In what sense? You can talk about loci of control but that doesn't make them anymore concrete. Who are you to say that somebody's suicidal thoughts aren't just as much an 'external' locus of control as somebody else's epilepsy? Isn't the notion that these diagnoses are not really biological, not "real" diagnoses, in a sense responsible for pertuating the stigmatization? Like I'm not saying CBT should be thrown out, obviously taking anti-depressives alone might not cure your depression, but while you're talking about "procedural issues", these drugs are helping patients, except when they don't of course, because nothing is perfect and everybody is unique and not everybody responds to drugs the same way, but at least somebody is trying to make products to improve the livelihood of patients, can you believe that?
I just think it's funny/sad that it's become such a popular opinion to hate "big pharma" these days. People sharing stories on facebook about how it's all a big scam and how "natural" plant pills (which you can buy from our 100% natural ayurvedic medicine store) and "mindfulness" cured their depression and what have you.
Well, one, to restate my position, I don't "hate big pharma." I don't "think it's all a scam" or anything like that. What I do think though, is that too often are people handed a hammer, so they start to treat too many problems as if they were nails.
That is not to say that a drug can't work in a given case. Or that it is incorrect to proscribe a drug to address a "problem." What I am saying though, is that, in my opinion, "too often" are drugs a "go-to" option in addressing issues. To go back to what the article (and seemingly to the book too) is talking about, if that if a drug barely beats the placebo effect, we could wonder what it is that it is actually doing. In other words, indeed, that does make me wonder if there might well be a "better way." If a placebo would work
at all, again, what are we really doing with drugs then?
So, no, I am not trying to frame out pharmaceutical companies as some megalithic evil, or any such thing. What I am saying, is that in my opinion, the fact that psychotropic drugs do work for some things, does not preclude that it should work ideally for any psychological problem. But the view that any psychological malady is solely biological misses much the point, to me, and drugging yourself likely will not have the long-term effect one would likely want. Especially not when one likely considers what long-term side effects of escalating drug usage might be.
Does it mean that a non-pharmaceutical approach is always best? Likely not, as you point out, individuals are different. But by the same token, does that mean that a pharmaceutical should be the "default" method of treating any given ailment? Again, by your own point, no, that makes little sense.
So, where does that leave us? My assumption, which could like be wrong, because who the fuck am I, but it would be that more "general anxiety" and "general depression" could be dealt with through a non-pharmaceutical approach, which would avoid the potential harmful side effects and be more successful in the long term, because it does not fall into the sort of habituation that can befall any drugs.
It is, to me, a mistake the even court the idea of a total "biological locus of control" for most cases of general anxiety or depression. Again, this does not preclude that some cases might well feature such a thing. But to default to the idea of that, is, in my opinion, a mistake, because it will tend to inform a lack of agency on the part of the sufferer. Even if they are indeed largely a victim of circumstances outside their control, conceding even the small amount of control they do have, in my opinion, is a massive mistake.
But if you want to take my general position of "pharmaceutical seem likely to be over prescribed vs. methods of non-pharmaceutical intervention" to be a condemnation of "big pharma as evil" well, then so be it. But that is not what I am saying.