|
|
|
|
|
by samatman
1374 days ago
|
|
Inducing some chemical change is so broad as to be meaningless. "Chemical imbalance" is at least a claim, and GP was right to question it before going way off the rails. To address that: major mood disorders are caused by something, and it isn't the decisions of the sufferer. Those can make it better or worse, sure, but to even entertain the idea means you've never encountered this in the wild. Treating something with a chemical doesn't mean what you were treating is a chemical imbalance. If it's vitamin C and scurvy, yes, if it's ulcers and antibiotics, no. No one thinks bipolar disorder is caused by a lack of lithium. The theory of chemical imbalance is just a theory, one I don't happen to think has much going for it. |
|
It isn’t precise. But back in the real world, the “chemical imbalance“ explanation serves the very important purpose of explaining to a lot of ordinary people who otherwise wouldn’t understand that bipolar people who are manic or depressed are not in control of what they do. And that’s important, because when they’re manic or depressed, bipolar people often act like bad people.