RIP Chester Bennington

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh wait, they aren't clinicians, they are neuroscientists.

That's not to mention we have NO IDEA how the serotonergic system works at a detailed level and it's totally irresponsible to make the kind of claim they're insinuating.

Is there something wrong with people who studied biology in college for four years, then studied neurobiology in particular for 3+ years, then made a career out of studying nerobiology? And what exactly is your comprehensive neurobiology background that allows you to so easily refute their work, despite (presumably) never having read any of their published papers?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is there something wrong with people who studied biology in college for four years, then studied neurobiology in particular for 3+ years, then made a career out of studying nerobiology? And what exactly is your comprehensive neurobiology background that allows you to so easily refute their work, despite (presumably) never having read any of their published papers?

I'm not refuting their work. Their publication is in finding altered serotinin levels in cases of death by suicide, which I find interesting. What I do take issue with is their manner of speculation in the NPR interview about the altered serotinin levels being "faulty" (read: pathological) rather than different, and their overreaching characterization of the role of serotinin in human physiology.

As neuroscientists they are qualified to examine the differences in serotinin in the different tissues and make physiological postulations regarding that. What they are not qualified to do is create a clinical paradigm for the serotonergic system that still lacks understanding even among scientists who study it specifically from an internal medicine and endocrinology perspective.

There could be any number of causes for the different serotinin levels and their publication elucidates exactly none of them. It could very well be that the emotional trauma leading up to suicide causes an accumulation of serotonin, rather than it being a chronic presentation throughout the disease-course in a suicidal individual. I'm just very wary of assigning cause in publications like these especially when the authors don't do it explicitly themselves in the publication.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm just very wary of assigning cause in publications like these especially when the authors don't do it explicitly themselves in the publication.

Ok, I do take your point, and people can make all sorts of crazy claims based on studies. But I wasn't doing that, I was quoting the opinions of the experts themselves.

Whether or not their research, at this moment in time, can conclusively prove that suicide is X% determined at birth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have several very smart people who have devoted their lives to to studying this topic and they're all in agreement. I trust their opinion (well, until I see a better supported counter opinion).

And on that note, got any scientific publication, interview with scientists, etc. where they have evidence or opinions that most suicides are just (biologically) normal people offing themselves? It would honestly help convince me I'm ascribing too much to biology.

[Cecily]

Lol I had a "chemical imbalance". Well maybe you're just fucking different. Thank god there's a medication for it.

[Fasttimes]

Let's get back on topic. Finally we get rid of some bad music. If deaths come in 3s please take another shitty band.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not refuting their work. Their publication is in finding altered serotinin levels in cases of death by suicide, which I find interesting. What I do take issue with is their manner of speculation in the NPR interview about the altered serotinin levels being "faulty" (read: pathological) rather than different, and their overreaching characterization of the role of serotinin in human physiology.

As neuroscientists they are qualified to examine the differences in serotinin in the different tissues and make physiological postulations regarding that. What they are not qualified to do is create a clinical paradigm for the serotonergic system that still lacks understanding even among scientists who study it specifically from an internal medicine and endocrinology perspective.

There could be any number of causes for the different serotinin levels and their publication elucidates exactly none of them. It could very well be that the emotional trauma leading up to suicide causes an accumulation of serotonin, rather than it being a chronic presentation throughout the disease-course in a suicidal individual. I'm just very wary of assigning cause in publications like these especially when the authors don't do it explicitly themselves in the publication.

havent read this yet but im hawking u boy

im in a vendetta kind of mood

[Ahldagor]

Questioning credentials is ad homine laramin. You bought the placebo of mental health treatment, glad it worked for you, but you're massively generalizing in your notions of the effectiveness of treatments from your personal experience. You should read "The Fountain of Quiet" by Keith Waldrop.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Questioning credentials is ad homine laramin. You bought the placebo of mental health treatment, glad it worked for you, but you're massively generalizing in your notions of the effectiveness of treatments from your personal experience. You should read "The Fountain of Quiet" by Keith Waldrop.

Yeah I did high school speech and debate too [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But look, neurobiology is not something you can understand from taking a high school class. I don't feel any more qualified to make claims about it than I do about architecture, programming automated cars, or quantum mechanics. So when you're discussing topics which require expert knowledge, you present the opinions of experts.

But when I did exactly that, the refutation was basically "nah, I know better". Now if the person making that refutation has a strong background in the field themselves then that's relevant. Otherwise it's just a layperson who doesn't have anywhere near the understanding of an expert discounting an expert's opinion without basis.