Can you be too happy?

Oct 23, 2003 12:38



Or, what is a normal default state? Happiness and sadness both occur and are to be expected. But if a person is sad often and for long time, it might be considered a problem and treated. Part of this treatment can be anti-depressant drugs. But, are there people who are just too happy for too long? Not obsessive, not manic, not hallucinating, but ( Read more... )

philosophy, depression, happiness, medicine

Leave a comment

Comments 6

wordslinger October 23 2003, 08:45:58 UTC
No, there's no such thing as too much happiness.

However, remember that a significant portion of the population has a genetic predisposition to depression. I'd say that the human default is "no depression" because in a simpler time, the patterns that led to depression are also the ones Most Likely To Get You Eaten By Felis Smilidon (or stomped on by a mammoth, for that matter.)

Reply


well.... wendyzski October 23 2003, 11:25:46 UTC
speaking chemically, there is a big difference.

Depression is not only defined as a "state of being sad' but also as a physical problem with the brain chemistry. Current working-theory states that most depressive symptoms are caused by an imbalance in the neurotransmitters in the brain. Most so-called "anti-depressants" are really SSRIs - standing for Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors. They reduce the rate that your body breaks down Serotonin, so that there is more available for the brain to use. This change in the balance of neurotransmitter levels usually results in a decrease of depressive symptoms.

No studies have been made on the brain chemistry of "happiness", probably because people have better things to do than study it! Interestingly enough, people in the manic phase of bipolar disorder often feel wonderful. However, SSRI treatment is NOT effective in these cases, and may often make the condition worse!

Reply

Re: well.... vakkotaur October 23 2003, 11:32:55 UTC

Problem I have with this is that if there is a detectable chemical imbalance, why isn't there some sort of diagnostic based on detecting it? All I've seen is a list of questions. Maybe there is more, but it sounds like "Hrm, yes, probably.. lets see if $drug-1 works, and if not, we can try $drug-2..."

This is certainly a way to do things, but it grates. It's a shotgun approach to a supposed precision problem. Sure, it does help some people, but I wonder how many are "helped" when they don't need it. No one who truly needs the help should be denied it, but neither should it be inflicted on those who do not. And right now, it seems very hit and miss.

Reply

Re: well.... wendyzski October 24 2003, 12:10:59 UTC
And right now, it seems very hit and miss.Oh, I totally agree with you there ( ... )

Reply


willowisp November 6 2003, 11:58:05 UTC
Wow, I'm cranking out the comments since discovering your journal. I hope you don't mind. Anyway ( ... )

Reply

vakkotaur November 6 2003, 13:01:39 UTC

I hope you don't mind.

Not at all. If I didn't want comments, I could turn them off. Comment away!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up