• flicker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Don’t reframe my statement addressing someone’s specific situation into a blanket comment. That person said their depression had a reason (that could be addressed, and once addressed, the depression was resolved.)

    Speaking to that instance, it probably wasn’t chemical, because if it was, it wouldn’t have resolved with action taken independent of chemical treatment, but only with a combination.

    I am not the person to try and strawman about depression.

      • flicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        This is precisely the pedantic reply I expected.

        Laymen differentiate between addressing things in their environment that cause increases in things like norepinephrine by the cause, environmentally, and not by the resulting chemical release in the brain.

        Referring to both chemical treatment, such as taking medication, and environmental treatment, such as quitting a job that causes you stress (or depression, as in the conversation above) as “chemical” is the kind of nitpicky BS that would only further obfuscate the discussion, serving absolutely zero purpose unless you were the type to want to start a fight over nothing.

        You may as well refer to everything the brain ever experiences as “chemical.” It’s would be the most literal interpretation, and would serve zero purpose as a method of communication. Much like your conversation with me.