Discussing Depression with ChatGPT
A picture from 2016 of someone who’s obviously in a detective phase
In 2016, when I learned that depression isn't actually caused by a chemical imbalance, I was fired up.
I had wasted so many years trying to treat my depression with bad information. Wasted!
I started taking antidepressants in either late 2008 or early 2009 (winter of my sophomore year of college) and had spent years trying to find the Holy Grail: THE pill that would fix my unique chemical imbalance. Because I knew what everyone knew: depression was a chemical imbalance caused by a shortage of serotonin (or some other neurotransmitter), and you correct the imbalance with medication. "If you can't make your own, store-bought works just fine."
(I'm oversimplifying here because I don't want a 7-page essay—I was never as pro-antidepressant as this perhaps sounds. What I was, to put it simply, was a human deeply devoted to overcoming depression.)
Then, in 2016, when I was up to my eyeballs in a "depression detective" phase (kicked off by a psychiatrist finally and mercifully telling me that antidepressants were never going to work for me), boy was I peeved.
As soon as I started wading in, I learned that EVERYONE knew that depression wasn't caused by a chemical imbalance. That was a hypothesis that had been proposed in the fifties or sixties and had already been conclusively disproved.
"Why didn't anyone tell me?!?" I wondered, fuming as I read book after book that affirmed, "Yep, the chemical imbalance theory is a wild oversimplification of a complex and multifaceted affliction. Don't stop taking your antidepressants abruptly if you're on them—first off that's dangerous, second off they might actually be helping...we just don't know why since they're not actually addressing a non-existent chemical imbalance."
I'm reminiscing about my 2016 fury because of something interesting that happened this morning. I woke up thinking about depression and had an essay brewing about thanking the chemical imbalance theory.
In shamanism, you say thank you to everything, and I think there are things about the disproven chemical imbalance theory that are worth celebrating. Like, for instance, that it made it much easier to talk about depression. In the chemical imbalance era, depression wasn't a character defect. It was the result of a medical condition. Thank you, stigma-busting properties of that mindset. Much appreciated.
But then something fascinating happened. I don't enjoy distilling research, so I turned to ChatGPT and asked, "Is the chemical imbalance theory of depression disproven?"
I'll copy the response below my essay, but the part that got me was ChatGPT's response to my follow-up question, "Can you cite sources for the chemical imbalance theory of depression being disproved?"
And it responded with one source from 2005, another from 2008, a third from 2009, a fourth from 2010, and the final one from 2011.
Five sources. None more recent than 2011. BECAUSE PEOPLE ALREADY KNEW THIS IN 2005!
This "depression isn't caused by a shortage of serotonin" thing got a lot of buzz last year when a big study came out, and Adam Grant and other influencers shared the updated information.
But when I ask ChatGPT for sources on it being disproved, it gives me studies and books from 2005-2011.
Now, I'm about to do an about-face because there's actually a message of hope in here.
I got better once I learned that my depression wasn't caused by a chemical imbalance. It freed me to practice true root cause resolution, and once I addressed the root causes that were driving my depression, my depression went away and has not returned.
If you're struggling with something and you can't get to the bottom of it, someone might be doing research RIGHT NOW that will give you your ticket to liberation.
Someone could, at this very moment, be discovering the thing that will completely and totally heal my husband's Type 1 diabetes or my brother's conditions (I got HIPAA-acted when I talked too freely about my family's medical conditions in my musings, the punks).
It takes an average of 17 years for research that's being conducted today to trickle down to your doctor's office (at least if I understand this study correctly—it's been a lot of years since I was a research assistant).
So I'm wishing you hope. I hope that whatever thing you or your loved ones need help with—I hope someone is digging up the path to full and complete healing right this moment. And I hope you find the answers you need as soon as possible.
Love (or, if you're a family member, "in tolerance"),
Keely
***
If you want to know ChatGPT’s answers to my questions, they’re below.
ChatGPT’s response to, “Has the chemical imbalance theory of depression been disproven?”
The chemical imbalance theory of depression, which suggests that imbalances in certain neurotransmitters (such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine) in the brain are the primary cause of depression, has been a widely discussed and debated topic in the field of psychiatry and psychology.
While the theory has been influential in shaping our understanding of depression and guiding the development of antidepressant medications, it is important to note that the exact causes of depression are complex and multifaceted. Depression is likely to arise from a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors, and there is no single, definitive cause that applies to all individuals.
In recent years, there has been increasing recognition that the chemical imbalance theory is a simplification of the underlying neurobiological mechanisms involved in depression. The understanding of depression has evolved, and researchers now emphasize that depression is a complex interplay between various genetic, environmental, and neurochemical factors. It is not solely caused by a simple imbalance of neurotransmitters.
Additionally, the efficacy of antidepressant medications, which are often prescribed based on the chemical imbalance theory, has been a topic of debate. While these medications can be effective for some individuals, they may not work for everyone, suggesting that other factors beyond neurotransmitter imbalances are involved in depression.
It is important to approach the understanding of depression with an open and comprehensive perspective, considering various contributing factors and individual differences. Mental health professionals continue to explore and research the underlying causes of depression to develop more personalized and effective treatment approaches.
ChatGPT’s response to, “Can you please cite sources for the chemical imbalance theory of depression being disproved?”
While I can provide information and an overview of the current understanding of the chemical imbalance theory of depression, it's important to note that scientific research and theories evolve over time. The concept of a "chemical imbalance" is a simplification that has been criticized in the field, but it's challenging to pinpoint specific sources that definitively disprove the theory as a whole. Instead, I can offer you references that discuss the limitations and complexities associated with the chemical imbalance theory:
Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2005). Serotonin and depression: A disconnect between the advertisements and the scientific literature. PLoS Medicine, 2(12), e392. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392
Kirsch, I. (2009). The Emperor's New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth. Basic Books.
Moncrieff, J. (2008). The Myth of the Chemical Cure: A Critique of Psychiatric Drug Treatment. Palgrave Macmillan.
Insel, T. R. (2011). Disruptive insights in psychiatry: Transforming a clinical discipline. JAMA, 305(7), 684-685. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.109
Carlat, D. J. (2010). The psychiatric interview. JAMA, 304(23), 2595-2596. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1835
These sources highlight the complexity of depression and the limitations of the chemical imbalance theory in fully explaining its causes. They emphasize the need for a more comprehensive understanding of depression, considering various biological, psychological, and social factors. It's important to consult multiple sources and consider the broader scientific consensus when examining any complex scientific topic.
