are observable and are correlated with mood. They are thought to play a role in mood regulation, but that's about as far as our current understanding stretches.
As in any complex system, playing with these variables will have an effect. All this says is that you are interfering with the normal functioning of the system, not that these variables are of fundamental importance to how the system works.
My processor is generating a lot of heat right now, and if I alter its ability to get rid of that heat, by switching the fan off or fitting a more powerful one, this will have a consequent effect on the processor's ability to perform computations.
Is heat then fundamental to how the processor performs computations? No, although it will have a mention in any explanation of how the whole system works.
Ditto for neurotransmitters. They're the most measurable things we have right now, and will be involved in subsequent explanations, but at this stage we are rather like a civilization discovering a running processor with no prior knowledge as to how it works, chattering about the heat as if that were any kind of explanation at all.
So, basically: we'd get nowhere talking about brain chemistry, because none of us can possibly know any more than the experts, who will happily admit the fledgling nature of neuroscience as regards these questions.
(the rest of this would have been better as a top-level comment, not directed at your comment in particular)
The studies you mention are far more likely to be related to cognition: in particular, things such as "explanatory style" and cognitive strategies: broadly speaking, "optimism" and "pessimism". The "sad" ones see problems as permanent ("This is going to go on forever"), personal ("This sort of thing always happens to me") and pervasive ("Everything's going wrong"); the "happy" ones see problems and setbacks as temporary ("This'll be sorted out soon"), impersonal ("Could have happened to anyone") and specific ("It's only a swollen testicle. Everything else is peachy").
The optimists live longer, have fewer health problems, bounce back from setbacks and disappointments quicker, do better financially, seem immune to depression, are happier (hence the observation of "happy brain chemistry": correlation not cause)... Someone like Martin Seligman is probably the best place to start if anyone wants to track down the glut of hard research on this stuff.. it's turned into a very active research area of psychology over the past decade.. and of course in abnormal psychology, the current trend for "cognitive behavioural" explanations, key plank of which is that depressives, even mild ones like the article author, are certainly more "distorting" of external reality than just about anyone else..
Both strategies are equally "accurate", because they only "distort" things which are under personal control: the optimist is accurate in believing he will succeed because his strategy almost guarantees his eventual success; the pessimist is accurate in predicting he will never win because his strategy prevents him from even trying. Neither require distortion of external facts, and where facts about how we will act are concerned, distortion is not an issue because such beliefs act as self-fulfilling prophecies and are inherently self-validating...
So they are both adaptive: ironically, it's pessimism which is seen as an effective defence mechanism in current psychology (it shields you from the risk of failure, which is a consolation of sorts), and is speculated elsewhere (evolutionary psychologists?) to have been a useful trait during catastrophic climactic conditions (the last major Ice Age in particular).
And neither are incompatible with an accurate assessment of the external facts. One's attitude is intentional, it shapes the values and the meanings and the subjective responses we attach to the otherwise value-free facts of external reality (Wittgenstein: "the world of the happy man is quite different from that of the unhappy man", Tractatus section 6?, any of the phenomenologists, existentialists, bits of Searle?, the joy and value-creation of Nietzsche despite having possibly the bleakest view of the facts around him of anyone in his century..) and is a matter of choice and should therefore be chosen to suit one's taste and situation ("In turbulent and perilous times, one should be a Stoic, in times of peace and plenty and in temperate zones an Epicurean" - Nietzsche, the Ghey Science? but add to that, "And under no circumstances a humourless cunt, because what good has ever come of that?")
TRY READING THAT, BITCHES!
[ Parent ]