Pills

[Golden Applesauce]

I've been seeing this word a lot, "pills."  By context, it sometimes seems to mean something like those neural skullcaps from The Tripods trilogy.

Humans are controlled from the age of 14 by implants called "caps", which suppress curiosity and creativity and leave the recipient placid and docile, incapable of dissent. The caps cause them to adore the tripods The Spidery Machine as their saviours.

But in other places, the word "pills" seems to refer to psychoactive prescription medications (as opposed to "drugs" which refer to illegal psychoactive compounds.)

One of three things is occurring:
1.  I am misreading the connotations of a word.  Happens all the time.
2.  People are using the word "pill" with at least two very distinct meanings, one metaphorical, on literal.
3.  As #2, except that people sometimes confuse or conflate the two, and meanings from the more emotionally-laden definition bleed into the others.

If #3 is the case, I predict confusion and suffering when discussing issues relating to psychology, especially abnormal psychology.

[Requia ☣]

Spoken like somebody whose never been on the damned pills.

I spent the better part of my life on pills, when I finally quit them I got fat because my body was so used to swallowing an appetite suppressant every day that I never learned self control. And spent 8 months depressed because the mood levelers that kept me from beating the shit out of somebody for looking at me wrong while I was on the attention pills fucked up my normal brain chemistry.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

2.  People are using the word "pill" with at least two very distinct meanings, one metaphorical, on literal.
3.  As #2, except that people sometimes confuse or conflate the two, and meanings from the more emotionally-laden definition bleed into the others.

It's called "creative writing". The lines blur. They're supposed to.

[Kai]

^This^

But also, they blur in reality.

[The Johnny]

Using pills as treatment is the "final solution" that psychiatrists tend to use. Psychiatrists are close buddies to behaviourists usually.

Why? Because they focus on the superficial symptoms, and not the underlying problems.

If you are depressed... what will you do?

a) Exercise, long walks (biological approach)
b) Take pills (psychiatrical approach)
c) Go to an amusement park or engage in thrill activities (behaviourist approach)
d) Deal with your fucking problems instead of avoiding them

As far as ive seen, its either answer B or C, because its non-interfering with your school/work efficiency and takes less time than D.

Because D is a big pot of chaos which people fear.

B and C are also very status quo related and wouldnt affect it, while D has the potential to do so, because it implies digging for reasons, coherence and context.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

^This^

But also, they blur in reality.

Yes! They do, and I wasn't even thinking of that. It's hard to tell sometimes where the metaphorical "pills" end and the literal pills begin.

[Requia ☣]

Um, I think you mean 'behavioral therapy'.

Behaviorists followed a particular theory about human behavior, not therapy (well, Watson did some stuff on phobias).  There aren't really a lot of Behaviorists around anymore either.

</pedant>

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

When I was young, I was a depressive suicidal can of worms with a history that would make most health care professionals cringe, right before they called for backup. Luckily, when I was young, instead of happiness pills, therapy was the norm, and lots of it. I was in intensive therapy under the oversight of a competent psychiatrist, both one on one and group, 2-3 times a week from the time I left home at 18 until I was about 22. Not long after that, happiness pills really hit the scene, and my doctor tried to put me on them. Luckily (or not) the only thing that happened was 1. I started hallucinating, and 2. my libido completely disappeared. So I quit them and went back to therapy.

I suppose I could count the little green pills I've had forever that make me pay attention as happiness pills too, but I actually do find them a useful tool and I implement them when it benefits me, or if it sounds fun.

[LMNO]

Re:OP. If you want to discuss a particular definition, clarify your terms when you start a thread. It's that easy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've been seeing this word a lot, "pills."  By context, it sometimes seems to mean something like those neural skullcaps from The Tripods trilogy.

In my case, it means just what it says:  Pills.  Pills and pills and pills that sometimes interact with each other, and leave me sitting on the side of the road for 2 hours because my Jeep is full of snakes.  

In other peoples' cases, it means food or teevee or church or talk radio.

But for me it's pills.  Lovely little yellow bastards that make me all firm inside, so my guts don't slide out of my ass if I worry too much.  Pills.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

^This^

But also, they blur in reality.

Yes! They do, and I wasn't even thinking of that. It's hard to tell sometimes where the metaphorical "pills" end and the literal pills begin.

It's an irrelevant distinction.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Using pills as treatment is the "final solution" that psychiatrists tend to use. Psychiatrists are close buddies to behaviourists usually.

Why? Because they focus on the superficial symptoms, and not the underlying problems.

If you are depressed... what will you do?

a) Exercise, long walks (biological approach)
b) Take pills (psychiatrical approach)
c) Go to an amusement park or engage in thrill activities (behaviourist approach)
d) Deal with your fucking problems instead of avoiding them

As far as ive seen, its either answer B or C, because its non-interfering with your school/work efficiency and takes less time than D.

Because D is a big pot of chaos which people fear.

B and C are also very status quo related and wouldnt affect it, while D has the potential to do so, because it implies digging for reasons, coherence and context.

Yeah.  Unless you take them because if you don't, your fucking heart will stop, and if you do, you get weird side effects.

But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous judgement.

Prick.

[The Johnny]

I think making his focal interest the definition of pills was tongue in cheek...

And his real point being how people think that pills are "the Man's" way of keeping control over you 

Um, I think you mean 'behavioral therapy'.

Behaviorists followed a particular theory about human behavior, not therapy (well, Watson did some stuff on phobias).  There aren't really a lot of Behaviorists around anymore either.

</pedant>

They actually do therapy, its focused on... changing-what-you-do-so-you-do-better-in-life and goal oriented depending on what the patient says they desire to do... On the matter of how many are dedicated to this field, id say theres way more psychiatrists than behaviourists, but not what percentage are behaviourists...

I suppose I could count the little green pills I've had forever that make me pay attention as happiness pills too, but I actually do find them a useful tool and I implement them when it benefits me, or if it sounds fun.

I personally find it fine to use sleeping pills and for unfixable neurological problems... i sometimes take sleeping pills, when im under pressure, i have a tendency to not be able to sleep... i could take anti-depression pills and be all jiddy all the time, but id rather have a bit of misery in my life so i have some incentive to change it... (of course, if you are suicidally depressed, thats not a good idea)

[The Johnny]

Yeah.  Unless you take them because if you don't, your fucking heart will stop, and if you do, you get weird side effects.

But don't let that get in the way of your self-righteous judgement.

Prick.

Well, you are talking about somatic oriented pills, i was speaking of psychological oriented ones.

Sorry if i came along as "we should not depend on medicine".

Like, depression is that sort of thing that you can live with it, because its just a symptom of usually discomfort with your life. Treating just the symptom works against you in the long-term... For example, when you get the flu, you get symptoms... so if you take pills that kill the symptoms and make you feel ok, then you can go out on about your day as normally, but that will make you more sick, because you are not taking care of your disease.

Then theres diseases that you cannot fix thru personal effort, and you have to depend on medicine. But theres a ton of self prescription going on nowadays that isnt really needed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, you are talking about somatic oriented pills, i was speaking of psychological oriented ones.

I fail to see a difference.  One treats a heart condition, and one treats a brain condition.  You aren't one of those guys who tells depressed people to "just cheer up", are you?

Like, depression is that sort of thing that you can live with it, because its just a symptom of usually discomfort with your life.

Really?  Because as I understand it, it's usually chemically driven.  I mean, I might be wrong, but you don't think it might have occurred to those with chronic depression that they could just smile, fart rainbows, and fix whatever is bugging them?