3 ms·

I realize that. My point was that when the source of the depression is primarily biochemical/physiological in nature, that no matter how good the person's life

by rl3 11y ago

I realize that. My point was that when the source of the depression is primarily biochemical/physiological in nature, that no matter how good the person's life is, or how well they apply emotional techniques, it can still cripple them.

cpncrunch 11y ago
How do you tell the difference?
- rl3 11y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761938 Perhaps they can provide some insight as to how.
tomhoward 11y ago
no matter how good the person's life is I think the mistake here is to assume that a privileged life is a good life. All the comments here that say things like "they had plenty of money, good looks, great career etc but were crippled by depression" make that mistake.
- rl3 11y ago
  I wasn't equating good with privileged. I'm well aware people can be completely miserable for any number of legitimate reasons regardless. If there's biological factors working against a person harder than any emotional/environmental/life changes can correct for, then those techniques are ultimately rendered inadequate.
  - tomhoward 11y ago
    OK, but my point is that that's an invalid way to think about it. The biological factors are symbiotic with the environmental factors. One does not function in isolation from the other. If your biology is preventing you from enjoying your supposedly "good" life, you don't really have a good life at all. Depression is one way in which the mind signals that. The way to have a life that is actually good is to bring your environment and your biology into balance. Such techniques exist and are highly effective for people who are fortunate enough to be able to discover and adopt them (of whom I'm one). That they're not widely accepted in the mainstream doesn't diminish from their existence or their effectiveness. As I've said earlier, I understand your point of view as it's one I held for a long time. Since I learned the way of thinking about it that I've been arguing here, I've been able to take meaningful action that has allowed me to overcome depression and build a life that is actually good rather than just appearing good (both to outsiders and to my delusional self). Anyway, I won't be responding further; you've made your point well, I've made mine and I hope my comments have helped you to clarify your own thinking, as yours have mine. Thank you for the discussion, it's an important issue that I appreciate people making the effort to engage in.
    - rl3 11y ago
      >The biological factors are symbiotic with the environmental factors. One does not function in isolation from the other. If your biology is preventing you from enjoying your supposedly "good" life, you don't really have a good life at all. Agreed. To note I had originally phrased it as an "otherwise fantastic life" but it kind of turned into a semantics argument. >The way to have a life that is actually good is to bring your environment and your biology into balance. My position wasn't that environmental or emotional techniques are ineffective, just that sometimes they're inadequate in face of overwhelming biological factors, necessitating biological intervention as well. But hey—I think we're finally in agreement. >Since I learned the way of thinking about it that I've been arguing here, I've been able to take meaningful action ... That's great. Please don't take what I said as an indictment or assault against what works for you, I certainly didn't mean it that way. >Anyway, I won't be responding further; you've made your point well, I've made mine and I hope my comments have helped you to clarify your own thinking, as yours have mine. Thank you for the discussion, it's an important issue that I appreciate people making the effort to engage in. Likewise. Have a good one. :)

by rl3 11y ago

cpncrunch 11y ago

How do you tell the difference?

rl3 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10762457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761938 Perhaps they can provide some insight as to how.

tomhoward 11y ago

no matter how good the person's life is I think the mistake here is to assume that a privileged life is a good life. All the comments here that say things like "they had plenty of money, good looks, great career etc but were crippled by depression" make that mistake.

rl3 11y ago
I wasn't equating good with privileged. I'm well aware people can be completely miserable for any number of legitimate reasons regardless. If there's biological factors working against a person harder than any emotional/environmental/life changes can correct for, then those techniques are ultimately rendered inadequate.
- tomhoward 11y ago
  OK, but my point is that that's an invalid way to think about it. The biological factors are symbiotic with the environmental factors. One does not function in isolation from the other. If your biology is preventing you from enjoying your supposedly "good" life, you don't really have a good life at all. Depression is one way in which the mind signals that. The way to have a life that is actually good is to bring your environment and your biology into balance. Such techniques exist and are highly effective for people who are fortunate enough to be able to discover and adopt them (of whom I'm one). That they're not widely accepted in the mainstream doesn't diminish from their existence or their effectiveness. As I've said earlier, I understand your point of view as it's one I held for a long time. Since I learned the way of thinking about it that I've been arguing here, I've been able to take meaningful action that has allowed me to overcome depression and build a life that is actually good rather than just appearing good (both to outsiders and to my delusional self). Anyway, I won't be responding further; you've made your point well, I've made mine and I hope my comments have helped you to clarify your own thinking, as yours have mine. Thank you for the discussion, it's an important issue that I appreciate people making the effort to engage in.
  - rl3 11y ago
    >The biological factors are symbiotic with the environmental factors. One does not function in isolation from the other. If your biology is preventing you from enjoying your supposedly "good" life, you don't really have a good life at all. Agreed. To note I had originally phrased it as an "otherwise fantastic life" but it kind of turned into a semantics argument. >The way to have a life that is actually good is to bring your environment and your biology into balance. My position wasn't that environmental or emotional techniques are ineffective, just that sometimes they're inadequate in face of overwhelming biological factors, necessitating biological intervention as well. But hey—I think we're finally in agreement. >Since I learned the way of thinking about it that I've been arguing here, I've been able to take meaningful action ... That's great. Please don't take what I said as an indictment or assault against what works for you, I certainly didn't mean it that way. >Anyway, I won't be responding further; you've made your point well, I've made mine and I hope my comments have helped you to clarify your own thinking, as yours have mine. Thank you for the discussion, it's an important issue that I appreciate people making the effort to engage in. Likewise. Have a good one. :)