5 ms·

> I think depression has a similar role. Why? I can't see any basis for your belief other than "it just makes sense to me", which is the epistemology of bloodl

> I think depression has a similar role. Why? I can't see any basis for your belief other than "it just makes sense to me", which is the epistemology of bloodletting and witchburning. Evolutionary just-so stories have been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked that no one thinks they can be evidence for anything. They may be useful motivators for testable ideas, but that's all. So where is your evidence, your clinical studies, your field observations? Anything. You've said that you believe clinical depression--a serious and even deadly disease--is caused by the brain trying to tell you there is something you need to change in your life, and given zero evidence for it. You've barely even motivated it. Under those circumstances, one either has to assume bad faith, or an astonishing level of hubris and myopia. I'd say the person who responded to you was being rather generous, given what you've said is equivalent to, "It just makes sense to me that your cancer is just your body's way of saying that you need to change something important in your life, at least in the cases I've seen." Anecdata ("the cases I've seen") is not evidence for anything, because we all know that humans are terrible observers and prone to confirmation bias and other problematic behaviours, so telling us "no really I saw this!" is not evidence of anything except what a naive observer believes, and again: that kind of thinking is what informed pre-scientific medicine for thousands of years, resulting in a vast amount of misery and very few effective treatments.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- MDCore 11y ago
  There is a lovely quote that I think might apply here: "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers". You're presenting a simple answer to a complex, multi-faceted problem and presenting it without any evidence besides your experience. This problem is also deeply personal and challenging to many people (sometimes life-endingly challenging), but your suggestions are coming off as flippant. If you want to be heard I would suggest presenting scientific evidence, and presenting it gently.
cactusface 11y ago
Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're going to stay depressed, because that kind of treatment makes you feel angry, sad, and ashamed. You can't just reason your way out of it.
- eivarv 11y ago
  Your own thoughts and other people's communication do not have the same effect in the context you're describing. You could agree or disagree with what other people say (or whether it matters), for one, while the unreasonable thoughts and irrational thought patterns associated with depression is part of your own perspective in this case. These negative thoughts are identified by and refuted because of the fact that they are irrational, resulting from erroneous thinking. Also, your own thoughts and beliefs would cause or motivate your emotions, but the external forces you describe would necessarily have to be interpreted by you (i.e. pass through the lens of your thoughts and beliefs). It would not be other the other people's criticism that leads to any emotion, but rather your thoughts about it, according to CBT. Depression (clinical, major depressive disorder) is also something wholly different than feeling angry, sad and ashamed, and is (generally) in fact not a results of bad treatment or other external factors.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cactusface 11y ago
    http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+factors+depression http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+factors+depress...
    - eivarv 11y ago
      I don't know if you've actually read any of the credible results from the google query you link to, but there being environmental factors (including triggers and contributing factors) to depression does not mean that depression is a response to external events in the way that "normal"/healthy emotions are - which is what I'm getting at in the previous comment. You might want to take a look at what the American Psychological Association and the American National Institute of Mental Health have to say about the case [0, 1], the University of Maryland's patient education article [2], Saveanu and Nemeroff's paper "Etiology of depression: genetic and environmental factors" [3], and clinical criteria (like DSM and ICD). [0]: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding-depression.aspx http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding-depression.aspx [1]: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/index.shtml?rf=32471#pub5 http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/index... [2]: http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/depression http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/depression [3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22370490 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22370490
javert 11y ago
Drawing correct conclusions from correctly interpreted personal experience is a lot more important than clinical studies. People brandy about "clinical studies" and "show me the data" constantly, and yet such studies generally are open to interpretation and seem to conflict with one another. If we rejected all other forms of learning, we wouldn't know anything at all. I didn't see the guy's comment (it's deleted now), but the mistake isn't not having a clinical study, it's not correctly interpreting the "data" he has actually seen in real life. In other words, the right policy is actually being rational, and clinical studies cannot replace that. I realize now this is kind of a nit pick/off topic, but I've already typed it so there it is.
- downvotesink 11y ago
  Yes, I deleted all my comments here (under another username), due to the ridiculous responses that it prompted. Sure, I have some personal experience of depression -- both myself and family members. However there is also a lot of evidence behind what I'm saying, namely: - situational depression, which -- as it's title says -- is in fact in response to situations. - situational depression (e.g. bereavement) has been shown to meet all the criteria of clinical/major depression in many cases. My hypothesis simply involved making a small (in my opinion) logical jump to offer a possible explanation for why situational depression exists. Given that the article itself mentioned a number of theories for the evolutionary role of depression, I didn't think mentioning my own theory would start such a firestorm. I think it is logically tenable. What is the reason for the hostility? Are we supposed to write peer-reviewed comments for HN? Is it just that many HN posters exhibit excessive negativity and mispaced arrogance? I've certainly seen a lot of negativity and mispaced arrogance in the past on HN, and a number of times it has made me reconsider whether or not I want to be part of this community. This time I'm getting closer to that decision. It could also be depression itself. As others have noted, sometimes it isn't necessarily the situation that is the problem, but your reaction to events (this is what CBT aims to fix). Perhaps the excessive negativity in HN is what is causing/exacerbating some people's depression? Anyway, I'm not really interested in interacting with idiots (and I'm not referring to you here, javert) who downvote and are overly hostile when people like me share their personal experiences and make general comments on science without posting a frickin peer reviewed paper. Feck that...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

MDCore 11y ago
There is a lovely quote that I think might apply here: "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers". You're presenting a simple answer to a complex, multi-faceted problem and presenting it without any evidence besides your experience. This problem is also deeply personal and challenging to many people (sometimes life-endingly challenging), but your suggestions are coming off as flippant. If you want to be heard I would suggest presenting scientific evidence, and presenting it gently.

cactusface 11y ago

Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're going to stay depressed, because that kind of treatment makes you feel angry, sad, and ashamed. You can't just reason your way out of it.

eivarv 11y ago
Your own thoughts and other people's communication do not have the same effect in the context you're describing. You could agree or disagree with what other people say (or whether it matters), for one, while the unreasonable thoughts and irrational thought patterns associated with depression is part of your own perspective in this case. These negative thoughts are identified by and refuted because of the fact that they are irrational, resulting from erroneous thinking. Also, your own thoughts and beliefs would cause or motivate your emotions, but the external forces you describe would necessarily have to be interpreted by you (i.e. pass through the lens of your thoughts and beliefs). It would not be other the other people's criticism that leads to any emotion, but rather your thoughts about it, according to CBT. Depression (clinical, major depressive disorder) is also something wholly different than feeling angry, sad and ashamed, and is (generally) in fact not a results of bad treatment or other external factors.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cactusface 11y ago
  http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+factors+depression http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+factors+depress...
  - eivarv 11y ago
    I don't know if you've actually read any of the credible results from the google query you link to, but there being environmental factors (including triggers and contributing factors) to depression does not mean that depression is a response to external events in the way that "normal"/healthy emotions are - which is what I'm getting at in the previous comment. You might want to take a look at what the American Psychological Association and the American National Institute of Mental Health have to say about the case [0, 1], the University of Maryland's patient education article [2], Saveanu and Nemeroff's paper "Etiology of depression: genetic and environmental factors" [3], and clinical criteria (like DSM and ICD). [0]: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding-depression.aspx http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding-depression.aspx [1]: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/index.shtml?rf=32471#pub5 http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/index... [2]: http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/depression http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/depression [3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22370490 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22370490

javert 11y ago

Drawing correct conclusions from correctly interpreted personal experience is a lot more important than clinical studies. People brandy about "clinical studies" and "show me the data" constantly, and yet such studies generally are open to interpretation and seem to conflict with one another. If we rejected all other forms of learning, we wouldn't know anything at all. I didn't see the guy's comment (it's deleted now), but the mistake isn't not having a clinical study, it's not correctly interpreting the "data" he has actually seen in real life. In other words, the right policy is actually being rational, and clinical studies cannot replace that. I realize now this is kind of a nit pick/off topic, but I've already typed it so there it is.

downvotesink 11y ago
Yes, I deleted all my comments here (under another username), due to the ridiculous responses that it prompted. Sure, I have some personal experience of depression -- both myself and family members. However there is also a lot of evidence behind what I'm saying, namely: - situational depression, which -- as it's title says -- is in fact in response to situations. - situational depression (e.g. bereavement) has been shown to meet all the criteria of clinical/major depression in many cases. My hypothesis simply involved making a small (in my opinion) logical jump to offer a possible explanation for why situational depression exists. Given that the article itself mentioned a number of theories for the evolutionary role of depression, I didn't think mentioning my own theory would start such a firestorm. I think it is logically tenable. What is the reason for the hostility? Are we supposed to write peer-reviewed comments for HN? Is it just that many HN posters exhibit excessive negativity and mispaced arrogance? I've certainly seen a lot of negativity and mispaced arrogance in the past on HN, and a number of times it has made me reconsider whether or not I want to be part of this community. This time I'm getting closer to that decision. It could also be depression itself. As others have noted, sometimes it isn't necessarily the situation that is the problem, but your reaction to events (this is what CBT aims to fix). Perhaps the excessive negativity in HN is what is causing/exacerbating some people's depression? Anyway, I'm not really interested in interacting with idiots (and I'm not referring to you here, javert) who downvote and are overly hostile when people like me share their personal experiences and make general comments on science without posting a frickin peer reviewed paper. Feck that...