3 ms·

There's a strange contradiction in the findings, even just those in the abstract. When they look across individuals and try to predict antidepressant use based

There's a strange contradiction in the findings, even just those in the abstract. When they look across individuals and try to predict antidepressant use based on exposure to woodlands, they find higher use among those who live closer to woodlands. It's only when they look at individual trajectories that they see reduced antidepressant use lining up with periods where they lived closer to woodlands. It's almost like the same type of people who use antidepressants also like to live near woodlands. And they get depressed when they don't live near woodlands.

dmicah 1mo ago
In the abstract they argue that this is because the woodland improvement program located woods in socioeconomically deprived areas. But in general they shouldn't be making any causal claims with observational data like this. It's a frequent problem that popular press takes a study and reframes an association as causation for their story.
galleywest200 1mo ago
Could be that woodlands grow better in areas with more rain and thus less sun and thus more cases of seasonal depression?
- ossicones 1mo ago
  Maybe! But we’d still have to explain why people who live near woodlands take even more antidepressants when they move farther from the woodlands
- metalman 1mo ago
  YES, but NO! forests and grasslands are strictly defined by rainfall. But the Inuit and other polar peoples(mono polar) are known to be perfecly adjusted to living without sunlight OR woodlands and are famous for there good cheer, hospitality, and ability to function under conditions that outsiders are debilitated by. Then there is the Vancouver/seattle stretch where it can rain every day for 100 days strait, and , and, ok it was quite strange, but generaly too agressive to leave room for depression. So, to sum up, life without challenges fought and won is depressing, and facing challenges alone is often overwhelming, so largely the disfunction is stuctural to our society, but indivuals experience the results. Alone in a crowd feelings, but a walk in the woods somehow settles that.

dmicah 1mo ago

In the abstract they argue that this is because the woodland improvement program located woods in socioeconomically deprived areas. But in general they shouldn't be making any causal claims with observational data like this. It's a frequent problem that popular press takes a study and reframes an association as causation for their story.

galleywest200 1mo ago

Could be that woodlands grow better in areas with more rain and thus less sun and thus more cases of seasonal depression?

ossicones 1mo ago
Maybe! But we’d still have to explain why people who live near woodlands take even more antidepressants when they move farther from the woodlands
metalman 1mo ago
YES, but NO! forests and grasslands are strictly defined by rainfall. But the Inuit and other polar peoples(mono polar) are known to be perfecly adjusted to living without sunlight OR woodlands and are famous for there good cheer, hospitality, and ability to function under conditions that outsiders are debilitated by. Then there is the Vancouver/seattle stretch where it can rain every day for 100 days strait, and , and, ok it was quite strange, but generaly too agressive to leave room for depression. So, to sum up, life without challenges fought and won is depressing, and facing challenges alone is often overwhelming, so largely the disfunction is stuctural to our society, but indivuals experience the results. Alone in a crowd feelings, but a walk in the woods somehow settles that.