Nicole Barrett76 said:For those of you who are truly struggling with your mental health, I have a thought to share.
Is there any way to actually measure the concentration of serotonin within the brain, or perhaps gauge how ready the receptors are to release that serotonin at the regular intervals required for stability?
Could it be that your mental illness is rooted in pure physiology?
Unfortunately, that isn't something done routinely; you'd only see it in specialized research studies specifically designed for that purpose. Certainly not in standard clinics here in the States. The thing is, the requirements for hormones, neurotransmitters, glucose, and all those other substrates depend entirely on immediate needs—basically, whether the cells have the capacity to produce them and dump them into the bloodstream at that exact moment. We're talking nanogram quantities over very short windows of time. So, if you're constantly feeling depressed, implying a lack of serotonin, it's probably better to get more through medication so you have what you need available in your system when necessary. (To be clear, you aren't taking a pill to ingest serotonin directly; rather, you're taking a substance that ensures the unused surplus doesn't just dissipate into the intercellular tissue, but instead gets recycled back into the cell). You can't even regulate insulin perfectly, even when you're on an IV drip...🤷
brightwalker12 said:It’s incredibly grating when those "special" types try so hard just to be different. Especially when they lean on clichés like "I think for myself" or "I don't need a flock or a shepherd to feel secure"....😠
Yeah, they're just textbook examples of people who have to constantly convince themselves they actually matter, all while their subconscious is whispering, "You're a nobody, you're a loser, you can't be a loser, you have to be someone, you have to be something, you have to..."
I wonder how much energy people like that waste just trying to "prove" to themselves and everyone else that they actually exist...🤣
Alex Patel96 said:Here’s my list of pet peeves: obsessive, perfectionist neat freaks... women who turn a blind eye to their husbands cheating and everything else men who treat women like objects snobs people who don't believe in anything cold-hearted people and emotional wrecks those who clean up the neighborhood while leaving trash all over their own front porch narrow-minded idiots—xenophobes, homophobes, chauvinists, and all kinds of bigots... people who can't mind their own business and meddle in others' lives...
Elon, where have you been hiding? You totally vanished! It feels like we finally got our favorite back...🙂>
granitefalcon26 said:Look, it's pretty clear you aren't exactly an expert in medicine or psychiatry.🤣 You should probably do a little reading on how antipsychotics work before making such vague claims. Here’s that link from Wikipedia again so you can catch up. It’s written in plain English. Hopefully, it makes sense this time.😁 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postschizophrenic_depression
Honey, nobody learns actual medicine from Wikipedia...
To start things off: grab a standard psychiatry textbook. After that, dive into neurobiochemistry—I’d also suggest picking up a decent anatomy atlas for the central nervous system. Maybe search for "neurotransmitters" specifically; you might actually stumble onto something useful there. Or, honestly, just wander into a University bookstore or a local Barnes & Noble and see what catches your eye...
Kenneth Scott41 said:I actually started out on the Zoloft 🤣 and, if I'm being honest, I felt significantly worse on that than I did on the Luvox. With the Luvox, everything else feels fine and I suppose I'm doing alright, aside from the whole sexual dysfunction issue...
That’s strange. I guess you're the exception then...🤣
Kenneth Scott41 said:I initially started on Zoloft, but I found it just wasn't a good fit for my system, so my doctor decided to switch things up. I've transitioned over to Paxil now, which has actually been quite effective and seems to be helping me significantly, though there is this one persistent issue that’s been weighing on my mind. I find myself wondering about it quite often... essentially, it comes down to a complete lack of sexual interest and some issues with impotence.
That’s a pretty common side effect with fluvoxamine. You might want to look into Lexapro (escitalopram). Patients usually have great results, and it doesn't typically mess with your sex life as much...
granitefalcon26 said:It talks about depression resulting from schizophrenia or appearing as a side effect during antipsychotic treatment, which could be it. That’s not quite what I meant. It's pretty obvious people are going to feel depressed once they find out what they're dealing with. 😉
First things first: for the umpteenth time: schizophrenia. If you're struggling, at least try to spell it right. Not that I know... 🤣
Second: with sch (another imprecise term, though commonly used), you get these so-called negative symptoms, which include depressive episodes. Mood swings are incredibly common with this condition anyway, even if they don't fit neatly into one specific clinical category... because of that, doctors often prescribe supplemental meds—antidepressants, anxiolytics, sleep aids, and so on. Depression isn't necessarily a side effect of antipsychotics, since those tend to partially blunt the emotional spectrum. People often overlook the possibility of a co-occurring depressive syndrome because the primary schizophrenia symptoms are just so much more prominent. Also, Risperdal and its generics are essentially the same thing, just different manufacturers... let's not get too philosophical about whether a psychiatrist made the right call or not; that's for the patient to decide based on their own reality...
hiddenhawk3 said:Right, because you'd just spot an alcoholic or a junkie instantly, I guess.😉 You've got some kind of radar.😁
And what about smokers?🤷 That's an addiction too, I suppose.😁 Or adrenaline junkies, sex addicts, chocolate lovers...😉 Masochists, sadists...🤷 Gold diggers... Women who don't want kids...😲
Jeremy Alvarez5 said:Honey, the second you agree with an idea, it becomes your own stance, if that makes sense. Maybe try to wrap your head around that. And honestly, needing the "whole world" to back you up just to hold onto a viewpoint... well, that might be something else you need to work on.
For someone who truly believed in God's help, the paths toward healing and easing both mental and physical suffering were significantly smoother. On the flip side, some people who took a defeatist view—thinking illness was a divine punishment and that they had to suffer to redeem their sins—actually found it easier to endure. However, those who literally accepted being sick as a sign of their own sinfulness tended to just give up and didn't do anything active to improve their condition. So, my question is: how many people have actually sought psychological help from you? How many have you genuinely tried to help? What are your practical experiences and conclusions from your work, or is this all just theoretical speculation? Please read this with understanding (forgive the author's phrasing).
Voila,
I also attribute my own psychological stability to "talking with God"—and I shouldn't forget to mention, I send Him a PM too, haha. I mean a real, honest conversation, not just reciting formal prayers. 👍
Regarding providing actual help, I think the question is better phrased this way: how "alive" are we, in terms of having mutually constructive relationships with others? If I tell you my life story, I’m talking about everything I've participated in, all my views and thoughts gained through direct experience and reading books. Given the various jobs I've held and the background I come from, comparing myself to the average person, I’d say I have pretty rich experience in both theory and practice. That said, psychology isn't my professional career (though I wouldn't mind if it were).
This doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand. I wasn't exactly asking for your life story—I don't particularly feel the need to know your personal biography... I was just asking about your professional experience, and I appreciate you getting back to me on that.🙂
Jeremy Alvarez5 said:But honestly, you're kind of dodging the question again. You just say "no," but you aren't really explaining the reasoning behind your specific take or where you're coming from with that opinion. [I mean, we're just having a chat, not running for President or anything.] 😉
I'm not really offering a "personal" opinion so much as pointing toward existing research that's already been done—and is still being conducted. You can find that data explicitly online, or in places like a medical library, the Library of Congress, or even a local university library (assuming they have enough literature on hand)... Beyond that, I can contribute based on my own observations and by passing along what I've seen from people I know. For someone who truly believed in divine intervention, the path to healing and reducing both mental and physical suffering was significantly easier. On the flip side, for those who took a defeatist view—thinking illness was a punishment from God and that they had to suffer as atonement for their sins—some were actually able to endure the pain more easily. However, those who literally accepted the sickness as a sign of their own sinfulness tended to just give up on themselves, doing nothing active to improve their condition. My question is this: how many people have actually sought your psychological help, how many have you truly tried to assist, and what practical experiences and conclusions have you drawn from your actual work? Or is this all just happening at a purely theoretical level? Try reading with a bit of comprehension (forgive the author if that sounds blunt)...
Look, when you're standing over someone who just collapsed on the highway because they had a massive heart attack, you aren't exactly going to start lecturing them on Jungian archetypes. If your stomach is cramping from hunger, or if a kid wipes out on his bike and you're watching blood soak through his jeans... you don't just sit there in some meditative trance. Sorry, not happening.
The deep philosophical pondering—stuff like "did I act correctly?" or "why does this happen?"—that comes later. Much later.
But anyway, getting back to the point of the thread... if my memory hasn't completely failed me, the core question is whether religious belief is a deciding factor in treating mental illness. It isn't strictly necessary, but it can certainly be one of those variables that either helps someone recover or makes things worse...
Keith Jones76 said:Belief, in a general sense, can act as a protective buffer for mental health, but it can also weigh heavily on the psyche and increase the likelihood of psychological issues. In some cases, it might even serve as a symptom of an existing condition. What actually matters is the substance of what one believes, rather than whether they follow a specific formal religion or any other organized creed. The same logic applies to atheists—claiming God doesn't exist is just another form of dogma.
Yeah, tell me about it. I still remember the terrifying stories my super religious aunt used to spin... basically threatening me with eternal torment in hell if I wasn't a "good little girl" and listened to her. Ha, ha. Because that's just how the Almighty decided things should be, right?☕
The psychological strain during an illness can be brutal if someone views their sickness as divine punishment for their own "sins" or failures. If they feel there’s no redemption without conscious, and obviously very painful, suffering... well, that’s definitely going to make their physical condition worse.
Then you have those people who find a strange kind of comfort in it—where the mere promise of forgiveness through pain and hardship gives them a sense of being "right" and looking forward to some future bliss...
Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I mean, that’s only if you’re looking at just one side of the coin. From what I understand, there are strict ethical guidelines that have to be followed during any scientific research, especially when kids are involved.
So, I was thinking... what if we flipped the whole research model on its head? Like, imagine running a study where you intentionally push patients or even children into an even more vulnerable state, just so you could introduce them to entirely different religious ideas or perspectives? It sounds wild, I know, but how much of a difference would that actually make? Personally, I suspect those people wouldn't have been saved by some new doctrine, but rather by simple empathy. If they were met with kindness from people who actually validated their existing beliefs, it might have changed everything. I guess if you just lean into what they already believe, you might stop their thoughts from spiraling toward something destructive—or maybe even prevent that total mental exhaustion where they just lose the energy to think at all. Maybe that's the key.
I mean, when you bring up that distinction between people who just follow the rules and those who actually have faith, maybe we’re looking at the ones who believed in all the wrong things. Like, they might have had faith, but only in the negative stuff—the worst-case scenarios. I guess that kind of mindset probably just fueled their fears during an illness, which honestly sounds like it would only make everything feel even worse.
So, I’m thinking maybe a priest or someone like that was the one who stepped in here. But honestly? I have this hunch that the exact same thing probably happened with the atheists—and I mean it was handled by other atheists too. They likely went in with that kind of genuine empathy, offering some sort of sense of hope for recovery or just finding a bit more purpose in life, you know? And if that's the case, it probably led to much better results for them, too. I guess.
I guess it wasn't even really about whether they were religious beforehand or anything like that. It felt more like a way to show genuine care—you know, just being there for someone, showing some real solidarity and empathy toward the person who's sick. I mean, let's be honest, people of faith tend to gravitate toward their own, right? Like, a priest is naturally going to lean toward whoever actually validates the whole sense of purpose behind his work and everything he sacrifices for it. Maybe that’s just how it works.
Like the examples he brought up... S. Freud In *Totem and Taboo*, you start seeing the other side of the coin—how certain beliefs can trigger this intense fear or even total panic, sometimes even driving people to the brink. It’s wild how much weight those convictions carry. And then you look at A. Alvarez’s study on the concept of a cruel God, and it just adds another layer to that whole mess. A. Alvarez I keep stumbling across these instances of suicide driven by religious beliefs while I'm digging through various biographies. It's heavy stuff, honestly. I guess when you look at how deeply people tie their entire identity to their faith, the psychological fallout can be pretty intense if things go sideways. Maybe it’s just part of the human condition, but seeing it written out in someone's life story really makes you stop and think. C. G. Jung Looking back, it seems like his father’s passing was preceded by these really intense, constant arguments between them over religious stuff. It makes you wonder, though—how do you actually pinpoint which specific parts of a religious system are causing the friction versus what’s actually providing support? Like, how do you tease apart the components that create negative vibes from the ones that offer genuine comfort? There are so many different factors at play in that whole dynamic, so I guess I'm just looking for some more concrete examples to wrap my head around it.
I suppose I should probably add something here... though I'm not entirely sure if there's much left to say after everything that's been laid out... maybe just some small observations as they occur to me... Let's just set aside that old coke addict and his weird obsession with his own cousin for a second—though I can already hear the inevitable jump at me for trying to mix a guy's messy personal life with his scientific contributions...🤣Back then, neurology, biochemistry, and pharmacology were barely scratching the surface compared to what we have now. Looking at those works through a modern lens—nearly 80 years after they were actually put together—it’s clear how much we’ve since discovered, recorded, and mastered. Those incredible books really just serve as early blueprints for the scientific theories and practices we rely on today... If you want to dive deeper, check out some of the older threads on this; kokain najts has a pretty solid handle on the subject.
I won't get too bogged down in deep philosophy here; I'd rather just stick to the point.
From a purely medical standpoint, believers—regardless of their specific faith—tend to handle pain much better. This is especially true for those who aren't just following rituals out of habit, but whose faith is actually a practical part of their daily lives. That sense of hope provided by faith, combined with the idea that someone—God, a higher power, whatever you want to call it—actually cares about you and has your back, creates a sort of biological rebound effect in the brain. It triggers a fresh supply of serotonin and endorphins, which naturally boosts mood, acts as an anti-stress mechanism, lowers corticosteroid levels in the blood and brain, and smooths out those sharp adrenaline spikes. That’s the fundamental foundation for managing physical pain, not to mention the inevitable anxiety and fear that hit when someone is sick. There have been numerous studies conducted on large groups of subjects in oncology wards, intensive care units, and psychiatric clinics. Researchers measured the actual rises and falls of these specific hormones and neurotransmitters before and after prayer, or after talking with a chaplain, tracking everything from the initial diagnosis through the entire course of the illness... whether that leads to recovery or death.
So, strictly from a scientific perspective, the theory holds up.
Whoever decided that some things are just "impossible" clearly hasn't met me. I guess I’m just a hopeless optimist at heart, but I truly believe there's a way to beat any illness. If you really connect with someone on a deep level—you know, build that kind of solid foundation—you'd probably do absolutely everything in your power, whether it's within your control or not, to help them fight through it.
Unfortunately, some things just have to be managed rather than cured. It happens out of nowhere, regardless of how careful you are. You just have to be prepared for that reality. As far as I know, modern medicine hasn't quite reached the point where it can completely wipe out a condition like SCH...🤷
Give it a read. Pick up \"The Alchemist\" by Paulo Coelho. And... just don't go thinking of it as some big Catholic recruitment pitch, okay? It isn't. But seriously, please, just give it a shot.
Just look at this face. See that faint, dark shadow right under the nose? It runs the whole length, almost like the start of a teenage mustache. Then there are the eyes. Even with that slight epicanthic fold, he’s got this squint—that look a guy gets when he's squeezing his eyelids just to see something clearly in the distance. It’s a pretty neutral expression... honestly, I can't tell if we're looking at someone of East Asian descent or just a young guy. But hey, that might just be my brain making connections where they don't exist.
As for orientation, I already made it clear I was speaking from personal experience. I wasn't trying to backtrack on what I said. I was simply asking for sources and some actual ideas.
I honestly have no idea where this comes from—some academic paper, a study, whatever—that supposedly yielded results along those lines. What was the actual theory? What were they even trying to prove with that experiment...
By default, females are just more sensitive to external stimuli. It’s everything: sight, sound, movement, touch, smell. They learned to react faster, more meaningfully, in a multidisciplinary way, which presumably led to the development of certain neural commissural fibers, associative regions, and allegedly even the entire corpus callosum, not to mention specific centers and interneurons. It happened simply because they had to multitask constantly—keeping an eye on the offspring, communicating with them, teaching them, gathering berries or worms, guarding the stash, watching out for themselves, and making sure some predator didn't wander in to attack both them and the kids. All while waiting for their mate to bring back more food. And that same mate hunted in a pack, with backup, where his sole job was to focus on the prey and throw the spear. Then he'd proudly butcher it right there, have a big meal with the squad, and head home...
As for that whole thing about men having better spatial orientation, you might as well hang a cat by its tail. In all the groups of guys I've ridden with in a car to semi-familiar areas (excluding taxi drivers, Greyhound bus drivers, or locals), barely a handful of them could navigate a place they'd only visited once.
And regarding the recognition of male faces, that's really just down to the fact that men typically have more pronounced contours, darker shadows, stronger eyebrows. It's basic visual perception. Plus, once that recognition kicks in and the realization follows that it's the opposite sex—*ecce homo*—the finger points immediately: male.