Jump to content
cinephile

Again, chemical imbalance is a myth. Stop the lies, please.

Recommended Posts

Petunia

From an article by Chris Kresser:

 

The idea that depression and other mental health conditions are caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain is so deeply ingrained in our psyche that it seems almost sacrilegious to question it.

 

In fact, the idea that low levels of serotonin cause depression has become so widespread that it’s not uncommon to hear people speak of the need to “boost their serotonin levels” through exercise, herbal supplements or even sexual activity. The “chemical imbalance” theory is so well established that it is now part of the popular lexicon.

 

However, there is one (rather large) problem with this theory: there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Recent reviews of the research have demonstrated no link between depression, or any other mental disorder, and an imbalance of chemicals in the brain.

 

Folks, at this point you might want to grab a cup of tea. It’s going to take a while to explain the history of this theory, why it is flawed, and how it continues to persist in light of the complete lack of evidence to support it. I will try to be as concise as possible, but there’s a lot of material to cover and a lot of propaganda I need to disabuse you of.

Ready? Let’s start with a bit of history.

 

The first antidepressant, iproniazid, was discovered by accident in 1952 after it was observed that some tubercular patients became euphoric when treated with this drug.....

 

The 'chemical imbalance' myth by Chris Kresser

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

Good on Chris Kresser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petunia

From: Depression Delusion: an introduction by the author, Terry Lynch, MD

 

...Global mental health, with psychiatry as its lead, is way off track. Steeped in its own biases and priorities, psychiatry and the drug industry has successfully convinced the public that psychiatric diagnoses are primarily biological. Although the biology of psychiatric diagnoses has been researched intensely for well over 50 years, nothing definite has shown up. The idea that psychiatric diagnoses are fundamentally biological has become accepted as truth, as established fact. Yet there is not a shred of reliable scientific evidence to verify this belief, upon which the entire global system of mental health understanding and treatment—in “developed” countries, at least—is based. There are of course some physical elements to all experiences.

 

The psychiatry-led approach to mental health is fundamentally faith-based rather than evidence-based, since there is no actual evidence to support the fundamental conviction of this system—that biology is the core and most important consideration in mental health. Just as there is no evidence on a global scale to support the biologically dominated psychiatric model of mental health, doctors have no way of confirming any biological abnormalities in their consultations with individual people.

 

As a group, psychiatrists and GPs have a grossly inadequate training in and therefore understanding of human emotionality and psychology. Consequently, their evaluation of people’s experiences is seriously compromised. Their perceived and self-promoted level of understanding and expertise greatly exceeds their actual level of understanding and expertise.

 

Psychiatry’s position as the top source of expertise in global mental health is based on their perceived and self-promoted level of understanding and expertise. If based on their actual level of expertise, psychiatry would not at all merit this dominant position.

 

Their evaluations are further distorted because of their biases, to which most are blind. In particular, their bias toward biology—primarily biological “problems” requiring primarily biological solutions. It is out of this biological bias that the “brain chemical imbalance” arose. It fitted with the medical preference for biology, and benefitted the medical profession enormously. It sounded impressive and persuasive. But it was—and is—false.

 

The medical profession has played a very major part in creating and maintaining widespread false beliefs about depression and brain chemical imbalances within the public mind.

 

One of the ironies in mental health globally is the dominance of a psychiatric system that has no scientific underpinnings to its core beliefs, yet other features that are virtually always present are routinely missed or undervalued with this system. This regrettable paradox occurs because  doctors are not adequately trained to identify these features, proper recognition of these features would inevitably result in public questioning of the psychiatric model, so doctors don’t want to go there.

 

There features are (1) trauma/woundedness; (2) distress in its many forms, caused by trauma/woundedness; (3) defense mechanisms and coping strategies that we humans may put in place to minimize further wounding and distress, and to reduce our contact with woundedness and distress already experiences from which we have disconnected; (4) our patterns of choice-making, which are often greatly influenced by the previous 3 features. None of these issues are fundamentally biological.

 

Trauma/woundedness, distress and defense mechanisms are at the heart of mental health problems. I don’t believe biologically biased psychiatry can or will ever acknowledge this reality. Therefore, the current system is incapable of being what it should be, what the public assume it to be—an independent unbiased system whose only priority is to provide the best service possible for the people they serve. This is a very serious matter. Society’s focus on mental health is just plain wrong...

 

...Antidepressants do not work by correcting brain chemical imbalances. Such claims should never have been made by the medical profession, since the so-called “imbalances” have never even been demonstrated to exist. Any doctor who tells a depressed patient that they have a chemical imbalance, and that antidepressants will correct this imbalance, is misleading their patient, whether intentionally or not. Misinforming people in such a fundamental way about the nature of depression and the mode of action of medication raises major issues about informed consent to treatment...

 

Read more here:  http://beyondmeds.com/2015/08/31/depression-delusion-intro/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LoveandLight

Yes major issues about consent to treatment, indeed..

 

Argh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oskcajga

 

 

I think it's important to present not just studies that disprove the chemical imbalance theory, but also studies that support it. ..

 

I disagree very strongly. See What will get you warned or banned http://survivingantidepressants.org/index.php?/topic/1598-what-will-get-you-warned-or-banned/

 

There really is no need to iterate the "chemical imbalance" controversy on this site. The entire Internet is filled with propaganda from this 40-year  research fad. I don't want this site to be filled with it.

 

As I said before, if you want to find "evidence" supporting "chemical imbalance," there's plenty of it out there, Lilu. You can browse through it to your heart's content, but don't bring it back here. I don't want to spend one more minute of my time countering that stuff. There are plenty of books that do that well: The Emperor's New Drugs, Your Drug May Be Your Problem, Anatomy of an Epidemic, Bad Pharma, Pharmageddon,

 

Lilu, you do not have to justify a decision to continue psychiatric drug treatment on this site. You can continue to believe you have a diseased brain if you wish. If you think that's best for you, it's your decision.

 

But -- this is a site to support people going off drugs. That's why they come here. Please do not argue that others need to stay on drugs.

 

 

If you're going to present evidence and clinical studies, such as the ones cited on the link above, don't you think it would be fair to also let people know that there are studies that show the complete opposite?  I mean, I believed that author when he talked of studies that tried to induce depression by lowering tryptophan in people, but then when I did a search on Pubmed, I find evidence of the exact opposite.  

 

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/5/399.long

Conclusions The findings that tryptophan depletion produces a relapse of symptoms in patients with depression and panic disorder who have responded to treatment with antidepressants suggests that enhanced 5-HT function is important in maintaining response in these conditions.

 

So what am I supposed to think?  If I am to trust the information on this website as "the real truth", I would like to know that it presents all the evidence, not just evidence that supports it's agenda.

 

Don't you think that would be most helpful for people trying to decide whether or not getting off antidepressants is right for them?  Or trying to find out what is the real cause of their mental illness?

 

 

This is a valid argument for a discussion of a legitimate scientific problem.  Unfortunately the chemical imbalance theory is equivalent to the theory that the world is flat.  Including it in any arguement is like inviting a three ringed circous into a scientific meeting and giving them equal attention to the presentations being offered.

 

ALL the papers presented to support the chemical imbalance theory are supported by Big Pharma.

 

Big pharma is run by very intelligent and capable administrative individuals who have made it their life's goal to sabatoge legitimate scientific inquiry for as long as they have had any say over psyciatric treatments.  The administrators in these organizatiosn are highly intelligent and capable people, those with MD's PhD's, MBA's, JD's from top institutions worlwide.  They decided to work for the dark side.  The peer review process and academia are NOT foolproof.  If you can get enough PhDs, MDs, and JD's in your pocketbook, you can begin to influence the nature of articles that are being published - and if you use that influence to gain more and more footholds, within a decade you can have unprecedented control over the information that is being sent to the world, press conferences, media, etc.  There's no doubt in my mind that these highly intelligent, and highly corrupted individuals planned this out very well back in the 1970's and 1980's, and they have profited enormously by rigging one of the more difficult systems in the world to rig:  academia, and the peer review process.  Today, the entire system is so utterly under their control, that one cannot step foot into a university without being bombarded by their propaganda and lies - all based on "peer reviewed literature".

 

I would recommend reading the book called Pharmageddon by David Healy, a University of California Press publication.  It's not an easy read, but it delinieates just how incredibly influencial and successful their sabotage tactics and manipulation/propaganda tactics have been.  They have literally rigged the entire peer-review process, deligitimizing much of clinical research over the past 50 years, and throwing into question the validity of many research articles. 

 

One cannot turn to the peer reviewed literature to offer a counter argument because it's rigged and full of manipulation, lies, and corruption.

 

It's truly breathtaking how well the pharmaceutical companies have managed to manipulate academia and research.  It's no wonder that many doctors and academics have no idea that these drugs are harmful, because when they go to google scholar and read peer reviewed journals, they are bombareded with ghostwritten articles, in which the parent company refuses to release the raw data - and therefore has complete control over the information being given to the public.

 

This single website, SA is one of the only bastions of truth out there on the internet and in the public in general.  If SA dies, so does a great deal of truth regarding the dangers posed by psychiatric medication.  The only other one I can think of with any sway and influence is CEP:   http://cepuk.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

Discuss to your heart's content on other Internet sites, not this one.

Edited by Altostrata
made location specific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marmite

Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other sufferers all propagate the myths. It's so hard to believe that so many people can be wrong...particularly when these people are plausible, in authority and we trust them.

 

Lilu, I understand why you want a balanced argument. I know many intelligent people (2 of them friends and fellow teachers with relatives with similar issues, who completely buy into the biological argument). I have learned not to argue with them. They look at me as if I'm the deluded one...and I probably do the same to them.

 

When I went through therapy one of the things I learned to do was to challenge beliefs I held which I had applied false evidence to. One of these was my belief that there was familial mental illness in my history.

 

I'd seen the evidence, internalised it and had then transferred it onto my own situation and that of my sons too. It was a conviction which was very hard to shake and it has taken far more than listening to others to shake my belief. I had to examine it in the light of my own experiences, my own research...and ultimately, my own recovery.

 

Maybe, as you go through your own journey towards recovery you will find out what really rings true for you.

 

We can't change your mind for you. We can only present our opinions, experiences and the evidence we have found which reinforces our own beliefs.

 

I took Lexapro like you. I thought I needed it. I thought I was depressed and it was the only solution. I thought my family were all suffering similarly and there was no escape from it.

 

You know what? I finally found out that I was wrong....but went through a whole load of damage in the process by taking a drug to deal with my beliefs.

 

I would hate that to happen to anyone else....including you....but ultimately, it's your journey of discovery.

 

Please take care

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mort81

I had this fun convo with my mom's friend yesterday. She told me I probably need to go back on the meds cause I may have a chemical imbalance. People have been brainwashed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mort81

Forget even about the chemical balance myth. Look at what doctors and the average dieticians tell us to eat. People like Chris Kresser seem to know but the majority don't. 80% of the population are absolutely clueless and I was one of them until this whole nightmare began

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marmite

I think that we need to remember that in the wider world our beliefs about the myth of chemical imbalance are in the minority.

 

I remember my GP saying to me, "so many people cannot be wrong about what is happening to you"

 

My response was, "they can if they're all reading from the same book and the information it contains is incorrect....." and that's the essence of it really. Most people don't scratch the surface or look any further than the first few answers that they google or the facts as seen by their peers. The chemical imbalance theory has been ingrained, re-inforced and disseminated to all and sundry including professionals.

 

Trying to make inroads into that tide of misinformation feels like trying to hold back a tsunami at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mort81

Marmite you are exactly right. Its this reason that I feel I have to avoid people . It gets me too angry to get into arguments with family ,friends etc... . I spend more time now around the people who understand my situation. Its unfortunate and I dont blame everyone for thinking the way they do.But Its like you said everybody is reading from the same book and therefore has the wrong information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
compsports

I think that we need to remember that in the wider world our beliefs about the myth of chemical imbalance are in the minority.

 

I remember my GP saying to me, "so many people cannot be wrong about what is happening to you"

 

My response was, "they can if they're all reading from the same book and the information it contains is incorrect....." and that's the essence of it really. Most people don't scratch the surface or look any further than the first few answers that they google or the facts as seen by their peers. The chemical imbalance theory has been ingrained, re-inforced and disseminated to all and sundry including professionals.

 

Trying to make inroads into that tide of misinformation feels like trying to hold back a tsunami at times.

I guess your GP is ignorant about history in which so many people were wrong about a situation.   Or maybe he isn't and is just feeding you cr-p he knows is BS.

 

Anyway, gotta see my PCP today and If I get asked that S question as part of their routine screening, I would love to tell them what they could do with that question.   But I can't obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

Our "beliefs" about "chemical imbalance" are not in the minority. It is a fact the "chemical imbalance" theory is bogus.

 

Can we have a "balanced argument" about this? No, we cannot, any more than we can have a "balanced argument" about whether the earth is flat or global climate change is real. There is no controversy.

 

Vast numbers of people have been misinformed, as they have about so many things. If they don't question what they're told, they are intellectually limited.

 

Among doctors, belief in "chemical imbalance" is a real disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

Maybe the controversy will be examined by time and massive experimental trails. You did raise an informative opinion. I appreciate that. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_imbalance

 

The "chemical imbalance" theory has been thoroughly studied and disproved, going back to the 1970s. Somebody needs to update Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mort81

If anything antidepressants and other high powered meds cause a chemical imbalance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

ok, my question is this. We all at one point ended up in a psychiatrists office looking for relief. I know these drugs are dangerous, but doesnt how I ended up on them in the first place pose a question? So, you go through a withdrawal, but what about the problem I had that landed me on meds in the first place?

 

Antidepressant use does not always start in shrinks office to treat depression often the drugs are given for a pain and that is how I got railroaded into this messed up existence.  I was given prozac for pain and was told by the prescriber it was a new form of anti inflammatory.  I had taken anti inflammatory type drugs before and they never affected my mind.  One wk of prozac use had me in emerg suicidal too afraid to tell them of the hallucinations it caused.  

 

This was over 30 years ago and today these type drug are listed to treat many things off label as well as many things on label that have nothing to do with mental health.  I think the use of these drugs for pain was one of the wake up calls because they made so many people crazy.  Prozac is the most complained about drug in the history of drugs. 

 

When I was asked at emerg if i was taking any new drugs I told them an anti inflammatory the name I could not recall it was completely discounted... what did I get...more drugs that is what ... 20 years worth of antidepressants reactions wd ect I had no idea a drug could make a person crazy not a legal drug at least... I learned everything the hard way.  

 

So chemical imbalance from my research the term was make up by a marketing firm that serviced pharma and in a wink of an eye it caught on and scientists and shrinks all over the world were spewing nonsense with the general population eating it up... including the media.  

 

Prozac made the cover of Time!! 

 

Pharma's marketing for these drugs has always been fantastic too bad the drugs were not as good as they say... too bad they cause a chemical imbalance in the drug takers brain's... it is all really too bad a tragedy.  One day years from now history will document it as exactly that a global tragedy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
direstraits

I'll never forget when Prozac came out and watching The Phil Donahue Show, proclaiming the new breakthrough in antidepressants,with NO SIDE EFFECTS!what a bunch of BS...if it sounds too good to be true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lindux

So this means I shouldn't trust my doctor who is saying the opposite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scallywag

Blindly not trusting your doctor is no better than blindly trusting your doctor. Inform yourself.

 

To learn more about why the chemical imbalance theory was never credible, get your hands on Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker, an investigative journalist. You could also search for videos of his talks on youtube, or check the website madinamerica.com

 

Browse our Journals and scientific papers forum to find the work that has been done. link to Journals and scientific papers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilu

If someone starts waving their impressive credentials at you and preaching the chemical imbalance, biopsychiatry, brain scan gospel - what are the best articles and/or studies to direct them to?  

When I mention that chemical imbalance is a myth and send them to madinamerica.com or davidhealy.com, they say, oh that's not a reputable medical site, and I get attacked for spreading pseudoscience and promoting stigma against mental illness.  I am trying to enlighten people about the truth, but I'm the one who gets crucified in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scallywag

Lilu,

 

You can do some research of your own. Libraries and web search will be a great help to you:

 

In Whitaker's book, Anatomy of an Epidemic he discusses the original flawed and extremely limited study up on which the hypothesis is based. There may also be references to later studies and articles discrediting it.

 

Healy's website will have links to his published articles.

 

It's possible that the Mad In America website has the entire discussion with links to articles and studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

 

Just doing a search on "site:madinamerica.com "serotonin hypothesis" I found a link to this abstract of an article by David Healy published in The BMJ, formerly known as The British Medical Journal.

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1771

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madeleine

If someone starts waving their impressive credentials at you and preaching the chemical imbalance, biopsychiatry, brain scan gospel - what are the best articles and/or studies to direct them to?  

When I mention that chemical imbalance is a myth and send them to madinamerica.com or davidhealy.com, they say, oh that's not a reputable medical site, and I get attacked for spreading pseudoscience and promoting stigma against mental illness.  I am trying to enlighten people about the truth, but I'm the one who gets crucified in the process.

 

If someone has "credentials" they believe they know more than you. I would just not bother trying to persuade them.  It will be virtually impossible to do so. The only time they might change their minds is if they have personal experience or someone they love or are close to does. Then, if they find what they think are "cures" are not helping, then they will look for other options/explanations.  Otherwise it won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
powerback

totally agree madeleine ,it gets to a point at witch why are we constantly wanting ignorant people to understand what we are going through.stop seeking validation in these people I reckon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChessieCat

I agree with Madeleine and Powerback.

 

Trying to convince people who are set in their ways/thinking can be like talking to a wall.  And it can end up being very stressful and that type of stress is not helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilu

If someone starts waving their impressive credentials at you and preaching the chemical imbalance, biopsychiatry, brain scan gospel - what are the best articles and/or studies to direct them to?  

When I mention that chemical imbalance is a myth and send them to madinamerica.com or davidhealy.com, they say, oh that's not a reputable medical site, and I get attacked for spreading pseudoscience and promoting stigma against mental illness.  I am trying to enlighten people about the truth, but I'm the one who gets crucified in the process.

 

How do you  ignore comments such as these and not try to prove this person wrong?

 

Viktoria Dolgorukava the chemical reason for depression is that some people don't produce enough seratonin or don't absorb it correctly. there is a very clear chemical reason for this. so in essense people who are on anti depressents already have faulty wiring, this is why the depression medications help. If you are talking about the need for increased dosage overtime there has been o studies that i am aware of htat have shown this. on the contrary people who stay on anti depressents seem to have no long term affect on the brain as has been demonstrated by multiple brain scans.
 
Viktoria Dolgorukava my father is a leading researcher in teh field of depression and since I was 12 years old i have attended medical lectures, including in the fellowship program he used runs at nyu. I also have a very high functioning IQ and the combination of the two make my knowledge of this more than a normal layperson's knowledge. and yet, i can tell you, i know very little. this is just one person's opinion which is irrelevant when it comes to the area of big science. but having attended hundreds of meetings by researchers, even those paid by big pharma i can guarantee you they are not looking to screw people over so they can make more. most doctors whoever is paying them, especially very highly qualified doctors are more interested in making real scientific progress than in getting paid. if they could come up with a therapy that didn't involve drugs but produced the same effects, so they can publish and be famous, they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apace41

Easy.

 

You realize that Viktoria is a pretentious windbag who deserves to remain in the dark with her equally ignorant father.

 

Why do you feel the need to correct her misimpressions that clearly won't be correctable?

 

Life is too short -- ignore her pomposity and move on.  There's nothing to see there.

 

Best,

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

Lilu,

 

One of the most distinguished among the "conventional" psychiatric world has acknowledged it here:

 

http://survivingantidepressants.org/index.php?/topic/1190-ronald-pies-says-doctors-tell-patients-the-chemical-imbalance-lie-as-a-favor/

 

Alto posted this to you -- did you read it?

 

Best,

 

Andy

 

Lilu, you can't convince everyone. Doctors are notoriously wooden-headed. If you become frustrated, move on to physicians with whom you can talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilu

Easy.

 

You realize that Viktoria is a pretentious windbag who deserves to remain in the dark with her equally ignorant father.

 

Why do you feel the need to correct her misimpressions that clearly won't be correctable?

 

Life is too short -- ignore her pomposity and move on.  There's nothing to see there.

 

Best,

 

Andy

That's funny. Pompous windbag. Haha.

 

I don't know, why I'm so hell-bent on proving the truth to people.  The truth shall set you free, right?

 

She just really got to me. The way she assumed that I was nothing, and knew nothing and she was so superior. Ugh.  Sometimes when people come at me with such a condescending cocky attitude and throw out "facts" that I know too well to be complete nonsense, I just get enraged!  Something comes over me and I just want to squash their smug ignorance.  

 

I don't know, it's like a trigger or something. It actually reminds me of the uncontrollable temper tantrums that I had a few times while deep in withdrawal.  With enough stress and usually conflict with someone, I would erupt like a volcano. I'd bang on the table, yell, and then cry. It was pure survival mode. Like a cornered and provoked cat who lashes out with teeth and claws.  Is it possible that what I'm experiencing now is some kind of remnant from my withdrawal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilu

I agree with Madeleine and Powerback.

 

Trying to convince people who are set in their ways/thinking can be like talking to a wall.  And it can end up being very stressful and that type of stress is not helpful.

Yes, it was very stressful and triggering. It ruined my mood and my sleep for a few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apace41

Is it possible that what I'm experiencing now is some kind of remnant from my withdrawal?

 

Yes. Very common for people to have things they lock onto and can't release in withdrawal. I have several such things that did not exist before or if they did they were very small things. Not to the extent they exist now. It's kind of an OCD thing.

Work on acceptance and letting it go.

Best,

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilu

Is it possible that what I'm experiencing now is some kind of remnant from my withdrawal?

 

Yes. Very common for people to have things they lock onto and can't release in withdrawal. I have several such things that did not exist before or if they did they were very small things. Not to the extent they exist now. It's kind of an OCD thing.

 

Work on acceptance and letting it go.

 

Best,

 

Andy

 

But I went back on medication 2 years ago. So technically, I haven't been in withdrawal for a while.  But it's like I just can't get back to how I was before withdrawal. I do have an OCD thing going on where after interacting with people, my conversations with them, loop over and over in my mind for a couple of days afterwards, depending on the intensity of interaction and topic. I first noticed this tendency while I was tapering my medication and in withdrawal, but it seems to still be happening.  

 

I guess the damage that withdrawal does to our nervous systems, even going back on medication can't fix. We expect way too much from medication.  My dad still says, "But you're taking an antidepressant, how can you still be depressed?!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
powerback

... I went back on medication 2 years ago. So technically, I haven't been in withdrawal for a while.  But it's like I just can't get back to how I was before withdrawal. I do have an OCD thing going on where after interacting with people, my conversations with them, loop over and over in my mind for a couple of days afterwards, depending on the intensity of interaction and topic. I first noticed this tendency while I was tapering my medication and in withdrawal, but it seems to still be happening.  

 

I guess the damage that withdrawal does to our nervous systems, even going back on medication can't fix. We expect way too much from medication.  My dad still says, "But you're taking an antidepressant, how can you still be depressed?!!!"

 

hi lilu u are not alone I have these thoughts also after interacting with people ,I'm becoming better at controlling and allowing what winds me up ,its very interesting were it stems from ,we have to be aware and more guarded how we let people get into our heads and if that means staying away from certain people and conversations so be it .

 

are we feeding some internal anger in our subconscious by always engaging in behaviour that winds us up and hurts us .there could be something going on with the ego and how it is damaged and hurt by the pain of withdrawl and what it does to us ,Eckhart tolle has some amazing insights into the ego .

 

I avoid most conversations at certain times and it really works ,I don't believe I'm being weak and not participating in life ,I'm really not well and I have to do these things to protect myself .there is some things that I really believe I'm correct about in my circle ,but what ever it is about humans is no likes to be wrong ,however silly .

Take care

PB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilu

Yes, PB, I think you're right about the subconscious forces driving us.  I think for me it always goes back to growing up in a chaotic environment due to emotional abuse from my rageaholic dad.  After reading the book "women who love too much" I learned that women like me continue to create conflict and drama in their lives, because the adrenaline from makes them feel alive, and is the only thing that keeps them from sinking into a depression.  

 

But yes, maybe wanting to be right is so strong due to a very fragile ego that stems from life-long low self-esteem issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.