Why all the depression?

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;163505 wrote:

I think it's a good question. Benny, I doubt there is a rational reason for being depressed. But probably there are rational explanations for why people act irrationally. People tend to think irrationally, and chemical imbalances can aggravate or cause that.

True, but why the commonplace overall conclusion that life is so bad?

@BennySquire,

BennySquire;163525 wrote:

True, but why the commonplace overall conclusion that life is so bad?

If you are unhappy all the time, life is bad for you. Jumping from that to "life as a whole is bad" is not rational, but often the thoughts making people unhappy are not rational either, and so it isn't surprising that they leap to that conclusion.

@Jebediah,

Depressive realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;163527 wrote:

Depressive realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I argued about this with someone on this forum before. I don't know what your argument behind this link is so I may strawman you here.

The anomaly of depressive realism comes from a study of somewhat depressed patients who were more accurate in saying how under their control a lightbulb was. This is an anomaly, because depressed people have been known to be overly negative. Common things like, taking a comment as criticism when it isn't, thinking someone is laughing at them when they aren't, thinking they are fat and ugly when they aren't, thinking that they are no good, and that life is bleak and everything is their fault, when none of that is true.

The studies on depressive realism don't deal with that kind of thinking though--they deal with things like how in control of a lightbulb you are. Perhaps it is true that happy people tend towards optimism on things like "how good looking am I", and depressed people don't. However, "depressive realism" as it has been referenced on this forum and in the few news articles, is proposed as a kind of "depressed people are more realistic and rationaly, happy people are totally deluding themselves". Using it in this way is ironically irrational. If I recall correctly, when researchers have studied the prediction of meaningful life events rather than things like lightbulbs, the result has been that depressed people are actually more optimistic than the nondepressed.

I'm certainly not a psychology expert, but I think we ought to at least make an effort to see which way the evidence we can find points.

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;163527 wrote:

Depressive realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, but what are you trying to prove?

EDIT: Sorry, bit late how to delete?

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;163554 wrote:

[...] depressed people have been known to be overly negative.

No question there; indeed, that statement ought to be a virtual tautology.

Jebediah;163554 wrote:

Common things like, taking a comment as criticism when it isn't, thinking someone is laughing at them when they aren't, thinking they are fat and ugly when they aren't, thinking that they are no good, and that life is bleak and everything is their fault, when none of that is true.

A serious philosophical question I was going to put in this thread was: according to what conception of 'reason' is it 'rational' to think of oneself as worth something, and 'irrational' to think of oneself as worthless?

Jebediah;163554 wrote:

The studies on depressive realism don't deal with that kind of thinking though [...]

I don't have references, but the first such study I recall reading about concerned interpersonal observations made by depressed and non-depressed people at a simulation of a dinner party, or something like that - I'm sorry I don't know any details, but it didn't concern only judgements about trivial or impersonal matters.

@BennySquire,

BennySquire;163437 wrote:

Since I started Sixth Form a lot of my friends' personalities seem to have diminished and everyone in general seems less communicative and happy than in the previous year. Why do you think this is? I assume it is mainly the pressure of work, but I heard some of my friends saying that they do not feel invincible anymore (there have become aware that they will die) - could this be the reason?

In general why do so many people think "life is s***"? Do they not realise how utterly unlikely it is that they are alive at all - and that death is nothing to fear, just 'non-existence', which the human brain cannot comprehend anyway? It seems so irrational and pointless to me!

I think you have a good attitude on the matter. In my opinion, a rational person can still fear death as the loss of all that's good in life. But this fear is presumably less than the fear of something like hell-fire or other notions.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------

I should add that there have been times in my life where I thought that life was ****! I was wrestling with some heavy issues, and I don't think it's all that strange, really, if one is aware of the uglier bits. Ah, those early stormy relationships, where no one knows who they are or what they really want yet. All that confusion. Youth is tough. Still, I now can only emphasize that I sure don't want to die! Pain is a teacher. Right? Well, lesson learned, Life. Now just give me another decade...or two..or three...

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;163556 wrote:

No question there; indeed, that statement ought to be a virtual tautology.

A serious philosophical question I was going to put in this thread was: according to what conception of 'reason' is it 'rational' to think of oneself as worth something, and 'irrational' to think of oneself as worthless?

Who is worthless? Certainly not many of the people with depression.

Quote:

I don't have references, but the first such study I recall reading about concerned interpersonal observations made by depressed and non-depressed people at a simulation of a dinner party, or something like that - I'm sorry I don't know any details, but it didn't concern only judgements about trivial or impersonal matters.

That's interesting because it's very counter-intuitive, as described. The depressed people I've known take things not intended to be criticism, and which shouldn't be criticism too harshly. They are much more sensitive to seeing it. Most likely they would notice more criticism than a happy person, and thus "score higher".

People who are depressed are more likely to scrutinize the details of the interaction I imagine. So depending on what you are measuring, they would score higher. It's like the suggestion that depressed people rate their own attractiveness more accurately, and are therefore more realistic and rational (implied). Most likely people who worry about their appearance have spent a lot of time comparing themselves to others--but that very action is not rational. It places too much importance on appearance.

The whole thing to me seems like observing that people who are cripplingly self conscious when giving public speeches are "more aware".

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;163653 wrote:

Who is worthless? Certainly not many of the people with depression.

I thought it would be obvious to everybody that a sense of personal worthlessness is a central defining feature - I would even like to say it is the central defining feature (but that might be overstating it) - of depression.

With that being taken as read, I was asking what concept of reason is presupposed by the opinion that it is 'irrational' to believe oneself to be a worthless person, and 'rational' to believe oneself to be a valuable person.

(In case of misunderstanding: this is not meant as a rhetorical question!)

To put it more crisply: what is the ground for your use of the word 'certainly' here?

(It's all a bit tangential to the OP, so I'm trying not to go into it too deeply - especially as this is such an important topic for me, on which I hope to have quite a lot to say, eventually, and if I can't go into it properly, it is better not to say very much - but this question of what is regarded as 'rational' or 'irrational' is a general philosophical question, which can be isolated from the topic of depression considered as an illness, and also has considerable relevance to the OP, I think.)

(A further tangential question, and one much less relevant to the OP, is: exactly when is such 'irrationality' deemed to be caused by a 'chemical imbalance'; and what are the grounds for this inference from perceived irrationality to hypothetical and unobservable unbalanced brain chemistry?)

And in direct response to the OP: surely the best people to explain why your friends are depressed are your friends themselves? What happens when you try to talk to them about this subject?

@Jebediah,

Depressive Realism is a pretty outlandish school of thought. Taken from the wiki page: "Depressive realism is the proposition that people with depression actually have a more accurate perception of reality, specifically that they are less affected by positive illusions of illusory superiority, the illusion of control and optimism bias. The concept refers to people with borderline or moderate depression, suggesting that while normal people see things in an overly positive light and severely depressed people see things in overly negative light, the mildly discontented grey area in between in fact reflects the most accurate perception of reality."

What on earth constitutes an accurate perception of reality? At best we would say that an accurate perception of reality is the one that best aligns with the social collective's perception of reality, which would mean that the larger part of our world is moderately depressed. But that doesn't really tell us much about ourselves that we didn't already know.

In any case, to answer the OP, as we get older we take on more and more of the burden that is associated with being a member of a global or national community. There is a period there when we become unsure of ourselves, our capabilities, and our worth in general. Acclamation is almost always an uncomfortable process, which likely leads to the depression you're discussing.

Also boredom. When people are bored they start to ponder the world and fall into the traps of existentialism.

@Rwa001,

Rwa001;163669 wrote:

At best we would say that an accurate perception of reality is the one that best aligns with the social collective's perception of reality [...]

God help us! :eeek:

Or, as this is a philosophical forum:

'... Discuss.'

@Jebediah,

I will say again it is information influx and out-pour.
It is existential angst at being told so many different ways of living and being we end up wanting nothing more than to close our eyes and not to have to exist.

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;163664 wrote:

To put it more crisply: what is the ground for your use of the word 'certainly' here?

(It's all a bit tangential to the OP, so I'm trying not to go into it too deeply - especially as this is such an important topic for me, on which I hope to have quite a lot to say, eventually, and if I can't go into it properly, it is better not to say very much - but this question of what is regarded as 'rational' or 'irrational' is a general philosophical question, which can be isolated from the topic of depression considered as an illness, and also has considerable relevance to the OP, I think.)

For example, someone who is loved by their family is not worthless. They are worth something to their family. And almost everyone has a family.

Someone who has the capacity to enjoy life and share that enjoyment with others is not worthless--because that is worth something. And almost everyone has that capacity.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;163681 wrote:

For example, someone who is loved by their family is not worthless. They are worth something to their family. And almost everyone has a family.

What ground is there for believing that the family cannot be mistaken in judging one of its members not to be worthless?

If the family judges that one of its members is worthless, can it still not be mistaken?

Can reason be applied to such judgements at all?

(Again: not a rhetorical question!)

Jebediah;163681 wrote:

Someone who has the capacity to enjoy life and share that enjoyment with others is not worthless--because that is worth something. And almost everyone has that capacity.

And those who do not, should they conclude that their unhappiness and loneliness makes them worthless, or should they find some other ground for a sense of self-worth, and if so, what might an example of such a ground be?

(Apologies to the OP - and to myself! - for pursuing this tangent.)

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;163686 wrote:

What ground is there for believing that the family cannot be mistaken in judging one of its members not to be worthless?

If the family judges that one of its members is worthless, can it still not be mistaken?

Can reason be applied to such judgements at all?

(Again: not a rhetorical question!)

If you like someone, they are not worthless. Liking someone makes them not worthless, by definition.

Quote:

And those who do not, should they conclude that their unhappiness and loneliness makes them worthless, or should they find some other ground for a sense of self-worth, and if so, what might an example of such a ground be?

(Apologies to the OP - and to myself! - for pursuing this tangent.)

They should not extrapolate future impossibility from present time absence.

I would think people could be worth something to themselves too, regardless of other people. Even if it doesn't seem that way to them at the time.

@Jebediah,

(These are deep matters, and I apologise for putting you on the spot like this - one of my excuses being that I put myself on the spot too.)

Jebediah;163695 wrote:

If you like someone, they are not worthless. Liking someone makes them not worthless, by definition.

[...]

They should not extrapolate future impossibility from present time absence.

I would think people could be worth something to themselves too, regardless of other people. Even if it doesn't seem that way to them at the time.

You appear to be arguing that a rational person should form an opinion of their worth by taking into account the opinions of their worth held by others; however, when those others are unfortunately indifferent, or merely absent, or hold actively negative opinions of their worth, then they should discount that present indifference or absence or hostility, and instead derive a sense of their own personal worth from an expectation - based on what? - of encountering in the future some other others (so to speak!) who will (apparently!) hold a positive opinion of their worth.

However - as if aware of the seeming inconsistency of such a procedure - you also appear to be hedging your bets by advising that a person should also have access to some more direct sense of their own worth, without requiring other human beings as intermediaries in this validation.

Is that a fair paraphrase?

If so, I have the impression that this is not what I (or any other rational person!) would call a 'rational' way of forming an impression of one's own worth as a person.

However, as I have indicated, I am not at all clear how one goes about applying 'reason' in this area at all (in particular, is it begging a question to use the word 'opinion' as I have been doing here?); and I don't think anyone else is very clear about it either; so I suppose it is permissible for us all to flounder about in these deep waters for a while - and try not to drag one another under!

What you say - all of it - appears to make a kind of sense, on the assumption that a person has direct access to his or her own self as an object, and that others have access to the same object (either by similar or different means), and that self and others can all potentially collaborate in the assignment of a value to the self as object.

And such a picture of the situation also appears to be in accord with common sense.

I might be mistaken about my worth; and someone else, possessed of a more accurate perception of the truth, might help me to correct my mistake. That seems to make sense.

[Footnote: The same comment might also apply to narcissism or mania - either involving an 'unrealistic' or 'irrational' high sense of one's own worth - or any other 'mental disturbance', but let's please stick to the case of depression for the time being, to avoid overcomplicating what is already highly complicated.]

But all personal judgements are notoriously subjective. Judgements of persons in respect of being [un]likeable or [un]lovable or worthy or worthless are perhaps the most subjective of all (compared, say, even to moral or aesthetic judgements) - to the extent that few people, if any, dare to consider them as having any objective content at all - i.e. it is nonsensical to describe them as 'opinions', as I have been doing.

Also, the concept of the self as an object to itself is highly obscure, perhaps even paradoxical.

So it is highly dubious whether this appealing vision of commonsense realism can be applied to the situation of a self and others judging the worth of that self.

Nevertheless, the situation of a self judging itself to be totally worthless, occurs - very frequently, and with devastating results (including death).

And surely something ought to be done to help, in such sad cases.

Since reason and commonsense realism seem rather shaky, as tools to use in working on such a situation, one is tempted to abandon them altogether, and perhaps leap to the conclusion that, in all such cases as are too extreme for common sense to muddle through, perhaps an expert in brain chemistry and drug effects, who is presumably also an expert in how the brain works - or perhaps alternatively an expert in the mysterious workings of the Unconscious Mind, or perhaps a witch doctor - should be called in, to work his or her magic, directly upon the brain (or on the Superego and Ego and Id, or Life Instinct and Death Instinct, or the demon possession, or whatever).

And perhaps one should call in the self-described experts. Who would actually dare not to, and perhaps risk a death?

(Also, we know that the brain is in there - and that it has something very much to do with the mind, although it is the mind whose disturbance is directly known to us - so perhaps the brain-doctors should have first call.)

But surely one should be clear as to the reason for doing so. And the reason would appear to be the failure of an entire philosophical picture of the situation - the situation, not only of an extremely depressed and perhaps suicidal person, but of anyone attempting to form an assessment of their own personal worth.

Is it rational to call in doctors (or mysterious psychological gurus) to handle particularly extreme individual cases, when we do not have a clear intellectual picture of even the simplest and most routine and everyday cases? Can we really say we know what we are doing when we do that?

Does it make sense - when a case arises, which, like a natural 'experiment', is extreme enough to cast doubt on our normal conceptions of self and other - to simply stop thinking in terms of minds at all, and to take drastic physical action upon the brain associated with the mind which seems not to like itself nearly enough (and even to hate itself, perhaps to death)?

Oughtn't we at least to have a theory as to what the problem is, before defining the very problem itself in terms of what some self-described expert tells us is a necessary, drastic attempt at a physical solution? (One which, moreover, happens to be highly profitable to the mega-rich drug companies who sponsor most of the research.)

What would Socrates say?

I've asked a lot of questions here (I hope it is clear that they are not solely addressed to Jebediah, and I apologise again for their merely tangential relevance to the OP), but what I would most like us to concentrate upon is the belief that it is somehow 'rational' to have a good opinion of oneself, and 'irrational' not to.

It is certainly desirable to have a good opinion of oneself - to the extent that lacking such an opinion can even make life absolutely impossible - but why do people describe this desirable (even essential) state as a form of 'rationality'?

Is this use of language related to what I called the "commonsense realist" picture of relations between self and others? If not, then what?

And if it is, then why is a positive outcome of this process of self-evaluation deemed to be the only 'rational' outcome, when more generally, in this sort of "commonsense realist" collaboration in making a judgement, it is actually deemed highly irrational to require a specified outcome in advance?

(OK, I didn't mean to write at nearly such length about this - as I am only gathering my thoughts, over a period of years, and am not yet nearly ready to put forward any actual theory - but I seem to have fallen into doing so, and can only hope that this contributes to the discussion. If not, sorry!)

@Twirlip,

"Worth" is certainly a bit vague. Obviously, my organs would sell for something on the black market. I have some money in the bank, etc.

Let's take a case study--a high school girl with anorexia (I pick this because it is much more specific than depression--there are still many different causes of anorexia which I don't know the details of and won't deal with here, mind you). We'll pick one who measures her worth by how thin she is, and so hardly eats anything. I would say that is a bad standard to measure her worth by. I can't say that "measuring worth" is really what's going on here, but I guess we are using that term.

I am presupposing that certain things add to a persons worth and certain things don't. The vast majority of people have worth, simply by being human, the batteries are included so to speak.

People who fixate on the wrong things as measures of there worth are often depressed. They may be measured as realistic by virtue of being more accurate on certain measures of worth that simply aren't very good. But the fact is, that from my view of worth, they won the worth jackpot when they were born, and everything else is just minor differences.

It's like when people want to lie with statistics and they zoom in on the graph and try to act like there's a big difference between their product which kills 99.96 percent of the bacteria, and the competitors which kills 99.95 percent.

So, might someone be mistaken about there worth? Yes, but probably they are mistaken in way that is similar to thinking that they kill 99.96 percent of bacteria when the really only kill 99.95 percent.

It is a rational outcome and not an irrational one, because the standard of measurement is rational and not irrational. When what people want is wellbeing, pursuing something that does not lead to it is not rational. And, I think you could argue that generally people want wellbeing on a biological level. We are flexible though.

As far as drugs and the brain, since the introduction of a certain drug (can't remember the name) the number of people in insane asylums has plummeted. For a while the popular treatment was a frontal lobotomy, often performed by pushing aside the eye and hammering an ice pick into a certain area and twirling it around. Certainly some company got rich producing the drug, but it has done much more good than bad. Drugs for depression have their issues of course, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;163761 wrote:

[...] Let's take a case study--a high school girl with anorexia (I pick this because it is much more specific than depression--there are still many different causes of anorexia which I don't know the details of and won't deal with here, mind you). We'll pick one who measures her worth by how thin she is, and so hardly eats anything. I would say that is a bad standard to measure her worth by. I can't say that "measuring worth" is really what's going on here, but I guess we are using that term.

Fair enough; and close to home (because my 18-year-old daughter can sound somewhat anorexic sometimes, and gets very down on herself, in what seems to me to be an irrational way); and useful, because it suggests that, as well as knowing that a person is generally depressed, it helps to know what they are specifically depressed about.

Jebediah;163761 wrote:

I am presupposing that certain things add to a persons worth and certain things don't. The vast majority of people have worth, simply by being human, the batteries are included so to speak.

People who fixate on the wrong things as measures of there worth are often depressed. They may be measured as realistic by virtue of being more accurate on certain measures of worth that simply aren't very good. But the fact is, that from my view of worth, they won the worth jackpot when they were born, and everything else is just minor differences.

[...]

It is a rational outcome and not an irrational one, because the standard of measurement is rational and not irrational. When what people want is wellbeing, pursuing something that does not lead to it is not rational. And, I think you could argue that generally people want wellbeing on a biological level. We are flexible though.

Although, if I understand you correctly, you are rightly pointing out that people can get depressed because they apply wrong standards of worth to themselves (I see nothing immediately wrong with that as a general theory, even, but that may be overstating it), you don't seem to offer any hint of what you might consider to be a good, and indeed 'rational', standard.

Am I missing something? If not, can you supply such a hint?

It's possible that you are suggesting that self-destructiveness is irrational (perhaps by analogy with self-contradiction in logic). If that's so, then how do you distinguish self-destructiveness from morality? Moral behaviour is, almost by definition, destructive of part of the self, yet we do not usually deem it to be irrational.

Is depression morality gone wrong? Quite possibly; but such a view raises evident philosophical questions (e.g. what is a wrong morality, and is there a right morality?), and it would seem to be appropriate to address such questions here (having first established, of course, that they really have been raised).

Jebediah;163761 wrote:

As far as drugs and the brain, since the introduction of a certain drug (can't remember the name) the number of people in insane asylums has plummeted. For a while the popular treatment was a frontal lobotomy, often performed by pushing aside the eye and hammering an ice pick into a certain area and twirling it around. Certainly some company got rich producing the drug, but it has done much more good than bad. Drugs for depression have their issues of course, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them.

That is the usual view. (Perhaps it accords with the "social collective's perception of reality" which someone else referred to earlier?) Other views are available. I'm tempted to quote one of them, but I think that doing so would be a massive sidetrack, to what is already something of a sidetrack. (My bad.)

@Twirlip,

Quote:

Although, if I understand you correctly, you are rightly pointing out that people can get depressed because they apply wrong standards of worth to themselves (I see nothing immediately wrong with that as a general theory, even, but that may be overstating it), you don't seem to offer any hint of what you might consider to be a good, and indeed 'rational', standard.

I was going for happiness, contentment, life satisfaction, well being. What people inherently want.

Quote:

Am I missing something? If not, can you supply such a hint?

It's possible that you are suggesting that self-destructiveness is irrational (perhaps by analogy with self-contradiction in logic). If that's so, then how do you distinguish self-destructiveness from morality? Moral behaviour is, almost by definition, destructive of part of the self, yet we do not usually deem it to be irrational.

Sociopaths are usually very rational it's true. But then, they don't feel for others. We do, and have trouble living with ourselves if we do something bad. Short term difficulty is worth long term enjoyment in any case--most sociopaths obey moral rules most of the time in their own self interest.

@BennySquire,

People who are depressed are people who live in their heads.

Philosophy Forum

Why all the depression?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know