Fascinating documentary on psychopathy...

April 11, 2012

....as it relates to our economic structure, to psychotrophic drugs, how to spot

" snakes in suits " , and how to combat a psychopathy-enabling and

psychopathy-encouraging environment such as working in a large corporation.

Featuring psychopathy expert Dr. Hare and other experts on psychopathy.

The most interesting feature of this documentary, to me, was hearing that Dr.

Hare and the other psychologists stating that *lack of empathy* is the key

feature of psychopathy, and lo and behold: *lack of empathy is being added to

the diagnostic criteria for borderline pd in the DSM-V!* This supports my

belief that moderately to severely borderline pd individuals who are also

untreated do a lot more damage to their children than the general public is

aware of.

Here is the link to this documentary at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ & list=HL1334176133 & feature=mh_lolz

I'm not sure but I think its called " I Am Fishhead " and its narrated by

Coyote.

-Annie

April 11, 2012

Thanks for sharing! This certainly fits what my husband keeps saying about

fada.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, anuria67854 wrote:

> **

>

> ...as it relates to our economic structure, to psychotrophic drugs, how to

> spot " snakes in suits " , and how to combat a psychopathy-enabling and

> psychopathy-encouraging environment such as working in a large corporation.

> Featuring psychopathy expert Dr. Hare and other experts on

> psychopathy.

>

> The most interesting feature of this documentary, to me, was hearing that

> Dr. Hare and the other psychologists stating that *lack of empathy* is the

> key feature of psychopathy, and lo and behold: *lack of empathy is being

> added to the diagnostic criteria for borderline pd in the DSM-V!* This

> supports my belief that moderately to severely borderline pd individuals

> who are also untreated do a lot more damage to their children than the

> general public is aware of.

>

> Here is the link to this documentary at YouTube:

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ & list=HL1334176133 & feature=mh_lolz

>

> I'm not sure but I think its called " I Am Fishhead " and its narrated by

> Coyote.

>

> -Annie

>

April 11, 2012

The " psychopathy = lack of empathy " idea is not particularly new, but for a

more interesting view on the topic try reading Simon Baron-Cohen (yes, he

is related to Sacha) in " The Science of Evil " , which is a book about people

who lack empathy -- and yes, he includes borderlines in that group. It's a

fairly limited book in a lot of ways (for one thing, it's not really about

" evil " ) but it's very interesting when it talks about lack of empathy in

the autistic/Asperger's population and compares it to the lack of empathy

found in your typical narcissist or borderline. Eventually he gets around

to making the point that " lack of empathy " doesn't necessarily equate with

evil if there are other traits that balance it out. For example, most

autistic/Asperger's folk are strong " systematizers " , which means they

follow rules. If you tell them, " The rule is, we don't HIT PEOPLE when we

are angry! " then they won't hit people. They will follow the rule. On some

level they don't UNDERSTAND the rule, because they don't get that " other

people feel hurt when they are hit. " But they follow it.

However, in the borderline we frequently find -- as in the antisocial --

that rather than being systematizers, they are instead impulse-driven.

They feel, then they do. They do NOT follow rules. So you can't stop the

bad behavior on the grounds that " It's hurting other people " -- they don't

get it -- and you can't stop it on the grounds of " The rules say DON'T DO

THAT " , because they don't follow rules, and then you have a problem....

Also, I watched a good chunk of that documentary but stopped when the guys

started going on about the evils of antidepressants. Are these guys

Scientologists or what?? I couldn't find out very much about them, but they

sure seem on a crusade against antidepressants. I've researched

antidepressants extensively, from tricyclics to SSRIs to the " atypical

antipsychotics " bunch, and I've NEVER seen anyone claim that they resulted

in an increase in psychopathic traits. In fact they seem to result in

better behavior in most people because they improve emotional control and

reduce impulse. These guys seem to be saying that " improved emotional

control " (improved regulation) means " less emotion " which means " less

empathy " , and that's nonsense. Given my Nada's emotional dysregulation, I

PRAY for something that would reduce her emotionality. (Of course, she

would NEVER take " those pills " . Never in a million years. Goddammit.)

So really, what's with the " evil evil antidepressants! " garbage? 0.o I

mean, yes, they are probably overprescribed, but so are a lot of drugs. No

doctor wants a lawsuit for failing to give a patient a drug that might help

him, after all. But I've seen ZERO evidence that antidepressants increase

psychopathic behavior.

-- Jen H.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM, anuria67854 wrote:

> **

>

> ...as it relates to our economic structure, to psychotrophic drugs, how to

> spot " snakes in suits " , and how to combat a psychopathy-enabling and

> psychopathy-encouraging environment such as working in a large corporation.

> Featuring psychopathy expert Dr. Hare and other experts on

> psychopathy.

>

> The most interesting feature of this documentary, to me, was hearing that

> Dr. Hare and the other psychologists stating that *lack of empathy* is the

> key feature of psychopathy, and lo and behold: *lack of empathy is being

> added to the diagnostic criteria for borderline pd in the DSM-V!* This

> supports my belief that moderately to severely borderline pd individuals

> who are also untreated do a lot more damage to their children than the

> general public is aware of.

>

> Here is the link to this documentary at YouTube:

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ & list=HL1334176133 & feature=mh_lolz

>

> I'm not sure but I think its called " I Am Fishhead " and its narrated by

> Coyote.

>

> -Annie

>

April 11, 2012

more useful topics.

I did get they idea that they were saying " If you're less afraid when you

make million dollar decisions, you might make worse decisions. " But I think

the research shows that there is a competing influence of antidepressants

that is " I will not make impulsive decisions so easily! " and I think that

in practical effect, those two most likely cancel out completely.

Also, based on a lot of informal second-hand research I've been doing (with

the assistance of my therapist who keeps pointing out good materials) --

although psychopathy is a real problem, especially when they get into a

position of power, most bad behavior -- including things like the Trayvon

shooting and the Oikos shooting and that bastard in Norway -- is

based not on psychopathy, but on an exaggerated aggressive FEAR response.

Scared people may run -- but they may fight, and if they fight they are

likely to get desperate. Ergo, my intuition (backed up by a fair body of

empirical research) is that the use of antidepressants is likely to lower

the overall level of random violence among us by just lowering the threat

response and increasing willpower (self-control).

Most current research says that the over-the-top crazy behavior of your

average borderline is a FEAR response -- specifically, the fear of

abandonment, that drives them so powerfully that it is literally the ONLY

THING they can ever hear their minds saying. FEAR, FEAR, FEAR! So, while

the use of antidepressants in borderlines has shown very little use, sadly

-- (one of the things about the so-called personality disorders is we

haven't really found any drugs that can " fix " them) -- I honestly see no

evidence whatsoever that reducing fear causes people to behave more badly

in general. The opposite is actually more true.

Also, I was puzzled when they started talking about things like Valium as

being some kind of " most massively prescribed drug ever " . Have they not

heard of opium? Opiates have been with us since before written language as

far as we can tell (we have found statues and artwork depicting opium

poppies and their use as medicine going WAY back.) I think their grasp of

pharmaceutical history is kind of severely lacking....

Now, this doesn't really address the damage psychopaths do, mostly because

they are very adept at getting into positions of power and then misusing it

terribly. However, if you check the biographical data on the worst

dictators of modern history (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu

(sp?)) they are not generally regarded as psychopaths -- the term

" malignant narcissist " comes closer. In particular they were all

hyper-reactive to perceived criticism of any kind, which is NOT a trait of

your average psychopath, who honestly couldn't give a flying crap if

someone criticizes him (they find it amusing.)

I also noted that when they were talking about psychopathic leaders they

included Dubya Bush. Now, I'm NO FAN of Dubya -- quite the contrary

-- but he was not, and is not, a psychopath.

So all in all, while parts of the documentary were well done, I have to say

overall I have to wonder about the agenda (and lack of balance) shown by

the authors. (And I mean real balance. Not Faux-news style " fair and

balanced " (puke.))

-- Jen

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Manning wrote:

> **

>

> Hi !

> Thanks for looking into that.

> I watched the entire film and did not get from it that they were suggesting

> that those that take antidepressants become psychopaths but more that they

> lose their gut feelings as they have no more highs and lows of emotion.

> They

> were suggesting that those who take antidepressants to deal with a

> psychopathic society may not make the best decisions as it relates to the

> masses (people in high corporate and wall street power/influence) as their

> twangs of guilt and remorse may be dimmed down by the drugs. You may want

> to

> watch it out and see if you feel differently after you see where it was

> going.

> Best!

>

> Re: Fascinating documentary on psychopathy...

>

> More on antidepressants/psychopathy:

>

> Here's an abstract from a very recent study on the topic:

> -------------------------

>

> Abstract

>

> We examined whether antidepressants alter expression of psychopathic

> personality traits in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Data

> were collected from a double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week trial

> evaluating the efficacy of sertraline (50-200 mg/day) combined with either

> tri-iodothyronine (T3) or matching placebo in adult outpatients with major

> depressive disorder. Administration of sertraline was open-label;

> T3/placebo

> was double-blind. At the baseline and week 8 visits, patients completed the

> short form of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), a

> well-validated

> self-report measure assessing two major factors of

> psychopathy: Fearless Dominance (PPI-1) and Self-Centered Impulsivity

> (PPI-2). Change in PPI scores were assessed using paired t-tests for all

> participants who completed a baseline and postrandomization PPI. Ninety

> patients (84 completers and six who terminated the trial early) were

> eligible for the analysis. Both PPI factors changed significantly from

> baseline to endpoint, but in opposing directions. The mean score on PPI-1

> increased significantly during treatment; this change was weakly correlated

> with change in depression scores. In contrast, the mean score on PPI-2

> decreased significantly, but these changes were not correlated with changes

> in depression scores. Independent of their effects on depression,

> antidepressants increase adaptive traits traditionally observed in

> psychopathic individuals, such as social charm and interpersonal and

> physical boldness. Antidepressants reduce other, more maladaptive, traits

> associated with psychopathy, including dysregulated impulsivity and

> externalization.

>

> ----------------------------

>

> To put this in perspective: Psychopathy is measured along two basic axes.

> One is lack of emotion/lack of empathy (Fearless/Dominance). The other is

> the presence of impulsivity (Self Centered Impulsivity) (recklessness, risk

> taking.) They found that the antidepressants resulted in a small (but

> significant) upward change in the " Fearless Dominance " axis - people on

> SSRIs got less fearful. But they moved DOWNWARD by almost the same amount

> on the " Self Centered Impulsivity " scale. That is, they got LESS

> self-centered and reckless.

>

> In short, they moved away from the " borderline/narcissist " area (low

> empathy, lots of fear, lots of impulse) and toward the autistic/Asperger's

> area (low empathy, low fear/emotion, low impulse.) The net effect on

> " psychopathy " was essentially NIL -- the two movements cancelled each other

> out.

>

> So this antidepressants = less empathy = more psychopathy is just not true,

> according to this study. Antidepressants don't make you a psychopath. They

> can make you less nervous and more confident, but there's more to being a

> psychopath than just being confident/less fearful.

>

> -- Jen

>

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Hawthorne

> wrote:

>

> > The " psychopathy = lack of empathy " idea is not particularly new, but

> > for a more interesting view on the topic try reading Simon Baron-Cohen

> > (yes, he is related to Sacha) in " The Science of Evil " , which is a

> > book about people who lack empathy -- and yes, he includes borderlines

> > in that group. It's a fairly limited book in a lot of ways (for one

> > thing, it's not really about

> > " evil " ) but it's very interesting when it talks about lack of empathy

> > in the autistic/Asperger's population and compares it to the lack of

> > empathy found in your typical narcissist or borderline. Eventually he

> > gets around to making the point that " lack of empathy " doesn't

> > necessarily equate with evil if there are other traits that balance it

> > out. For example, most autistic/Asperger's folk are strong

> > " systematizers " , which means they follow rules. If you tell them,

> > " The rule is, we don't HIT PEOPLE when we are angry! " then they won't

> > hit people. They will follow the rule. On some level they don't

> > UNDERSTAND the rule, because they don't get that " other people feel hurt

> when they are hit. " But they follow it.

> >

> > However, in the borderline we frequently find -- as in the antisocial

> > -- that rather than being systematizers, they are instead impulse-driven.

> > They feel, then they do. They do NOT follow rules. So you can't stop

> > the bad behavior on the grounds that " It's hurting other people " --

> > they don't get it -- and you can't stop it on the grounds of " The

> > rules say DON'T DO THAT " , because they don't follow rules, and then you

> have a problem....

> >

> > Also, I watched a good chunk of that documentary but stopped when the

> > guys started going on about the evils of antidepressants. Are these

> > guys Scientologists or what?? I couldn't find out very much about

> > them, but they sure seem on a crusade against antidepressants. I've

> > researched antidepressants extensively, from tricyclics to SSRIs to

> > the " atypical antipsychotics " bunch, and I've NEVER seen anyone claim

> > that they resulted in an increase in psychopathic traits. In fact

> > they seem to result in better behavior in most people because they

> > improve emotional control and reduce impulse. These guys seem to be

> > saying that " improved emotional control " (improved regulation) means

> > " less emotion " which means " less empathy " , and that's nonsense. Given

> > my Nada's emotional dysregulation, I PRAY for something that would

> > reduce her emotionality. (Of course, she would NEVER take " those

> > pills " . Never in a million years. Goddammit.)

> >

> > So really, what's with the " evil evil antidepressants! " garbage? 0.o I

> > mean, yes, they are probably overprescribed, but so are a lot of

> > drugs. No doctor wants a lawsuit for failing to give a patient a drug

> > that might help him, after all. But I've seen ZERO evidence that

> > antidepressants increase psychopathic behavior.

> >

> > -- Jen H.

> >

> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM, anuria67854

> wrote:

> >

> >> **

>

> >>

> >> ...as it relates to our economic structure, to psychotrophic drugs,

> >> how to spot " snakes in suits " , and how to combat a

> >> psychopathy-enabling and psychopathy-encouraging environment such as

> working in a large corporation.

> >> Featuring psychopathy expert Dr. Hare and other experts on

> >> psychopathy.

> >>

> >> The most interesting feature of this documentary, to me, was hearing

> >> that Dr. Hare and the other psychologists stating that *lack of

> >> empathy* is the key feature of psychopathy, and lo and behold: *lack

> >> of empathy is being added to the diagnostic criteria for borderline

> >> pd in the DSM-V!* This supports my belief that moderately to severely

> >> borderline pd individuals who are also untreated do a lot more damage

> >> to their children than the general public is aware of.

> >>

> >> Here is the link to this documentary at YouTube:

> >>

April 11, 2012

That's interesting, because my take on that part of the documentary (the part

about antidepressants) was that the film-makers' key point is that it appears

that more and more non-psychopathic people take antidepressants these days

because of the stress of having to deal with the psychopathic people, and the

problem with antidepressants is that it dulls our ability to be on our guard

against the psychopaths.

Like you, though, I wouldn't go so far as to agree with their statement, that

while " psychopaths (inherently) lack empathy, antidepressants kill empathy. "

Regarding the quality of empathy, I would distinguish between two types of

empathy:

cognitive empathy and affective empathy.

Those within the autistic spectrum of disorders lack cognitive empathy: the

ability to recognize and accurately name the emotions that other people are

feeling. However, I've read that those at the higher-functioning end of the

autism spectrum such as those with Aspbergers, are able to feel affective

empathy once they are made to understand that, for example, " Your friend feels

sad, she needs a hug " or " I'm feeling annoyed, lets go somewhere else. "

Affective empathy is the ability to feel or experience another's feelings as

though they are your own. For example, its hard for me to look at someone

else's injury because I feel a sort of shiver or shudder of ghost-like pain in

the corresponding part of my body if I see a bad cut or contusion. If someone

else is throwing up, I tend to feel nauseated and triggered into vomiting too.

I tend to tear up when someone else is crying, also. And I think I'm pretty

accurate at reading other people's moods and feelings, even by their body

language alone.

Those with psychopathy are very good at cognitive empathy, or the ability to

" read " other people very accurately. Some are uncannily perceptive at reading

people, but its for the purpose of using that person's wishes and needs to

manipulate them or con them. The psychopath has no affective empathy: they know

you are sad or upset, but they really do not give a flying f**k about your

feelings and don't feel your sadness or your joy with you.

So, me personally, I was very interested to read that " lack of empathy " is going

to be part of the borderline pd diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V, and in this

documentary " lack of empathy " was spoken of as one of the key distinguishing

traits of psychopathy. (Its one of the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic pd

in the DSM-IV, but not borderline pd.)

I think my own late bpd/npd mother lacked both cognitive and affective empathy.

She was not good at reading other people's moods and feelings and would often

assign negative feelings and motives to others, especially to Sister, dad and me

that we weren't feeling AT ALL (nada was projecting her own feelings onto us) .

Sister and I both believe that our nada had to learn how to respond in

appropriate ways when others were genuinely feeling happy or sad in her presence

and a response was required from her. Sometimes it was very evident that nada

was not feeling genuinely concerned, loving or kindly and was just wearing her

public mask. Its funny now, in retrospect, how obvious her tight-faced, brittle

" smile " was.

So, like you, I don't agree 100% with everything in the documentary, but I

thought it had some fascinating information and opinions to share.

-Annie

>

> > **

> >

> > ...as it relates to our economic structure, to psychotrophic drugs, how to

> > spot " snakes in suits " , and how to combat a psychopathy-enabling and

> > psychopathy-encouraging environment such as working in a large corporation.

> > Featuring psychopathy expert Dr. Hare and other experts on

> > psychopathy.

> >

> > The most interesting feature of this documentary, to me, was hearing that

> > Dr. Hare and the other psychologists stating that *lack of empathy* is the

> > key feature of psychopathy, and lo and behold: *lack of empathy is being

> > added to the diagnostic criteria for borderline pd in the DSM-V!* This

> > supports my belief that moderately to severely borderline pd individuals

> > who are also untreated do a lot more damage to their children than the

> > general public is aware of.

> >

> > Here is the link to this documentary at YouTube:

> >

> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ & list=HL1334176133 & feature=mh_lolz

> >

> > I'm not sure but I think its called " I Am Fishhead " and its narrated by

> > Coyote.

> >

> > -Annie

> >

>

April 11, 2012

Brief addition....for me being on antidepressants definitely killed empathy. It

was almost shocking to me how much I didn't give a f*** about anybody's feelings

anymore. Since before antidepressants I was overwhelmed with empathy and

constantly internalized the pain of every person I encountered it was a

startling change. A change that helped me heal for a little while, but I can't

say I liked the person I was becoming on them. I could absolutely see a

correlation with psychopathy. For the record I'm not on antidepressants now...

Eliza

> >

> > > **

> > >

> > > ...as it relates to our economic structure, to psychotrophic drugs, how to

> > > spot " snakes in suits " , and how to combat a psychopathy-enabling and

> > > psychopathy-encouraging environment such as working in a large

corporation.

> > > Featuring psychopathy expert Dr. Hare and other experts on

> > > psychopathy.

> > >

> > > The most interesting feature of this documentary, to me, was hearing that

> > > Dr. Hare and the other psychologists stating that *lack of empathy* is the

> > > key feature of psychopathy, and lo and behold: *lack of empathy is being

> > > added to the diagnostic criteria for borderline pd in the DSM-V!* This

> > > supports my belief that moderately to severely borderline pd individuals

> > > who are also untreated do a lot more damage to their children than the

> > > general public is aware of.

> > >

> > > Here is the link to this documentary at YouTube:

> > >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ & list=HL1334176133 & feature=mh_lolz

> > >

> > > I'm not sure but I think its called " I Am Fishhead " and its narrated by

> > > Coyote.

> > >

> > > -Annie

> > >

> >

April 11, 2012

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:31 AM, anuria67854 wrote:

>

> Regarding the quality of empathy, I would distinguish between two types of

> empathy:

> cognitive empathy and affective empathy.

>

Yeah, Simon Baron-Cohen makes the same distinction in his book. I've also

seen it divided into " empathy " , the ability to understand other people's

emotions, and " compassion " , which is the ability to CARE what other people

are feeling. Psychopaths -- some of them at least -- seem to be able to

intellectually understand the idea of feelings and are scarily good at

using them to manipulate others, but they don't FEEL them -- they don't

" mirror " like normal people. When they see someone else in pain, they

don't suffer.

> For example, its hard for me to look at someone else's injury because I

> feel a sort of shiver or shudder of ghost-like pain in the corresponding

> part of my body if I see a bad cut or contusion. If someone else is

> throwing up, I tend to feel nauseated and triggered into vomiting too. I

> tend to tear up when someone else is crying, also. And I think I'm pretty

> accurate at reading other people's moods and feelings, even by their body

> language alone.

>

There's a really good book by SF author Octavia (winner of the

MacArthur Genius grant, and sadly deceased far too soon) called " Parable of

the Sower " , where the protagonist is a " Sharer " -- a person with a specific

mental disorder that causes her to LITERALLY feel whatever pain she thinks

other people are feeling. It's not psychic or anything -- someone can FAKE

being in pain, and she will feel it as real. So it's possible for other

people to quite literally torture her just by torturing anyone she can see

or hear. It's a good book. (The Sharing is not actually the point of the

book, it's just something the protagonist has to deal with.)

So, me personally, I was very interested to read that " lack of empathy " is

> going to be part of the borderline pd diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V, and

> in this documentary " lack of empathy " was spoken of as one of the key

> distinguishing traits of psychopathy. (Its one of the diagnostic criteria

> for narcissistic pd in the DSM-IV, but not borderline pd.)

>

That is interesting. I hadn't heard that they were making it " official. "

>

> I think my own late bpd/npd mother lacked both cognitive and affective

> empathy. She was not good at reading other people's moods and feelings and

> would often assign negative feelings and motives to others, especially to

> Sister, dad and me that we weren't feeling AT ALL (nada was projecting her

> own feelings onto us) . Sister and I both believe that our nada had to

> learn how to respond in appropriate ways when others were genuinely feeling

> happy or sad in her presence and a response was required from her.

> Sometimes it was very evident that nada was not feeling genuinely

> concerned, loving or kindly and was just wearing her public mask. Its funny

> now, in retrospect, how obvious her tight-faced, brittle " smile " was.

>

My Nada is a bit more complicated (and not a " full " borderline -- she would

be what is usually called " high functioning " , in that she has the emotional

disregulation but not the impulsive self-harming aspects of it.) She seems

to have the capability for affective empathy, but her cognitive empathy

abilities are significantly subpar. Like, back in October I was physically

attacked by a male " friend " and was horribly shaken up by it. She went

with me to the police station to report the guy's attack and while we were

sitting there waiting for a cop to come out and take my statement, she told

me in all seriousness that " These things are worse on the parents than on

the kid! " ....and I'm like --- " You really believe somehow that this is

worse for YOU than for ME, don't you.... " Then two days after the attack

she's asking me random questions about what happened right before the

attack, and I'm fed up with the questions and I snap at her, and she goes

" Well, YOU'RE cranky! " , like she just can't IMAGINE why on Earth I would be

cranky about that....and I'm just like -- are you from SATURN, woman???

Yet at the same time she walked out of the movie " War Horse " twice (it's

PG-13!!) because she couldn't stand what was " happening to that poor

horse! " (Mind you, I'm not sure she wasn't faking her over-sensitivity.)

So it's like she WANTS to be compassionate, or at least LOOK

compassionate, but she literally cannot mentally " get " there for some

reason. It's just crazy making. But I don't get the feeling she's trying

to " use " me like a psychopath (she'd make a lousy psychopath -- she doesn't

empathize well enough to manipulate ANYONE successfully). She knows there's

something " missing " or " off " about her. But she doesn't know how to deal

with it (and of course therapy is out of the question, it's a " waste of

money, the problem isn't me, it's you people. " And she seems to really

believe that too. Or she really wants to believe it.)

But I get the impression she WANTS to be " normal " (compassionate), and she

tries to go through the motions, but since she fundamentally cannot go

" behind someone else's eyes " in any real way, she's essentially crippled. I

would find it very sad if it hadn't caused so much misery for me and my

brother throughout our lives.

But to get back to the documentary, I wouldn't say it was worthless -- just

that the alarmist tone taken about antidepressants is really off base (as I

said, makes it sound like the authors are Scientologists -- those are the

folks that think women suffering from psychotic post-partum depression just

need " vitamins " ...*facepalm*.)

-- Jen H.

April 11, 2012

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:49 AM, eliza92@... <

eliza92@...> wrote:

> **

>

> Brief addition....for me being on antidepressants definitely killed

> empathy. It was almost shocking to me how much I didn't give a f*** about

> anybody's feelings anymore. Since before antidepressants I was overwhelmed

> with empathy and constantly internalized the pain of every person I

> encountered it was a startling change. A change that helped me heal for a

> little while, but I can't say I liked the person I was becoming on them. I

> could absolutely see a correlation with psychopathy. For the record I'm not

> on antidepressants now...

>

> Eliza

>

Interesting. In my 20 year battle with depression I've been on quite a few

antidepressants of various types -- most have been somewhat helpful, none

have been amazingly helpful. But at no time did I feel like they made me

less empathic. In fact they helped me be better with others, because I was

better able to focus on what other people were feeling and less on my own

bad feelings, since they weren't as strong -- I had more emotional

" attention " available for others when my internal pain was lessened. I

have known others on antidepressants who have reported the " numbing "

effect, but *I* did not notice that they seemed less empathic or less

gentle/good-natured/kind on antidepressants. (In fact a friend of my Nada's

says her daughters can tell immediately if she's off her antidepressants

because she gets much harder to live with when she's not on them -- that

is, she becomes a significantly meaner person without her medication.)

That being said : Neurochemistry is HIGHLY individualistic, and to get the

best effects from antidepressants you need careful monitoring and a fairly

long, watchful period of trial and error to get the right medication, the

right dosage, and sometimes the right combination for each individual.

These days, a fair number of GPs or internists hand out antidepressants

without going through the careful experimental and monitoring stage - they

just write a prescription for Zoloft and send their patients on their way,

which is generally a huge mistake. So I could see that some folks might

have non-optimal responses if they're not seeing a properly educated

medical professional.

But one example given on the video was " a person risking renal failure

because she feels shy at a party. " I've never known a competent medical

professional who would hand out antidepressants for " I get shy at parties. "

Now, if the person said, " I have such crippling shyness that I can't bring

myself to socialize with groups at any time " , and the person is totally

miserable this way -- yeah, I could see someone " risking renal failure " to

get some relief and be able to connect with other people. I don't actually

consider that a bad trade-off. I certainly wouldn't judge anyone else who

decided that trade-off was acceptable to them. It was like he was mocking

people with social phobias for seeking relief from " trivial " problems that

he didn't actually suffer from himself (talk about a lack of empathy!!)

Basically, I see it this way: As long as a person is informed of the

risks, if they decide they want to mess with their neurochemistry in an

attempt to live a better life, that's THEIR CHOICE. It's definitely not up

to me to say " Oh, your problem isn't bad enough to deserve antidepressants,

you'll just have to suck it up and learn to be more of a social butterfly.

Good luck with that! " If you don't like what the drugs do to you, don't

take them (although if you have a bad reaction to the first one you try,

you might want to consider switching and trying again -- as I said,

neurochemistry is highly individualistic and very similar drugs -- Proxac

vs. Zoloft vs. Paxil for example -- often have significantly different

effects on the same person.)

I don't think anyone is actually served well by alarmism that " taking

antidepressants makes you less scared so you make riskier investments! And

it makes you psychopathic! And it makes you more vulnerable to

psychopaths! " There's a REASON these drugs are widely prescribed: They

WORK, for many people, if correctly prescribed and carefully monitored. To

have people making documentaries stating things about these drugs that are

not generally true might keep some people from taking them who would really

benefit because they're scared it will make them into psychopathic zombies

-- and that could cost a lot of lives and a lot of suffering. So I think

that's really irresponsible. I mean, blood pressure regulation drugs have

a LOT of side effects, many of them nasty, but none of them are as bad as

what happens if you stroke out. So it's up to you whether you want to

risk the stroke or deal with the side effects, but if someone were running

around saying " Those blood pressure drugs give you cancer! " when they

DON'T, that would be seriously wrong and bad if it caused people to die or

be crippled by strokes that could have been prevented.

It would be terribly tragic if people committed suicide and died when that

could have been prevented by the right medication that they were just too

scared to take because some poorly informed documentarian told them it

would make them psychopathic.

-- Jen H.

April 12, 2012

I too have experienced a real dulling of all my emotions, including empathy,

when I was on a short course of anti-anxiety meds, so I don't think the

documentary is totally out to lunch on that score, meaning that I think they

were quoting real research, but they did interpret their findings in a rather

alarmist way. I personally think that under the right or proper conditions,

meds can be a great benefit to people.

(And yes, as a lay-person and not a medical doctor (or doctor of any kind)

myself, I agree that depending on the patient and her doctor's opinion, a

severe postpartum depression probably would need more than just vitamins, and

there's nothing wrong with either option, as long as it works for that

particular patient.)

-Annie

> >

> > Regarding the quality of empathy, I would distinguish between two types of

> > empathy:

> > cognitive empathy and affective empathy.

> >

>

> Yeah, Simon Baron-Cohen makes the same distinction in his book. I've also

> seen it divided into " empathy " , the ability to understand other people's

> emotions, and " compassion " , which is the ability to CARE what other people

> are feeling. Psychopaths -- some of them at least -- seem to be able to

> intellectually understand the idea of feelings and are scarily good at

> using them to manipulate others, but they don't FEEL them -- they don't

> " mirror " like normal people. When they see someone else in pain, they

> don't suffer.

>

> > For example, its hard for me to look at someone else's injury because I

> > feel a sort of shiver or shudder of ghost-like pain in the corresponding

> > part of my body if I see a bad cut or contusion. If someone else is

> > throwing up, I tend to feel nauseated and triggered into vomiting too. I

> > tend to tear up when someone else is crying, also. And I think I'm pretty

> > accurate at reading other people's moods and feelings, even by their body

> > language alone.

> >

> There's a really good book by SF author Octavia (winner of the

> MacArthur Genius grant, and sadly deceased far too soon) called " Parable of

> the Sower " , where the protagonist is a " Sharer " -- a person with a specific

> mental disorder that causes her to LITERALLY feel whatever pain she thinks

> other people are feeling. It's not psychic or anything -- someone can FAKE

> being in pain, and she will feel it as real. So it's possible for other

> people to quite literally torture her just by torturing anyone she can see

> or hear. It's a good book. (The Sharing is not actually the point of the

> book, it's just something the protagonist has to deal with.)

>

> So, me personally, I was very interested to read that " lack of empathy " is

> > going to be part of the borderline pd diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V, and

> > in this documentary " lack of empathy " was spoken of as one of the key

> > distinguishing traits of psychopathy. (Its one of the diagnostic criteria

> > for narcissistic pd in the DSM-IV, but not borderline pd.)

> >

>

> That is interesting. I hadn't heard that they were making it " official. "

>

> >

> > I think my own late bpd/npd mother lacked both cognitive and affective

> > empathy. She was not good at reading other people's moods and feelings and

> > would often assign negative feelings and motives to others, especially to

> > Sister, dad and me that we weren't feeling AT ALL (nada was projecting her

> > own feelings onto us) . Sister and I both believe that our nada had to

> > learn how to respond in appropriate ways when others were genuinely feeling

> > happy or sad in her presence and a response was required from her.

> > Sometimes it was very evident that nada was not feeling genuinely

> > concerned, loving or kindly and was just wearing her public mask. Its funny

> > now, in retrospect, how obvious her tight-faced, brittle " smile " was.

> >

> My Nada is a bit more complicated (and not a " full " borderline -- she would

> be what is usually called " high functioning " , in that she has the emotional

> disregulation but not the impulsive self-harming aspects of it.) She seems

> to have the capability for affective empathy, but her cognitive empathy

> abilities are significantly subpar. Like, back in October I was physically

> attacked by a male " friend " and was horribly shaken up by it. She went

> with me to the police station to report the guy's attack and while we were

> sitting there waiting for a cop to come out and take my statement, she told

> me in all seriousness that " These things are worse on the parents than on

> the kid! " ....and I'm like --- " You really believe somehow that this is

> worse for YOU than for ME, don't you.... " Then two days after the attack

> she's asking me random questions about what happened right before the

> attack, and I'm fed up with the questions and I snap at her, and she goes

> " Well, YOU'RE cranky! " , like she just can't IMAGINE why on Earth I would be

> cranky about that....and I'm just like -- are you from SATURN, woman???

> Yet at the same time she walked out of the movie " War Horse " twice (it's

> PG-13!!) because she couldn't stand what was " happening to that poor

> horse! " (Mind you, I'm not sure she wasn't faking her over-sensitivity.)

> So it's like she WANTS to be compassionate, or at least LOOK

> compassionate, but she literally cannot mentally " get " there for some

> reason. It's just crazy making. But I don't get the feeling she's trying

> to " use " me like a psychopath (she'd make a lousy psychopath -- she doesn't

> empathize well enough to manipulate ANYONE successfully). She knows there's

> something " missing " or " off " about her. But she doesn't know how to deal

> with it (and of course therapy is out of the question, it's a " waste of

> money, the problem isn't me, it's you people. " And she seems to really

> believe that too. Or she really wants to believe it.)

>

> But I get the impression she WANTS to be " normal " (compassionate), and she

> tries to go through the motions, but since she fundamentally cannot go

> " behind someone else's eyes " in any real way, she's essentially crippled. I

> would find it very sad if it hadn't caused so much misery for me and my

> brother throughout our lives.

>

> But to get back to the documentary, I wouldn't say it was worthless -- just

> that the alarmist tone taken about antidepressants is really off base (as I

> said, makes it sound like the authors are Scientologists -- those are the

> folks that think women suffering from psychotic post-partum depression just

> need " vitamins " ...*facepalm*.)

>

> -- Jen H.

>

April 12, 2012

Hi Jen, I haven't watched the documentary yet, so I can't speak to it. BUT I

will say that the empathy dulling effect as well as unwise decision making did

happen to me. I made some truly horrible decisions during my year on the SSRI

because I wasn't in touch with my inner compass. I think it's fair that people

should know that there are going to be potentially significant changes to their

personality when they take an antidepressant and have a doctor and/or good

friend monitor what those changes are so they'll know if it is what they want.

I'm not against anti-depressants though - they saved my life no doubt.

Sometimes the cost is worth the benefit, but I wish I had gotten off them much

sooner than I did.

It's interesting that you felt you were able to be more present for others with

AD's. I guess it is like you say, highly individualistic each person's needs

and psyche are different.

Eliza

>

> > **

> >

> > Brief addition....for me being on antidepressants definitely killed

> > empathy. It was almost shocking to me how much I didn't give a f*** about

> > anybody's feelings anymore. Since before antidepressants I was overwhelmed

> > with empathy and constantly internalized the pain of every person I

> > encountered it was a startling change. A change that helped me heal for a

> > little while, but I can't say I liked the person I was becoming on them. I

> > could absolutely see a correlation with psychopathy. For the record I'm not

> > on antidepressants now...

> >

> > Eliza

> >

> Interesting. In my 20 year battle with depression I've been on quite a few

> antidepressants of various types -- most have been somewhat helpful, none

> have been amazingly helpful. But at no time did I feel like they made me

> less empathic. In fact they helped me be better with others, because I was

> better able to focus on what other people were feeling and less on my own

> bad feelings, since they weren't as strong -- I had more emotional

> " attention " available for others when my internal pain was lessened. I

> have known others on antidepressants who have reported the " numbing "

> effect, but *I* did not notice that they seemed less empathic or less

> gentle/good-natured/kind on antidepressants. (In fact a friend of my Nada's

> says her daughters can tell immediately if she's off her antidepressants

> because she gets much harder to live with when she's not on them -- that

> is, she becomes a significantly meaner person without her medication.)

>

> That being said : Neurochemistry is HIGHLY individualistic, and to get the

> best effects from antidepressants you need careful monitoring and a fairly

> long, watchful period of trial and error to get the right medication, the

> right dosage, and sometimes the right combination for each individual.

> These days, a fair number of GPs or internists hand out antidepressants

> without going through the careful experimental and monitoring stage - they

> just write a prescription for Zoloft and send their patients on their way,

> which is generally a huge mistake. So I could see that some folks might

> have non-optimal responses if they're not seeing a properly educated

> medical professional.

>

> But one example given on the video was " a person risking renal failure

> because she feels shy at a party. " I've never known a competent medical

> professional who would hand out antidepressants for " I get shy at parties. "

> Now, if the person said, " I have such crippling shyness that I can't bring

> myself to socialize with groups at any time " , and the person is totally

> miserable this way -- yeah, I could see someone " risking renal failure " to

> get some relief and be able to connect with other people. I don't actually

> consider that a bad trade-off. I certainly wouldn't judge anyone else who

> decided that trade-off was acceptable to them. It was like he was mocking

> people with social phobias for seeking relief from " trivial " problems that

> he didn't actually suffer from himself (talk about a lack of empathy!!)

>

> Basically, I see it this way: As long as a person is informed of the

> risks, if they decide they want to mess with their neurochemistry in an

> attempt to live a better life, that's THEIR CHOICE. It's definitely not up

> to me to say " Oh, your problem isn't bad enough to deserve antidepressants,

> you'll just have to suck it up and learn to be more of a social butterfly.

> Good luck with that! " If you don't like what the drugs do to you, don't

> take them (although if you have a bad reaction to the first one you try,

> you might want to consider switching and trying again -- as I said,

> neurochemistry is highly individualistic and very similar drugs -- Proxac

> vs. Zoloft vs. Paxil for example -- often have significantly different

> effects on the same person.)

>

> I don't think anyone is actually served well by alarmism that " taking

> antidepressants makes you less scared so you make riskier investments! And

> it makes you psychopathic! And it makes you more vulnerable to

> psychopaths! " There's a REASON these drugs are widely prescribed: They

> WORK, for many people, if correctly prescribed and carefully monitored. To

> have people making documentaries stating things about these drugs that are

> not generally true might keep some people from taking them who would really

> benefit because they're scared it will make them into psychopathic zombies

> -- and that could cost a lot of lives and a lot of suffering. So I think

> that's really irresponsible. I mean, blood pressure regulation drugs have

> a LOT of side effects, many of them nasty, but none of them are as bad as

> what happens if you stroke out. So it's up to you whether you want to

> risk the stroke or deal with the side effects, but if someone were running

> around saying " Those blood pressure drugs give you cancer! " when they

> DON'T, that would be seriously wrong and bad if it caused people to die or

> be crippled by strokes that could have been prevented.

>

> It would be terribly tragic if people committed suicide and died when that

> could have been prevented by the right medication that they were just too

> scared to take because some poorly informed documentarian told them it

> would make them psychopathic.

>

> -- Jen H.

>

April 12, 2012

So interesting! Didn't get to watch it all. DDs woke up before I was able to

finish it.

My favorite bits? " I don't have to feel shame or guilt. " How many times have I

gotten that message from nada?

and

" Have a problem? We have a drug for that! "

I'm not sure I quoted those completely verbatim, but those were the messages I

got.

I, personally, am so guilty of looking for the " quick fix drug " solution. I've

been having memory problems lately, and just yesterday I was wondering if there

was a drug (I think there's an herbal supplement) that would help. I've never

been on antidepressants. DH has, for a very short time, and it wasn't pretty.

They got rid of his depression, but he became more angry and violent (not

actively violent, just cognitively). He decided he didn't need them!

April 12, 2012

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Alice Spiedon wrote:

> **

>

> " Have a problem? We have a drug for that! "

>

> I'm not sure I quoted those completely verbatim, but those were the

> messages I got.

>

> I, personally, am so guilty of looking for the " quick fix drug " solution.

> I've been having memory problems lately, and just yesterday I was wondering

> if there was a drug (I think there's an herbal supplement) that would help.

> I've never been on antidepressants. DH has, for a very short time, and it

> wasn't pretty. They got rid of his depression, but he became more angry and

> violent (not actively violent, just cognitively). He decided he didn't need

> them!

>

I was Googling around on the " vitamin fix for postpartum depression " thing

(it was in 2005 and it was Tom Cruise who was berating Shields for

taking Paxil for her severe postpartum depression; she was like " Shut up.

It helped me be able to mother my baby like a decent person, you ass, " )

and I ran across a postpartum depression support board (

http://postpartumprogress.com/postpartum-depression-tom-cruise-finds-cure).

There was an associated article on the site titled " Postpartum Depression

and the Stigma of Happy Pills " that I found fascinating which talked about

the way a lot of these women get looked down on for " needing pills to be a

good mother, " because other people " can do it without help. " It pointed

out that nobody tries to claim things like " Diabetics should be able to

just make do without their insulin, because the rest of us don't need it! "

(or " You diabetics just need vitamins and your blood sugar levels will

naturally even out! " ) but antidepressants are considered somehow

" cheating " . That was pretty much the message I got from that documentary --

" Oh, you just want a pill to make you confident at parties! " , which

completely ignores how devastating social anxiety is for some people, and,

as I said, shows a distinct lack of empathy toward their suffering. When

you said " guilty of looking for the quick fix " you seemed to be expressing

the same idea -- that somehow it's cheating to get medication to help you

with a problem that's affecting the quality of your life because " it's all

in your head! Just walk it off! " (or whatever.)

Would you be " guilty of looking for a quick fix " for diabetes if your

doctor said you needed insulin to control it? I mean, yes, you would

probably prefer to control it through lifestyle changes, but if that didn't

work for you, would you feel " guilty " that you had to rely on insulin to

stay alive and functioning?

It's just so weird (to me) that you would feel guilty, in your words, about

taking medication. Do you feel guilty for needing aspirin when you have a

headache? Do you feel like you should be able to just tough it out? Why do

you feel like an herbal supplement (which is an untested and unregulated

drug) would somehow be a better -- healthier? safer? -- thing to do? I'm

not saying you're wrong for feeling this way, I just wonder why you do.

I've often gotten the impression that people think herbal supplements are

" better " either because they are " natural " (and " drugs " aren't somehow) or

because they basically know that the herbs don't work, and that therefore

makes them okay because you're not really cheating if you take something

that doesn't work, but you're signalling that you care enough to try

SOMETHING, even if it's known not to work. But this can get to be a problem

when the herbal supplements aren't regulated at all resulting in products

that are actually significantly more dangerous for you than " drugs " because

no one really knows what's in those herbal supplements pills since the

manufacturers aren't required to disclose it (it could be sawdust), or what

the safe levels of use are if they ARE effective. Sometimes people act like

herbal supplements are " drugs without side effects " , which is an

impossibility really -- anything that is effective is going to have side

effects of some kind. Fortunately, because most herbal supplements seem to

simply not work (or not any better than your average sugar pill placebo

works anyway), what just happens to most people who use them is they end up

wasting quite a bit of money....but it's their money and if they want to

waste it that's up to them, as long as they realize that they're buying an

expensive placebo in a pretty bottle, and as long as there isn't actually

arsenic in those " non drug " capsules.

You know, there was a social movement when anesthetics were first

discovered to deny them to patients undergoing surgery because suffering

was thought to be good for the human soul and anesthetics were deemed to be

thwarting the will of God that man should suffer for his sins. I haven't

really seen anyone these days advocating that you should undergo surgery

without an anesthetic because it would " toughen you up " and be " good for

your soul. " It will be nice when the day comes that people taking

medication to treat their physical or mental ills aren't regarded as

cheaters and made to feel " guilty " for seeking a " quick fix " for their

suffering. Less suffering is a good thing even if it is easy to come by.

As I said earlier, drugs don't work for borderlines for the most part, but

if they did, how many of us would want our Nadas and Fadas to just take the

damned things and be able to act like better people thereby? Or do we think

that if they did that, they would be " cheating " somehow?

For me, anything my Nada did that could enable her to behave decently

toward me and my brother, I would see as a sign of caring enough to at

least TRY to do better. And that would mean a lot to me. Sure, it would be

great if she could just " stop being borderline(ish) " through force of will

or intensive prayer and meditation instead, but if " popping a pill " would

solve the problems, whatever they happen to be, I'd be like -- " POP! PLEASE

POP, FOR GOD'S SAKE! We'll all suffer so much less if you'd stop raging and

hitting us! "

In Tara Brach's book " Radical Acceptance " she talks about the resistance to

the use of antidepressants in her spiritual community. She's an avid

Buddhist and practitioner of meditation, but she's also a licensed

psychologist. She's noticed in her community that people get shamed if

they take medication to help them deal with problems instead of " just

meditating until it passes " . She says she's noticed that for very

distressed patients, the antidepressants can actually give them enough of a

break from their emotional pain that they can then learn to meditate, which

they couldn't without the medication (they couldn't focus well enough, or

were too distressed by their bad feelings to keep it up long enough for the

meditation to work.) But the use of the antidepressants allowed them to

" break the cycle " in a lot of cases, gave them enough inner peace that they

could then learn to meditate properly, and then once they had that skill

learned, they could often then be weaned off the medication and be able to

control their mood swings with just meditation, which is seen as preferable

(and I would agree that it's preferable if you can do it, just as it's

preferable to not need daily insulin shots.) But the medication gave them

an " opening " , a clear space, in which to learn the life skills that would

let them function without the medication, eventually. So as Brach points

out, yes, you could view it as a " crutch " , but no one thinks you're a bad

or weak person for getting around on crutches with a broken leg until the

leg heals enough that you can get into physical therapy and learn to walk

unaided again. When you have a broken leg, you need a crutch, and it's as

simple as that.

Personal anecdote: When I moved back into the area where my Nada lives

after resolutely avoiding the entire family for roughly ten years, she

actually said to me -- and this is a quote -- " Now that you're back with

the love of your family you won't need those pills any more! " . Aside from

the complete lack of understanding this shows about depression, it also

shows the level of delusion she has that our family -- and her in

particular -- are a source of " love " . This caused me to laugh bitterly. IF

ONLY a pill would cure her of that. IF ONLY. Please God, send a pill....

-- Jen

April 12, 2012

Jen, I think you need to hear validation that meds can be good and that in your

case they have been a wonderful tool in your recovery. I am glad his has worked

for you. I am considering trying an anti-anxiety med myself for the first time.

What I love about this list is that we can share different viewpoints

respectfully about how we deal with the situation we've all been dealt with.

I am neither pro-meds nor anti-meds. I am more in the " careful meds " camp. Since

these drugs DO change brain chemistry, I think careful consultation with an

experienced caregiver is in order whenever they are prescribed. Additionally,

our bodies are all slightly different chemically, so these meds DO work

differently in each individual. Sometimes they don't work at all, and sometimes

they work in unfortunate ways. CAREFUL!

In my case, taking Singular for asthma on a daily basis made me depressed to the

point of suicidal thoughts. Frightened, I went to the web and started searching

and found a huge list server discussing this reaction to Singular from many,

many users. How it affect brain chemistry remains unexplained, but it can in

some of the population. Now when I have severe seasonal allergies I use Singular

every other day to keep the inflammation response down without it affecting my

mood.

And as for nada and meds--the ONLY times in life she has been able to cope, to

be consistently kind and stable, is when she was on daily librium!

>

> > **

> >

> > " Have a problem? We have a drug for that! "

> >

> > I'm not sure I quoted those completely verbatim, but those were the

> > messages I got.

> >

> > I, personally, am so guilty of looking for the " quick fix drug " solution.

> > I've been having memory problems lately, and just yesterday I was wondering

> > if there was a drug (I think there's an herbal supplement) that would help.

> > I've never been on antidepressants. DH has, for a very short time, and it

> > wasn't pretty. They got rid of his depression, but he became more angry and

> > violent (not actively violent, just cognitively). He decided he didn't need

> > them!

> >

> I was Googling around on the " vitamin fix for postpartum depression " thing

> (it was in 2005 and it was Tom Cruise who was berating Shields for

> taking Paxil for her severe postpartum depression; she was like " Shut up.

> It helped me be able to mother my baby like a decent person, you ass, " )

> and I ran across a postpartum depression support board (

> http://postpartumprogress.com/postpartum-depression-tom-cruise-finds-cure).

> There was an associated article on the site titled " Postpartum Depression

> and the Stigma of Happy Pills " that I found fascinating which talked about

> the way a lot of these women get looked down on for " needing pills to be a

> good mother, " because other people " can do it without help. " It pointed

> out that nobody tries to claim things like " Diabetics should be able to

> just make do without their insulin, because the rest of us don't need it! "

> (or " You diabetics just need vitamins and your blood sugar levels will

> naturally even out! " ) but antidepressants are considered somehow

> " cheating " . That was pretty much the message I got from that documentary --

> " Oh, you just want a pill to make you confident at parties! " , which

> completely ignores how devastating social anxiety is for some people, and,

> as I said, shows a distinct lack of empathy toward their suffering. When

> you said " guilty of looking for the quick fix " you seemed to be expressing

> the same idea -- that somehow it's cheating to get medication to help you

> with a problem that's affecting the quality of your life because " it's all

> in your head! Just walk it off! " (or whatever.)

>

> Would you be " guilty of looking for a quick fix " for diabetes if your

> doctor said you needed insulin to control it? I mean, yes, you would

> probably prefer to control it through lifestyle changes, but if that didn't

> work for you, would you feel " guilty " that you had to rely on insulin to

> stay alive and functioning?

>

> It's just so weird (to me) that you would feel guilty, in your words, about

> taking medication. Do you feel guilty for needing aspirin when you have a

> headache? Do you feel like you should be able to just tough it out? Why do

> you feel like an herbal supplement (which is an untested and unregulated

> drug) would somehow be a better -- healthier? safer? -- thing to do? I'm

> not saying you're wrong for feeling this way, I just wonder why you do.

> I've often gotten the impression that people think herbal supplements are

> " better " either because they are " natural " (and " drugs " aren't somehow) or

> because they basically know that the herbs don't work, and that therefore

> makes them okay because you're not really cheating if you take something

> that doesn't work, but you're signalling that you care enough to try

> SOMETHING, even if it's known not to work. But this can get to be a problem

> when the herbal supplements aren't regulated at all resulting in products

> that are actually significantly more dangerous for you than " drugs " because

> no one really knows what's in those herbal supplements pills since the

> manufacturers aren't required to disclose it (it could be sawdust), or what

> the safe levels of use are if they ARE effective. Sometimes people act like

> herbal supplements are " drugs without side effects " , which is an

> impossibility really -- anything that is effective is going to have side

> effects of some kind. Fortunately, because most herbal supplements seem to

> simply not work (or not any better than your average sugar pill placebo

> works anyway), what just happens to most people who use them is they end up

> wasting quite a bit of money....but it's their money and if they want to

> waste it that's up to them, as long as they realize that they're buying an

> expensive placebo in a pretty bottle, and as long as there isn't actually

> arsenic in those " non drug " capsules.

>

> You know, there was a social movement when anesthetics were first

> discovered to deny them to patients undergoing surgery because suffering

> was thought to be good for the human soul and anesthetics were deemed to be

> thwarting the will of God that man should suffer for his sins. I haven't

> really seen anyone these days advocating that you should undergo surgery

> without an anesthetic because it would " toughen you up " and be " good for

> your soul. " It will be nice when the day comes that people taking

> medication to treat their physical or mental ills aren't regarded as

> cheaters and made to feel " guilty " for seeking a " quick fix " for their

> suffering. Less suffering is a good thing even if it is easy to come by.

>

> As I said earlier, drugs don't work for borderlines for the most part, but

> if they did, how many of us would want our Nadas and Fadas to just take the

> damned things and be able to act like better people thereby? Or do we think

> that if they did that, they would be " cheating " somehow?

>

> For me, anything my Nada did that could enable her to behave decently

> toward me and my brother, I would see as a sign of caring enough to at

> least TRY to do better. And that would mean a lot to me. Sure, it would be

> great if she could just " stop being borderline(ish) " through force of will

> or intensive prayer and meditation instead, but if " popping a pill " would

> solve the problems, whatever they happen to be, I'd be like -- " POP! PLEASE

> POP, FOR GOD'S SAKE! We'll all suffer so much less if you'd stop raging and

> hitting us! "

>

> In Tara Brach's book " Radical Acceptance " she talks about the resistance to

> the use of antidepressants in her spiritual community. She's an avid

> Buddhist and practitioner of meditation, but she's also a licensed

> psychologist. She's noticed in her community that people get shamed if

> they take medication to help them deal with problems instead of " just

> meditating until it passes " . She says she's noticed that for very

> distressed patients, the antidepressants can actually give them enough of a

> break from their emotional pain that they can then learn to meditate, which

> they couldn't without the medication (they couldn't focus well enough, or

> were too distressed by their bad feelings to keep it up long enough for the

> meditation to work.) But the use of the antidepressants allowed them to

> " break the cycle " in a lot of cases, gave them enough inner peace that they

> could then learn to meditate properly, and then once they had that skill

> learned, they could often then be weaned off the medication and be able to

> control their mood swings with just meditation, which is seen as preferable

> (and I would agree that it's preferable if you can do it, just as it's

> preferable to not need daily insulin shots.) But the medication gave them

> an " opening " , a clear space, in which to learn the life skills that would

> let them function without the medication, eventually. So as Brach points

> out, yes, you could view it as a " crutch " , but no one thinks you're a bad

> or weak person for getting around on crutches with a broken leg until the

> leg heals enough that you can get into physical therapy and learn to walk

> unaided again. When you have a broken leg, you need a crutch, and it's as

> simple as that.

>

> Personal anecdote: When I moved back into the area where my Nada lives

> after resolutely avoiding the entire family for roughly ten years, she

> actually said to me -- and this is a quote -- " Now that you're back with

> the love of your family you won't need those pills any more! " . Aside from

> the complete lack of understanding this shows about depression, it also

> shows the level of delusion she has that our family -- and her in

> particular -- are a source of " love " . This caused me to laugh bitterly. IF

> ONLY a pill would cure her of that. IF ONLY. Please God, send a pill....

>

> -- Jen

>

April 12, 2012

Actually, I don't need validation for myself -- I know all about my meds.

As it happens I'm not currently ON any, lol.

What I " need validation " about, I guess, is that people who might benefit

from medications aren't needlessly avoiding them because they watched a

documentary saying it would make them psychopathic if they took

antidepressants. Now, I can't GET that validation -- ultimately that's a

person's individual choice -- but I do the best I can to be reassuring by

providing as much truthful and accurate information as I can about how

antidepressants really work, and what the real risk/benefit relationship

is.

My fundamental point here is that the documentary gave an exceedingly poor,

biased, and incomplete view of antidepressants, and I worry that there are

people not getting the help that would benefit them greatly because they

are scared off by this documentary. To attempt to fight that, I am

providing information about the truth of the matter. And will continue to

do so.

-- Jen H.

> **

>

> Jen, I think you need to hear validation that meds can be good and that in

> your case they have been a wonderful tool in your recovery. I am glad his

> has worked for you. I am considering trying an anti-anxiety med myself for

> the first time.

>

> What I love about this list is that we can share different viewpoints

> respectfully about how we deal with the situation we've all been dealt with.

>

> I am neither pro-meds nor anti-meds. I am more in the " careful meds " camp.

> Since these drugs DO change brain chemistry, I think careful consultation

> with an experienced caregiver is in order whenever they are prescribed.

> Additionally, our bodies are all slightly different chemically, so these

> meds DO work differently in each individual. Sometimes they don't work at

> all, and sometimes they work in unfortunate ways. CAREFUL!

>

> In my case, taking Singular for asthma on a daily basis made me depressed

> to the point of suicidal thoughts. Frightened, I went to the web and

> started searching and found a huge list server discussing this reaction to

> Singular from many, many users. How it affect brain chemistry remains

> unexplained, but it can in some of the population. Now when I have severe

> seasonal allergies I use Singular every other day to keep the inflammation

> response down without it affecting my mood.

>

> And as for nada and meds--the ONLY times in life she has been able to

> cope, to be consistently kind and stable, is when she was on daily librium!

>

> >

> > > **

>

> > >

> > > " Have a problem? We have a drug for that! "

> > >

> > > I'm not sure I quoted those completely verbatim, but those were the

> > > messages I got.

> > >

> > > I, personally, am so guilty of looking for the " quick fix drug "

> solution.

> > > I've been having memory problems lately, and just yesterday I was

> wondering

> > > if there was a drug (I think there's an herbal supplement) that would

> help.

> > > I've never been on antidepressants. DH has, for a very short time, and

> it

> > > wasn't pretty. They got rid of his depression, but he became more

> angry and

> > > violent (not actively violent, just cognitively). He decided he didn't

> need

> > > them!

> > >

> > I was Googling around on the " vitamin fix for postpartum depression "

> thing

> > (it was in 2005 and it was Tom Cruise who was berating Shields for

> > taking Paxil for her severe postpartum depression; she was like " Shut up.

> > It helped me be able to mother my baby like a decent person, you ass, " )

> > and I ran across a postpartum depression support board (

> >

> http://postpartumprogress.com/postpartum-depression-tom-cruise-finds-cure

> ).

> > There was an associated article on the site titled " Postpartum Depression

> > and the Stigma of Happy Pills " that I found fascinating which talked

> about

> > the way a lot of these women get looked down on for " needing pills to be

> a

> > good mother, " because other people " can do it without help. " It pointed

> > out that nobody tries to claim things like " Diabetics should be able to

> > just make do without their insulin, because the rest of us don't need

> it! "

> > (or " You diabetics just need vitamins and your blood sugar levels will

> > naturally even out! " ) but antidepressants are considered somehow

> > " cheating " . That was pretty much the message I got from that documentary

> --

> > " Oh, you just want a pill to make you confident at parties! " , which

> > completely ignores how devastating social anxiety is for some people,

> and,

> > as I said, shows a distinct lack of empathy toward their suffering. When

> > you said " guilty of looking for the quick fix " you seemed to be

> expressing

> > the same idea -- that somehow it's cheating to get medication to help you

> > with a problem that's affecting the quality of your life because " it's

> all

> > in your head! Just walk it off! " (or whatever.)

> >

> > Would you be " guilty of looking for a quick fix " for diabetes if your

> > doctor said you needed insulin to control it? I mean, yes, you would

> > probably prefer to control it through lifestyle changes, but if that

> didn't

> > work for you, would you feel " guilty " that you had to rely on insulin to

> > stay alive and functioning?

> >

> > It's just so weird (to me) that you would feel guilty, in your words,

> about

> > taking medication. Do you feel guilty for needing aspirin when you have a

> > headache? Do you feel like you should be able to just tough it out? Why

> do

> > you feel like an herbal supplement (which is an untested and unregulated

> > drug) would somehow be a better -- healthier? safer? -- thing to do? I'm

> > not saying you're wrong for feeling this way, I just wonder why you do.

> > I've often gotten the impression that people think herbal supplements are

> > " better " either because they are " natural " (and " drugs " aren't somehow)

> or

> > because they basically know that the herbs don't work, and that therefore

> > makes them okay because you're not really cheating if you take something

> > that doesn't work, but you're signalling that you care enough to try

> > SOMETHING, even if it's known not to work. But this can get to be a

> problem

> > when the herbal supplements aren't regulated at all resulting in products

> > that are actually significantly more dangerous for you than " drugs "

> because

> > no one really knows what's in those herbal supplements pills since the

> > manufacturers aren't required to disclose it (it could be sawdust), or

> what

> > the safe levels of use are if they ARE effective. Sometimes people act

> like

> > herbal supplements are " drugs without side effects " , which is an

> > impossibility really -- anything that is effective is going to have side

> > effects of some kind. Fortunately, because most herbal supplements seem

> to

> > simply not work (or not any better than your average sugar pill placebo

> > works anyway), what just happens to most people who use them is they end

> up

> > wasting quite a bit of money....but it's their money and if they want to

> > waste it that's up to them, as long as they realize that they're buying

> an

> > expensive placebo in a pretty bottle, and as long as there isn't actually

> > arsenic in those " non drug " capsules.

> >

> > You know, there was a social movement when anesthetics were first

> > discovered to deny them to patients undergoing surgery because suffering

> > was thought to be good for the human soul and anesthetics were deemed to

> be

> > thwarting the will of God that man should suffer for his sins. I haven't

> > really seen anyone these days advocating that you should undergo surgery

> > without an anesthetic because it would " toughen you up " and be " good for

> > your soul. " It will be nice when the day comes that people taking

> > medication to treat their physical or mental ills aren't regarded as

> > cheaters and made to feel " guilty " for seeking a " quick fix " for their

> > suffering. Less suffering is a good thing even if it is easy to come by.

> >

> > As I said earlier, drugs don't work for borderlines for the most part,

> but

> > if they did, how many of us would want our Nadas and Fadas to just take

> the

> > damned things and be able to act like better people thereby? Or do we

> think

> > that if they did that, they would be " cheating " somehow?

> >

> > For me, anything my Nada did that could enable her to behave decently

> > toward me and my brother, I would see as a sign of caring enough to at

> > least TRY to do better. And that would mean a lot to me. Sure, it would

> be

> > great if she could just " stop being borderline(ish) " through force of

> will

> > or intensive prayer and meditation instead, but if " popping a pill " would

> > solve the problems, whatever they happen to be, I'd be like -- " POP!

> PLEASE

> > POP, FOR GOD'S SAKE! We'll all suffer so much less if you'd stop raging

> and

> > hitting us! "

> >

> > In Tara Brach's book " Radical Acceptance " she talks about the resistance

> to

> > the use of antidepressants in her spiritual community. She's an avid

> > Buddhist and practitioner of meditation, but she's also a licensed

> > psychologist. She's noticed in her community that people get shamed if

> > they take medication to help them deal with problems instead of " just

> > meditating until it passes " . She says she's noticed that for very

> > distressed patients, the antidepressants can actually give them enough

> of a

> > break from their emotional pain that they can then learn to meditate,

> which

> > they couldn't without the medication (they couldn't focus well enough, or

> > were too distressed by their bad feelings to keep it up long enough for

> the

> > meditation to work.) But the use of the antidepressants allowed them to

> > " break the cycle " in a lot of cases, gave them enough inner peace that

> they

> > could then learn to meditate properly, and then once they had that skill

> > learned, they could often then be weaned off the medication and be able

> to

> > control their mood swings with just meditation, which is seen as

> preferable

> > (and I would agree that it's preferable if you can do it, just as it's

> > preferable to not need daily insulin shots.) But the medication gave them

> > an " opening " , a clear space, in which to learn the life skills that would

> > let them function without the medication, eventually. So as Brach points

> > out, yes, you could view it as a " crutch " , but no one thinks you're a bad

> > or weak person for getting around on crutches with a broken leg until the

> > leg heals enough that you can get into physical therapy and learn to walk

> > unaided again. When you have a broken leg, you need a crutch, and it's as

> > simple as that.

> >

> > Personal anecdote: When I moved back into the area where my Nada lives

> > after resolutely avoiding the entire family for roughly ten years, she

> > actually said to me -- and this is a quote -- " Now that you're back with

> > the love of your family you won't need those pills any more! " . Aside from

> > the complete lack of understanding this shows about depression, it also

> > shows the level of delusion she has that our family -- and her in

> > particular -- are a source of " love " . This caused me to laugh bitterly.

> IF

> > ONLY a pill would cure her of that. IF ONLY. Please God, send a pill....

> >

> > -- Jen

> >

April 12, 2012

Jen:

I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. Or maybe I just didn't say it

clearly enough in the beginning. I meant that I am guilty of looking for quick

fixes for things that are non-life-threatening (diet pills and the like - in the

present case, memory enhancers). Not that I actually FEEL particularly guilty. I

just AM guilty of doing it. It's something I do. And, really, I only mentioned

the herbal supplement because that was the only thing I'd ever heard of that was

supposed to help memory in pill form. I don't think they make a pharmaceutical

for that particular condition. If they did, I might actually look into it.Â

In my own experience, herbal supplements are much safer for me than are

pharmaceuticals (except for herbal weight loss pills - not good for me at all).

Yes, maybe it's because they don't work, but as you said, what's the harm

(except to your wallet) in taking something that doesn't work? My body

composition is such that it just can't handle many medications on the market

today. Morphine (which they gave me twice in the hospital after my two

c-sections) makes me weak, dizzy, and lethargic for days afterwards. So does

Percocet. After the initial IV dose, I would decline any more and opt, instead,

for ibuprofen. No, it didn't take away the pain as the other did, but it also

didn't make me all loopy and weird like the other stuff did. Neurontin and

Lyrica (prescribed after my 2nd c-section) changed my personality to the point

where I didn't recognize myself anymore. They also made every nerve in my body

feel like it was supercharged. Lyrica knocked me out

for 24 hours after only two doses, and then I had major DTs when I stopped

taking it - after just those two doses.Â

And, actually, I usually don't take anything for a headache unless it's a

particularly bad one that impairs my daily functioning (these are rare, in my

case). I get headaches so frequently, if I popped a pill or two or three for

each one, I'd spend a fortune in pain medication. But that's just me, and that's

how I deal with things.

I just know, personally, I would look for other options for ANY condition,

rather than going the pharmaceutical route just because I know how my body has

reacted to them in the past. And, as I said, I saw the effects of

antidepressants on my husband, and it wasn't pretty. But if they work for you

with no adverse effects, that's great.Â If you need an antidepressant, you need

an antidepressant. There shouldn't be any guilt or shame involved. I didn't mean

to offend.Â

________________________________

To: WTOAdultChildren1

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:52 AM

Subject: Re: Fascinating documentary on psychopathy...

Â