3 ms·

Interpreting that as “an adaptive response” is ridiculous. An adaptive response “taken too far”, on the other hand, is the very definition of wide swaths of di

by tremon 6y ago

Interpreting that as “an adaptive response” is ridiculous. An adaptive response “taken too far”, on the other hand, is the very definition of wide swaths of disease - autoimmune, cancer, etc. These two statements don't add up for me. If you do accept that various autoimmune disorders and cancers are essentially adaptive responses taken too far, then why can't depression similarly be considered the same? Or is your point that depression is simply an adaptive response, and it's not "taken too far" until people are at the catatonic state?

wittyreference 6y ago
Sorry, your question is fair -- let me elaborate: I feel the OP puts forward two statements, categorizing depression as "adaptive", or "adaptive response taken too far." I wish to address each of these separately. Having seen what these maladies do, I believe that categorizing them as "adaptive" is a position that can only be borne from "have never seen these diseases in their full spectrum, largely responding to mild, layman's-presented versions of them." Separately, addressing the concept of them being "adaptive responses being taken too far," I find essentially tautological. Give me a little leeway to oversimplify when I say that there are two broad categories of disease: exogenous (trauma, infection - things done to us by the external environment) and endogenous (things that occur from dysregulation of human physiology). ((Aside: the above is, like all models, wrong. There are interactions and predispositions between biology, exposure, etc. I aim to use the above to illustrate a point about "adaptive response gone too far", not to overlook the full biopsychosocial model of disease.)) Calling a non-exogenous disease "an adaptive response taken too far" is a tautology. All human physiology arises from homeostasis - it's all "adaptive" in purpose, if not in effect. So all endogenous disease can be described as "adaptive response that is acting maladaptively."
novok 6y ago
You don't have depression if you really hate your job / university degree / sad your mom died, you just hate your job / sad your mom died.

by tremon 6y ago

wittyreference 6y ago

Sorry, your question is fair -- let me elaborate: I feel the OP puts forward two statements, categorizing depression as "adaptive", or "adaptive response taken too far." I wish to address each of these separately. Having seen what these maladies do, I believe that categorizing them as "adaptive" is a position that can only be borne from "have never seen these diseases in their full spectrum, largely responding to mild, layman's-presented versions of them." Separately, addressing the concept of them being "adaptive responses being taken too far," I find essentially tautological. Give me a little leeway to oversimplify when I say that there are two broad categories of disease: exogenous (trauma, infection - things done to us by the external environment) and endogenous (things that occur from dysregulation of human physiology). ((Aside: the above is, like all models, wrong. There are interactions and predispositions between biology, exposure, etc. I aim to use the above to illustrate a point about "adaptive response gone too far", not to overlook the full biopsychosocial model of disease.)) Calling a non-exogenous disease "an adaptive response taken too far" is a tautology. All human physiology arises from homeostasis - it's all "adaptive" in purpose, if not in effect. So all endogenous disease can be described as "adaptive response that is acting maladaptively."

novok 6y ago

You don't have depression if you really hate your job / university degree / sad your mom died, you just hate your job / sad your mom died.