5 ms·

Let me just take a moment to register monumentally huge agreement with your modification of the the metaphor at hand. The problem here is that huge numbers of

by Fordrus 11y ago

Let me just take a moment to register monumentally huge agreement with your modification of the the metaphor at hand. The problem here is that huge numbers of other people are living in almost exactly the same circumstances - or ones that are objectively worse - and they register no depression. And here, by objectively worse, we're talking, risk their lives daily on a shoestring lifestyle that barely keeps them from not having a roof over their heads and rice or beans enough not to starve to death. Do those who risk their lives have something the comparatively wealthy depression cases lack? Are the kinds of pressure the relatively wealthy depression cases experience particularly likely to create this kind of response? What's the difference? What's the root cause?! If we had actual, good root causes, then we'd be golden, but the problem, the HUGE PROBLEM that the paradigm espoused in the article faces, is that we DON'T have a kind of 'smoking gun' need that is not being fulfilled for people with depression. MANY, MANY people with deep depression really do have fantastic lives compared to those who suffer no depression- and moreover, admonishing people with depression to 'figure out what need is being unfulfilled in your life, and fill it' is highly toxic advice, at least in its way- based on my experience with depressed individuals, if you effectually tell depressed people to figure out what's wrong in their life and fix it- well, it's one way to obliquely encourage suicide.

danharaj 11y ago
Different people have different needs. There is no standard for what an awesome life is. Having an awesome life in some ways can still be miserable in other ways, and only for particular people. An "fantastic life" where one is depressed is not fantastic. Psychological diversity is a precious resource, and a society that is too inflexible to accommodate those who are particularly sensitive or have exceptionally different needs is a bad society. Depression and anxiety, and a host of other mental disorders for that matter, are an epidemic in too many countries, too many countries that are supposed to have high quality of life. > if you effectually tell depressed people to figure out what's wrong in their life and fix it- well, it's one way to obliquely encourage suicide. Kind of a straw man don't you think?
- Fordrus 11y ago
  No, I don't think it's a straw man at all, I think it's absolutely correct in the sense that severe depression at a clinical level virtually precludes people just "figuring out what they're missing" or excising the things that suck from it - it will feel literally the same as when people assert that those suffering depression need to "buck up and face life." I'm saying that your assertion that it might be a strawman is indicative of a deep, insidious skew to your worldview on the matter - seriously. I think this is all excellent advice for healthy people who have NOT fallen into clinical-level depression, but once depression has asserted itself, this immediately becomes horrible advice that, similar to "just get over it," encourages those who are depressed to take the most direct route to relief of their symptoms (suicide).
  - danharaj 11y ago
    That's not what i meant by straw man. I don't think anyone sympathetic to the idea that depression is strongly related to environmental and lifestyle factors intends the treatment of depression to be to tell the person who is depressed to magically deduce and solve the problems in their life. While your reasoning from your premises are correct i don't think the position you've described is the one proposed in this submission. That's what i mean by straw man.
    - Fordrus 11y ago
      That seems reasonable, but I'm left wondering what else I can reasonably draw from the article- if we present depression as a reasonable response of our inherent psychology that's attempting to induce us to change, what block can I place in the logic chain that prevents me from therefore automatically asserting that those suffering from depression should therefore "find out what's causing their depression and relieve it?" I mean, I'm all for exploring the issue from many perspectives, and I don't intend the 'oblique suicide' remark as a condemnation of this line of discussion, I intend it as a condemnation of the natural conclusion of this line of thinking - that is to say, unless we add at least some minor caveat (I didn't see it, did I do a reading comprehension fail, perhaps?) that "this is discussion NOT for people suffering from depression but for their doctors and psychologists, we're just exploring possibilities, here, people!" Or is this position not asserting that the 'cure' for depression is to find out what's wrong in your life and fix it? I mean, that's absolutely what I took from it, was I wrong in that? If that's the position in the article, is there some piece I'm missing that will prevent me from 'strawmanning' the author? I guess, for now, I just have to assert that leveling a devastating criticism at a position - "this is tantamount to obliquely encouraging suicide" - that's not always strawmanning, sometimes it's just spot- on criticism. I suppose I ought to be another read-through to be certain, but I'll probably try to move on, for now- I just have to assert that I think my understanding of the author's position and my reasoning from these premises- I do think they lead to exactly the place I've described. I still don't think that makes anyone evil in this discussion, but I do assert that it may well make them wrong at a deep, potentially axiomatic, level. I appreciate the opportunity for discussion, even if I disagree very strongly with the positions presented. :)
_archon_ 11y ago
I propose the following: Why not slightly change the >'figure out what need is being unfulfilled in your life, and fill it' ...and amend it to read: >'figure out (through a well-defined, detailed, objective process with the help of your psych(olog/ichiatr)ist [I'm not a medical human]) if there is a need that's being unfulfilled in your life, and make a plan to incrementally, sustainably fill it' That changes the nature of the argument significantly. I propose that this may be a valuable line of inquiry to take before/during pharmacological treatment.

by Fordrus 11y ago

danharaj 11y ago

Different people have different needs. There is no standard for what an awesome life is. Having an awesome life in some ways can still be miserable in other ways, and only for particular people. An "fantastic life" where one is depressed is not fantastic. Psychological diversity is a precious resource, and a society that is too inflexible to accommodate those who are particularly sensitive or have exceptionally different needs is a bad society. Depression and anxiety, and a host of other mental disorders for that matter, are an epidemic in too many countries, too many countries that are supposed to have high quality of life. > if you effectually tell depressed people to figure out what's wrong in their life and fix it- well, it's one way to obliquely encourage suicide. Kind of a straw man don't you think?

Fordrus 11y ago
No, I don't think it's a straw man at all, I think it's absolutely correct in the sense that severe depression at a clinical level virtually precludes people just "figuring out what they're missing" or excising the things that suck from it - it will feel literally the same as when people assert that those suffering depression need to "buck up and face life." I'm saying that your assertion that it might be a strawman is indicative of a deep, insidious skew to your worldview on the matter - seriously. I think this is all excellent advice for healthy people who have NOT fallen into clinical-level depression, but once depression has asserted itself, this immediately becomes horrible advice that, similar to "just get over it," encourages those who are depressed to take the most direct route to relief of their symptoms (suicide).
- danharaj 11y ago
  That's not what i meant by straw man. I don't think anyone sympathetic to the idea that depression is strongly related to environmental and lifestyle factors intends the treatment of depression to be to tell the person who is depressed to magically deduce and solve the problems in their life. While your reasoning from your premises are correct i don't think the position you've described is the one proposed in this submission. That's what i mean by straw man.
  - Fordrus 11y ago
    That seems reasonable, but I'm left wondering what else I can reasonably draw from the article- if we present depression as a reasonable response of our inherent psychology that's attempting to induce us to change, what block can I place in the logic chain that prevents me from therefore automatically asserting that those suffering from depression should therefore "find out what's causing their depression and relieve it?" I mean, I'm all for exploring the issue from many perspectives, and I don't intend the 'oblique suicide' remark as a condemnation of this line of discussion, I intend it as a condemnation of the natural conclusion of this line of thinking - that is to say, unless we add at least some minor caveat (I didn't see it, did I do a reading comprehension fail, perhaps?) that "this is discussion NOT for people suffering from depression but for their doctors and psychologists, we're just exploring possibilities, here, people!" Or is this position not asserting that the 'cure' for depression is to find out what's wrong in your life and fix it? I mean, that's absolutely what I took from it, was I wrong in that? If that's the position in the article, is there some piece I'm missing that will prevent me from 'strawmanning' the author? I guess, for now, I just have to assert that leveling a devastating criticism at a position - "this is tantamount to obliquely encouraging suicide" - that's not always strawmanning, sometimes it's just spot- on criticism. I suppose I ought to be another read-through to be certain, but I'll probably try to move on, for now- I just have to assert that I think my understanding of the author's position and my reasoning from these premises- I do think they lead to exactly the place I've described. I still don't think that makes anyone evil in this discussion, but I do assert that it may well make them wrong at a deep, potentially axiomatic, level. I appreciate the opportunity for discussion, even if I disagree very strongly with the positions presented. :)

_archon_ 11y ago

I propose the following: Why not slightly change the >'figure out what need is being unfulfilled in your life, and fill it' ...and amend it to read: >'figure out (through a well-defined, detailed, objective process with the help of your psych(olog/ichiatr)ist [I'm not a medical human]) if there is a need that's being unfulfilled in your life, and make a plan to incrementally, sustainably fill it' That changes the nature of the argument significantly. I propose that this may be a valuable line of inquiry to take before/during pharmacological treatment.