How positive psychology deceives us

Strategies and scams used by the happiness industry to take our money

Transcript of the post by conducteam

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/how-positive-psychology-deceives

CLAIMING THAT POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY HAS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
1) Self-help books endorsed by positive psychology are not scientifically proven, and most of the terms used, which come from neuroscience, are imprecise and lack rigor.

2) Self-help books only offer very specific solutions, under very specific circumstances, providing at most slight, momentary relief.

3) It is a cheap product to produce, easy to distribute, and generates enormous economic benefits for everyone who offers it.

Don’t be fooled by arguments from authority!

PRESENTING HAPPINESS AS AN UNREACHABLE GOAL
1) Happiness is presented as an insatiable quality, since we can always be happier than we are. If we are asked, “When are we happy enough?”, the answer would be: never.

2) Happiness is sold as “something we need to exercise continuously.” If happiness becomes a “muscle” we must train, we need specific happiness coaches and supplements in the form of books or other products.

Your goal is to feel good, not to be happy. They are not the same thing!

CONVINCING YOU THAT YOU POSSESS A VERY POWERFUL STRENGTH, THE “POWER TO BE HAPPY”
1) Positive psychology deceives us by offering simple, individual solutions that require very little effort to solve complex problems. It is very tempting to claim that “the secret to solving a problem lies within us,” because of the enormous sense of control and power it generates.

2) If happiness is solely our own doing, then being well will be our own merit, but being unwell will be our own fault. There are more negative than positive consequences to this.

CREATING A TRAINING SYSTEM FOR “PROFESSIONALS” WHO TEACH HAPPINESS
1) They not only deceive us by claiming that “happiness is learned,” but they also confirm that “happiness is also taught.”

2) It would hinder their scam if this weren’t the case, since, if happiness isn’t learned, it would be difficult to link it to constant training, and if it isn’t taught, they couldn’t justify the profession of “wellness expert,” nor the existence of products that give their clients “guides and steps to be happier.”

CONVINCING YOU THAT PURSUING YOUR HAPPINESS DOESN’T HARM ANYONE
1) The happiness business is not without paradoxical and harmful effects. The individualism they sell ignores the fact that there are people with dreams that are dangerous for others.

2) Regarding ourselves, the more we strive to be happy, the more we suffer when we don’t achieve it. Regarding others, studies support the idea that cultures that place great value on happiness are associated with dissatisfaction, anxiety, and suffering.

PERSUADE YOURSELF WITH “THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU’RE NOT HAPPY, NOT YOUR ENVIRONMENT”
1) Focusing on your “happiness” is very useful for shifting the focus away from other issues such as inequality, economic uncertainty, or job insecurity, among other detrimental variables for the reader of positive psychology.

2) Solutions like mindfulness or contact with nature have a weak scientific basis. The solution is to improve the world, not to find useless ways to endure it.

"happiness CANNOT exist without sadness. Joy cannot exist without grief just like sunlight cannot exist without dark nights only illuminated by moonlight.
Yet, overwhelming sadness can crush our will to live so if sadness is actually good for us, then why are we decimated by it? Emotions are fundamentally relational, not individual experiences that emerge from within in a vacuum. We cannot truly FEEL anything in isolation. Feelings are the threads that connect us to our ecosystems (other people, beings, the land)- so how can we possibly carry them alone?

Sadness when solely felt in isolation is crushing & hopeless. Grief when carried alone without communal support is paralyzing & unbearably agonizing. The moments when I don’t want to be alive are the moments when I’m most alone. It isn’t the sadness. It’s the loneliness that is crushing. When I truly try to discern what the problem is, I see that grief is not a problem to be solved or a hurdle to be avoided. The problem is the isolation that capitalism inflicts on us. Grief on the other hand is life-giving… if it is processed, navigated & moved through in community. Our emotions are sources of information, critical feedback & pathways of connection that helps us grow, evolve & adapt in community."

Heavy, difficult emotions are important to face & only overwhelming when carried alone, Ayesha Khan

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/heavy-difficult-emotions-are-important

#madpride #madliberation
.

Debunking "attachment theory." Your childhood matters, but it doesn't define you.

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/debunking-attachment-theory-your

“ATTACHMENT” FROM A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
1) From a behavioral analysis perspective, we could define “attachment” as: “A label that encompasses a set of repertoires and types of behavior (Pavlovian and operant) shaped by relationships maintained (contingencies of survival and reinforcement) throughout a lifetime of interaction between an individual and their caregivers.”

2) A behavioral perspective on attachment focuses on the development of the person within the context of their learning history (among other variables). In contrast, traditional “attachment theory” focuses on internal mechanisms as causal agents (”representational systems” and “operational models” of the Operant Model of Attachment, “IWM”).

Although there are few texts on the subject, behavioral analysis does possess explanatory potential for operationalizing attachment.

“ATTACHMENT THEORY” COULD HAVE BEEN RIGOROUS AND RESPECTABLE
1) Although most behavior analysts think otherwise, the much-criticized John Bowlby, the first to coin the term “attachment,” was a psychoanalyst who rejected many of the classic psychoanalytic theories, such as primarily “drive reduction theory.”

2) Furthermore, he strongly argued that any “attachment relationship” possesses survival value in phylogenetic terms, to explain infant protection through the search for attachment.

3) Had he fully embraced this position, “attachment” might not have taken the psychodynamic turn that now characterizes it.

Bowlby did not want “attachment theory” to be associated with behaviorism due to his psychoanalytic training, and therefore reduced the importance of consciously learned and premeditated behavior.

NEGATIVE CRITICISMS OF “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
1) Bowlby’s main hypothesis was that:

“The quality of the bond between mother and child influences all subsequent intimate relationships in life. Basically, that the quality of motherhood generalizes to other relationships throughout life” (Bowlby, 1988).

However, currently there are no studies that demonstrate a direct relationship between maternal absence and later behavioral problems (Rutter, 1995).

2) Based on the above, “attachment” is not a predictor of anything. A “secure attachment” does not predict success in life, nor does an “insecure attachment” in childhood predict suffering and failure.

Even if Bowlby disagreed, your “attachment style” in childhood does not define you in adulthood, nor does it define your future intimate and romantic relationships.

3) Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth considered that “attachment” arises from the attention and care provided by the mother, completely ignoring that “attachment” is an interpersonal relationship (interaction), and not an individual trait.

“If everything depended on the mother, all children should have the same type of attachment in the vast majority of cases, but this is almost never the case.”

4) Another major error lies in considering “attachment styles” almost as a “personality classification,” attributing immutable traits to the manifestations of these styles, traits that remain constant throughout life. Behavior is dynamic and adaptable to the context, not eternal and unchanging throughout a lifetime.

No one behaves in a vacuum. Everything we do always depends on another variable.

5) Attachment Theory focuses on the role of the mother and excludes other figures in the child’s life. Although in other cultures we observe that children have had multiple caregivers because mothers have had to be attentive to their own survival,

“That mothers raise children exclusively is a modern invention of the industrial age, and it is highly doubtful that children genetically inherit a bond with a single caregiver.”

6) The most common mistake made by “psychodynamic professionals” is expecting a literal reproduction of “attachment styles” without taking into account the context in which Ainsworth developed this typology (differences between children in Uganda and the USA in 1954-1955).

If you are a clinical professional, avoid copying examples verbatim from manuals, “attachment styles,” metaphors from contextual therapies, or any other technology.

POSITIVE CRITICISMS OF “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
1) Despite the aforementioned negative criticisms, it can be stated that “Attachment Theory,” with varying degrees of success, was the first serious attempt to create a “scientific psychoanalytic theory” that could be tested and refuted.

2) The evolutionary inspiration of “attachment theory” is completely undervalued. “Evolution promotes mother-child attachment bonds as a biological goal for the child’s survival.”

3) Despite the enormous rejection of Behavior Analysis, in “Attachment Theory,” adult “attachment styles” are considered learned and changing behavioral patterns, developed throughout a lifetime, based on early experiences with caregivers.

Let there be no misunderstanding: although “attachment theory” has great potential, we do not recommend its diagnostic use in clinical contexts.

A GOOD EXPLANATION OF “ATTACHMENT”
1) Reiterating the operationalization of “attachment” in terms of survival, mother-child relationships are probably simply based on the security, comfort, and relief from the fear of “being alone and helpless” that a mother provides to her child.

“If you don’t help me survive, I won’t become attached to you; that is, your behavior isn’t relevant (disregarded) in how I learn to behave in the world.”

2) This set of mother-child associations is formed through three main learning mechanisms, not through how you “represent” your mother: single-stimulus learning, classical conditioning, and operant conditioning.

Everything we do is for a reason, and coincidentally, that reason is always related to wanting to survive.

REFERENCES:
– Bosmans, G., et al. (2022). A Learning Theory Approach to Attachment Theory: Exploring Clinical Applications.

– Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.

– Mansfield, A., & Cordova, J. A. (2004). Behavioral Perspective on Adult Attachment Style, Intimacy, and Relationship Health.

– Rutter, M. (1995). Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect.

#madpride #madliberation
.

EMDR therapy is a pseudo-science

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/emdr-therapy-is-a-pseudoscience

WHAT IS EMDR THERAPY?
The EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) technique, developed by Shapiro in the late 1980s, is a very popular therapy that attempts to “reduce the intensity of disturbing thoughts and emotions by evoking ‘traumatic’ memories, while guiding specific eye movements (visual stimulation) or other types of bilateral stimulation (auditory or tactile).”

Although EMDR therapy follows the standard method of clinical research, has “proven” efficacy, and has a systematic application procedure, it is still not known exactly how or why it works.

THE ROLE OF EYE MOVEMENTS
Bilateral stimulation (the therapist’s index finger tracing from side to side, alternating sounds in each ear, or tapping on the client’s shoulders or hands) is supposed to allow us to disregard traumatic memories by distracting ourselves with the stimulation, thus facilitating a new processing (reprocessing) of these negative traumatic thoughts.

To be frank, the effect or help provided by bilateral stimulation is probably due more to the ritual and the complete eight-step, ceremony-like procedure than to the supposed reprocessing of a traumatic memory.

The role of eye movements is not directed toward the supposed neuronal reprocessing that is advocated; rather, their role is simply to give the therapy a name and substance, in addition to playing a fundamental part within the ceremony, as they provide meaning and structure to the ritual. On the other hand, it gives prominence to the therapist as someone capable of performing extraordinary actions (bilateral stimulation) that represent a decisive or miraculous moment in the therapy. Patients even readily accept the suggestion that the therapist is “accessing their brain directly,” insofar as the eyes seem to be their most direct connection.

The fact that the participants (therapist and client) do not perceive themselves as performing a ceremony does not invalidate this view; rather, it validates it, since the native people participating in healing ceremonies also do not see themselves as performing a ritual, but rather as doing what they have to do.

WHY DOES EMDR THERAPY WORK?
EMDR therapy works, and it is a grave mistake to claim otherwise. However, how and why it works is unknown, and the reasons given for its effectiveness are likely flawed (eye movements, bilateral stimulation, and reprocessing) and still completely unknown.

To try to unravel the “mystery” of its workings, we must assume that EMDR has behavioral components, reminiscent of systematic desensitization, which other therapies might recognize as their own (EMDR’s initial name was Eye Movement Desensitization/EMD). The results could be due more to these components than to the eye movements and bilateral stimulation that define it.

For this reason, behavior analysts attribute EMDR’s effectiveness to the exposure it involves, although it can hardly be reduced to exposure alone, since this exposure is neither systematic nor prolonged, as is typical of exposure techniques.

Precisely because of this lack of plausible or potentially justifiable hypotheses for its effectiveness, EMDR is attempting to evolve, albeit not in the right direction, through speculative and as yet unproven neural models, and through approaches that integrate other perspectives (such as Beck’s Unified Model of Depression).

Unfortunately, it will continue to be included on the map of “effective therapies,” even though the therapeutic procedure that gives it its name remains unexplained or is even clarified as not being linked to any of the processes it postulates.

THE PLACEBO EFFECT IN EMDR THERAPY
If therapists and clients were to discover that bilateral stimulation has no active effect on their results, nothing would be the same, since the placebo effect of EMDR affects not only the client but also the therapist.

The EMDR placebo lies in the credibility and enthusiasm or faith with which the therapist applies the therapy, while in the client it lies in the need to please the clinician.

The mention of the placebo effect in EMDR should not be seen as a devaluation, but rather as an effort to understand its efficacy. There is a growing interest in reevaluating the placebo as a phenomenon in its own right, and to be honest, no clinical practice is immune to the placebo effect.

FINAL CONCLUSION
The classification of EMDR therapy as a pseudoscience does not stem from the scientific method, nor from its efficacy, but rather from the explanatory theory it attributes to the mechanism supposedly responsible for its functioning and usefulness.

EMDR therapy is a victim of the mechanistic approach it advocates; that is, its efficacy depends on a mechanism that, while being its raison d’être and function, and directly giving the therapy its name, also possesses an inexplicable and implausible character.

“It is easier to label a practice as pseudoscience than to analyze how it works if it is not scientific. Rather than labeling or disqualifying, it is about analyzing how and why pseudoscientific practices work.”

REFERENCES:
▪️ García-Morilla, S. (2017). EMDR: ¿Una pseudoterapia avalada por la APA?

▪️ Pérez-Álvarez, M. (2021). Ciencia y Pseudociencia en Psicología y Psiquiatría.

#madpride #madliberation
.

Why your dopamine, cortisol, or brain isn't causing your suffering or what you do in your daily life.

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/why-your-dopamine-cortisol-or-brain

To claim that all our behavior depends on our brain, neurotransmitters, or any other brain variable is an error known in psychology as “biological reductionism” or “brain-centrism.”

When we say that the brain is the cause of everything we do, we commit a conceptual error that undermines a century of scientific research in psychology, given the limited importance and rigor our science holds in today’s society.

Eliminating the brain as a direct cause of our suffering does not diminish the importance of neuropsychology as a well-established science. Most serious neuroscientists do not reduce the causes of behavior to physicochemical brain processes.

Even though the brain does not directly cause behavior, it is a mistake to deny the influence it does, in fact, exert on behavior.

The problem lies in generating simplistic brain-based explanations for complex problems, exceeding the limits of neuroscience, and underestimating its explanatory power. The argument that dopamine is the cause of our happiness is supported by the social benefits of associating your opinions with medicine, evading responsibility, justifying the “chronicity of mental disorders,” and taking advantage of a system that makes the individual responsible for their own suffering.

What happens in the brain is not the direct cause, but rather the “effect” of both our behavior and the current political, economic, cultural, and social system that governs the world we live in.

Human activities are no more dependent on the brain than the brain itself is on the contexts with which people interact. The brain is more a consequence of our evolution as a species than the cause of that evolution.

Eliminating brain-centric reductionism restores the individual to their rightful central role. The functions assigned to the brain are, in reality, activities inherent to the individual, occurring within a specific society and culture.

We do not behave as independent parts of our organism, such as the brain or the nervous system. Behavior can only be understood as that of the entire organism. The organism behaves as a whole, not as isolated parts.

If the brain is damaged, a person’s activity may be interrupted or limited.

However, this doesn’t mean that the activity was generated, caused, or produced by the brain, and is therefore limited to its cells and neural circuits. Things are always happening in the brain, no matter what we do. It’s a mistake to diagnose biological problems, such as “depression,” by asking questions about our behavior.

The accumulation of studies on the brain-related causes of our behavior is not evidence of sound research or progress, but rather that there is still no definitive study to justify such investigation. Neuroscience is not ready for “grand unitary theories” that allow us to reduce the cause of everything we do to a single part of our brain. People’s suffering cannot be reduced to neurochemical imbalances and faulty circuits. The origin of any behavioral problem does not lie in a medical condition.

The greatest condemnation in the history of mental health will always be the medicalization of behavior. Everything we do has consequences in the brain, since the fact that differences exist between human brains does not mean that we have found a definitive and scientific explanation for behavioral differences between people. All efforts dedicated to validating the “serotonin, dopamine, or norepinephrine hypothesis” as the cause of our problems have failed. The “one psychotropic drug for one disease” hypothesis is a perfect marketing concept for pharmaceutical companies. Psychotropic drugs are an alternative and additional treatment used in very specific circumstances, not a complete and definitive treatment. It should be used in every case, massively and irresponsibly.

When we ingest a psychotropic drug, the “improvement” we observe is merely the temporary effect of the drug, not a change in the real psychological root of the problem.

Psychotropic drugs don’t solve your problems; they only put them on pause.

The politicization of distress is necessary not only to reject the individualistic approach but also to provide an example of how emotions are collectivized. Ayesha Khan does tremendous work and serves as an example; here she analyzes suicide from a political and harm reduction perspective:

“Suicide rates have been increasing under late-stage capitalism as ecological destruction escalates & working class people have fewer guarantees of any stability or security. Marginalized communities have the worst health outcomes & lower life expectancies independent of cause. Oppressive systems are the most dominant form of systemic trauma that impacts people’s overall health causing mental distress and physical illnesses. Black folks in the U.S. for example have higher rates of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes due to intergenerational oppression. Similarly, oppressive systems facilitate & cause suicide. Oppressive systems are literally designed to abuse, exploit and brutalize people so this is right up in their alley.

There is no single, homogenous, “sociopolitical model” but what they get right is focus on the systemic roots of suicide & take a collectivist approach by wanting to prevent deaths by building life-affirming community-based systems of care. I believe we have to fight to abolish capitalism by any means necessary, be unified in our political struggle to build a world where life is truly valued, preserved & sustained and apply those values in our daily life to show up in our communities today as best we can. However, these approaches still never question the base assumption shaped by social norms- that someone’s decision to die is unequivocally “bad” in all scenarios.

Leftist harm reduction approaches to drug use, for example, aim to provide people with safer access to drugs without labeling people’s choice to use them as innately “wrong”. They also simultaneously work to meet people’s basic survival needs in order to improve our quality of life in the short-term (mutual aid) & long-term (abolition of capitalism & all oppressive hierarchical systems). This revolutionary, non-judgmental, compassionate approach see’s drug use as an inevitable coping mechanism for many in an oppressive society without judgment & acknowledges its complexities. The same framework is not applied to suicide, however, where regardless of the context, choosing to die a dignified death is never an acceptable option.

Abolition as a political strategy is not about ending oppression thinking there will be no harm or conflict that can occur in some future utopia. Abolition involves us acknowledging the complexities of communal dynamics itself including addressing the social conditions that lead to interpersonal violence (poverty/ inequity/ intergenerational trauma) & creating transformative systems that can address harm without punishment or exile. I believe that the same framework can be applied to us building systems that affirm life in the fullest, most complex sense which includes fighting like hell for people to have guaranteed access to survival resources & community care which we need to stay alive while also honoring the agency & autonomy in select situations when one might choose to die without forcing them to live against their will. (…)

Despite decades of billions spent on “suicide prevention” campaigns with slogans about “breaking the silence”, suicide rates continue to increase as suicidal people continue to be silenced. Majority of testimonial perspectives on suicide come from “experts” working on it through a colonial, capitalist lens, the loved ones, or ex-suicidal people who can be portrayed as a “good story” of “overcoming” adversity that validates the mainstream narrative. There is no complexity. This is also a byproduct of a neoliberal society defined by toxic positivity & respectability politics where anything arbitrary designated “negative” is dismissed with more attention paid to superficial optics rather than substance. People who have died by ending their own life are mostly scapegoated as pitiful, inferior tragedies and used as “cautionary tales” which always demonizes their choice as irrational, incomprehensible, illogical, weak, and just plain “wrong” reducing the problem of suicide to “bad individuals”. It also reinforces the fact that living is always the “right” choice (without making anyone too uncomfortable about your reality)- even with crushing pain & suffering that is not alleviated despite you & your community’s best efforts. Suicide is ultimately framed in dominant culture as a sign of someone too weak to “fight their battles” & never a legitimate choice one should consider in response to their suffering. (…)

Survival is a collective responsibility. Sustaining life requires us to address the oppressive systems that are killing us. It’s on us all to build communities that value & truly support life. To that end, “suicide prevention” isn’t helplines, cops & prisons- its systems that guarantee food, water, shelter, healthcare, community support for everyone when they enter this world. In the short-term, this looks like mutual aid efforts & solidarity building. “Suicide prevention” is an end to capitalism, the state, all oppressive systems & hierarchies. Preventing suicide requires at baseline there to be systems that honor, value & sustain ecological diversity as we facilitate people’s reconnection to their ecosystems.” Destigmatize Suicide: An abolitionist, harm reduction approach to the right to live & die

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/destigmatize-suicide-an-abolitionist

#madpride #madliberation

Depression is not caused by a lack of serotonin.

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/depression-is-not-caused-by-a-lack

WHAT IS THE “SEROTONIN HYPOTHESIS”?

The serotonergic hypothesis posits that one of the main causes of depression (depressive responses) is related to a significant deficiency or absence of the neurotransmitter/biomolecule serotonin in the brain. The context of the monoamine hypothesis (dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, etc.) emerged in 1963 when Carlsson and Lindqvist discovered that neuroleptic drugs tested for the treatment of schizophrenia increased the turnover and quantity of dopamine in the brains of rodents.

However, despite serotonin being a chemical neurotransmitter traditionally associated with mood regulation in the nervous system, and despite the significant scientific advancements in its research, all efforts to empirically validate the serotonin hypothesis for depression have failed.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS’ LACK OF SELF-CRITICISM
Supporting a disease-centered model, and the biological alteration of serotonin as the cause of “depressive” behaviors, does not help students and professionals critically review the full range of theoretical approaches, while ignoring vast areas of theory and research and contradicting the principles of social work ethics and practice, including the crucial role of families and culture, client strengths and empowerment, and the individualized approach to each case.

The only certainty we have about the “serotonin hypothesis” is that things are always happening in the brain, no matter what we do. Interestingly, in many psychology and psychiatry clinics, they simply use questions and descriptions about our behavior, about whether we have been suffering excessively in recent months, to diagnose “depression,” without performing biological tests that demonstrate brain deficits of serotonin, which is supposedly where “depression” originates and resides. “An explanation is not more scientific simply because it is expressed in neurobiological terms.”

GENETIC STUDIES DISMANTLE THE “SEROTONIN THEORY”
If there truly were a lack of serotonin (or if serotonin receptors were less sensitive), genetic studies of serotonin-related biomolecules should demonstrate an alteration associated with high levels of homovanillic acid in cerebrospinal fluid, which has not been demonstrated in any conclusive study. Similarly, hormonal studies are inconclusive, having shown no abnormalities or differences in growth hormone and prolactin levels in subjects diagnosed with “depression.”

And most importantly, there are no conclusive studies linking an imbalance between serotonin 5-HT1A receptors and SERT (serotonin transporter) levels. As an explanation for these failures, we can say that, at the outset of the hypothesis, it was probably not foreseen that we would currently possess the tools to detect imbalances in the genes involved in serotonin production.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISMANTLES THE “SEROTONIN HYPOTHESIS”
According to Popper, the “serotonin hypothesis” has low falsifiability due to its lack of specificity (even abstraction). In this case, if one prediction about serotonin was not confirmed, another easily took its place, making it almost indestructible. According to Kuhn, we can assume that the “serotonin paradigm” has endured because a sufficiently prominent and more successful alternative hypothesis was never developed, so there has never been a real crisis that would incentivize an update and conversion of that paradigm.

According to Lakatos, the “serotonin hypothesis” is more accurately described as a degenerative than a progressive research program, due to its numerous failed predictions and many ad hoc alterations to the main hypothesis, resulting in the hypothesis’s core being excessively distorted.

WHY IS THE “SEROTONIN HYPOTHESIS” STILL SO SUCCESSFUL?
In the 1960s, linking psychiatry with the high prestige of neurochemistry and psychopharmacology fulfilled the medical desire to “bring psychiatry back into the mainstream of medicine.” This desire has persisted due to the simplicity, low cost of professional intervention, and high economic interest behind the “one neurotransmitter, one disease” model—a perfect marketing concept for pharmaceutical companies, and in this case, for selling SSRI drugs.

We routinely assume that the accumulation of studies on a topic is strong evidence supporting its validity, when in reality it indicates the opposite: it indicates that no definitive study on the subject yet exists. This medical view of “depression” reduces therapeutic empathy and increases the stigma surrounding “mental disorders.” Unfortunately, it is very appealing, as it allows for the evasion of responsibility, blaming people for their own problems, and “chronicizing” depression to extract economic benefits for longer.

WHAT WOULD THE “SEROTONIN HYPOTHESIS” HAVE NEEDED TO BE RIGOROUS AND RESPECTED?
For the “serotonin hypothesis” to have been empirically validated during its 60-year history, it would have needed to devise alternative hypotheses. It would have needed to design one or more crucial experiments with possible alternative outcomes, each of which would have ruled out one or more of the hypotheses. It would also have needed to obtain a clean and definitive result, while recycling the procedure, and formulate “sub-hypotheses” or sequential hypotheses, to refine the possibilities that remain to be verified.

Psychiatry needs theories with higher levels of specificity and falsifiability. Science works best when diverse theories with different predictions compete with each other, but in this case, the “serotonin hypothesis” has been defended with a fervor that cannot be justified by the available evidence. Therefore, in conclusion, psychiatry is probably not ready for “grand” unitary theories like the “serotonin hypothesis” as a cause of “depression.”

Decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism:

"As I began to see the structural and systemic roots of our distress, I increasingly moved away from “born this way” thinking. The more I prioritized intentional community building and reconnecting to my cultural roots, the more impossible it became to see my pain as separate from other people’s struggles. It’s all interconnected and psychiatric labels simply failed to capture these nuances that collectivist communities are built on.

Decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism

Maybe we shouldn’t assume anything of people who do or don’t carry a neurodivergent label. Maybe someone identifying as neurodivergent or NOT won’t help you understand much about them or circumvent the process of getting to know them with care, over time. Maybe we should let people open our world to new worlds. Maybe we shouldn’t covertly or overtly force people to turn to a colonial tool like the DSMV to figure out “what they have” or “who they are”. Maybe we don’t need to push people into categories excessively to make them comprehensible.

If terms under the umbrella of neurodivergence are important to you, then know that I’m not asking you to abandon them, nor am I framing them unilaterally as “bad”. I’m asking you to look beyond them, to be aware of how they can be leveraged for harm and to recognize that there are other ways for communities to make sense of their distress without these labels. I’m asking you to embrace complexity and create space for it. The rest of the world should not have to speak this precise language. The language of colonial psychiatry should never have been forced upon the global south and it shouldn’t be today, including any reclaimed version within the neurodiversity framework."

Psychiatric diagnoses & bioessentialism will not liberate us, Ayesha Khan, Ph.D.

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/psychiatric-diagnoses-and-bioessentialism

#madpride

Psychiatric diagnoses & bioessentialism will not liberate us, Ayesha Khan, Ph.D.

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/psychiatric-diagnoses-and-bioessentialism

Some clarifications off the bat
I am writing this from the perspective of communities in the global south who have always had alternative modalities to conceptualize human and planetary distress without pathologizing it. Our communities have been/ are being killed for our cultural traditions including medicine. Many of us in the diaspora are struggling to rediscover, reconnect with, practice, and preserve our traditions.

If terms under the umbrella of neurodivergence are important to you, then know that I’m not asking you to abandon them, nor am I framing them unilaterally as “bad”. I’m asking you to look beyond them, to be aware of how they can be leveraged for harm and to recognize that there are other ways for communities to make sense of their distress without these labels. I’m asking you to embrace complexity and create space for it. The rest of the world should not have to speak this precise language. The language of colonial psychiatry should never have been forced upon the global south and it shouldn’t be today, including any reclaimed version within the neurodiversity framework. Most importantly, if we’re attempting to abolish colonial/ capitalist systems while building collectivist systems of community care then I think everyone has a lot to learn from alternative frameworks created, nurtured & developed by communities who have always been fighting for the health of the planet.

I also urge you to be wary of biological essentialism that sounds like “I was born like this, I’ve always been like this, this is just how my brain works”. The concept of neurodiversity has been heavily co-opted in the global north, watered down, individualized, sanitized and DEPOLITICIZED. People often frame neurodivergence as atypical brain wiring which is the same biological essentialism that gave us race science. Many movements and spaces in the global north have a tendency to turn to bioessentialism (for gender/ sex and sexuality for example). Categories and labels like autism/ ADHD etc, whether they are reclaimed & redefined or not, are all social constructs, not biological realities with clear boundaries, definitions and measurable criteria. Usage of these terms as biological categories can be harmful and prevent revolutionary progress as we try to reimagine community care.

As I began to see the structural and systemic roots of our distress, I increasingly moved away from “born this way” thinking. The more I prioritized intentional community building and reconnecting to my cultural roots, the more impossible it became to see my pain as separate from other people’s struggles. It’s all interconnected and psychiatric labels simply failed to capture these nuances that collectivist communities are built on.

The more I anchored into the collective, the less attached I was to even the redefined, radical derivates of these labels. The diagnoses that were always foreign to my community, imposed on us by our colonizers, were again feeling foreign to me. Though I see the power in reclaiming some things that have been used to oppress you, I don’t see the utility in everyone reforming and repackaging every aspect of colonialism. If anything, I see the global north’s obsession with spreading colonial models of mental health, including psychiatric diagnoses, to the the global south as being one wing of modern day colonialism.

Psychiatric labels AND the neurodiversity framework do not speak to majority of the people in my community or to majority of people in the world.
This does not mean that I think it is bad if someone is empowered by these labels. But folks in neurodivergent spaces in the global north need to think about the fact that they may have a lot to learn from collectivist communities who have always had all-encompassing, transformative, land-preserving, care systems. These life-sustaining approaches to medicine were violently destroyed or are currently undergoing colonial erasure. Colonized people are criminalized, punished and killed for attempting to continue their traditions.

Decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism

Maybe we shouldn’t assume anything of people who do or don’t carry a neurodivergent label. Maybe someone identifying as neurodivergent or NOT won’t help you understand much about them or circumvent the process of getting to know them with care, over time. Maybe we should let people open our world to new worlds.

Colonialism brainwashes people into thinking they are “individuals” or atomized beings separate from everything, separate from each other, the land, the trees, the birds and the rest of our kin. These systems have concocted ridiculous bioessentialist boxes and categories to convince us that we are alone, separate, distinct, and unrelated.

#madpride #healthselfdefense

Depression is not caused by a lack of serotonin.
The lie of the serotonin hypothesis and how decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/depression-is-not-caused-by-a-lack

Over the last century, the disease-centered model for addressing “depressive behaviors” has become just another problem to solve, rather than the appealing solution it appears to be for the general population. We say appealing because for many people, evading responsibility by claiming that “it’s not me, or our circumstances, the problem is your brain” is a huge relief for protecting our short-term self-esteem.

It seems that asserting, without any evidence, that the problem of our excessive sadness and anhedonia lies in the brain poses no problem for anyone. Students have to make less effort to understand the phenomenon, professionals must treat most patients the same way, without considering their life context, and for the general population, it’s a great way to easily explain problems they are likely partly responsible for.

WHAT IS THE “SEROTONIN HYPOTHESIS”?

The serotonergic hypothesis posits that one of the main causes of depression (depressive responses) is related to a significant deficiency or absence of the neurotransmitter/biomolecule serotonin in the brain. The context of the monoamine hypothesis (dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, etc.) emerged in 1963 when Carlsson and Lindqvist discovered that neuroleptic drugs tested for the treatment of schizophrenia increased the turnover and quantity of dopamine in the brains of rodents.

However, despite serotonin being a chemical neurotransmitter traditionally associated with mood regulation in the nervous system, and despite the significant scientific advancements in its research, all efforts to empirically validate the serotonin hypothesis for depression have failed.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS’ LACK OF SELF-CRITICISM
Supporting a disease-centered model, and the biological alteration of serotonin as the cause of “depressive” behaviors, does not help students and professionals critically review the full range of theoretical approaches, while ignoring vast areas of theory and research and contradicting the principles of social work ethics and practice, including the crucial role of families and culture, client strengths and empowerment, and the individualized approach to each case.

The only certainty we have about the “serotonin hypothesis” is that things are always happening in the brain, no matter what we do. Interestingly, in many psychology and psychiatry clinics, they simply use questions and descriptions about our behavior, about whether we have been suffering excessively in recent months, to diagnose “depression,” without performing biological tests that demonstrate brain deficits of serotonin, which is supposedly where “depression” originates and resides. “An explanation is not more scientific simply because it is expressed in neurobiological terms.”

GENETIC STUDIES DISMANTLE THE “SEROTONIN THEORY”
If there truly were a lack of serotonin (or if serotonin receptors were less sensitive), genetic studies of serotonin-related biomolecules should demonstrate an alteration associated with high levels of homovanillic acid in cerebrospinal fluid, which has not been demonstrated in any conclusive study. Similarly, hormonal studies are inconclusive, having shown no abnormalities or differences in growth hormone and prolactin levels in subjects diagnosed with “depression.”

And most importantly, there are no conclusive studies linking an imbalance between serotonin 5-HT1A receptors and SERT (serotonin transporter) levels. As an explanation for these failures, we can say that, at the outset of the hypothesis, it was probably not foreseen that we would currently possess the tools to detect imbalances in the genes involved in serotonin production.

PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS ARE NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING
In general, any psychological and psychiatric treatment should always begin with the assumption that psychotropic medications are only a “complementary treatment” for people’s suffering, and not a sole and definitive treatment. However, the irresponsible and widespread use of “antidepressant” psychotropic medications has been justified by the idea that they act by correcting underlying biological abnormalities that produce suffering and behavioral problems. Although, as we have already seen, there is no evidence of such biological abnormalities in the brain of a person labeled with “depression.”

Unfortunately, therapeutic manipulation, a lack of information about the side effects of psychotropic drugs, censored accounts of lives ruined by SSRIs, and the prescription of “drug cocktails” are commonplace. Despite the fact that, in most cases, after taking an “antidepressant,” what is observed is simply the effect of the drug, and not relief or a change in the psychological root of the patient’s problem. “Antidepressants don’t solve your problems, they put them on ‘pause.’”

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISMANTLES THE “SEROTONIN HYPOTHESIS”
According to Popper, the “serotonin hypothesis” has low falsifiability due to its lack of specificity (even abstraction). In this case, if one prediction about serotonin was not confirmed, another easily took its place, making it almost indestructible. According to Kuhn, we can assume that the “serotonin paradigm” has endured because a sufficiently prominent and more successful alternative hypothesis was never developed, so there has never been a real crisis that would incentivize an update and conversion of that paradigm.

According to Lakatos, the “serotonin hypothesis” is more accurately described as a degenerative than a progressive research program, due to its numerous failed predictions and many ad hoc alterations to the main hypothesis, resulting in the hypothesis’s core being excessively distorted.

#madpride

Decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/psychiatric-diagnoses-and-bioessentialism

“As I began to see the structural and systemic roots of our distress, I increasingly moved away from “born this way” thinking. The more I prioritized intentional community building and reconnecting to my cultural roots, the more impossible it became to see my pain as separate from other people’s struggles. It’s all interconnected and psychiatric labels simply failed to capture these nuances that collectivist communities are built on.

The more I anchored into the collective, the less attached I was to even the redefined, radical derivates of these labels. The diagnoses that were always foreign to my community, imposed on us by our colonizers, were again feeling foreign to me. Though I see the power in reclaiming some things that have been used to oppress you, I don’t see the utility in everyone reforming and repackaging every aspect of colonialism. If anything, I see the global north’s obsession with spreading colonial models of mental health, including psychiatric diagnoses, to the the global south as being one wing of modern day colonialism.

Psychiatric labels AND the neurodiversity framework do not speak to majority of the people in my community or to majority of people in the world.

This does not mean that I think it is bad if someone is empowered by these labels. But folks in neurodivergent spaces in the global north need to think about the fact that they may have a lot to learn from collectivist communities who have always had all-encompassing, transformative, land-preserving, care systems. These life-sustaining approaches to medicine were violently destroyed or are currently undergoing colonial erasure. Colonized people are criminalized, punished and killed for attempting to continue their traditions.

Decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism

Maybe we shouldn’t assume anything of people who do or don’t carry a neurodivergent label. Maybe someone identifying as neurodivergent or NOT won’t help you understand much about them or circumvent the process of getting to know them with care, over time. Maybe we should let people open our world to new worlds.

Colonialism brainwashes people into thinking they are “individuals” or atomized beings separate from everything, separate from each other, the land, the trees, the birds and the rest of our kin. These systems have concocted ridiculous bioessentialist boxes and categories to convince us that we are alone, separate, distinct, and unrelated.

If terms under the umbrella of neurodivergence are important to you, then know that I’m not asking you to abandon them, nor am I framing them unilaterally as “bad”. I’m asking you to look beyond them, to be aware of how they can be leveraged for harm and to recognize that there are other ways for communities to make sense of their distress without these labels. I’m asking you to embrace complexity and create space for it. The rest of the world should not have to speak this precise language. The language of colonial psychiatry should never have been forced upon the global south and it shouldn’t be today, including any reclaimed version within the neurodiversity framework.” Psychiatric diagnoses & bioessentialism will not liberate us

#madpride