This article points out a really crucial thing: we talk about "chemical imbalances", and this language subtly implies we know what we're talking about when we really don't. It's scientific sounding language: it's precise sounding.
It lends the impression that you're saying something like: "Brains of well-adjusted humans have a dopamine to seratonin ratio of X, but my brain puts out X + epsilon. So, I take this pill, and it moves the dopamine amounts down to normal, and leaves everything else the same."
But, as everyone cringing right now at that statement knows, not only do we laymen not understand how the brain works well enough to make any such statement, but no one can make any such statement.
There are multiple levels of problems involved:
1. Determine with certainty that a given psychological problem to one that is purely solved by altering brain chemicals in principle (vs. neuronal structure or environment, etc)
2. Determine that this living individual, whom you cannot crack open the brain of, is suffering from this psychological disorder because of a brain chemical imbalance.
3. Synthesize a drug that alters this chemical imbalance, leaving everything else the same. This would involve understanding both the immediate effect of the drug, and the eventual ramifications as the brain reacts and compensates for the drug's presence, such that the final steady state of the drug is the desired brain chemical balance.
The state of our science is such that we really can't do any of these with the precision the "chemical imbalance" framing implies. Compared with this unrealistic standard, we're barely better than alchemists. We know that in principle, some psychological problems are caused at least in part by brain chemical imbalances. But I agree with the article that we should stop giving the impression that this awareness implies an ability to diagnose and solve these imbalances.
It lends the impression that you're saying something like: "Brains of well-adjusted humans have a dopamine to seratonin ratio of X, but my brain puts out X + epsilon. So, I take this pill, and it moves the dopamine amounts down to normal, and leaves everything else the same."
But, as everyone cringing right now at that statement knows, not only do we laymen not understand how the brain works well enough to make any such statement, but no one can make any such statement. There are multiple levels of problems involved:
1. Determine with certainty that a given psychological problem to one that is purely solved by altering brain chemicals in principle (vs. neuronal structure or environment, etc)
2. Determine that this living individual, whom you cannot crack open the brain of, is suffering from this psychological disorder because of a brain chemical imbalance.
3. Synthesize a drug that alters this chemical imbalance, leaving everything else the same. This would involve understanding both the immediate effect of the drug, and the eventual ramifications as the brain reacts and compensates for the drug's presence, such that the final steady state of the drug is the desired brain chemical balance.
The state of our science is such that we really can't do any of these with the precision the "chemical imbalance" framing implies. Compared with this unrealistic standard, we're barely better than alchemists. We know that in principle, some psychological problems are caused at least in part by brain chemical imbalances. But I agree with the article that we should stop giving the impression that this awareness implies an ability to diagnose and solve these imbalances.