5 ms·

I don't disagree in principle with the idea that the physical aspects of/influences on depression are worth studying. I do, however, think the overall approach

I don't disagree in principle with the idea that the physical aspects of/influences on depression are worth studying. I do, however, think the overall approach we are taking towards depression as a society is fundamentally backwards. We have a massive industry that is focused around producing psychiatric medication so that people can more effectively operate in the society we've structured around them, but we didn't even stop to consider the idea that maybe it is the systems we've built around them that are pathological in themselves. We have this basic notion that if someone doesn't fit in with this social mold we've built that it must be a fault in them, it must be a sickness they suffer from that prevents them from thriving in the ways we expect them to. But why are we not asking ourselves whether the square hole that we are trying to shove their round peg into isn't the problem in itself? Why do we think we are helpless to change things on a systemic level? We grate against the idea that the world we've built might be a bad fit for us, and not the other way around. Instead, we have pathologized what is an entirely natural reaction to the world people live in. We think we need medication to make humans fit better into this system, but really it is the system that is failing us. We built this world for us to live in, why did we make it so incredibly hostile to human happiness?

sooheon 7y ago
I think this is essentially a complaint that the study does not share your political topspin. I pretty much agree with the view that depression is a holistic problem, and the causes run deep. Treating the symptom is not likely to be a cure for the systemic disease. But you can't dismiss scientific findings because they don't exactly share your ideological diagnosis.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  For the record, I'm not dismissing them at all, I'm putting forth a hypothesis regarding them. My "political topspin" here is informed by the study, my main point of contention regards the interpretation of the direction these results are pointing in and where future research and resources should lie. I think investing in air filters is a silly approach to this problem if you're looking at root causes. Restructuring our economy to be friendlier to workers and their environment is a comparatively monumental task, but it's actually tackling both problems at their more fundamental causes.
  - sooheon 7y ago
    > I think investing in air filters is a silly approach to this problem The problem of air pollution and the problem of the fucked up society we live in are not identical in scope. You can't dismiss the solution to the smaller problem for not solving the larger one. If living in a smog filled city is affecting my health, I will invest in air filters and masks before I invest in societal change that will change the way the world does business. I can do one in an afternoon, and the other is an unbounded task. We should be able to tackle problems at large and in the small simultaneously, but your position strikes me as all or nothing in the sense that nothing but your exact prescription will do. Given A: fucked up society, B: air pollution, C: depression, the world is probably a cyclical graph between all three. You are denying that B and C could be connected, just because you think A is such a huge problem. This is putting the blinders on against evidence for political reasons.

sooheon 7y ago

I think this is essentially a complaint that the study does not share your political topspin. I pretty much agree with the view that depression is a holistic problem, and the causes run deep. Treating the symptom is not likely to be a cure for the systemic disease. But you can't dismiss scientific findings because they don't exactly share your ideological diagnosis.

aalleavitch 7y ago
For the record, I'm not dismissing them at all, I'm putting forth a hypothesis regarding them. My "political topspin" here is informed by the study, my main point of contention regards the interpretation of the direction these results are pointing in and where future research and resources should lie. I think investing in air filters is a silly approach to this problem if you're looking at root causes. Restructuring our economy to be friendlier to workers and their environment is a comparatively monumental task, but it's actually tackling both problems at their more fundamental causes.
- sooheon 7y ago
  > I think investing in air filters is a silly approach to this problem The problem of air pollution and the problem of the fucked up society we live in are not identical in scope. You can't dismiss the solution to the smaller problem for not solving the larger one. If living in a smog filled city is affecting my health, I will invest in air filters and masks before I invest in societal change that will change the way the world does business. I can do one in an afternoon, and the other is an unbounded task. We should be able to tackle problems at large and in the small simultaneously, but your position strikes me as all or nothing in the sense that nothing but your exact prescription will do. Given A: fucked up society, B: air pollution, C: depression, the world is probably a cyclical graph between all three. You are denying that B and C could be connected, just because you think A is such a huge problem. This is putting the blinders on against evidence for political reasons.