LESSWRONG
LW

const LIZARDMAN

Message

Is ("Chemical Imbalance" => Depression) an example of fake causality?

I'm referring to fake causality as described in Eliezer's post, here. I've often heard it said that "depression is a chemical imbalance", or that depression may be caused by biochemistry. But isn't everything we experience- every emotion (or lack thereof), manifest physically in the brain as a chemical state, regardless...

May 26, 2021•3

const LIZARDMAN

const LIZARDMAN — LessWrong

const LIZARDMAN

Message

Is ("Chemical Imbalance" => Depression) an example of fake causality?

May 26, 2021•3

const LIZARDMAN

Replying toIs ("Chemical Imbalance" => Depression) an example of fake causality?

const LIZARDMAN5y

Is ("Chemical Imbalance" => Depression) an example of fake causality?

This was a helpful response, thank you. The concept of a working hypothesis is unfamiliar to me and I'm curious about the practical utility of them, which leads me to more questions like: By what sort of process does the existence of a working hypothesis enable research? To what extent would said research be more difficult to do without a working hypothesis? To the extent that a working hypothesis is used in public communication with non-scientists about a given topic, why is it so? So I will investigate these things and look for resources to learn more.

Is ("Chemical Imbalance" => Depression) an example of fake causality?

const LIZARDMAN

I'm referring to fake causality as described in Eliezer's post, here.

I've often heard it said that "depression is a chemical imbalance", or that depression may be caused by biochemistry. But isn't everything we experience- every emotion (or lack thereof), manifest physically in the brain as a chemical state, regardless of the cause? What is the predictive value of saying depression is caused by biochemistry?

Seems like there must be a reason for that chemical state in the first place, whether it be life events, something you ate, a pathogen, genetics, or whatever it may be.