6 ms·

I'm sorry but I take issue with your tone. I've been on around 4 antidepressants since reaching adulthood and I've dome (I'm still somewhat still doing) CBT. I'

I'm sorry but I take issue with your tone. I've been on around 4 antidepressants since reaching adulthood and I've dome (I'm still somewhat still doing) CBT. I'm fine now without further treatment but while I was being treated I must say that the pills work. Some more than others. Some people need them forever and some don't. The point of taking them is to get you motivated and just functional enough to start working out the cause. In my case they gave me just enough energy to get slightly involved in a few things. Those things then snowballed to the point where I didn't need the pills and had other outlets. I still am prone to be depressed far easier and more often than most but the treatment got me to a point where I have the tools lift myself out of it each time despite the fact that depression really is totally crippling and makes you believe there is no solution. I still go to CBT though not often just because I really enjoy it and I get a lot out of it. Even the therapist agrees I'd be fine without it but it makes me happy so I go once or twice a month. Depression is an illness just like addiction or diabetes. I mention addiction because that's another one people like to write off as a moral failing or something that just isn't a real illness. I could be misunderstanding your point but my experience tells me you're wrong on this.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
I'm sorry you dislike my tone. But do you disagree with any of the factual claims I made? If so, which one? From your comment, it sounds as if pills motivated you to try CBT, and then you lifted yourself out of it (via fun or other methods). I.e., you underwent the exact process I described - pills make you happier short term, therapist taught you to solve your own problems long term. I'm also glad that you've also discovered CBT is an enjoyable hobby. Depression is an illness just like addiction or diabetes. I mention addiction because that's another one people like to write off as a moral failing or something that just isn't a real illness. Why do you feel that being an illness and being a moral failing are mutually exclusive? Try reading the lesswrong link I posted. The gist of it is that the label "disease" describes a collection of heterogeneous objects, and drawing implications by analogy to some objects in the collection (e.g. cancer) can give misleading results when applied to other objects in the collection (e.g., drug addiction). Similarly, this claim is an example of the same logical fallacy: "A penguin is a bird, just like a pigeon, therefore it can fly."
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  The thing I really didn't like was how you used the word "fun" as if to minimize the seriousness of the problem. In fact, it came off to me as if you were minimizing the seriousness of depression in general. I could have just taken it that way without you meaning it like that. Your comment about pills also came off as if to say its not a valid solution. Like maybe pills are somehow for the weak or lazy. Honestly, I just really detected a lot of snark in that comment and in this one and I don't know why. You just called my participation in CBT "an enjoyable hobby" like a backhanded compliment. I wouldn't call it a hobby at all. Maybe if you want to get technical and argue semantics a moral failing and disease may not be mutually exclusive. But we're talking about the real world. As it applies to depression and addiction, disease and moral failing are mutually exclusive. People are looked down upon and carry a stigma because so many people want to call it a moral failing. They say "just snap out of it" for depression and they call addicts weak people when the reality is so far from being so black and white. Everyone can pull out studies to discredit the other guy's study that he pulled out. Let's be real when we talk about this stuff and not hide behind studies. Researchers disagree all the time so the best we can do is use our own experience, best judgement, and widely accepted truths to argue our points. At the end of the day I took less issue with your facts than your ton. It just sounded demeaning and like you were minimizing the seriousness of this stuff. Plus there was a bit of snark detected. I don't think I was the only one either. That's all, this isn't a personal attack, man. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    I put "fun" in quotes since I was using the same word tptacek used. I never claimed pills are not a valid solution - in general, have no objection to humans modifying themselves using drugs for any purpose. See here where I defend brain boosting drugs, athletic performance enhancing drugs, and anti-obesity pills: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=389919 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=389919 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3230151 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3230151 I wouldn't call it [CBT] a hobby at all. You said you "...still go to CBT...just because I really enjoy it...Even the therapist agrees I'd be fine without it...". If you don't call such an activity a hobby, what would you call it? Maybe if you want to get technical and argue semantics a moral failing and disease may not be mutually exclusive. But we're talking about the real world. As it applies to depression and addiction, disease and moral failing are mutually exclusive. If you wish to argue that they are not "moral failings", then make such an argument. Define your morality explain why addiction to drugs does not meet your criteria for immorality. For example, I'd argue thusly: "I believe an action is only immoral if it harms another person against their will. Drug addiction/depression does not do this, hence the choice to use and become addicted to drugs is not a moral failing." Don't try to confuse people with logically invalid argument such as "it's an illness, not a moral failing". That's as logically invalid as arguing "penguins are birds, and therefore can fly."

yummyfajitas 15y ago

I'm sorry you dislike my tone. But do you disagree with any of the factual claims I made? If so, which one? From your comment, it sounds as if pills motivated you to try CBT, and then you lifted yourself out of it (via fun or other methods). I.e., you underwent the exact process I described - pills make you happier short term, therapist taught you to solve your own problems long term. I'm also glad that you've also discovered CBT is an enjoyable hobby. Depression is an illness just like addiction or diabetes. I mention addiction because that's another one people like to write off as a moral failing or something that just isn't a real illness. Why do you feel that being an illness and being a moral failing are mutually exclusive? Try reading the lesswrong link I posted. The gist of it is that the label "disease" describes a collection of heterogeneous objects, and drawing implications by analogy to some objects in the collection (e.g. cancer) can give misleading results when applied to other objects in the collection (e.g., drug addiction). Similarly, this claim is an example of the same logical fallacy: "A penguin is a bird, just like a pigeon, therefore it can fly."

billpatrianakos 15y ago
The thing I really didn't like was how you used the word "fun" as if to minimize the seriousness of the problem. In fact, it came off to me as if you were minimizing the seriousness of depression in general. I could have just taken it that way without you meaning it like that. Your comment about pills also came off as if to say its not a valid solution. Like maybe pills are somehow for the weak or lazy. Honestly, I just really detected a lot of snark in that comment and in this one and I don't know why. You just called my participation in CBT "an enjoyable hobby" like a backhanded compliment. I wouldn't call it a hobby at all. Maybe if you want to get technical and argue semantics a moral failing and disease may not be mutually exclusive. But we're talking about the real world. As it applies to depression and addiction, disease and moral failing are mutually exclusive. People are looked down upon and carry a stigma because so many people want to call it a moral failing. They say "just snap out of it" for depression and they call addicts weak people when the reality is so far from being so black and white. Everyone can pull out studies to discredit the other guy's study that he pulled out. Let's be real when we talk about this stuff and not hide behind studies. Researchers disagree all the time so the best we can do is use our own experience, best judgement, and widely accepted truths to argue our points. At the end of the day I took less issue with your facts than your ton. It just sounded demeaning and like you were minimizing the seriousness of this stuff. Plus there was a bit of snark detected. I don't think I was the only one either. That's all, this isn't a personal attack, man. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  I put "fun" in quotes since I was using the same word tptacek used. I never claimed pills are not a valid solution - in general, have no objection to humans modifying themselves using drugs for any purpose. See here where I defend brain boosting drugs, athletic performance enhancing drugs, and anti-obesity pills: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=389919 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=389919 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3230151 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3230151 I wouldn't call it [CBT] a hobby at all. You said you "...still go to CBT...just because I really enjoy it...Even the therapist agrees I'd be fine without it...". If you don't call such an activity a hobby, what would you call it? Maybe if you want to get technical and argue semantics a moral failing and disease may not be mutually exclusive. But we're talking about the real world. As it applies to depression and addiction, disease and moral failing are mutually exclusive. If you wish to argue that they are not "moral failings", then make such an argument. Define your morality explain why addiction to drugs does not meet your criteria for immorality. For example, I'd argue thusly: "I believe an action is only immoral if it harms another person against their will. Drug addiction/depression does not do this, hence the choice to use and become addicted to drugs is not a moral failing." Don't try to confuse people with logically invalid argument such as "it's an illness, not a moral failing". That's as logically invalid as arguing "penguins are birds, and therefore can fly."