess that's my fault here, not giving a **** about petty interpretations.

No, I'm observing that, when you accuse people who disagree with you of "holding us back as a spiecies", you are going to be challenged, especially when you make such an accusation on a forum frequented by people who pride themselves on being skeptical of claims made by anonymous posters on the internet.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

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]

Originally Posted by epepke

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What do you mean by "fixed"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixatio...on_genetics%29

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.