cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
IMHO if antidepressants are needed to make life more survivable, perhaps there's something *really* wrong with the way we're thinking?

Do you feel the same way about penicillin?

Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: #1 they're not theories yet, they're hypotheses. A theory is able to be tested for veracity or can then be discarded as balderdash. Actually a number of your assertions on this topic are testable and discardable.

Well... you may discard them, if you wish. The problem is
how to characterize them in a way that is *testable*.

That being said... nobody has a "grand unified theory" of
personality (AFAIK) yet; if any such theory is constructed
it would be likely to be defined by the exceptions.

So it's quite possible some of my pet memes will be
consistent with a specific population (perhaps not a wide
one, of course) of people. IOW I'm thinking that I'm
populating some of the exceptions.

Mind you, I tend to look at things from the "Selfish Gene"
meme and consider the evolution of the human genome and
how it influences the engine of thought.

(Then again I could wax poetic as I claim the title of
"Stand Up Philosopher". I don't have to have answers, you
know, just questions.)

Consider this, then: creativity is based on errors.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: #1 they're not theories yet, they're hypotheses. A theory is able to be tested for veracity or can then be discarded as balderdash. Actually a number of your assertions on this topic are testable and discardable. Well... you may discard them, if you wish. The problem is how to characterize them in a way that is *testable*. That being said... nobody has a "grand unified theory" of personality (AFAIK) yet; if any such theory is constructed it would be likely to be defined by the exceptions.

Nor is there a "grand unified theory" of physics. And yet there are
many smaller theories of physics which are testable. Some of these
work, and some have been discarded.

It is a common logical mistake to conclude that "because we don't
understand everything, that means we don't understand anything."


Here is something testable. You believe that depression is caused by
"social stresses." Take a group of 1000 people. You'll discover that
some people who have low levels of stressors are depressed. You'll
discover that others with quite high levels of stress are not
depressed.
So it's quite possible some of my pet memes will be consistent with a specific population (perhaps not a wide one, of course) of people. IOW I'm thinking that I'm populating some of the exceptions. Mind you, I tend to look at things from the "Selfish Gene" meme and consider the evolution of the human genome and how it influences the engine of thought.

Fine. But that really has nothing to do with your contention that
antidepressants are necessitated by increasing levels of social
stress.

Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Here is something testable. You believe that depression is caused by "social stresses." Take a group of 1000 people. You'll discover that some people who have low levels of stressors are depressed. You'll discover that others with quite high levels of stress are not depressed.

Uhhhh... perhaps you've not been paying attention.

I've said that social stresses are likely to be causative
in SOME depression; to be specific, there is situational
depression and structural depression.

Both are "managable" via medication. If you don't pay
attention and differentiate one from the other then
Fine. But that really has nothing to do with your contention that antidepressants are necessitated by increasing levels of social stress.

Huh?

Antidepressants SELL so well because of situational
stressors. They work as a treatment. If they actually
provided a cure none of the drug companies would be for
'em since there's no long-term cash-flow.

I don't think I ever said necessitated; people vary.
Some *do* require long-term meds, some are more likely
situational-- but because the meds render the symptoms
unimportant, the situation is not dealt with directly.

Back to situational stressors, so let's play with a
subset of social/economic stressors as a "form of fun".

OK, how about these words:

Outsourcing
Offshoring
Utilization Targets
Overtime Targets

(Please note that I'm half expecting my job to be sent
off-shore sometime in the next year or so. Only the
bean-counters, executives and salesmen will be left.)

Any of these things, when you're faced with them, will
likely be an irritant. Some folks will face a short
term "situational" depression before turning around and
coping with them in a constructive fashion.

As I said, *SOME*. Some will have coping mechanisms
already in place and won't even notice.

There are people who are depressed regardless of the
situation. If Eeyore isn't a candidate for Prozac
(or Paxcil, Zoloft, etc...) then who is? (My wife has
told me that each of the "Pooh" characters are usually
found in Psych units.) When there's something wrong
with the neurotransmitter inventory, these meds are a
life-saver.

I'm of the opinion, however, that people who face many
of the social stresses w/o some kind of "pressure relief"
(be it sports or whatever; we're talking "play" here
instead of "work" or other "chores") are more likely to
face a situationally triggered despression.

Note: "more likely". People vary in their coping skills.

And one of the coping skills *IS* to find some form of
"play" as an escape/discharge mechanism.

That being said...

- - -

My personal form of play these days is Sailing. It's
physical, I don't see it as unrewarding work and there
is a sense of "power" in tapping the wind and wave to
your own purposes. (There will be those who go "cool"
and others wondering what kind of rocks I have in my
head for not sitting with a beer watching Hockey games,
especially w/ the Tampa Bay Lightning Bolts in the
play-offs for the Stanley Cup.)

Oh, yeah... the Stanley Cup is *NOT* an autographed
athletic protector. :-) :-)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Here is something testable. You believe that depression is caused by "social stresses." Take a group of 1000 people. You'll discover that some people who have low levels of stressors are depressed. You'll discover that others with quite high levels of stress are not depressed. Uhhhh... perhaps you've not been paying attention. I've said that social stresses are likely to be causative in SOME depression; to be specific, there is situational depression and structural depression. Both are "managable" via medication. If you don't pay attention and differentiate one from the other then

Supposing this to be true, what is the import? Whatever the _cause_
of the depression, it is important to treat it.

If the underlying cause could be identified, it would be good to treat
that, but we've always been very bad at that.

Fine. But that really has nothing to do with your contention that antidepressants are necessitated by increasing levels of social stress. Huh?

For some reason you snipped out what I was responding to (your
allegiance to Dawkins).

Antidepressants SELL so well because of situational stressors.

Wrong. They sell so well because they treat depression reasonbly
well.
They work as a treatment. If they actually provided a cure none of the drug companies would be for 'em since there's no long-term cash-flow.

Ah. This would explain why no drug companies manufature or market
antibiotics. Beware, your foil hat is showing!

I don't think I ever said necessitated; people vary. Some *do* require long-term meds, some are more likely situational-- but because the meds render the symptoms unimportant, the situation is not dealt with directly. Back to situational stressors, so let's play with a subset of social/economic stressors as a "form of fun". OK, how about these words: Outsourcing Offshoring Utilization Targets Overtime Targets (Please note that I'm half expecting my job to be sent off-shore sometime in the next year or so. Only the bean-counters, executives and salesmen will be left.)

Well, I hope you don't lose your job, but yeah, job insecurity is
frightening, stressful, and not caused by the invention (or marketing)
of SSRIs.
Any of these things, when you're faced with them, will likely be an irritant. Some folks will face a short term "situational" depression before turning around and coping with them in a constructive fashion.

And if they face clinical depression, then they might benefit from
taking SSRIs for a few months.
As I said, *SOME*. Some will have coping mechanisms already in place and won't even notice. There are people who are depressed regardless of the situation. If Eeyore isn't a candidate for Prozac (or Paxcil, Zoloft, etc...) then who is? (My wife has told me that each of the "Pooh" characters are usually found in Psych units.) When there's something wrong with the neurotransmitter inventory, these meds are a life-saver. I'm of the opinion, however, that people who face many of the social stresses w/o some kind of "pressure relief" (be it sports or whatever; we're talking "play" here instead of "work" or other "chores") are more likely to face a situationally triggered despression. Note: "more likely". People vary in their coping skills. And one of the coping skills *IS* to find some form of "play" as an escape/discharge mechanism.

Actually, people who can do that are probably _not_ clinically
depressed.

So maybe this confusion is about the confusion between clinically
depressed (which can merit medication) and the popular definition of
the word which is much broader.

That being said... - - - My personal form of play these days is Sailing. It's physical, I don't see it as unrewarding work and there is a sense of "power" in tapping the wind and wave to your own purposes.

Not my taste, but I see the attraction. Have you ever been clinically
depressed? Based on the people I know, I doubt that you would find
sailing attractive in that situation. Depression seems to include
(for many people) an inability to enjoy any activity.


I think you've been trying to make the argument that we use drugs to
deal with depression instead of dealing with it in some better way
like we used to in some halcyon (not Halcion(tm)) days.

Do I misunderstand your argument?

If I'm _not_ misunderstanding you, then I think you're making an error
by imagining that depression was dealt with in a good way before the
days of antidepressants.

Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes:> Doug Anderson wrote: Here is something testable. You believe that depression is caused by "social stresses." Take a group of 1000 people. You'll discover that some people who have low levels of stressors are depressed. You'll discover that others with quite high levels of stress are not depressed. Uhhhh... perhaps you've not been paying attention. I've said that social stresses are likely to be causative in SOME depression; to be specific, there is situational depression and structural depression. Both are "managable" via medication. If you don't pay attention and differentiate one from the other then

You know, somehow I lost the rest of the above paragraph.

At one time depression, when the depressive had any money,
was being "treated" via psychoanalysis. I'm pretty sure
that people will agree with me that this is not a particularly
productive treatment for "structural" depression but would
be useful for the situational variety.

One of my "beefs" with passing out antidepressants like candy
is that situational depression is NOT being differentiated;
very little effort is being taken to trying to bring these
folks *off* of antidepressants. So, nowadays, it seems that
all those facing depression are being treated as if they have
a structurally caused depression.
Supposing this to be true, what is the import? Whatever the _cause_ of the depression, it is important to treat it.

Structual depression can be managed via meds but situational
depression needs some education in coping mechanisms (or at
least deeper research) in order to just get out of the habit
of passing out meds and waiting for the patient to go away.

In the USA these days the Psychiatrist is prescribing the
med and just sees the patient to ensure that the meds are
actually doing their jobs (and to prescribe other meds to
manage side defects) and seldom does a deeper dive into the
background of the depression. That's the job of the
psychologist... and most medical plans don't want to cover
the costs of treatment (it seems cheaper to just hand over
antidepressants for the rest of the patient's life).
If the underlying cause could be identified, it would be good to treat that, but we've always been very bad at that.

Actually, I want to believe that it worked the other way;
psychoanalysis works for the situationally depressed but is
completely useless when dealing with structurally depressed
people. The frustration of the structurally depressed, IMHO,
leaked over so those facing a low point in their lives (and
who just needed education in managing the stresses) would
get lumped in with the group who really _do_ need the meds
to find balance.

Of course it doesn't help that health plans in the USA don't
want to cope with emotional disturbances so any kind of
Psych care tends to be treated as a "self-inflicted" wound
and so no one (except the very wealthy) can afford to be
properly evaluated.

The question is how well is the disease being managed?

Depression is no less real than diabetes; it's just that
some folks can escape depression because it's not built in
to their body chemistry (like some Type II's) while others
will be dependant upon outside meds for the rest of their
lives (like Type I's) with no hope of reprieve.

My key point is that some of those w/ situational depression
are being treated as structural even though it's only a
matter that their coping skills fall short.
They work as a treatment. If they actually provided a cure none of the drug companies would be for 'em since there's no long-term cash-flow. Ah. This would explain why no drug companies manufature or market antibiotics. Beware, your foil hat is showing!

Antibiotics work as a cure because they have to... but,
being over-prescribed (for viral infections, too) many of
them are losing the effectiveness as resistant pathogens
evolve on exposure.

I agree with the point of treatment/cure for organic issues
here; there's no real choice in handling infections.

That being said... have you looked at what diabetics go
through? The glucose meter is pretty cheap but requires
consumables (test strips are NOT cheap!) in order to work.
Some work has been done to study ways to do this in both
a non-invasive way (and w/o the need for test strips) but
between costs of FDA testing and the like the tester would
be priced *way* out of line.

I doubt my wife is an example of what diabetics go through-
even though we _can_ afford the strips, etc, she still
chooses *not* to check her BG (and implies it's because
she wants to save money).
Back to situational stressors, so let's play with a subset of social/economic stressors as a "form of fun". OK, how about these words: Outsourcing Offshoring Utilization Targets Overtime Targets Well, I hope you don't lose your job, but yeah, job insecurity is frightening, stressful, and not caused by the invention (or marketing) of SSRIs.

True, they aren't caused by it but many folks won't cope
with them well. My point is that for those who do not
have a good inventory of coping skills the candy is a
wonderful means to manage the stress... the medical
system taking the "easy way out"... until the health
care costs end up on the patient and they have no choice
but to find a coping mechanism without any help.
Any of these things, when you're faced with them, will likely be an irritant. Some folks will face a short term "situational" depression before turning around and coping with them in a constructive fashion. And if they face clinical depression, then they might benefit from taking SSRIs for a few months.

Clinical depression is just the diagnosis of suffering
from depression and does not break it down further into
the structural (where a chemical imbalance is inbuilt)
and situational (where coping mechanisms fall short).

SSRIs (and their predecessors) treat these equally well.

Unfortunately, little further DX is done to see whether
talking to or educating the patient is going to help
them come off of the med.

There are people for whom the meds will be there for
life... but that's *hopefully* not true of everybody.

So, yeah, it might be a good idea to pass the meds to the
situationally depressed *BUT* it should include additional
evaluation to help decide whether the person is really
structurally rather than situationally depressed. Some
can be weaned off the meds... but IMHO seldom is there
enough effort by the Psychiatrist or Psychologist to find
that point.
I'm of the opinion, however, that people who face many of the social stresses w/o some kind of "pressure relief" (be it sports or whatever; we're talking "play" here instead of "work" or other "chores") are more likely to face a situationally triggered despression. Note: "more likely". People vary in their coping skills. And one of the coping skills *IS* to find some form of "play" as an escape/discharge mechanism. Actually, people who can do that are probably _not_ clinically depressed. So maybe this confusion is about the confusion between clinically depressed (which can merit medication) and the popular definition of the word which is much broader.

I'm claiming there are additional issues. A person w/ poor
coping skills and who internalizes rather than discharges
stress will usually be considered as "depressed" to an MD.

SSRIs make it easy to NOT do that extra work using doctors
which the Health Neglect Plans *like*.
My personal form of play these days is Sailing. It's physical, I don't see it as unrewarding work and there is a sense of "power" in tapping the wind and wave to your own purposes. Not my taste, but I see the attraction. Have you ever been clinically depressed? Based on the people I know, I doubt that you would find sailing attractive in that situation. Depression seems to include (for many people) an inability to enjoy any activity.

I have never been DX'd w/ depression; I merely live with
one. She seems to enjoy the boat to some degree and has
been working up her confidence in handling the tiller as
I work the lines.

I have been situationally depressed but did not want to
go on meds; I've been on the ropes more than once but
managed (somehow) to "tough it out" (all right, so I had
some help; people here talked to me and pointed me at
things to read, etc, that helped me grow out of what I
was). I can at least state the suicidal ideation, while
not completely flushed, is not the serious issue it once
was.

I will admit that a depressive spike sucks the enthusiasm
of living/playing right out of you and so, while in such
a spike, sailing would not be much fun, the *thought* that
I have an "escape" keeps any spikes from sending me far
enough down to lose all interest in life.
I think you've been trying to make the argument that we use drugs to deal with depression instead of dealing with it in some better way like we used to in some halcyon (not Halcion(tm)) days.

The problem is that BOTH kinds of treatment are needed.
We've switched from pure talking to 90+% med-based
treatment where I really think a better balance is needed.
Do I misunderstand your argument?

Not completely.
If I'm _not_ misunderstanding you, then I think you're making an error by imagining that depression was dealt with in a good way before the days of antidepressants.

No, my point is that the current "treatement protocol" has
(for the most part) turned it's back on other treatments
now that handing out the meds is so much easier.

Switching back to organic issues...

*SOME* Type II diabetics can be treated via diet. If the
patient puts effort into it they can eventually be weaned
off the meds (though I doubt they will never escape testing
their Blood Glucose on a regular schedule). This is a
laudable goal but requires the ability to recognize WHICH
patients this will work for... which, to be perfectly
honest, I've little idea of how this can be discovered.

So a (perhaps small) percentage of Type II diabetics can
escape the use of oral meds to deal with their shortfall
of insulin (all right, so it's usually something "wrong"
with the insulin being produced).

(I'm married to a Type II, BTW, who is also depressed,
has Fibromyalgia, arthritis and tends to have problems
breathing. I do not think she's in the running for
escaping Type II but we know people-- very few-- who
have.)

Type I diabetics have no choice but to take insulin since
they're bodies had an auto-immune reaction and their bodies
suddenly thought "whoa! these Islets of Langerhans sure
sound like foreign territory to me!" so there's effectively
no insulin being produced. (I've some friends who are
Type I diabetics. It hurts.)

In effect, both have structural problems but for a small
proportion of the Type IIs (by altering diet, losing
weight, etc) the symptoms can be reduced to near-zero
impact.

Finally, a few words about stress.

I've been told that stress can look like damn near any
other ailment. After my TIAs last year I went through
a whole bunch of tests and no organic reason for the
hypertensive episodes have been found (I'm 50; my carotoid
dopplers were apparently surprisingly clean, my MRI/MRA
showed no problem w/ my arteries in my brain, my
echocardiogram was unremarkable, my thallium stress test
showed nothing extraordinary and my angiogram apparently
indicated nominal operation of my heart) and a neurologist
asked me if I was under any unusual stresses. When I
rattled off the first 7 that came to mind he nodded,
adding, "Yes, that'd do it."

However my MD tells me that stress can mimic almost any
malady (including some cancers) which makes me wonder if
there is something basically *wrong* with the social
structure we've built for ourselves.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrncbea6s.qj.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org ... Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> Jack C Lipton writes: Furthermore, life without socially driven stresses is no more possible than life without microorganisms. It comes from the society we've fabricated which provides for stresses; in some ways one of the key issues is the matter of uncertainty.

I didn't follow this at all. I can't think of any society anywhere without
stress....


While uncertainty has some key advantages (i.e. social mobility) it has it's downsides, too.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XPQtc.3089$3x.2806@attbi_s54... cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Fine. But that really has nothing to do with your contention that antidepressants are necessitated by increasing levels of social stress.

I think there are two "unprovens" here - one, that increasing levels of
social stress causes depression, and two, that levels of social stress are
actually increasing.

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:XPQtc.3089$3x.2806@attbi_s54... cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes: Fine. But that really has nothing to do with your contention that antidepressants are necessitated by increasing levels of social stress. I think there are two "unprovens" here - one, that increasing levels of social stress causes depression, and two, that levels of social stress are actually increasing.

And more than those two. Another "unproven" that Jack is assuming is
that there is an effective way to teach coping skills that will help
some clinically depresssed people become undepressed.

Doug Anderson wrote: Joy wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Fine. But that really has nothing to do with your contention that antidepressants are necessitated by increasing levels of social stress. I think there are two "unprovens" here - one, that increasing levels of social stress causes depression, and two, that levels of social stress are actually increasing. And more than those two. Another "unproven" that Jack is assuming is that there is an effective way to teach coping skills that will help some clinically depresssed people become undepressed.

And Doug's constant sniping by not realizing that
I'm smart enough to be aware that there *is* an
structural (i.e. "organic") form of depression as
well as situational.

Psychotherapy/Teaching does *nothing* for them so
the old treatment regime was ineffective. I'm
basically pointing out that instead of working to
cure those who DO NOT have a permanent organic
issue w/ their neurotransmitter levels.

I'm also irritated that he's so thick about using
the term "clinically depressed" because BOTH forms
will present as "clinical depression" but these
are subsets of the whole.

Now occasionally I have been pretty damn thick
myself but Doug makes me look positively inventive.

And for once it seems I've found someone better
than me at playing stupid... which is a relief.

In any case, I believe that depression isn't just
one thing-- and I may be under-flexible in only
thinking there's two mechanisms for it, so these
various subsets would require some thought and
even (perhaps) varying care plans.

Instead it's easier to tell someone to take an
SSRI and not deal with it further to discover
the etymology. One care plan, one treatment
protocol...

It was awful for structural depressives back when
psychotherapy w/ no antidepressants was the usual
treatment protocol, but I'm of the opinion that
just throwing SSRIs at 'em now isn't exactly a
clear improvement for _all_ cases. (IOW those
with an organically-derived "structural depression"
are the people most able to benefit.)

For the people who are NOT normally depressed via
organic issues (as I consider "situational") I do
believe that stresses that "civilization" brings
(and the key tenet of "non-violence") may place
some folks at a disadvantage because sublimation
mechanisms are not necessarily trivial to build
and maintain.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Joy wrote: Doug Anderson wrote:> Fine. But that really has nothing to do with> your contention that antidepressants are> necessitated by increasing levels of social stress. I think there are two "unprovens" here - one, that increasing levels of social stress causes depression, and two, that levels of social stress are actually increasing. And more than those two. Another "unproven" that Jack is assuming is that there is an effective way to teach coping skills that will help some clinically depresssed people become undepressed. And Doug's constant sniping by not realizing that I'm smart enough to be aware that there *is* an structural (i.e. "organic") form of depression as well as situational.

It isn't sniping. _I'm_ not aware of the difference between "organic"
depression and "situational" depression.

And I suggest that you aren't either, and that actually your
distinction is between clinical depression, and the popular sense of
the word.

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Joy wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Doug Anderson wrote:> Furthermore, life> without socially driven stresses is no more possible> than life without microorganisms. It comes from the society we've fabricated which provides for stresses; in some ways one of the key issues is the matter of uncertainty. I didn't follow this at all. I can't think of any society anywhere without stress.... Well, everything stresses the "nominal" human psyche to one degree or another, but what I'm trying to point out is the current US "culture" (laughs since there's not really "one") is driven by economic pressures which do not help the people carrying the weight very well-- long hours, productivity goals, behavior restrictions and pay rates that do not maximize work/life balance...

Welcome to capitalism my friend. Of course it was better back in the
days when we could loll around in the caves all day with the
occasional foray through the garden of eden for nuts and berries.

Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Joy wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> Furthermore, life>> without socially driven stresses is no more possible>> than life without microorganisms.>> It comes from the society we've fabricated which provides> for stresses; in some ways one of the key issues is the> matter of uncertainty. I didn't follow this at all. I can't think of any society anywhere without stress.... Well, everything stresses the "nominal" human psyche to one degree or another, but what I'm trying to point out is the current US "culture" (laughs since there's not really "one") is driven by economic pressures which do not help the people carrying the weight very well-- long hours, productivity goals, behavior restrictions and pay rates that do not maximize work/life balance... Welcome to capitalism my friend. Of course it was better back in the days when we could loll around in the caves all day with the occasional foray through the garden of eden for nuts and berries.

The key problem w/ capitalism is that there's all this
effort to continue "increasing" worker productivity.
While understandable, there are limits because human
beings are emergent rather than deterministic so we do
not perform well like robots. ISO-9000 (and -9001) along
with SEI/CMM seem to be top-down structures intended to
hem humans into small cages with little/no opportunity
for individual initiative... in effect building a caste
system.

Meanwhile, corporations are paying more attentio to their
institutional investors who have completely different
strategies to satisfy THEIR customers than the regular
corporations. Publicly held companies have serious
problems when they're popular w/ the institutions.

The things I'm seeing (and I'm not as oppressed as others
are, but I keep my eyes open wondering when it's going
to be _my_ turn) is that the people who actually *DO* the
work are seeing little for their efforts... all because
the company can threaten to send their work off-shore.
It's the same kind of pressure company owners put on the
workers that strengthened the Klan: "work these wages
or I'll hire those fellas over there for less" so the
current effort at globalization exists to put steady
pressure on those providing labor to keep the price of
labor down.

At the same time executive compensation is out of all
control in the US... but not elsewhere. Why can't the
USA globalize the executives? Or is there really some
uncoordinated effort to form a caste system in the US?

(Gawd... the things that hit me sometimes. There were
some studies done almost a hundred years ago that looked
into efficiency and stress in the workplace and stress
was found to be a cause of inefficiency... and I recall
that when the workers didn't feel cornered by giving
them some control over their environment that productivity
went up. I wish I remember the cite on this study...)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Joy wrote:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> Fine. But that really has nothing to do with>> your contention that antidepressants are>> necessitated by increasing levels of social stress.>> I think there are two "unprovens" here - one,> that increasing levels of social stress causes> depression, and two, that levels of social> stress are actually increasing. And more than those two. Another "unproven" that Jack is assuming is that there is an effective way to teach coping skills that will help some clinically depresssed people become undepressed. And Doug's constant sniping by not realizing that I'm smart enough to be aware that there *is* an structural (i.e. "organic") form of depression as well as situational. It isn't sniping. _I'm_ not aware of the difference between "organic" depression and "situational" depression.

The first (organic/structural) can't be dealt with
short of using antidepressants.

The second responds to antidepressants but should not
be a life-long dependancy on the meds... but the
opportunity to study mechanisms to get them off of
the meds aren't being taken... so it's cheaper to
provide the SSRIs as a coping mechanism.
And I suggest that you aren't either, and that actually your distinction is between clinical depression, and the popular sense of the word.

I know enough about depression. I'm damn fortunate
that it's not in my blood though it looks like it's
in my wife's. It *may* be wishful thinking but I'd
like to hope that her history (and having to live
with me) would support the idea that her's is more
situational. :-) :-) :-)

I'm also aware that at my most depressed I've never
been reduced to just sitting in one place waiting
for the fear of movement to lift, so I know that I
am unlikely to have been "clinically depressed"
(though some have suggested that I go on SSRIs to
keep me from getting depressed). I recognize that
stress plays a different role in how I malfunction
(TIAs, for instance; my neurologist said I've
probably been having them on-and-off for some time
but it's only when it hits in a motor/sensory zone
that I notice, like when my left arm "got distant"
one day; feeling one's IQ drop is frightening too)
so it can come out in many ways.

I do not know if I would be considered "clinically
depressed" whilst in the middle of a spike; it is
easier for a doctor to say "hmm" and prescribe an
SSRI because they've got to see the next patient in
order to maintain their throughput targets.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Joy wrote:> Jack C Lipton wrote:>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> Furthermore, life>>> without socially driven stresses is no more possible>>> than life without microorganisms.>>>> It comes from the society we've fabricated which provides>> for stresses; in some ways one of the key issues is the>> matter of uncertainty.>> I didn't follow this at all. I can't think of any society> anywhere without stress.... Well, everything stresses the "nominal" human psyche to one degree or another, but what I'm trying to point out is the current US "culture" (laughs since there's not really "one") is driven by economic pressures which do not help the people carrying the weight very well-- long hours, productivity goals, behavior restrictions and pay rates that do not maximize work/life balance... Welcome to capitalism my friend. Of course it was better back in the days when we could loll around in the caves all day with the occasional foray through the garden of eden for nuts and berries. The key problem w/ capitalism is that there's all this effort to continue "increasing" worker productivity. While understandable, there are limits because human beings are emergent rather than deterministic so we do not perform well like robots. ISO-9000 (and -9001) along with SEI/CMM seem to be top-down structures intended to hem humans into small cages with little/no opportunity for individual initiative... in effect building a caste system.

I actually think the key problem is that governments are less and less
willing to make (or even enforce) appropriate regulations against
powerful corporate players and lobbies.
Meanwhile, corporations are paying more attentio to their institutional investors who have completely different strategies to satisfy THEIR customers than the regular corporations. Publicly held companies have serious problems when they're popular w/ the institutions. The things I'm seeing (and I'm not as oppressed as others are, but I keep my eyes open wondering when it's going to be _my_ turn) is that the people who actually *DO* the work are seeing little for their efforts... all because the company can threaten to send their work off-shore.

I don't believe this is really a new situation. It is true that it's
now affecting white-collar workers as well as blue collar ones whereas
hitherto we were ina privileged minority.

But working conditions for most people who work for big companies have
always been sub-optimal in that people see little return for their
efforts.
It's the same kind of pressure company owners put on the workers that strengthened the Klan: "work these wages or I'll hire those fellas over there for less" so the current effort at globalization exists to put steady pressure on those providing labor to keep the price of labor down. At the same time executive compensation is out of all control in the US... but not elsewhere.

This isn't really unique to the US, we are just in the vanguard so
it's worse here.
Why can't the USA globalize the executives?

I assume this is a rhetorical question.
Or is there really some uncoordinated effort to form a caste system in the US? (Gawd... the things that hit me sometimes. There were some studies done almost a hundred years ago that looked into efficiency and stress in the workplace and stress was found to be a cause of inefficiency... and I recall that when the workers didn't feel cornered by giving them some control over their environment that productivity went up. I wish I remember the cite on this study...)

Note the other thing that study tells you. Stressful workplaces were
a problem 100 years ago. (And 200 and 300, etc.)

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> Joy wrote:>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> Fine. But that really has nothing to do with>>> your contention that antidepressants are>>> necessitated by increasing levels of social stress.>>>> I think there are two "unprovens" here - one,>> that increasing levels of social stress causes>> depression, and two, that levels of social>> stress are actually increasing.>> And more than those two. Another "unproven" that> Jack is assuming is that there is an effective> way to teach coping skills that will help some> clinically depresssed people become undepressed. And Doug's constant sniping by not realizing that I'm smart enough to be aware that there *is* an structural (i.e. "organic") form of depression as well as situational. It isn't sniping. _I'm_ not aware of the difference between "organic" depression and "situational" depression. The first (organic/structural) can't be dealt with short of using antidepressants. The second responds to antidepressants but should not be a life-long dependancy on the meds... but the opportunity to study mechanisms to get them off of the meds aren't being taken... so it's cheaper to provide the SSRIs as a coping mechanism.

So I think what you are saying is that "It is organic if you can't
ever be taken off of SSRIs without relapsing." and "It is situational
if you can eventually be taken off of SSRIs perhaps with some
talk-therapy." Is that correct?

This definition includes no treatment guidelines right? You have to
treat all cases as if they are "situational" since the only way you
know if they are or aren't is if you can wean the patient from his or
her meds with talk therapy. So I have to say I find this a useless
distinction.

But I'd go further - I don't even find it a distinction. Depression
can measurably alter the brain's chemistry. SSRIs can change that for
the better. In some cases the change sticks after SSRIs are
discontinued. So by your definition that would be "situational" even
though the disorder was verifiable "organic."

To me the distinction you are trying to make is a false dichotomy.
But we westerners love those, so you're in an old traditiion.


Now I agree with you that talk-therapy can have a useful role in
people's lives, including in learning to deal with depression. But
I'm not convinced it can have a useful role if the depression isn't
also treated with medication.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrncbjf1f.cep.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Joy wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Doug Anderson wrote:
IMHO (and FWIW) the workplace has become (to a very great extent) the "culture"...

Only to a limited degree, IMO - there are still a lot of other non-work
related aspects to our culture. For instance, for a lot of people the
family is still the center of their lives - for quite a lot of people,
church is still a big part of their "culture" - there is the "gym" part of
the culture, the "community" part of the culture, etc. I live in a small
town in the south, and still the arts are a big part of "the culture" around
here. Work is only part of it.

and financial/economic pressures have been evolving over time.

I'm a little dubious about this claim. Evolving I can buy, I suppose,
because things do change. I think your implication is that pressures are
greater, though, and I'm not sure I buy that. Think back a hundred years or
more to when we were a more agrarian society. If you were a farmer, and the
crops failed, you and your family went hungry. Now THAT strikes me as
financial/economic pressure - even greater than that experienced today.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrncbjv6l.dio.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Joy wrote:> Jack C Lipton wrote:>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> Furthermore, life>>> without socially driven stresses is no more possible>>> than life without microorganisms.>>>> It comes from the society we've fabricated which provides>> for stresses; in some ways one of the key issues is the>> matter of uncertainty.>> I didn't follow this at all. I can't think of any society> anywhere without stress.... Well, everything stresses the "nominal" human psyche to one degree or another, but what I'm trying to point out is the current US "culture" (laughs since there's not really "one") is driven by economic pressures which do not help the people carrying the weight very well-- long hours, productivity goals, behavior restrictions and pay rates that do not maximize work/life balance...

Hmm, this reminds me of a couple of hundred years ago, when the US was
young. Most people farmed for a living - now THERE are some long hours with
pretty strict productivity goals and a crappy pay rate. And talk about
behavior restrictions - those darned puritans would burn you at the stake
for a witch if you didn't "fit in". The pay rate was pretty crappy, too -
but nobody worried about maximizing the work/life balance because your life
*was* work....

My point is that while life today is different - and I'd certainly agree
that it is - it isn't necessarily more stressful.

Jack C Lipton wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> Joy wrote:>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> Fine. But that really has nothing to do with>>> your contention that antidepressants are>>> necessitated by increasing levels of social stress.>>>> I think there are two "unprovens" here - one,>> that increasing levels of social stress causes>> depression, and two, that levels of social>> stress are actually increasing.>> And more than those two. Another "unproven" that> Jack is assuming is that there is an effective> way to teach coping skills that will help some> clinically depresssed people become undepressed. And Doug's constant sniping by not realizing that I'm smart enough to be aware that there *is* an structural (i.e. "organic") form of depression as well as situational. It isn't sniping. _I'm_ not aware of the difference between "organic" depression and "situational" depression. The first (organic/structural) can't be dealt with short of using antidepressants. The second responds to antidepressants but should not be a life-long dependancy on the meds... but the opportunity to study mechanisms to get them off of the meds aren't being taken... so it's cheaper to provide the SSRIs as a coping mechanism.

I think you're probably right, Jack. But I bet there is no sharp dividing
line, although I sure would like to box it in that way, and think there is -
nice neat little packages.

I bet, in reality, it's a continuum, that is, it is on a scale. So if you
did a biopsy on a bunch of people who have suffered from depression in their
lives, you would find various shades of gray, biochemically speaking (so to
speak). At one extreme would be those who should use ADs to make up for a
biochemical deficiency, and at the other, those who don't. With shades of
gray in between.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrncbfs21.49r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Back to situational stressors, so let's play with a subset of social/economic stressors as a "form of fun". OK, how about these words: Outsourcing Offshoring Utilization Targets Overtime Targets (Please note that I'm half expecting my job to be sent off-shore sometime in the next year or so. Only the bean-counters, executives and salesmen will be left.) Any of these things, when you're faced with them, will likely be an irritant. Some folks will face a short term "situational" depression before turning around and coping with them in a constructive fashion.

I hope that you can look at your situation
with the creativity within you
and find a productuve niche for yourself
that has not been optimized away.
Maybe you can get paid for what you love to do,
by finding a way to publish your writings.

The key hidden resource of American* techies
such as you and me is creativity:
the ability to look at something
that has been seen in a mundane way
10**N times (for some large value of N)
and seeing it differently than it ever has been seen before.

Here is an ancecdote to consider...
the first interview I landed, over 3 months ago,
was with the firm to which my former management
is outsourcing my old group's work.
(The promises to only do the old generation
of the product we support has since been broken.)
It was liberating to realize
that they were _afraid_ of me.
That they did not feel confident
in their ability to manage Americans,
particularly those whose old jobs went to this firm.
Your humanity, which seems like a burden so much of a time,
will be (IMO) the source of your deliverance.
Hang in there and believe in yourself!
--
Tsam

(*I'm using this too-broad term, which I usually avoid,
to remind him that I'm another rider in his particular handbasket,
wondering where wer're going.
I'm doing this because our common bond
is key to the emotional side of this messsage.
I'll be more accurate in posts where the NG as a whole
is the intended audience.)

Bill in Co. wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Jack C Lipton writes:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> Joy wrote:>>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>>> Fine. But that really has nothing to do with>>>> your contention that antidepressants are>>>> necessitated by increasing levels of social stress.>>>>>> I think there are two "unprovens" here - one,>>> that increasing levels of social stress causes>>> depression, and two, that levels of social>>> stress are actually increasing.>>>> And more than those two. Another "unproven" that>> Jack is assuming is that there is an effective>> way to teach coping skills that will help some>> clinically depresssed people become undepressed.>> And Doug's constant sniping by not realizing that> I'm smart enough to be aware that there *is* an> structural (i.e. "organic") form of depression as> well as situational. It isn't sniping. _I'm_ not aware of the difference between "organic" depression and "situational" depression. The first (organic/structural) can't be dealt with short of using antidepressants. The second responds to antidepressants but should not be a life-long dependancy on the meds... but the opportunity to study mechanisms to get them off of the meds aren't being taken... so it's cheaper to provide the SSRIs as a coping mechanism. I think you're probably right, Jack. But I bet there is no sharp dividing line, although I sure would like to box it in that way, and think there is - nice neat little packages.

I'd have to agree that there's not a "sharp" dividing
line; there is probably a fairly wide margin where
chemistry and stress interact.
I bet, in reality, it's a continuum, that is, it is on a scale. So if you did a biopsy on a bunch of people who have suffered from depression in their lives, you would find various shades of gray, biochemically speaking (so to speak). At one extreme would be those who should use ADs to make up for a biochemical deficiency, and at the other, those who don't. With shades of gray in between.

Yes, and it's the shades of gray that probably interfere
with efforts to diagnose since, damnit, we're all unique.

What complicates matters, IMHO, is that other influences
over serotonin and the like exist, like diet. These kinds
of influences will complicate matters when it comes to
diagnosis and treatment.

The problem now is that with SSRIs there's no real effort
to discover the different shadings of clinical depression;
with an effective treatment via meds there's little
motivation to take a closer look.

(shrugs)

"Problem solved, so what's the next drug we need? Oh, a
drug to enable impotent men to have erections?"

Now there's research to find a med to boost a woman's
libido...

(*sigh*)

I'm not sure I want to need meds to turn me on and turn me
off...

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

In article <slrncbfs21.49r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C
Lipton <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote:
Antidepressants SELL so well because of situational stressors. They work as a treatment.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so maybe this is discussed
later. I thought the anti-depressants really only worked on clinical
depression -- depression caused by abnormal brain chemistry -- that
they *didn't* work on situational depression (otherwise known as
unhappiness, I think.)

Have I picked up the wrong impression somwhere?

Ted

Seeker <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
In article <slrncbfs21.49r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote: Antidepressants SELL so well because of situational stressors. They work as a treatment. I haven't read the rest of the thread, so maybe this is discussed later. I thought the anti-depressants really only worked on clinical depression -- depression caused by abnormal brain chemistry -- that they *didn't* work on situational depression (otherwise known as unhappiness, I think.) Have I picked up the wrong impression somwhere?

I believe you have the correct impression. I've said as much in this
thread, but it didn't make much of a dent.

Anti-depressants don't work as "happy pills" even for those who _are_
depressed.

Doug Anderson wrote: Seeker <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:In article <slrncbfs21.49r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack CLipton <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote:Antidepressants SELL so well because of situationalstressors. They work as a treatment.I haven't read the rest of the thread, so maybe this is discussedlater. I thought the anti-depressants really only worked on clinicaldepression -- depression caused by abnormal brain chemistry -- thatthey *didn't* work on situational depression (otherwise known asunhappiness, I think.)Have I picked up the wrong impression somwhere? I believe you have the correct impression. I've said as much in this thread, but it didn't make much of a dent.

I'm going to disagree with you both. When I was being treated for
depression, I had situational depression. A long laundry list of
traumatic, emotional events had happened to me over a period of
of months and, as the doctor explained it to me, my brain was in
high overdrive as far as producing seratonin. So, I went on ADs
to (as the doctor put it) get my brain back to 'idle'. (Where it
has remained every since. There, I said it first. :P)

From my reading back then, there is a distinction between (if I
recall the terms correctly) exogenous depression and endogenous.
Or 'depression from the outside' and 'depression from the inside.'
The mechanics of the depression is the same, the causes are dif-
ferent.

Where people get confused, IMO, is when they confuse situational
depression with 'being unhappy.' There's as comparable as a splinter
in your big toe and having your leg amputated without anesthesia.

And ADs work just fine with situational depression.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Seeker <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:In article <slrncbfs21.49r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.org>, Jack CLipton <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote:>Antidepressants SELL so well because of situational> stressors. They work as a treatment.I haven't read the rest of the thread, so maybe this is discussedlater. I thought the anti-depressants really only worked on clinicaldepression -- depression caused by abnormal brain chemistry -- thatthey *didn't* work on situational depression (otherwise known asunhappiness, I think.)Have I picked up the wrong impression somwhere? I believe you have the correct impression. I've said as much in this thread, but it didn't make much of a dent. I'm going to disagree with you both. When I was being treated for depression, I had situational depression. A long laundry list of traumatic, emotional events had happened to me over a period of of months and, as the doctor explained it to me, my brain was in high overdrive as far as producing seratonin. So, I went on ADs to (as the doctor put it) get my brain back to 'idle'. (Where it has remained every since. There, I said it first. :P) From my reading back then, there is a distinction between (if I recall the terms correctly) exogenous depression and endogenous. Or 'depression from the outside' and 'depression from the inside.' The mechanics of the depression is the same, the causes are dif- ferent. Where people get confused, IMO, is when they confuse situational depression with 'being unhappy.' There's as comparable as a splinter in your big toe and having your leg amputated without anesthesia. And ADs work just fine with situational depression.

I think I agree with you. I didn't read Ted's post carefully enough
where he was equating "situational depression" with "unhappiness."

My point was that ADs don't make people happy, and hence are not useful
treatments for unhappiness.

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrncbjv6l.dio.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g...
At the same time executive compensation is out of all control in the US... but not elsewhere. Why can't the USA globalize the executives? Or is there really some uncoordinated effort to form a caste system in the US?

Among the most intelligent speculation I've seen on this topic
among the employees of a large firm whose management
seems to have lost interest in our former core business
was that selling this business to foreign owners
who would want to be in this business
would be functionally equivalent to outsourcing management.
--
Tsam

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrncbjvs7.dio.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g...
I'm also aware that at my most depressed I've never been reduced to just sitting in one place waiting for the fear of movement to lift, so I know that I am unlikely to have been "clinically depressed" (though some have suggested that I go on SSRIs to keep me from getting depressed). I recognize that stress plays a different role in how I malfunction (TIAs, for instance; my neurologist said I've probably been having them on-and-off for some time but it's only when it hits in a motor/sensory zone that I notice, like when my left arm "got distant" one day; feeling one's IQ drop is frightening too) so it can come out in many ways.

This sounds very familiar...

I have long (and still) been blamed
by someone less functional than I,
long unable to hold a job,
for failing to get the prescription for pills
to make me accept her treatment
without becoming too distracted to work effectively.
This becomes another instance
of being "unable to do as I'm supposed to"
by someone who claims to "not run people".

I get told that shouting for one of several hours
as a reaction to frustration is her "being real",
and that my strenuous efforts to not shout back
is "cruel psychological speak" that is the "true abuse".

Someone who, when stuck in her frustrations,
becomes a different person
who confuses her internal pain
with the right to judge reality for her family.

It is truly confusing that following therapists' advice
to be assertive is not effective,
but compassionately seeing her side is.

It may be that the difference in Jack's case is similar,
an insistance that her problems must be external to her
and must be treated by changing me.

This sounds very similar to what shows as "depression"
in Jack -- the presence of a carrier who claims no symptoms.
--
Tsam

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:DHwuc.17571$be.16500@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote in message news:slrncbfs21.49r.cupasoup@soup2nets.net.dhis.or g... Back to situational stressors, so let's play with a subset of social/economic stressors as a "form of fun". OK, how about these words: Outsourcing Offshoring Utilization Targets Overtime Targets (Please note that I'm half expecting my job to be sent off-shore sometime in the next year or so. Only the bean-counters, executives and salesmen will be left.) Any of these things, when you're faced with them, will likely be an irritant. Some folks will face a short term "situational" depression before turning around and coping with them in a constructive fashion. I hope that you can look at your situation with the creativity within you and find a productuve niche for yourself that has not been optimized away. Maybe you can get paid for what you love to do, by finding a way to publish your writings. The key hidden resource of American* techies such as you and me is creativity: the ability to look at something that has been seen in a mundane way 10**N times (for some large value of N) and seeing it differently than it ever has been seen before.
Aside from the inspiration and high-level strategy,
here are some ideas for improved job security:

- information security

Outsourcing companies can show their short-sightedness
by failing to protect their information assets.
The security to counter this blindness
is a skill that involves creativity in anticipating threats
before they have been demonstrated.

- CSI

In a job-seeking support group,
this was suggested for recycled engineers.
It is a skill where methodical work is needed,
and it can be viewed as helping prove the innocent innocent.

--
Tsam

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aczuc.18777$IB.136@attbi_s04... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes: Where people get confused, IMO, is when they confuse situational depression with 'being unhappy.' There's as comparable as a splinter in your big toe and having your leg amputated without anesthesia. And ADs work just fine with situational depression. I think I agree with you. I didn't read Ted's post carefully enough where he was equating "situational depression" with "unhappiness." My point was that ADs don't make people happy, and hence are not useful treatments for unhappiness.

My confusion was equating "situational depression" with "not clinical
depression." I was not aware that situations (e.g., some serious crisis)
could bring about chemical changes that were, in some sense,
self-perpetuating in that talk or behavioral or other therapy not using
drugs was ineffective -- even though unhealthy brain chemistry wasn't the
cause of the depression, it became what keeps it going.

Ted

Seeker wrote:
My confusion was equating "situational depression" with "not clinical depression." I was not aware that situations (e.g., some serious crisis) could bring about chemical changes that were, in some sense, self-perpetuating in that talk or behavioral or other therapy not using drugs was ineffective -- even though unhealthy brain chemistry wasn't the cause of the depression, it became what keeps it going.

Exactly. Have you ever taken one of those stress tests where different
stressful events (some good, some bad) are given different scores and
if you score over a certain amount, you're in danger of a stress-
related illness? I took one of those around the time of being put on
ADs and I had a score that was 3-4 times higher than the cutoff line.
In about a year and a half, I married, endured a long geographical
separation from my new husband, left a 10 year career, moved (twice),
my sister died, a major holiday occurred, I moved twice, my grandmother
died, my grandfather died, my dad had a heart attack, I got pregnant,
I had a baby, I spent a summer with a stepson I had never met before
he arrived, my marriage was falling apart with me having no clue as
to what exactly was wrong, and, the topper, I found out my husband
was ready to leave me for another woman.

By the time my counselor said 'You need to go on ADs. Go to a doctor,'
I had 'been unhappy' for pretty much nine months straight with the
previous 6 months or so containing lots of emotional/traumatic events.
My brain had started seeing that chemical imbalance as balanced and
wasn't able to correct it to normal. The abnormal had become normal
to it.

I was on ADs for 8 or 9 months and haven't needed them since (that
was 8 or 9 years ago now.)

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40BCC607.7070909@aol.com... By the time my counselor said 'You need to go on ADs. Go to a doctor,' I had 'been unhappy' for pretty much nine months straight with the previous 6 months or so containing lots of emotional/traumatic events. My brain had started seeing that chemical imbalance as balanced and wasn't able to correct it to normal. The abnormal had become normal to it.
My wife says she's been unhappy for two years now (dating from when I asked
her to go to marriage counselling.) How do I tell whether she's just plain
unhappy or something else is going on? Is it any of my business?

Ted

Seeker wrote:
My wife says she's been unhappy for two years now (dating from when I asked her to go to marriage counselling.) How do I tell whether she's just plain unhappy or something else is going on? Is it any of my business?

In my case, it was so glaringly obvious when I went from 'Sheesh, I've
had a sucky year and a half so excuse me if I'm not sweetness and light
and smiles and giggles every single day' to 'You need to get on ADs.'
If you had to be told that she hasn't been happy for two years, then
my totally uninformed opinion is that she probably isn't to the point
of absolutely, positively needing ADs.

I was only functional at a very, very basic level. Our daughter's
diapers got changed, our kids got fed, we got fed, I shopped for
groceries when I had to, I did laundry when it needed to be done.
Other than that, I cried, I smoked cigarettes, and I obsessively
wrote pages and pages of what I wanted to say but couldn't. The
ADs helped me to be functional again.

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40BCE1C6.5060100@aol.com... I was only functional at a very, very basic level. Our daughter's diapers got changed, our kids got fed, we got fed, I shopped for groceries when I had to, I did laundry when it needed to be done. Other than that, I cried, I smoked cigarettes, and I obsessively wrote pages and pages of what I wanted to say but couldn't. The ADs helped me to be functional again.

How does one know what the "very basic level" is for any particular person?
Yes, the laundry is getting done, the grocery list gets made, plants get
watered, some cooking gets done, bills get paid, investments are tracked.
No cleaning gets done unless it's in crisis mode; she hasn't read a book in
years. She'll only go out on her own if it's necessary for something else
(like a gift she has promised someone.) If the weather's bad she won't on
her own go to an enclosed mall for her daily walk (her only exercise.) In
short, if it requires putting out an effort, she won't do it. I sometimes
wonder if she ever got over the stress of one death in the family every year
for nearly ten years in a row, my changing jobs twice and becoming an
alcoholic and our older son having chancy job situation now for several
years. Just ordinary stresses of life or something that would push someone
over the edge?

Ted

Seeker wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Tracey writes: Where people get confused, IMO, is when they confuse situational depression with 'being unhappy.' There's as comparable as a splinter in your big toe and having your leg amputated without anesthesia. And ADs work just fine with situational depression. I think I agree with you. I didn't read Ted's post carefully enough where he was equating "situational depression" with "unhappiness." My point was that ADs don't make people happy, and hence are not useful treatments for unhappiness. My confusion was equating "situational depression" with "not clinical depression." I was not aware that situations (e.g., some serious crisis) could bring about chemical changes that were, in some sense, self-perpetuating in that talk or behavioral or other therapy not using drugs was ineffective -- even though unhealthy brain chemistry wasn't the cause of the depression, it became what keeps it going.

We're talking neurotransmitters here.

Situational depression, as I described it, was NOT sadness
but a *form* of "clinical" depression. Under differing
stresses the very chemisty of the body can vary...

So it would not be surprising to see someone pushed over
the edge into real depression end up on SSRIs and be able
to do without them when the worst of the episode is over.

Question: can people w/ "normal" chemistry (as if there
*is* such a thing as normal) end up accomodating the SSRI
and becoming dependant upon it? Like the workers in the
explosive plants? (You know, how they learned that
nitroglycerin is a vasodilator. BTW, don't let anybody
kid you-- nitro gives you one heck of a headache.)

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2i44ceFj8j27U1@uni-berlin.de... "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:40BCC607.7070909@aol.com... By the time my counselor said 'You need to go on ADs. Go to a doctor,' I had 'been unhappy' for pretty much nine months straight with the previous 6 months or so containing lots of emotional/traumatic events. My brain had started seeing that chemical imbalance as balanced and wasn't able to correct it to normal. The abnormal had become normal to it. My wife says she's been unhappy for two years now (dating from when I
asked her to go to marriage counselling.) How do I tell whether she's just
plain unhappy or something else is going on? Is it any of my business?

Whatever you do,
don't confuse the presence of a physical component to her feelings
with the absence of valid emotional components.

Listen to her feelings!
This is the best you can do to set the stage for her happiness IMO.
(It will take courage, though -- probably by the truckload.)
--
Tsam

cupasoup@peElMe.cx (Jack C Lipton) writes:
Seeker wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: Tracey writes:> Where people get confused, IMO, is when they confuse> situational depression with 'being unhappy.' There's> as comparable as a splinter in your big toe and having> your leg amputated without anesthesia.>> And ADs work just fine with situational depression. I think I agree with you. I didn't read Ted's post carefully enough where he was equating "situational depression" with "unhappiness." My point was that ADs don't make people happy, and hence are not useful treatments for unhappiness. My confusion was equating "situational depression" with "not clinical depression." I was not aware that situations (e.g., some serious crisis) could bring about chemical changes that were, in some sense, self-perpetuating in that talk or behavioral or other therapy not using drugs was ineffective -- even though unhealthy brain chemistry wasn't the cause of the depression, it became what keeps it going. We're talking neurotransmitters here. Situational depression, as I described it, was NOT sadness but a *form* of "clinical" depression. Under differing stresses the very chemisty of the body can vary... So it would not be surprising to see someone pushed over the edge into real depression end up on SSRIs and be able to do without them when the worst of the episode is over. Question: can people w/ "normal" chemistry (as if there *is* such a thing as normal) end up accomodating the SSRI and becoming dependant upon it?

I'm not an expert, but I've read a fair amount about SSRIs. I haven't
seen anything about _anyone_ becoming dependent on them, although
there are real and sometimes serious withdrawal effects for a
substantial minority.

Some of the research on why SSRIs work so well for some people
suggests that they encourage some new cell growth in the hippocampus
(or at least this is why they work well on mice). It also would
explain why there is a significant lag period between taking the SSRIs
and feeling better for a lot of people (or at least a lot of mice).

And based on everything I've read, the effect of SSRIs on people who
aren't depressed is negative. But I haven't seen a lot about this.
People write about them diminishing the intensity of emotions
(positive and negative). I think this is something most of us
_wouldn't_ want.
Like the workers in the explosive plants? (You know, how they learned that nitroglycerin is a vasodilator. BTW, don't let anybody kid you-- nitro gives you one heck of a headache.)

Yeah, been there. We made some (sneaking into our school at night and
using the chemistry lab). What we made wasn't a very good explosive,
but boy did we get nasty headaches; just from getting a drop on our
hands.

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:O77vc.18107$Tn6.11291@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2i44ceFj8j27U1@uni-berlin.de... My wife says she's been unhappy for two years now (dating from when I asked her to go to marriage counselling.) How do I tell whether she's just plain unhappy or something else is going on? Is it any of my business? Whatever you do, don't confuse the presence of a physical component to her feelings with the absence of valid emotional components. What physical components
might you be talking about? What emotional ones?
I don't understand what you are saying Tsam, and even left my post in to see
if I
could see a connection between what you wrote and what I wrote.
Listen to her feelings! This is the best you can do to set the stage for her happiness IMO. (It will take courage, though -- probably by the truckload.)

How can I listen to her feelings when she won't express them any more than I
will express mine? She won't say "I feel" but rather "here's how things
ought
to be." To the extent any of that has to do with me it's mostly that I
don't spend enough time with her or that there are certain things that need
to get done by such and such a time. She never says what she *feels* about
all that -- whether she's angry, afraid, sad, disappointed, resentful,
resigned, or what. (A lot of the "here's how things ought to be" has to do
with events in the world neither one of us can do much about.)

A fer instance. Last night we were watching some of a "What not to Wear"
episode that dealt with one of the rare times they tackle a man. She
commented that when they do that, most of the men *know* they are in need of
a fashion makeover -- they know and admit that they do dress like a dump.
I allowed as how I would fall into that category, that my clothes are pretty
dumpy She said, "that's just fine. I wouldn't want any other women to be
attracted to you and get strange ideas." Yes, she expressed something --
but didn't really show her feelings. I countered with something like, "but
how about *you* being attracted to me?" She: "I'm attracted to you when
you don't have clothes on, so it doesn't matter." (or something like that.)
Sure, a lot was being said -- but all so sub rosa it wasn't at all clear.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:O77vc.18107$Tn6.11291@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2i44ceFj8j27U1@uni-berlin.de... > My wife says she's been unhappy for two years now (dating from when I asked her to go to marriage counselling.) How do I tell whether she's just plain unhappy or something else is going on? Is it any of my business? Whatever you do, don't confuse the presence of a physical component to her feelings with the absence of valid emotional components. What physical components might you be talking about? What emotional ones? I don't understand what you are saying Tsam, and even left my post in to see if I could see a connection between what you wrote and what I wrote. Listen to her feelings! This is the best you can do to set the stage for her happiness IMO. (It will take courage, though -- probably by the truckload.) How can I listen to her feelings when she won't express them any more than I will express mine? She won't say "I feel" but rather "here's how things ought to be."

I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is
clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy.

Even though she isn't saying "I feel," whenever she communicates with
you she _is_ probably communicating things about her feelings.
Understanding what is hard, and probably requires knowing her really
well (which you probably do) and an ability to empathize with her
sufficiently that you can put yourself in her place.

Back to analyzing Tsam, this second thing is something he seem to
excel at, at least as demonstrated on ASM.
To the extent any of that has to do with me it's mostly that I don't spend enough time with her or that there are certain things that need to get done by such and such a time. She never says what she *feels* about all that -- whether she's angry, afraid, sad, disappointed, resentful,

OK, my guess is lonely. But that is through my lens, not hers.
resigned, or what. (A lot of the "here's how things ought to be" has to do with events in the world neither one of us can do much about.) A fer instance. Last night we were watching some of a "What not to Wear" episode that dealt with one of the rare times they tackle a man. She commented that when they do that, most of the men *know* they are in need of a fashion makeover -- they know and admit that they do dress like a dump. I allowed as how I would fall into that category, that my clothes are pretty dumpy She said, "that's just fine. I wouldn't want any other women to be attracted to you and get strange ideas."

Again, through my lens that is either insecurity, or humor. If my
wife was saying it, I'd know which one it was, but I can't guess for
Mrs. Ted.

She _is_ expressing her feelings, just not very explicitly. She may
not have language to do it explicitly, or like you she may feel too
insecure to do it explicitly.
Yes, she expressed something -- but didn't really show her feelings. I countered with something like, "but how about *you* being attracted to me?" She: "I'm attracted to you when you don't have clothes on, so it doesn't matter." (or something like that.) Sure, a lot was being said -- but all so sub rosa it wasn't at all clear. Ted

Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@peElMe.cx> wrote:
Question: can people w/ "normal" chemistry (as if there *is* such a thing as normal) end up accomodating the SSRI and becoming dependant upon it?

My understanding is no. ADs are not addictive, though there can be
withdrawal effects if you stop taking them suddenly.

I don't know why a person who was not depressed would keep taking ADs,
though. They don't make you happy or anything. If you aren't
depressed, you will just get some amount of side effects and no good
effects. Yuk.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aJnvc.32446$IB.28682@attbi_s04... I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy. OK, my guess is lonely. But that is through my lens, not hers.
I don't think that's quite right -- she's quite content with (and desirous
of) being alone, not that the two are the same. I think it's more like
she's feeling ignored and unappreciated and unvalued. (The unstated "if
you loved me you'd want to spend more time with me.")
resigned, or what. (A lot of the "here's how things ought to be" has to
do with events in the world neither one of us can do much about.) A fer instance. Last night we were watching some of a "What not to
Wear" episode that dealt with one of the rare times they tackle a man. She commented that when they do that, most of the men *know* they are in
need of a fashion makeover -- they know and admit that they do dress like a
dump. I allowed as how I would fall into that category, that my clothes are
pretty dumpy She said, "that's just fine. I wouldn't want any other women
to be attracted to you and get strange ideas." Again, through my lens that is either insecurity, or humor. If my wife was saying it, I'd know which one it was, but I can't guess for Mrs. Ted.
I can't always tell myself either -- she *does* have a very understated
sense of humor.
I think it's insecurity. But there's also her moral streak -- she didn't
express concern about
me being attracted to them, but them being attracted to me, so it was just
as much about them as me.
(I'm not sure whether to be flattered or insulted that she thinks a fashion
makeover for me would make me attractive to other women!)
She _is_ expressing her feelings, just not very explicitly. She may not have language to do it explicitly, or like you she may feel too insecure to do it explicitly.
Yup.

Ted

Emma Anne wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Question: can people w/ "normal" chemistry (as if there *is* such a thing as normal) end up accomodating the SSRI and becoming dependant upon it? My understanding is no. ADs are not addictive, though there can be withdrawal effects if you stop taking them suddenly.

I think someone categorized this as a "rebound depression".
I don't know why a person who was not depressed would keep taking ADs, though. They don't make you happy or anything. If you aren't depressed, you will just get some amount of side effects and no good effects. Yuk.

Well... if you can't tell that there's no "uplift" beyond
some "nominal" level you can't tell if it's making a
difference UNTIL you go off the meds... and going off the
meds is something that has to be very gradual and closely
watched should the depression be structural.

I don't know a lot but given my wife's dosage of Zoloft,
Trazodone and Risperdal I've done quite a bit of reading.
Not all of it has been reassuring.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

>How can I listen to her feelings when she won't express them any more than Iwill express mine? She won't say "I feel" but rather "here's how thingsoughtto be." To the extent any of that has to do with me it's mostly that Idon't spend enough time with her or that there are certain things that needto get done by such and such a time. She never says what she *feels* aboutall that -- whether she's angry, afraid, sad, disappointed, resentful,resigned, or what. (A lot of the "here's how things ought to be" has to dowith events in the world neither one of us can do much about.)


A friend of mine came to me last week complaining about the following
situation:

She had planned, for months, to go to a conference, where she was to present.
For whatever reason (I don't know why) the trip was cancelled. A couple of
weeks before she was to have gone, she mentioned to her fiance "I'm so glad I
don't have to put together that presentation." A few days before the weekend
in question, she mentioned to her fiance something she wanted to do that
weekend, and was saddened to discover he'd already made plans. He didn't know
that the conference had been cancelled. She was befuddled, because "I told him
I didn't have to prepare for the presentation... he should have been able to
conclude that it had been cancelled!"

I told her that she couldn't expect him to read her mind. I told her that if
*he* were there, I'd tell him he needed to ask more questions.

Ted, why haven't you asked your wife why she has requested that you spend more
time with her? Something like, "I'm sorry. Are you feeling neglected?" would
give her an opening.

Also, I don't see any reason you can't talk about your feelings, regardless of
whether or not she does. Is this some sort of stalemate you've created ---"I
won't do it unless she does?"

Sheila
Ted

WhansaMi wrote: Also, I don't see any reason you can't talk about your feelings, regardless of whether or not she does. Is this some sort of stalemate you've created ---"I won't do it unless she does?"

(raises hand) Been there!

I've been fortunate to have learned enough (here
as well as elsewhere) that I had to transcend
that paradigm.

I was stupid to think she'd open her mouth--
she's been happy w/ the status quo and so there
was no reason to look for trouble!

Mind you, I still make some effort at diplomacy
but I *do* press her on occasion.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"While life is too short to be taken seriously, it also lasts
for far too long to spend it with a stick up your ***." - me

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aJnvc.32446$IB.28682@attbi_s04... I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy. OK, my guess is lonely. But that is through my lens, not hers. I don't think that's quite right -- she's quite content with (and desirous of) being alone, not that the two are the same. I think it's more like she's feeling ignored and unappreciated and unvalued. (The unstated "if you loved me you'd want to spend more time with me.")

Yeah, that makes at least as much sense. I don't know her, you do.
My point wasn't whether my interpretation is right, but that you can
try to do as Tsam says even though she doesn't say "I feel ..."
snip

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:aJnvc.32446$IB.28682@attbi_s04... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:O77vc.18107$Tn6.11291@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2i44ceFj8j27U1@uni-berlin.de... > > > My wife says she's been unhappy for two years now (dating from when
I asked > her to go to marriage counselling.) How do I tell whether she's
just plain > unhappy or something else is going on? Is it any of my business? Whatever you do, don't confuse the presence of a physical component to her feelings with the absence of valid emotional components. What physical
components might you be talking about? What emotional ones? I don't understand what you are saying Tsam, and even left my post in to
see if I could see a connection between what you wrote and what I wrote. Listen to her feelings! This is the best you can do to set the stage for her happiness IMO. (It will take courage, though -- probably by the truckload.) How can I listen to her feelings when she won't express them any more
than I will express mine? She won't say "I feel" but rather "here's how
things ought to be." I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy. Even though she isn't saying "I feel," whenever she communicates with you she _is_ probably communicating things about her feelings. Understanding what is hard, and probably requires knowing her really well (which you probably do) and an ability to empathize with her sufficiently that you can put yourself in her place.

I essentially agree. My point was to not limit your trying to listen and
understand to how much you see her trying.

(Doug's speculation on what she meant, which I snipped, seems
as reasonable to me as anything I'd guess.)
--
Tsam

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040602171416.27585.00000474@mb-m05.aol.com... Ted, why haven't you asked your wife why she has requested that you spend
more time with her? Something like, "I'm sorry. Are you feeling neglected?"
would give her an opening.
Because I've been burned. On those occasions I've tried to ask questions to
find out what's really going on she's said, "that's prying." And I guess
I'm too lazy and too afraid of being burned again to explore what areas are
safe to ask about and which not.
Also, I don't see any reason you can't talk about your feelings,
regardless of whether or not she does. Is this some sort of stalemate you've
created ---"I won't do it unless she does?"
The stalemate is more like this. You don't share your feelings or other
experiences ("how'd your day go?") unless asked. You don't ask because
that's too intrusive. Not good. Safe? Yes. Healthy? No.

Ted

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:XmGvc.142$uX2.91@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net... I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy. Even though she isn't saying "I feel," whenever she communicates with you she _is_ probably communicating things about her feelings. Understanding what is hard, and probably requires knowing her really well (which you probably do) and an ability to empathize with her sufficiently that you can put yourself in her place. I essentially agree. My point was to not limit your trying to listen and understand to how much you see her trying.
I still don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't even
understand it enough to try to put it in my own words!

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2i8tdtFkbsi6U1@uni-berlin.de... "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:XmGvc.142$uX2.91@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net... I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy. Even though she isn't saying "I feel," whenever she communicates with you she _is_ probably communicating things about her feelings. Understanding what is hard, and probably requires knowing her really well (which you probably do) and an ability to empathize with her sufficiently that you can put yourself in her place. I essentially agree. My point was to not limit your trying to listen
and understand to how much you see her trying. I still don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't even understand it enough to try to put it in my own words!
I want you to put as much of yourself as you can feel safe doing forward
to your wife, not reciprocally but as your own decision.

(And I believe that your limits of safety will grow with practice and will.
I want you to trust in yourself and your dedication to your marriage,
so that your wife can not wound you with her doubts. This is a valuable
way of putting differentiation into action.)
--
I hope this explanation is clearer,
Tsam

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:XmGvc.142$uX2.91@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net... I don't know what Tsam is saying, but the answer to your question is clear, it just doesn't happen to be easy. Even though she isn't saying "I feel," whenever she communicates with you she _is_ probably communicating things about her feelings. Understanding what is hard, and probably requires knowing her really well (which you probably do) and an ability to empathize with her sufficiently that you can put yourself in her place. I essentially agree. My point was to not limit your trying to listen and understand to how much you see her trying. I still don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't even understand it enough to try to put it in my own words!

I don't think this is exactly what Tsam means, but it is exactly what
_my_ interpretation of what he means is:

Regardless of whether your wife is _trying_ to communicate her
emotions, she _is_ communication them. Therefore, you can try to
understand her emotions even if she isn't trying to communicate them.

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:NwHvc.223$uX2.128@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net... I want you to put as much of yourself as you can feel safe doing forward to your wife, not reciprocally but as your own decision. (And I believe that your limits of safety will grow with practice and
will. I want you to trust in yourself and your dedication to your marriage, so that your wife can not wound you with her doubts. This is a valuable way of putting differentiation into action.) -- I hope this explanation is clearer,

Much clearer. Thanks. It's those limits I fear -- how much of myself can I
expose when without going beyond the point of no return?

Ted