Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Neuropsychiatric researchers rethink what depression might be (quantamagazine.org)
259 points by theafh on Jan 26, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 323 comments


There's no single cause and no single cure which is why it's so hard.

I moved cities at 10 years old, and was bullied and isolated during the entirety of Middle School. Ever since then, I've always had negative and depressive thoughts lurking around. It's just my normal.

A psychiatrist helped me understand that those formative years are when your cortex is developing. The cortex learns through repetition, and during those years I was having constant sadness and suffering events. So, my emotional intelligence learned to be that way and that's why I've suffered ever since.

If I'm not pro active in thinking about being happy or doing active things, I default to being depressed. After almost 20 years, I'm still suffering.

A side effect of being isolated during those years is my social skills have taken longer to develop. I didn't have a true batch of friends until college, but now I've lost all of them.


It is uncanny how much this mimics my own experience.

Was bullied between ages 11-16. Grew a a social circle in high school, which started fragmenting once everyone went off to university. I rarely if ever see any of them anymore.

Before the bullying, I was aparently happy and excited for most things (according to siblings). After it I have always been the low energy serious guy.

20 years on I feel an intense need for human connection, but no matter how much I try I never seem to be able to cultivate any kind of lasting relationship with others.


> but no matter how much I try I never seem to be able to cultivate any kind of lasting relationship with others.

I used to run a startup focused on this, here is what I learned:

Time. The answer is time. Research shows there are two ways long term bonds are formed, shared adversity[1], or lots of time spent together. General rule of thumb for relationship building:

1. 10 hours together is someone you know 2. 100 hours together is a good acquittance. 3. 1000 hours together is a good friend and a relationship that can now last a long time

This is why activities such as football watching (3*18, 54 hours a year, 2 years and you now have the beginnings of a good friends circle), or weekly poker matches (2 hours, almost 100 hours in a year) are so effective at building relationships.

Interpersonal hobbies with lots of down time, like rock climbing or playing in a band, accelerate this process greatly.

For people with kids, weekly play dates, or a weekly rotated dinner hosting.

Friendship is literally grinding hours, when we are young it is easy, studying and hanging out get those hours in, but when we get older, we have to be purposeful about it.

[1] Military boot camps are an example of this, so are the various culture wars. If you make people feel they are part of an oppressed group, preferably while isolating them from society at large, you will forms a cohesive group that acts together and one where everyone feels connected to each other. "Both sides" of the political spectrum do this, once you learn to spot it you start seeing it everywhere.


I recommend people try to go to Church -- even if you're not exceptionally religious (you can even tell them that, I've never seen anyone mind; though they may try to convince you).

It's an easy place to meet 30-40 people in a day, everyone there has different interests and comes from different walks of life. If you attend for a few weeks you'll often start attending lunch together, meeting out at some activities, etc. Plus, all you have to do is show up. People at a church tend to be outgoing, at least some of them are. Someone is bound to reach out to you if you sit there and drink a coffee.


I would offer some hesitations to offer Church without knowing too much about someone or without caveats. Lots of people have religious trauma from being sexually assaulted/abused by church members or religious leaders, being ostracized for being LGBTQ or even just not performing gender strongly enough, or from being autistic/ADHD/a weirdo. When religion is good, it's a great pin to community building and mutual aid. When religion is bad it's a nightmare.


Eh, just steer clear of hardcore churches and you'll be good. Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist are going to be too intense for a first-time churchgoer, but plenty of other Protestant churches are very liberal. Hell my Lutheran church in Massachusetts even had a gay minister. There are so many liberal protestant sects it will make your head spin, to the point that recommending someone try going to church these days (especially with all the polarizing, isolating events of the last decade) is probably solid advice if they're seeking community.


Ironically I spent a few years looking in all those places before ending up Catholic.

Everybody else "tolerated" the heck out of my gender-bewildered, 'spergie self from the messed up family, but it was the Catholics who finally showed me a love that would actually sacrifice something for my sake. Up until then, I sincerely believed "love" was like "Santa Claus" - a nice story you tell children, but nobody actually believes when they grow up.

Are there some Catholics who wouldn't know love if it came back from the dead? Absolutely. But there are others who stake their lives and well-being on the belief that love is at the center of everything, and wow are they worth meeting.


Love is great but it's even better if you can put it in action. Love without acting to try to help others, is that love really?

There are lots of suffering in the world caused by systemic factors. If you think all that matters is that God loves YOU and EVERYBODY then you will probably not spend much time thinking about the systemic causes of suffering, and how to alleviate them.

The thing about religion is it mostly advocates keeping the status quo as is. Religion doesn't demand that you use your brain does it? Whereas if you are serious about making the world a better place then you MUST use your brain.

I know, there is something called Liberation Theology:

https://www.religion-online.org/article/an-evangelical-theol...

"...central biblical doctrines is that God is on the side of the poor and the oppressed. Tragically, evangelical theology has largely ignored this doctrine"


From what I can see Unitarians welcome all the weirdos (saying this as a weirdo myself). My local church has Zen meditation groups, Wiccan circles, and specifically LGBT hangouts.


I agree there are plenty of liberal churches. I'm merely saying that "go to church" isn't without caveats. You have to have some consideration about ensuring they go to a church that won't make their mental health worse, or that the advice you're giving doesn't come off as totally bone-headed (suggesting church to someone who was raped by a minister is obviously cruel, for example).


> ...being ostracized for being LGBT...sexual trauma...autism

Right...


I have considered this, however I'm agnostic asymptotically approaching atheist. It's not really important to me and I don't care to talk about it, but I really wouldn't want to lie about it.


I recommend volunteering with an organization you want to support or a group that does various things in your community. You'll find like minded people in no time that want to serve others. No faith needed.


This is not a bad suggestion. HN folks tend to be "anti" - I think that also is in part isolating. So many / most gatherings of folks don't meet the HN purity / behavior / etc standards (church groups / political groups etc).

As a note I went to church every sunday growing up - my parents (not religious) did it for exactly the reasons you described. Because we weren't religious there are some things that aren't a good fit even if its with other kids (confirmation meetings - I was very reasonably asked not to attend after asking questions because I was confused about the whole thing). There is a wide range of religious orthodoxy as well - plenty of mellower denominations.


I recommend volunteering in your city/town with an organization unaffiliated with religion if you're not religious. It saves that awkward conversation and gets straight to the point of both meeting new people and finding a place where you can feel like you're helping others. Like the Lion's Club International.


As long as you don't mind supporting evil organizations and being subject to continuous prostilitizing. I find it difficult to believe that someone who is depressed needs to hear that they're a sinner heading to hell unless they accept whatever precepts the particular church is pushing.


Not even a christian but painting all churches as "evil organizations" is super inflammatory and unfair


Evil is subjective. Some people think churches are evil while others think the opposite.


Some churches have done evil things, others have immensely benefitted their community. Arguments that uniformly paint independent groups of people with a broad stroke of immorality are usually irrational because people aren't monoliths and don't behave a single way, especially churches which are operated in a decentralized and independent fashion (eg my small city has 50+ churches, all operated by separate groups). OP's comment is just as irrational as the people who say "all women are x, all minorities/white people are y, etc. The fact that some people may subscribe to these irrational beliefs is neither here nor there.


Irrational is one who believes in things without evidence, aka faith.


Well, if you want to go down that road, someone's belief that they identify as a woman despite being xy is also irrational...


> As long as you don't mind supporting evil organizations and being subject to continuous prostilitizing.

lol really? Define evil. I view evil as anything that leads to disorder in the world (death, destruction, etc); churches do not do that - they often build people up, build in the community, etc.

> I find it difficult to believe that someone who is depressed needs to hear that they're a sinner heading to hell unless they accept whatever precepts the particular church is pushing.

I'm fairly certain 99% of them preach the opposite?

They'll say "here are all the bad things we do", "we are saved because we attempt to do good and believe in God [or if christian - Jesus sacrificed himself for all people, living and dead]"

Christians really preach self-reflection and atonement - aka be humble. Frankly, the world can use more of that.


Friendships do involve a lot of time grinding, but is it just time the force that forms a friendship? Or what you see actually comes the other way around, meaning that people who "bond well" tend to spend more time together?

While indeed time is important, it does not mean that merely spending time with somebody creates a friendship between you. It is more the quality of the time than time itself and, sadly, often our lives do not make quality easy to find. Especially regarding "hobbies and interests", personally I have found that relationships formed just through them tend to be more superficial and lasting less than relationships which are formed in a multitude of contexts and circumstances rather than simply spending time on one interest. They are good ways to meet new people, but for me an analogue of watching football together 2 or 10 hours per week and not other common context has never really worked out.

I like the approach of this blog post bellow on this. I think that especially the part of sharing life struggles together to be quite important.

https://billmei.net/blog/friendship


Quality time is important, for certain.

That blog's point to ask for help to create connections is a classic technique, super effective as well. Neighbors asking to borrow small things from each other is a great example of this bit of psychology in action.


Your point about shared adversity is so interesting to me. I was on a "ferry" (it was really a kind of speedboat or something) from Belize to Honduras that got caught in a tropical storm. The waves were terrible, people vomiting everywhere, then the engine overheated and cut out, we had to search for life vests and eventually found some and put them on. They managed to revive the engine but the whole trip took 5 hours instead of two. It was a pretty frightening experience.

Anyway, even though I only spent a couple of hours with my fellow passengers on that boat, I felt more bonded to them than most people I met in almost a year backpacking and stayed in touch with them for a long time on Facebook.

So interesting that that's some kind of inbuilt thing. Like the OP, I also struggle making friends otherwise like which makes this more curious to me.


I can't agree more on the shared adversity. My three main hobbies are rock climbing, hockey, and cycling. With climbing you have to battle against yourself and your limits. Good partners will support you in those pursuits. Add in the fact that your life is literally in someone else's hands when they belay you, it is a quick path to trust. Add in the down time, as stated above, and you will make true friends. Going on a week long climbing trip with a small group will stack up quality hours fast.

Hockey is different but you still have a team working towards a goal, literally! With a good group of people, good as in nice people, not skilled, you win and lose as a team. Plus the on bench and locker room time means you get to know one another over time.

Cycling is different for me, it is a solo experience and as a result I don't have any friends in that world.


   Cycling is different for me, it is a solo experience and as a result I don't have any friends in that world.
I guess it depends where you live, but usually there are cycling clubs or bike stores that have organized group rides. Riding with a group is an incredible way to enjoy longer rides while socializing, and it's safer.

I started cycling and was amazed at how social it was (albeit living in a town with a sizable cycling community). In my youth I was a swimmer, and although there is a lot of shared experience/adversity and friendship on any sports team, there's a lot less socializing that can be done while your head is underwater!


I choose to do it solo, for the most part. I enjoy the solitude. I have been mountain biking more and that has been more group rides.


> Plus the on bench and locker room time means you get to know one another over time.

It's so lonely being a goalie sometimes. We never get any bench chat except for the short intermissions.


Curious what your startup was. I feel this is one of the world’s biggest problems (chronic loneliness) that doesn’t get enough attention.


Thawd, trying to melt the social freeze.

It was psychology applied to finding things to do, instead of meetup.com where you scrolled through a list of events and picked one weeks out from now, or a "friend making" site that had you swipe through faces, you instead selected from a list of events happening in the next 72 hours (immediacy). Personality matching[1], tuned for "will these people vibe", was used to arrange the groups. Groups were 4-6 people, small enough for real conversations to happen. You didn't get to see photos of people until you were at the event and ready to meet (avoiding the beauty contest problem).

Imagine a giant "I AM BORED, FIND ME SOMETHING TO DO RIGHT NOW" button. No endless scrolling, just a few choices, happening soon, presented to the user.

Investors weren't too pleased, two sided marketplace. Small businesses loved the idea, they only had to pay for people who actually showed up. Geo-fencing was used to track when people spent time at an event, basically a bill was only sent out if someone spent 30 minutes or so in the geo-fenced event area. (Phone privacy limitations and GPS throttling made that harder and harder).

Goal was to launch with local business partners at first and then migrate to letting individuals create events.

Stretch goal was to train an ML model up on creating a minimum viable set of questions to discover small groups that would vibe together, then license the ML model out to casinos, cruise ships, and such.

[1] test came from research in the EU, since American universities largely study friendships at work... ugh.


> Research shows...

Do you have any references in mind?


When running my startup I did a deep dive into the psychology behind friendship and relationship building, but I haven't kept track of any of the references since then.


Same. Insulting nicknames from elementary into highschool. Same 15 boys due to small classes at private Christian school.

Married the first girl who showed me positive attention. I didn't know what a friend for me was, so we're married but not friends.

The hope for you is that I found a group through a local running group. They posted on Facebook and we run weekly. They added me to the group chat last year and it's been amazing having people to chat with and go on runs with.

Going home to someone who you can't have a conversation with is hard though.

Trite advice that worked for me. Find a group of people who do the thing you like as a way to make friends. This group was started by someone just looking to not run alone in town.

I can picture in my head walking up to the running group meetup for the first time, it honestly feels like a new birth after being friendless from grade 7 til age 40+.


I wasn’t bullied, but I was a homeschool kid who ended up at a private Christian school and then married the first girl who showed me any interest. We finally divorced after two decades of struggle. The entire 3-4 year period of my marriage finally collapsing under its own weight came with several beautiful bright spots: I went to therapy, I had several life-changing experiences with psychedelics, and I found a group of incredibly good friends in similar situations. It’s mindblowing the difference that a few good friends can make.


1000%

Same experiences with psychedelics, haha.


> It is uncanny how much this mimics my own experience.

A significant amount of people damaged exactly like that run around. It‘s nothing noteworthy nor exceptional. And there is no recognized cure for us.

My pet theory is that through either nature or nurture, we are permanently damaged individuals that won‘t ever experience what we perceive as the normal, healthy social life and mental states. Our brains are permanently altered to our detriment.

Connecting to your anecdote: I am 30 and my mom still mentions what a lively and happy child I was. I wish she wouldn‘t, because it hurts to hear about the potential I squandered, lost or had stolen.


> we are permanently damaged individuals that won‘t ever experience what we perceive as the normal, healthy social life and mental states. Our brains are permanently altered to our detriment.

Pretty much all of the available evidence says otherwise. Look into neuroplasticity, developing healthy habits, and exposing yourself to people and situations that are far different than your comfort zone. I’m not the same person I was 20 years ago, and I’m not the person I was ten years ago. If you’re not busy growing, you’re busy dying. Change is the one thing we can count on to improve ourselves. But you have to accept it and get on with it. There are some people out there who have great difficulty changing and growing. Best to confront that now rather than later. Challenge yourself every day, and at the end of a year you’ll look back and laugh at your old self who said they were permanently damaged. Everyone has their unique way of doing this. For me, it’s going to nature and immersing myself in it every day and trying to find the beauty in all things. Find your own way.


> I wish she wouldn‘t, because it hurts to hear about the potential I squandered, lost or had stolen.

I think this negative mentality doesn't help. The sooner you try to live life to the best of your abilities with the cards you've been dealt, the sooner you'll feel better about your present and future. We can't change the past, but we can choose to accept it and move on.


There are no magic bullets, but the research on psychedelics and depression are encouraging.


The only time I managed to acquire psylocobin was on an island where a big rave was happening. A hippie guy sold me magic mushroom pills. I was too scared to take it in this atmosphere and wanted to take the pills home. To leave the island, one had to walk through nipple-high water. The pills in my wallet melted away in the water.

Maybe some other day.


If you are in the US mushroom spores can be found in head-shops and grown easily enough. If you have friends who smoke weed they will likely know someone who knows how to get mushrooms.

Raves are fun enough as it is. You made the right choice.


People develop a set of psychological defense mechanisms to the bullying that work at the time but can be maladaptive later. Maybe you were bullied because the bullies found your happy excitement upsetting to their feelings and wanted you to feel the way they feel. This is not uncommon. I'm sorry that happened to you. But it sounds like you are finding the time to reflect on your past.

As for relationships, the "one simple trick" for human connection and relationships is that there is no trick, you have to continuously put the work in. It helps if you find activities that you want to do and make friends there. A lot of people find satisfaction in helping other people, so volunteering can be one way to meet new people.

You might face constant rejection at first but you are not unlovable. But if you are nice and kind to others and help others people will value that and think of you in the future.

At some point you will reach critical mass and things will get easier.


I believe we find it hard to keep relationships because we take criticism/rejection harder than others. My (former) friends would say that I have no trouble burning bridges with anyone. Any time I’ve found myself embarrassed or hurt by someone else, I’ve pushed them out of my life. This definitely comes from how I handled people in my formative years


Yep, because we have very negative associations with criticism. In addition to being bullied, we tended to move a lot when I was a kid. So it became easy to just leave and start over somewhere else - I think I even started to look forward to being able to start over. I remember as a kid playing with other kids and after a bit just disappearing and hearing them in the distance say "hey, where did he go?" - I'd often do this. Much later I came to realize that this was some kind of avoidance and that it wasn't the norm. I think that I expected even amicable play situations to eventually lead to being bullied and I think that's why I'd just ghost people.


For me this was Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria, linked to ADHD but of course that itself has a lot of overlap with the anxiety/depression realm.

It's a pretty messed up condition to deal with, especially because even the mere perception of potentially being rejected can cause disproportionate reactions.


I need to do some reading on that, but it seems superficially similar to the behavior of someone with borderline personality disorder. However, I think of borderline including becoming attached or infatuated with a new person abnormally quickly and then rejecting them just as fast. I'd be curious if there's some neurological overlap or if it's a different distortion of "normal" human behavior with a different cause. Or if those are one in the same.


Late reply but ADHD and Borderline get mixed up a lot, especially in women. For a very long time the only people who would get the ADHD labels were extremely hyperactive boys.

More recently people after seeking specialists (not just general doctors) are getting diagnosed as ADHD (inattentive usually) and these meds are having positive impact whereas their previous diagnosis of borderline or bipolar weren't. Buzzfeed News did an article about it but I can't find the link.

This isn't to say ADHD and BPD can't co-exist! Their co-existence however would probably project itself in more extreme ways due to BPD being more consistent and overt in the display of instabilities and self-harm. BPD would sort of override a lot of ADHD symptoms due to not being extreme enough. Someone with ADHD might feel like their friends don't like them due to not replying to text messages, but will be fine if told otherwise. If the same happened to a BPD they would convince themselves that their friends are lying and deep down want to abandon them, and would likely take action in the form of either self-harm or being mean to those friends.

But you can see how there is a bit of overlap when it comes to self-image and how untreated ADHD that permeates can start looking a lot like BPD.


I found out that part of the issue with creating lasting relationships with others is that it actually takes a lot of effort to maintain relationships. It's not like a dating game where if you have a good dialogue on day 1 and then another good dialogue on day 2 their disposition changes. It's much more nuanced and much more specific on individual-to-individual interactions over months or years. Remembering common events to talk about regularly, responding and being responded to, birthdays, holiday celebrations, mutual activities, organizing intimate setting (think "potluck at X's house") socialization, the list goes on and on about the wide variety of behaviors.

If you're struggling, I found graythorn's various assessment resources super helpful, as it systematizes aspects of relationship building that most people find intuitive. Things like "what level of friendship am I with this person" and "assessment on expressing needs and support" were helpful to me. Although these guides are specifically towards autistics, so keep that in mind when you try them.


Googling “ graythorn assessment resources” gives us nothing useful. Please post more detail.


https://linktr.ee/Gray.Thorn

Contexts to the links is the tiktok account https://www.tiktok.com/@graythornian


I'm in a similar situation. Best friends I've found are when I actively played WoW and attended raids. I didn't kept them though but that was nice time and probably I had best interactions at that time. I'm trying to replicate that time but WoW changed and its audience changed, I don't feel like I fit there anymore.


Depression often develops in adolescence so I think we should be a bit skeptical with the 'correlation is not causation' going on with these examples.


> There's no single cause and no single cure which is why it's so hard.

This is exactly right. I'm at the tail end of a long depressive journey that wasn't caused by self-beliefs, distorted thoughts, trauma, etc. Nearly every depression treatment I sought had zero effect.

My problems came about because I had undiagnosed and unappreciated neurological + genetic conditions that created stacking debuffs that made ordinary SWE jobs tax my executive function and deplete my neurotransmitters, eventually leaving me personally and professionally debilitated.

Because I suffered the symptoms for so long before identifying the causes, neurologically I seemed to have entered a new attractor (in dynamical systems terms). I couldn't recover by just discontinuing what brought me there; my neurology kept gravitating towards the new steady-state. (A good chunk of this is black-box reverse engineering what helped me recover)

I've only gotten better by radically changing my circumstances, identifying a crucial supplement, and undergoing a medical procedure.

The eye-opening part of the journey was understanding that because depression is defined by a set of symptoms, receiving a diagnosis doesn't tell you anything at all about what's wrong with you. It only confirms you have a problem at all.


> identifying a crucial supplement, and undergoing a medical procedure

Would you feel comfortable sharing some specifics on what these were for you?


I remarked on the supplement in another comment.

The medical procedure was TMS - I spent ~6 weeks coming in every weekday, had my head strapped into a magnet helmet, and the magnets stimulate the parts of the brain associated with depression. I understand it to be vaguely like jump-starting an engine with a dead battery.

I just had my last session yesterday, and I see huge changes from December.

Crucially, I underwent TMS in 2019 and saw almost no change. At that time, I was still in the abrasive career situation, and wasn't on the supplement, so my hypothesis is TMS had very limited benefit because I didn't have sufficient quantities of neurotransmitters for stimulation to do anything, and any possible benefit was being immediately eroded by the circumstances that created my problems in the first place.

I also had undiagnosed autism (which came with hardcoded limitations I'd been treating as personal preferences or bad attitude), and ADHD (which I was diagnosed with as a kid, but didn't understand how it manifests as an adult). Both of these tax executive function (neurotransmitters) heavily, and the MTHFR mutation handicapped how much executive function I had to go around in the first place. My particular neurodiverse needs appear to be at odds with the typical SWE work environment, so every day I was powering through my special needs, until my brain couldn't take it anymore and simply gave out.


Could you share how ADHD affected you as an adult? I am in a semi-burnt-out situation where I just cannot seem to focus on responsibilities anymore (it was always like that, it just got worse) and wanted to get a diagnosis on that. Sadly, there seems to be a long wait list, so until that happens anecdata is all I get :).


Apologies for the rambling. In the words of Blaise Pascal, it's long because I didn't have the time to make it shorter...

A big one for me is that staying focused on work responsibilities for 40 hours every week is really hard. Whatever my natural interest in the subject matter, it's exhausted much sooner than that. So I have to spend all day saying 'yes' to things I'm not interested in, while saying 'no' to everything else I'd rather be doing.

That sounds like a mundane attitude problem - ADHD problems can sound like ordinary problems (we're only human!), but the big difference is how unrealistic it is to "power through" problems, and what happens when we ignore them. We're fighting a brain that works differently at a physical level; your conscious mind can only do so much about that.

Choosing where your attention goes (either activating focus or breaking off focus) drains executive function, and the neurotransmitters that power it. ADHD brains are known to consume executive function more often, and to draw deeper from it. We have something like a 25% penalty towards available executive function. So an ADHD brain can easily run out of steam in circumstances a neurotypical person can sail through.

Brain scans show that ADHD brains use an inefficient subsystem to maintain focus, and also never stop daydreaming, so there's constant noise running in our heads. Maintaining focus is just plain harder for us. https://www.additudemag.com/current-research-on-adhd-breakdo...

Meds can help with this, but they don't "fix" ADHD; they only help us manage our symptoms to varying degrees.

In my childhood my ADHD was obvious because I was physically hyperactive - I was bouncing off the walls. When I got older and calmed down, I figured I'd somehow grown out of ADHD or something. I learned that you never grow out of it. Some of the symptoms were things I didn't know were ADHD, like my relationship with time. As for the hyperactivity, in adulthood turns from external to internal - your mind can't stop running.

For burnout symptoms specifically, ADHD can play its own role there. Online ADHD communities talk about "ADHD burnout". I haven't seen research about it, but its cousin, "autistic burnout" has early research, and they share the same root cause: "executive function depletion" caused by trying to power through neurological needs. Your brain just can't make chemicals as fast as you're using them up, and eventually you run out. An important distinction between burnout and depression: burnout tends to affect only work, while your mood is normal off-hours. Depression affects everything. Executive function depletion looks more like depression, despite the "burnout" moniker.

Executive function controls your ability to exercise willpower and take action, as well as your ability to regulate your emotions. If your brain runs out of the chemicals that make this work, these two things will fall apart. The only solution appears to be to remove yourself from the circumstance that overtaxes your executive function, then wait days / weeks for your neurology to recover. If it takes longer, you have additional factors in play.

Anecdotally, a lot of ADHD people find it challenging to keep normal jobs, and eventually find themselves in less traditional career paths where they can follow their mind's natural whims instead of struggling against them all day.

Another important ADHD thing for me is that ADHD brains often only have two ways of perceiving time: "now" and "not now". This is a component of time blindness, but I like to call it "the eternal now". Whatever I'm experiencing right now is the only thing that exists. If I'm happy, I'm happy with my whole being. Or sad. Or angry. I don't do well with delayed gratification because all I know is what this moment feels like - the future is irrelevant. Doing unpleasant work for "those moments that make it all worthwhile" - that doesn't exist for me. A brief moment in the past or future doesn't do anything for what I feel right now.

One more thing: ADHD people wind up relying heavily on routines and habits. Literally any amount of friction can stop you from initiating tasks, so any way to remove friction, avoid making decisions, or otherwise delegate willpower and memory to your environment becomes crucial just to function like a normal person. Three examples: 1) I reliably get my dishes into the dishwasher now that we have a clean/dirty sticker, because figuring out whether it's dirty was enough friction that I just left dishes on the counter. 2) I've heard several people say they actually vacuum once they got a cordless vacuum, because handling the cord was enough friction to discourage them from vacuuming at all. 3) I rely heavily on calendar/task reminders to get anything done. I can forget an important todo in seconds, so it has to make it into my phone.

It's worth noting that my ADHD won't be your ADHD experience. ADHD isn't a single, atomic condition - it's a collection of abnormalities that are so tightly intertwined that we can't tell where each starts and ends, so we have to treat them as one big lump of symptoms. There are six widely-recognized scientific models for what ADHD does to the mind, because that's the kind of complexity we're dealing with. That means each of us will have different limitations.

You may find it worth googling "spoon theory" - it's a mental model of how much energy you have that neurodiverse people find useful for understanding and planning their day-to-day experience. I also recommend the podcasts ADHD Nerds and Translating ADHD.


That's a lot of great information, it will take me some time to grasp it :), thank you very much for your time!


>My problems came about because I had undiagnosed and unappreciated neurological + genetic conditions that created stacking debuffs that made ordinary SWE jobs tax my executive function and deplete my neurotransmitters, eventually leaving me personally and professionally debilitated.

I love how you used "stacking debuffs" here. That made me smile.


which supplement helped you most ?


I have a genetic mutation called MTHFR C677T, which means my body doesn't process vitamin B9 with the necessary efficiency. B9 is upstream of regulating the quantities of monoamine neurotransmitters the brain synthesizes (serotonin, dopamine, and norepinepherine).

(Not everyone with an MTHFR mutation experiences symptoms. For a long time I didn't. Best guess is my body changed after a period of intense stress.)

I take L-Methylfolate 15mg, which bypasses my digestion and provides my body with the processed materials directly.

The brand name for this is Deplin, which requires a prescription. I just switched to over-the-counter L-Methylfolate - it remains to be seen if it's as effective.

Fun fact: once I started taking Deplin, I had to come off of all my traditional antidepressants. They were at max dosage and having no effect, but once my brain was flooded with neurotransmitters, all the antidepressant side effects kicked in, including (perversely) amplifying depression symptoms.


I have the same MTHFR mutation. Deplin really helped with some serious short-memory issues. Can’t speak for the depression aspect since I’m bipolar. Too much noise to signal.

Over the counter should be identical. I only prefer the prescription because it’s regulated and less likely to be fake. :)


TMG (betaine) utilizes an alternate methylation pathway and for me was life changing.


I'm curious if you noticed any other health changes/improvements after starting L-Methylfolate.


I didn't notice anything else, but the mood impact was all I was paying attention to.


How did you find out about the MTHFR mutation? How was it tested for?


I took a mail-in genetic test from Genomind. I didn't understand the significance of the result until I was coincidentally prescribed Deplin and mentioned the mood change to my ADHD coach, who connected the dots.

Having a concrete scientific explanation for the empirical result I was seeing was a great confidence booster, bolstered some hypotheses I had, and helped me identify next steps in my journey.


Bullying is such a detrimental thing to experience. It has lifelong consequences. It's good to see that schools in the US are taking it more seriously than they used to. In the past the attitude from adults seemed to be that experiencing bullying would make you tougher. Now we know better.

I know that I personally still suffer the effects of bullying some 40 to 50 years later - for example, I tend to withdraw from any conflict/confrontation in the work setting misinterpreting even constructive conflict/criticism as being directed at me personally. When I was a kid playing with other kids I tended to withdraw and disappear even in situations where there was no bullying because I came to expect it would happen. And I see that I withdraw similarly in the workplace. In that sense the bullying from many years ago has negatively impacted my career and mental health (anxiety, panic attacks and a bit of paranoia as I'm always expecting the worst from other people).


> It's good to see that schools in the US are taking it more seriously than they used to.

It's nothing but lip service. Bullying is largely the result of several quite obvious system design flaws. 30 kids to one adult is going to result in a Lord of the Flies culture, and that culture will get worse as you scale to additional 30+ classrooms.

Further, actually paying attention to the emotional state of a child and nurturing it carefully at the times it needs that would be hard to pull off in a group of _five_ kids.

But at all costs, we need every mom and dad in the country working all the time to maximize the size of our economy (and help the rich keep getting richer). We need conforming, beaten down worker bees who've been trained to drag out of bed and go where dictated all day long to fill all the jobs that keep the economy humming.

So any changes in the favor of nurturing kids reasonably (not even optimally, just reasonably) just aren't in the cards. But we can make some nice posters about it.


For every one of these anecdotes, there's another where the kid has a great childhood and school experience but still ends up depressed. Or one that is severely bullied but ended up enlightened and happy. Psychiatrists can come up with whatever post hoc explanations they want, but as you said, it's multifactorial, and therefore does not admit simple explanations.


Anyone can succumb to depression. I was giving my experience as an example to show that it’s important for people to understand why they are depressed, and that psychiatry may help you find the reason.


My point is that you don't know if psychiatry actually gave you the reason. It may actually have nothing to do with that.


The link between childhood abuse and neglect and mental illness like depression is well documented.


Yeah, I'd fit in that camp. I don't think I've got any repressed childhood trauma hiding under 20 layers, ready for a psychiatrist to uncover, I'm just sad. There are good days and bad.


Your brain cannot "learn" to be sad. You can, however, learn maladaptive schemata: fundamental ways of viewing the world and oneself that can help a child get through adverse periods (like bullying and ostracization), but which are ultimately maladaptive and inaccurate in adulthood.

You might have come to believe, for instance, that you're fundamentally "different" or "unlovable", and that you can't expect to be socially accepted or loved.

These core beliefs, these schemata, are difficult but possible to change. Schema Therapy has had empirical success at doing so.

The subjective experience of changing a maladaptive schema is like teleporting from a miserable planet to a strange but much happier, more loving planet. You can be (much) happier than you think; you're just stranded on a miserable planet, one that would make anybody sad.

I'd suggest checking out Reinventing Your Life by Jeffrey Young: it provides the tools you need to get to that happier planet, where you can feel safer and loved and accepted.


> Your brain cannot "learn" to be sad.

This is ~equivocally~ unequivocally false. The portion of the brain that develops emotional intelligence forms during your formative years and can learn to be put in a depressive mindset.

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984129/

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132040/

> Humans are likely the most emotionally regulated creatures on earth. Compared to other animal species, we can modulate and modify emotional reactions and experiences, even very intense ones, through a large and sophisticated emotion regulation repertoire that includes skills of distraction, reappraisal, language, prediction, social interaction, suppression, and more.1–5 At times, these skills require effort, and at other times, they seem reflexive and automatic. But what are some of the variables in this sophisticated emotion regulation repertoire? The parent of any toddler or even adolescent can attest to the very slow development of emotion regulation processes. This slow development has been documented in empirical research, which also notes the large individual differences from one person’s ability or style of emotion regulation to another’s. Evolutionarily speaking, this slow development of emotion regulation ability in childhood that culminates in an exquisite ability in adulthood points to the benefits of a slow-maturing emotion regulation system. Indeed, humans are not only a highly emotionally regulated species, but they are slowly developing in general, relative to other species, 6 with a prolonged period of immaturity. Phylogenetically, slow development may confer benefits through an extended period of neural plasticity—a feature of a developing neural system that heightens its ability to learn from the environment. If so, then humans may owe their sophisticated emotion regulation skills to the “extension” of childhood that has evolved in us. The nature, chronicity, and quality of environmental inputs during these periods of plasticity, in particular those from close relationships (e.g., parents, friends, teachers), in large part determine emotion regulation functioning in adulthood.7 Thus, adult brain and behavioral function in this regard can be conceptualized as a historical reflection of what was experienced during development. To fully appreciate individual differences in adult emotion regulation skills, then, it is helpful to understand how the brain develops.


First of all, the phrase "emotional intelligence" is a pop-psychology invention created by Daniel Goleman which has no clinically meaningful use. There's a big difference between emotional intelligence and emotional regulation.

There's also a difference between traumatic experiences (such as you moving somewhere new at 10 and struggling with isolation and being bullied) and how you may have psychologically adapted to these situations. But nothing you've mentioned implies that your brain can "learn to be put into a depressive mindset" -- it's more the case that strenuous challenges that haven't been addressed, or moved past, or evolved from, will continue to cause problems until work is gradually done to address them.

I have always felt it's similar to musculoskeletal issues. You can do a lot of damage to your lower back by sitting at a desk all day, or to your wrists by typing at an angle that causes repetitive strain. That damage can be "mitigated" in different ways -- medication, surgery, physical rehabilitation. While the last one is most difficult, it's also the most effective because you're training the mind-muscle connection at the point where it's fragility is causing and compounding structural damage.

Even as people get older, until they reach very old age, it's rare for these kinds of MSK problems to occur in ways that cannot be unwound by adherence to physical therapy and a good exercise regimen. I think the same is true for our minds. As you mention in an earlier comment, if you do something that makes you happy, you feel happy for that time before drifting back to depression. But that in and of itself may be the point -- if you are constantly doing things which make you happy, it may not be immediate, but eventually you can re-orient your brain you being default-happy with depressive episodes rather than the other way around. That doesn't make it easy, of course, nor is there a one time fix.


> But nothing you've mentioned implies that your brain can "learn to be put into a depressive mindset" -- it's more the case that strenuous challenges that haven't been addressed, or moved past, or evolved from, will continue to cause problems until work is gradually done to address them.

What is the practical difference between saying "learnt to be put in a depressive mindset" and "psychologically adapted to these situations"? Psychiatrists don't need to be so technical when explaining the differences to people. I'm only framing the conversation in a colloquial manner such that non-psych majors will understand them. In some manner I've "learned" to be in a depressive mindset. And, through repetition, I can "un-learn" it.

> Even as people get older, until they reach very old age, it's rare for these kinds of MSK problems to occur in ways that cannot be unwound by adherence to physical therapy and a good exercise regimen... if you are constantly doing things which make you happy, it may not be immediate, but eventually you can re-orient your brain you being default-happy with depressive episodes rather than the other way around.

I'm not disputing this. The times where I am the happiest is when I'm in my routine of working out and playing tennis. But when I get out of my routine, I fall back into the depressive habits. It's hard to stay consistent. Maybe if I stay consistent for long enough, my default will not be depressed. But I have yet to be consistent for long enough to reach that point.


Emotional intelligence is another way of saying that you have the ability to read the room, which clearly many people (and very many of the technical people I interact with) did not have great ability for (which results in a lot of cringe-worthy moments).


If you want to talk about “ability to read the room”, correct terminology to use (recognised by researchers) is “social cognition”, “theory of mind”, “nonverbal communication” - unlike those terms, “emotional intelligence” is a fringe theory which has failed to win acceptance


> during your formidable years

I had to lookup "formidable" in case it was a specialized term, but I think it's a typo. Nevertheless, I like it better this way.


Definitely a typo. Thanks


[flagged]


Practically, what is the difference between emotional state and consistently emotionally regulating into a depressive mindset? I'm not a psychiatrist and I don't care what the precise terminology is. In layman's terms, what I've stated is correct.


[flagged]


Nothing I've said is incorrect. I'm just using colloquial language to describe the issue.

You are just being an asshole by trying to show off your technical knowledge in the subject, which is not helping anyone.


This reminds me of how long it took me to notice a pattern in my relationships. When I look back, it's so obvious that I was picking a certain kind of person, and behaving in a certain kind of way, that would lead to the same conclusion. But it didn't feel like I was repeating the same story over and over again just to satisfy some malformed part of my psyche. I can't rewire something so deep in me that even effects who I'm attracted to. All I can do is be aware of it, and course correct.


This is similar to my formative years. At 5 1/2, moved to a new city. Was bullied as the outsider foreigner kid until around 12 when we moved to another city. Was bullied again as the outsider foreigner kid.

I turned into a depressed, "emo", grumpy kid around 8-12 and that became an angry, misunderstood kid after the second move. It has been decades since that time, but I am doing better now.

Being depressed, moody, overly serious, is my default now. I've learned to work past it like you've described, change my outlook. It still sucks having a default downer attitude in my head though. Still more work to go.

My parents and siblings were always perplexed by this. To this day, they still think nothing is wrong with how it all went down. I was just a "problem kid". That worked for them, problem kid was a convenient scape-goat for all the other familial difficulties we had going on.

If I ever have kids, I'll do my best to not disrupt their lives the way mine was. Hopefully, I'll be a lot more attuned to make sure they're dealing with social pressures better than I did. No one needs to live the way I lived, it's not mentally healthy.


I’ve had a similar experience so I’m sympathetic. However, I don’t totally believe what your psychiatrist told you. People don’t just get randomly bullied, just like people don’t get randomly popular. I believe that there’s a common set of personality types across our species and you (and I) are just less socially adaptive. So we’re weirder, more prone to being an outsider, and less likely to make friends.

I wouldn’t put this all on your experiences from a two year period from decades ago. It’s probably just who you are.

I think it’s important to frame it this way in order to empower yourself. If it’s just who you are, then you can accept it, adjust the way you live, and even alter your perspective enough where you don’t feel weighed down anymore.

But if it’s an injustice that happened to you far in the past then you’re a victim and you just have to deal with it because you didn’t get lucky.

Many people don’t want to take my perspective because it sort of sounds like I’m saying that some people deserve to be bullied. I do think it’s true in a way, but then I’m not one who thinks life should be fair.


I think that's a good point.

Maybe there is truth to both, and the brain is plastic, so we can also change who we are.


> There's no single cause and no single cure which is why it's so hard.

My neurologist once said to me "any time you see the phrase 'multiple mechanisms of X' in a medical journal, that's code for 'we have no fucking clue'".


Let me add a counter anecdote: from kindergarten through primary school and high school my life was hell thanks to bullying (being slightly neurodivergent in the 80ies and 90ies is a recipe for disaster) to the point of me nearly killing myself.

Once I left school behind me and met people who respected me, I managed to let all of that past behind me and become a very happy person with (so far) zero depressive tendencies. There is still some trauma left when I see my kid being teased or teasing somebody (to a much smaller scale than what I went through), but aside of that I'm very glad my brain managed to escape hell unscathed.


It would be interesting to know what phases our brains go through that 'settle' emotional / social reflexes.

I had a strange life due to pre-wired issues, until 30 when a few traumatic event (including a first relationship that was as positive as negative) completely altered my reality. I was very surprising to say the least how one day you cannot exist socially (total shut-in with obsessive painful thoughts on a daily basis), and the next one you see colors and friendliness everywhere. Deep in your guts, something that really lifts your mind, imagination and heart solidly, not just a philosophical understanding.

I had a year of socially vibrant emotions but gradually went back to my old self (avoidant) but I still remember that my reality is somehow altered and very far from what others can experience or what is healthy.

If anybody has resources to read or places to monitor I'll be glad to know.

ps: I have a ton of questions regarding the neurology of the perception of "the self" and others for the lack of better terms. if any neuroscientist has time to waste, my email is in my profile, feel free to spam.


I don't have much to add except that I've also experienced brief but seismic shifts in my perspective and my view on social interactions. It's been surreal to say the least, and in both of these different states I had a hard time seeing how I ever could have been in the other one.


I can relate to your comment a lot. I went through many years of isolation during my childhood resulting in poor social skills. After so many years my thoughts are continually negative. Like you, I too don’t have any friends. I am unable to break the cycle of loneliness. When I try my interactions are awkward which makes me self-conscious and I withdraw.


Same thing, ish, here. I don't know if my experience is anecdotal but this gets easier with age. I can hypothesize that I did a lot of unpacking and that my experiences today are much more net positive, thus drifting my "default state" farther from a depressive mindset. Mushrooms helped, but I'd recommend anyone looking into mushrooms, or psychedelics in general, to be cognizant that dealing with trauma in a trip can either be really great or really terrifying. You also are largely not in the driver's seat when dealing with trauma in a trip and fighting it will make things worse. The latter being a lesson I've learned many times over at this point.


Depression seems like dementia/Alzheimer's: not a single disease but a process with holistic factors.

Interestingly, I'm convinced depressive state accumulates during a sleep cycle. Missing a single dose of mirtazapine and then sleeping feels exactly like an alcohol hangover. I'm also convinced alcohol is a CNS depressant and abuse of it induces depression.

Edit: Similar experience. Chaotic home life with fighting parents with high anxiety levels. Emotional problems, speech issues, out-of-norm appearance and intellect, bullying, and intense untreated depression and ADHD-PI for many years. Too many factors to control for. I suspect genes and epigenetics.


ADHD is the same thing for many people. It’s an infant driven to distraction because of “problems in the environment”. Well maybe there are congenital cases, but there are others that aren’t, and there’s no money in the root cause analysis.


It’s a brain development disorder. That means the brain doesn’t develop the same. Not just a baby “driven to distraction”. Genes and environment. For example it’s more common in premature babies. Plenty of past and ongoing research


Probably wont be taken well, but IMO depression is an illness in the spiritual sense. Depression is described as being sad, alone and without hope. That's quite literally what spirituality is for.

I think it's probably impossible to treat with drugs because what people really need are friends, hope and a good outlook on life (which often comes from hope). I'm sure drugs can improve people with imbalances and I'm also sure it's not just one thing that causes depression. That said, it seems like it can often be solved with more traditional means -- finding community and purpose.


I think it’s impossible for many to be treated without drugs. I think it’s irresponsible to tell people with a disease that saps their energy and motivation that the solution is to pick themselves up, willpower their way through it and go be social and active etc. medicine itself is a very traditional means of helping people, probably as old as civilization.

No need for an “imbalance” as justification to get help through medication. This attitude is a form of ableism that can ultimately be deadly for the people it’s targeted at if they buy into it.

Coming from a spiritual and community oriented background people aren’t doing well. “medicine bad” and constant implicit and explicit messages they get - that they must not be doing it right, doesn’t help at all.


Thank you for sharing this.


Any time. I wish every child could have rich formative years so they can avoid long lasting emotional pain.


If you want to dive further and resolve things: http://sodapi.leighb.com/


> I didn't have a true batch of friends until college, but now I've lost all of them.

I think losing college friends is inevitable. People get jobs, move, marry, change, etc. Clutching to the friends when life was much simpler might not work now.

The solution would be making more social ties with neighbors, family, acquaintances, hobbyists, etc., and try to find new friendships/relationships within them.


I've read early life adversity can cause epigenetic changes.


It seems likely that depression is also not a single disease.


Thanks for sharing and i'm happy to be your friend :)


In a big degree it reflects me.


Everyone wants a pill as a quick effortless fix, but IMO it seems a lot of our modern afflictions come down to an gross imbalance of exercise, diet, sleep, and social connection. Most likely the way society (see disclaimer) currently functions - how we work, how we consume our limited leisure time is sort of an occupational hazard to peak health.

Not to mention, exercise is "too hard" for most, the food supply is weaponized with sugar and FUD, everyone is so tired at the end of their "BS job" workday, so hit the couch and stream the streams. And now you have a vicious flywheel that quickly turns people into candidates for the latest big-pharma "cure"

HN Disclaimer: I'm in the US and making generalizations based on my observations. Not saying that there aren't needs for pharma / pills / afflictions that aren't solvable by the above, etc...


> Everyone wants a pill as a quick effortless fix, but IMO it seems a lot of our modern afflictions come down to an gross imbalance of exercise, diet, sleep, and social connection.

For what it's worth, exercise, diet, sleep, social engagement, and lifestyle changes are well-known inputs to addressing depression. Therapists will explore and encourage improvements in all of these areas. Good psychiatrists will as well, given enough time and a patient who is open to listening.

One of the difficult issues is that many depressed patients often don't want to hear any suggestions that depression might be due to anything other than external factors. This is why the pop-science version of the "chemical imbalance" theory became so popular in the mainstream: It gives a plausible explanation that depression is just something that happens to you due to no fault of your own, which is weirdly easier to accept for many people.

There are similar treatment problems with a host of health issues, such as obesity. The trend on social media and pop culture is to explain obesity away as a chemical or societal problem, minimizing the input of personal choice and actions. It's very popular to propose theories that "counting calories doesn't work" or hear anecdotes about people who claim to only eat less than 1000 calories per day but never lose weight (which isn't possible, even 100% sedentary coma patients need more calories than that).


But Obesity isn't very much about personal choice, as evidenced by most people being able to keep a reasonable weight without counting calories or putting in any effort whatsoever, while people like me have to obsess over everything because if we ate the way we "naturally" feel like we should then we'd be blimps.

Or rather, it is about choice, but the choice for some is "obsess over it and suffer a lot more than the people around you for the rest of your life", not to mention generally being treated like not being able to fight your body's compulsions is a personal failing by people who don't have to fucking do that.

P.S.: And before you go shoving your fad bullshit advice of the week at me, it should be noted that at one point I had lost half my body weight and am still over 100lbs down. I have been doing this for over a decade, I have tried every trick anyone has yet devised to make this easier and none of the work for this kind of weight.

Any diet will work for 10-15lbs. Like, literally any diet. This has been shown multiple times. Losing real, serious, obesity-level weight takes significant effort and suffering continuously and anyone who says differently is full of shit.

...unless there's a drug involved. Amphetamines and the new class of diabetes drugs seem to actually work wonders. The former is obviously problematic and ill-advised.


I’ve seen some published studies recently about altered gut bacteria in people whose mothers experienced trauma, altered insulin sensitivity. It’s definitely getting clearer scientifically why weight is so much harder for some


Yeah, there does seem to be a lot of data to support the idea that gut microbiome is a lot more significant to our brain function that we would have assumed, but until there's a reliable treatment I can get or self administer it is pretty much irrelevant to me.


I think the folks on HN are generally aware that weight loss is incredibly hard, I'd be surprised to see anyone here trying to shove fad advice down your gullet.


It happens almost every time. People show up when weight loss is discussed and talk all the pseudoscience behind intermittent fasting[0], Paleo, carnivore, anti-FODMAP, etc. and how that's the key and it changed their life because they are never hungry and blah blah blah.

[0] which I find hilarious because their definition is skipping one meal a day, not skipping entire days at a time the way I did when I was trying it. Skipping a single meal is not, nor will it ever be, "fasting" as far as I'm concerned.


I could flip this around and say that focusing on internal causes of depression is a way for those in power to avoid the social responsibility of having to change it. We can kick the responsibility ball back and forth all day.

Why is it so hard for people to get adequate sleep, exercise, a good diet and social interaction? Even most non-depressed people I know don't do these things well (except maybe the last one), so this isn't something unique to depression.


Exactly this. We throw people into a sick society and then blame them for their lack of personal responsibility when they get sick themselves.

As an individual, yes, do what you can (which might mean changing to a less “sick” culture or subculture so you’re not fighting a sisyphean battle). And also, we should do better as a society.


Society is simply a collection of individuals and their behavior. It is not synonymous with politics.

For example, If people lack meaningful social and don't want to socialize with their neighbors, call friends, or have dialogue with their partners, you can't legislate solution to that problem.


Who said anything about politics or legislation?


It seemed to me that you were proposing that (1) we as individuals do more and also (2) we as a society should do more.

Maybe we fundamentally agree, but I was pointing out that society IS the individuals. doing (1) is how you do (2).

Maybe this is pedantic or my own bias, but I think it is important to keep in mind. Some people use "society" as a substitute for "other people but not me".

When some people talk about changing social norms, they mean forcing other people to act opposed to leading by example.

At the end of the day, I think I agree with you that we do live in a sick society. The best remedy is to cure the sickness in ourselves.


I agree, and it’s an excellent point. I guess I also wonder if we can be more aware as individuals of the forces shaping society and culture, and actively try to engage in changing them. But it still starts with ourselves.


Same with drugs. There's a bit of cocaine-epidemic where I live. With lots of gung-ho politicians clamoring for a "war on drugs" and "zero tolerance" and "hold the addicts accountable", etc. But I don't hear any politicians talking about why so many people want to snort cocaine...


That's because they love their cocaine.


Nice points. You don’t even have to argue about internal vs external causes. The real question is about capability. To me when a person is not receptive to advice about lifestyle changes it’s less about stubbornness or ignorance and more the patient communicating apathy, lack of energy, motivation.


Worrying about fault and taking an adversarial perspective where you see patients as being stubborn or lazy and concluding that resistance to lifestyle changes is due to that is absolutely insane.

People are resistant to those things because they are being told - do all these things and make all these hard changes and you will feel better and have motivation and energy. While they are thinking, “but to do all those things will require a lot of motivation and energy”. So patients are being told to get the things they want, they need to already have them.

It doesn’t matter if depression is a chemical imbalance or whatever. The reality is people get stuck and medication is a very easy initial step that can get them moving. It’s well established that executive control varies among people. It’s not a moral deficit to be on the lower end of that spectrum and be unable to spontaneously will yourself out of a depressive apathy.


> One of the difficult issues is that many depressed patients often don't want to hear any suggestions that depression might be due to anything other than external factors.

I knew someone like this. She'd get new therapists until one of them tells her what she wants to hear.

You're nailing it IMO. If you get to blame society, genetics, or external factors then you don't have to take responsibility. You get a pass. (people think)


To counterpoint your anecdote: I know a girl who is fit, eats great, gets good sleep, regularly goes on long trips with friends, still clinically depressed and struggles to experience any sort of joy which is why she puts in so much effort into trying to improve her life. Still got depression, baybee.


Funny thing. I actually got depression/burnout when I was preparing to run a half-marathon (I do it yearly).

It pissed me to no end that the couple people who got to know about it basically told me to "just exercise more and do volunteer work and it will go away", even when I told them that it was caused by work-related stress.


Telling a depressed person to just start exercising, eating well, and sleeping sufficiently is really not significantly more helpful than telling them to just be happier.


Telling them they can fix their problems without doing any of those is not working either.


And who’s saying that. I think that’s a ridiculous assumption that goes along with anti med opinions


> This is why the pop-science version of the "chemical imbalance" theory became so popular in the mainstream: It gives a plausible explanation that depression is just something that happens to you due to no fault of your own, which is weirdly easier to accept for many people.

Yes, and "chemical imbalance" is totally legit but not like its predominantly being marketed. The chemicals (dopamine, seratonin, whatever) are already present in our bodies - they just aren't consistently expressed across the population. For many people, these chemicals aren't released as regularly or in sufficient quantities for a given time period. Often due to lifestyle, but also just differs from person to person. But hey, put in 45 minutes of Z2-Z3 cardio and it can be amazing how the cobwebs get cleared.

> The trend on social media and pop culture is to explain obesity away as a chemical or societal problem

The somewhat recent corporate opportunism targeting obesity and marketing it as completely normal and healthy, almost something to strive for, is incredibly concerning.


> it seems a lot of our modern afflictions come down to an gross imbalance of exercise, diet, sleep, and social connection

If you think about it in an evolutionary timescale, the way most of us live in the West these days is horrendously incompatible with the sort of life we evolved to live. Thousands and thousands of years were spent out in nature, in small communities, eating certain types of foods, engaging in physical activities, etc.

The sit-on-a-chair-all-day, look-at-screens-all-day lifestyle is a comparatively new development, and neither our minds nor our bodies are suited for such an existence. That's enough to cause us a fair amount of trouble. Add all the socioeconomic issues you mention into the mix, and it all starts to make perfect sense to me.


I’ll add situational-depression to your list: an ongoing sadness due to being stuck in a bad circumstance (bad relationship, terrible job, etcetera). The defining factor is that once the bad circumstance is “fixed”, the long-term sadness is quickly gone (replaced with ongoing contentment) and symptoms don’t reappear. This is not an academic definition, just a personal observation, although perhaps you have seen the effect happen to others in your life.

I’ve had situational-depression badly enough that I would easily have been diagnosed as clinically depressed (more than one person said so, and if I had gone to a doctor I am sure I would have been given a label and some pills). When the cause was resolved, I immediately switched out of the funk and all symptoms of “depression” were gone. I don’t believe it was correlation, that is I don’t believe depression lifting caused me to fix my bad circumstance: I don’t think I had any influence over the actual date the underlying cause was “fixed”. Chronic clinical depression is not usually fixed in a day.


> gross imbalance of exercise, diet, sleep, and social connection

Indeed. What's worse is that we, as individuals, know this. But we, as in the western society at large, seem to be utterly unwilling or incapable of addressing this.

Long working hours to make ends meet. The shittiest food is the most convenient option. There's a metric fuckton of light- and sound pollution which messes with our sleep. 10% of folks suffer from sleep apnea for a variety of reasons. So many things are messing with us. At some point, we're going to have to start dealing with these things.


I know the serotonin theory of depression is pretty much dead, but it is a fact that being around people raises serotonin levels. For introverts it is tiring, but it is better than not being around people.

Being around people reduces cognitive decline in old age.

Being around people reduces depression levels.

Being in a supportive community reduces the severity of symptoms from schizophrenia.

The 2+2 nuclear family concept is an abomination, we are supposed to live in a multigenerational community, surrounded by friends and family.

The modern American lifestyle destroys psychological health. Without large social circles, finding romantic partners is hard, which leads to all sorts of negative life outcomes.

Raising kids is hard, friends of mine who have nearby extended family have a much easier time raising kids (and are more likely to have more kids!) Heck my sister had kids 20 years before I did (bit of an age difference), 2 sets of grand parents, lots of free baby sitting, and aunts and uncles to help out with homework. It was also useful for me, I got to learn a lot about babies early on.

> gross imbalance of exercise, diet, sleep, and social connection

Yeah lots of these are solved with a large social group. I have some good friends (who sadly now live a bit aways from me) who host dinner parties 3 or 4 nights a week. People come over and help cook and clean up, so everyone eats healthy meals all the time.

Friends who have lots of family nearby, just rotate whose house they go to on different nights, all the kids and adults after school/work get together to do child care and cooking. Healthy food for everyone, less work.

Lots of modern life scales up really well. 2 parents will get exhausted taking care of 1 baby, between cooking, cleaning, and watching the child.

4 parents, 3 kids? Much easier. Seriously, piece of cake.

3 grand parents, 4 parents, a young auntie, 5 kids? No problem at all.

Society has seriously screwed the pooch.

If I had some insane amount of capitol I'd try to start some sort of shared housing for families, do intense interviews to match people up (see: My last failed startup) people cook together, raise kids together, support each other. Put 3-5 new/young families in a mid size housing complex with a shared yard. Put a support network in place, house chaperone (cough RA cough) to help out now and then.

Extended Family as a Service. Dystopian, maybe, but possibly it'd do a lot of good in the world.

(If any investors want to get in touch, please do, :-D )


To me, this is undoubatedly a huge part of the problem.

I noticed that my depression spiked when I started to become more isolated. I was getting older, long time friends are now scattered about the country/world, difficult to make new ones. Family members are isolated and scattered doing their own thing in their nuclear units. Parents are divoced and fending for themselves too. Finding a romantic partner under these circumstances is difficult ... having no friends can be seen as a "red flag". It snowballs.

I have also thought of the concept of shared housing for adults. I LOVE this idea.

They share the responsibilities much like a multi-generational family would, they just happen to be strangers.


> Society has seriously screwed the pooch.

Pretty much all available data says as much, but we refuse to do anything about it. Hell, most refuse to recognize there's even a problem.


I've subscribed to this line of thinking my whole life, and mostly still do, but I've had to reassess after watching/listening to the case of Andres Iniesta, a professional footballer who sought professional help in the Summer of 2009. A starter for FC Barcelona and the Spanish national team, having just won the 2009 European Champions league with FC Barcelona and the 2008 European Championship with Spain. Multimillionaire and in peak physical condition, yet fell into a deep depression during the peak of his life. Definitely caused me to reassess my assumptions on clinical depression.


Serotonin syndrome is also a real risk.

SSRIs are extremely dangerous if tryptophan intake is also increased (with supplements, for example), even moreso if niacin is also consumed to encourage the tryptophan -> serotonin pathway.

https://selfhacked.com/blog/serotonin-syndrome/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6184959/


> Everyone wants a pill as a quick effortless fix

Isn't a quick, effortless fix the ideal goal? Wouldn't that be better than a slow, difficult one?

Lifestyle changes are a lot harder and more time-consuming than taking a pill; if the latter were equally effective and low-risk for all people, it would obviously be the better choice.


I think so too. 9 times out of 10 a person has horrible eating, sleeping, or drug habits and a sedentary lifestyle.


There is a book that I’ve had recommended to me that posits a similar idea to what you’re saying - it’s called “The Myth of Mental Illness” - I have not read it yet, but will pass along the recommendation to you.


> The Myth of Mental Illness

Having been close to a few people with psychotic disorders (I'm not misusing that term, I mean paranoid delusions, hallucinations, ...), this rubs me the wrong way. A mild case of depression may be safe to approach this way but with serious psychiatric problems that is dangerous.

The author wrote a book saying schizophrenia doesn't exist, and was made up by psychiatrists. While it's probably true that it's a blanket term for what are probably multiple causes or possibly more of a spectrum disorder, I have seen schizophrenia up close. It would be foolish to say it doesn't exist, in that there are millions of suffering people in existence who fit the symptom criteria and benefit from treatment.

You also need to be careful about people who advocate this position because some of them are affiliated with cults.


I'd lump those pill into that list of the cause of modern afflictions. I got off them, because they made things worse, just in different ways than the depression itself. I cured myself with diet and exercise.


Seems rather heavy handed conclusion. And are you just referring to ssri drugs or all depression drugs.

Do you think you would have been able to make the lifestyle changes without medication first? If so then why?

It may be easy after the fact when the depression is lower and you have side effects to look back and judge the value that way. But it may be hard to imagine what did not happen or how life may have trended if not for it.

Obviously I have my own bias. I don’t think I would have been able to start and stick to exercise if not for the kickstart from medication


> Not to mention, exercise is "too hard" for most,

> Disclaimer: I'm in the US

These are related. This is largely from car dependence. In a lot of places you can get daily exercise through walking.


What is currently called “depression” needs splitting up into finer grained categories because it’s become a useless catch all term at this point. I would argue that the people who are really truly rendered catatonic (and so likely have something seriously wrong in the brain that needs addressing with drugs) should be in one category and I would argue this is quite a small minority. I personally believe that the “depression” the majority are experiencing is more akin to what Johan Hari talks about in Lost Connections and it’s root causes are absurd societal structures and political failures which are deeply harming people. If someone feels trapped in a hopeless situation and this drags on for years because society is not providing any means to help them escape and improve their lives then depresssion is a pretty inevitable outcome.

In a modern day society it really isn’t acceptable. Give people access to low cost housing. Reduce the cost of education so no one is priced out of it or forced into massive debts. Subsidise healthy food and tax junk. Subsidise gym memberships and sports clubs for the poorest. Increase the amount of therapists being trained and make them more accessible. Pay people proper wages. Watch depression plummet. The solutions are there - why is there no political will to enact them?

Edit:

I have no idea why but people are reading “subsidise” and seeing “free”. That is not what I said. Subsidise the things you want to encourage so it is cheaper for the consumer at the point of sale and do the opposite for the things you want to discourage. The cost you pay as a society ends up being less in the long run. Less people ill and ending up in hospital means more people working and paying taxes etc.


I would argue that most depression is something more philosophical and behavioral then simple material conditions.

It is a state of disconnect from one's own life and the World At Large. This is symptomatic of a loss of individual agency and ability to interact with their environment in a personally meaningful way.

All the free gym memberships and free food in the world is useless if individuals don't want to go to the gym or cook the food. In reality, there are opportunities for free recreation and cheap healthy food readily available, but that isn't the bottleneck.

Bottleneck is trained helplessness which leads people to self medicate and watch an average of 40 plus hours of Television a week instead of doing something that actually Sparks Joy.


I would argue we live in an era with the most access to everything you listed out ever. There are more programs to help the poor than any other period in history. The internet and YouTube give you access to the world's knowledge. You can get a membership to Planet Fitness for $10/month.

Also, I realize all of this is great, but the opposite side is true too. We also live in an era with the most amount of obstacles and vices people can fall into. Yes, there are amazing lectures on YouTube, but there are also millions of addicting cute cat videos.

I state all this to say depression and improving people lives is not as easy as providing them access. They need to want to put in the work themselves.


I agree that people do need to put the effort in themselves. I just think that they put the effort in when they have breathing space and hope. If people can’t see a way out of their situation then they won’t put any effort in, they’ve become hopeless and therefore depressed. You could argue that the disease in that case may be one of perception, and that you need to enrich the person’s life by opening up to new possibilities and ways of perceiving the world. But you can also build more visible progression paths into the system so people never feel that way in the first place and can always see a route out if they choose to take it.

I’d also argue that there are some social programs but:

- we’re drowning in information overload so people don’t necessarily know how to access them. For example, a lot of the poorest households in the Uk did not claim the money they were entitled to from the government for energy payments this winter.

- We don’t really have policies that are addressing the root causes of poverty which are unaffordable housing, unaffordable and/or poor quality education and low wages.


I agree with your first paragraph. However, I don't think your 2nd paragraph is a fix that'll help very many people at all.

This idea that just throwing free things at people will give them any amount of deeper happiness is typically proven false. I also don't find therapists all that useful but I guess that's a personal subjective take... maybe for the right people they can be. The healthy food thing is a cultural issue and no amount of subsidizing it to make it cheaper will get people to eat healthier. The percentage of obese people is too high to place all the obesity blame on food pricing.

The issue is simply that modern day life is typically TOO easy for most people and gives back very little deep meaning. We've created a culture that gives zero meaning to anyone and promotes nihilism. You will not fix that with welfare. Some of the most depressed mentally ill people you find will be very well off financially.


I didn’t say free, I said subsidised.

You need to reduce friction for good habits and increase friction for bad ones. At the minute, our societies do the exact opposite. Unhealthy food and Netflix and cheap. Healthy food and education are expensive.

It doesn’t matter how it happened, once someone is in the hole, the negative feedback loop makes it very hard for them to escape. If you are worked to the bone on minimum wage to keep an overpriced roof over your head you will likely fall into the trap of eating shit food and binging on Netflix because summoning the energy to cook, teach yourself skills and exercise is going to be difficult. And the more you give in to doing that the deeper into the hole you fall. People at the bottom need breathing space. Reduce the amount of money they have to spend to survive which means they don’t have to work themselves to the bone to survive and they can actually focus on improving themselves. I’ve literally seen it happen with my own eyes.

And yes, for some people life can be too easy and that can also cause depression. Which is why I believe we need finer grained categories to narrows down the root causes and provide more tailored solutions than just handing out happy pills willy nilly to everyone.


>You need to reduce friction for good habits and increase friction for bad ones. At the minute, our societies do the exact opposite. Unhealthy food and Netflix and cheap. Healthy food and education are expensive

I would argue the opposite. healthy food is already dirt cheap, and education is free.

One hour at minimum wage can buy enough clean healthy food to last an adult most of a week.[1] Free education as available at online and at libraries, ranging all the way from simple tasks to Phd courses from Stanford.

My point isn't to minimize the hardship of the depressed, but point out that friction isn't the issue. If 5 minutes of cooking, picking up a book, or typing an educational topic into youtube is too much effort, there is a different problem.

Why does reading a book, cooking, or learning seem like work, and not fun? It certainly isn't because it is too hard in reality, especially when the same depressed person found pleasure and relaxation in doing these things before they were depressed.

[1] I was at the store yesterday and pork was 88 cents/lb, frozen vegetables ~ $1/lb, and rice and beans ~$1/lb.


I agree with some of your points but not all of it. Healthy food can be affordable if you know what to buy and how to cook it. But I disagree that it is cheaper than junk food and it is certainly less convenient to cook and purchase. In the UK at least, there are also 'food deserts'[1] which means it is difficult to access healthy food.

I also agree that you can teach yourself stuff online for free. However it doesn't change the fact that you don't have the piece of paper saying you've got a degree which is one of the societal structures that holds a lot of people back. If you want the certification for an online program, you have to pay a similar amount of money to what you would have if you'd attended in person. There are lots of immigrants working in Western countries as taxi drivers who are scientists, doctors and the like back in their home countries but can't practice here for whatever reason, normally to do with the paperwork. IT/Dev is an outlier in that they will hire people without degrees in ways that don't happen in other industries. Something like 'Good Will Hunting' where a self taught janitor makes it into a white collar career is pretty rare.

> My point isn't to minimize the hardship of the depressed, but point out that friction isn't the issue. If 5 minutes of cooking, picking up a book, or typing an educational topic into youtube is too much effort, there is a different problem.

I still believe friction is a key component. Say you're on the minimum wage and you have to work as many hours as you possibly can to keep a roof over your head. Plus you have a lengthy commute. When you return home you are physically and mentally depleted, particularly if you are an ill fit for whatever job you've had to take on to survive. You want to turn your life around, but you've only got limited time available outside of work to do it. So you start looking for ways to save time. Maybe you'll cut back on exercise, or start eating more junk food so you don't have to cook as much and you can study. Or maybe you'll cut back on sleep. You keep this up for a while but eventually the physical and mental effects start to become overwhelming and you become more and more ill and eventually you burn out. You've worked hard, you've studied and you've still gotten nowhere. And your body and mind are a mess. Maybe you end up losing your job as a result. You lose faith that anything will ever pay off and you stop studying. You fall into depression and the cycle gets even worse. Maybe you even turn to alcohol and drugs to numb the pain. What that person needs is less friction in their life and a bit of help. Maybe it's work from home, maybe it's cheap and healthy takeaway food and probably a higher wage.

> Why does reading a book, cooking, or learning seem like work, and not fun? It certainly isn't because it is too hard in reality, especially when the same depressed person found pleasure and relaxation in doing these things before they were depressed.

Because the person is engaged in a fight for survival. They are not necessarily studying a topic because they want to but because it's the only thing that will help them get a job in their current location. They can't move away because they have no savings. Whatever they have to learn becomes high stakes. You can't afford to mess up or fail because if you do then you're toast. And learning requires failure so it's a stressful experience on top of your already stressful life. You've got society telling you you're worthless due to paying you barely enough to survive and now you've got a compiler error or a textbook you can't decipher saying the same thing. It takes a large amount of strength to hold fast and have faith that you will eventually come out the other side victorious, especially if this kind of thing goes on for years.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/12/more-than-a-...


I think we are talking past eachother.

When I talk about access to learning, I am not talking about obtaining a piece of paper increasing economic mobility. I am talking about learning for the sake of personal enjoyment.

Most poor people are not depressed, so you have to ask what sets the depressed apart from the rest. Why can one person find joy in learning, and not another?

I think this points to something greater than money= happiness. Im not saying it doesnt matter, just that I don't think is accurate simplification.

You constructed an elaborate and plausible narrative why someone is depressed because of their economic situation. However, it ignores the person in identical situation who is happy. What is different between them?


> I think we are talking past eachother.

I think we are too.

> You constructed an elaborate and plausible narrative why someone is depressed because of their economic situation. However, it ignores the person in identical situation who is happy. What is different between them?

From my viewpoint, there are four components:

- Personality

- Expectation

- Perception

- Resilience

Starting with the first, imagine you’re really, really into the arts. Maybe you’re really into musical theatre or something like that because you saw them on TV. Now imagine you’re stuck living in an isolated town in Alaska.

Now we can move on to expectation. Maybe you grew up as kid and thought one day I’ll make it out of this town and move to a city where I can work in musical theatre. Or maybe you don’t even have that high expectations, you just want to live in a city where you can watch musical theatre. You think you’ll grow up and earn the money and get out of the town. But it doesn’t go to plan. Maybe you struggle to find a job because you don’t have the skills needed in the area. You’re working as a bartender and don’t seem to have any money left over at the end of the week to put towards your new life. Years go by and you’ve not made any progress. Your dream is fading further and further into the distance.

Which moves on to perception. So many years have gone by that you no longer see any possible way of achieving your expectations and living somewhere that matches your personality. You know what you’re doing isn’t working but you can’t think of anything that will. You fall into a depression. You let your body and mind go to shit.

A year or two goes by and maybe your perception changes and you think “maybe if I train as a lumberjack then I can earn more money and then I’ll be able to save and get out of here.” So you go to college to train as a lumberjack. But you’ve been out of school for a while and you’ve forgotten how long it takes to learn a new skill. You fuck up a lot. You’re not really a lumberjack type so the other students take the piss out of you and you become the butt of the jokes. You try and start running for your mental health but you’re that out of shape that you can’t even run a mile. You give up on both because you haven’t built up enough resilience through previous challenges to make it through.

That last part is absolute key. When you’re exercising, the total stress the body endures needs to be appropriate for it to have the intended effect. If you push someone too hard who is out of shape you risk injuring them. Even if you’re a seasoned athlete and overtrain, your fitness decreases. Similarly if you don’t work hard enough to trigger growth, your fitness won’t increase.

It is the exact same thing with depression and why some people on here are saying depression is caused because life is too hard and others are saying it’s caused because life is too easy. The stress stimulus needs to be tailored for the individual. For a lot of people the stress is either too high or too low and it is causing major, major problems. We’re calling both of these polar opposite cause and effects “depression” and it means everyone is shouting at each other rather than coming together and helping each other.

Going back to our original scenario, you might have another poor person who lives in that small Alaska town. Maybe he loved musical theatre too. But maybe his personality extended to other interests so he was happy. Or maybe he never expected much out of life so he was happy. Or maybe he could perceive different opportunities to escape. Or maybe he took the same lumberjack and running route but he knew that it was going to take a long, long time to get good at either and he was going to have suffer and persevere for a long long time.

It doesn’t matter how someone got in the hole, when they decide that they’re ready to get out, society needs to rally around them to offer support. That doesn’t mean to completely molly coddle them but it means that, just like a good coach or physio, you’ve got to realistically evaluate how much stress and damages they’ve endured and how much they can currently tolerate and then gradually increase their ability to handle more over time until they’re back on their feet again. At the minute, in my opinion, society is far too much Led Tasso and not enough Ted Lasso.


I disagree that modern day life is too easy for most people and that's why people are depressed. Specifically, I don't think there's any evidence that lives with more adversity are less prone to mental illness. By this logic, PTSD shouldn't exist, neither should the myriad of studies that prove beating your children statistically results in a whole host of negative outcomes.

I think you personally just might not be engaging with people who aren't well off financially. The rate of mental illness among the homeless and the jailed populations is way, way higher than the rate of mental illness among the wealthy.


> Some of the most depressed mentally ill people you find will be very well off financially.

Is this statistically true? otherwise this is worthless.

See: Study Finds Strong Relation Between Income and Happiness, Does Not Max Out at $75k. Turns out that famous study that everyone loved to quote isn't exactly truth. https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/nextgen/nextgen-ar...


Happiness has nothing to do with clinical mental illness.


> The issue is simply that modern day life is typically TOO easy for most people and gives back very little deep meaning.

Any references that people were less depressed when things were more difficult?


Read Viktor Frankl’s book please.

People would not have had time to be depressed in the past. They were just surviving. Wallowing in depression would have meant death.


I believe you're interpreting the OP's second paragraph differently to how it was intended.

The idea isn't that you're "giving" or "providing" or "subsidizing" with welfare - the point is that the subsidization has already occurred, just in a non-human focused way. Factory farming has been subsidized so processed sugars and unhealthy food are the norm. Companies are effectively subsidized by allowing minimum wage scheduling without providing healthcare.

This all has knock on effects. Healthy food isn't just a cultural issue, many people simply don't have the time or access to be able to cook healthy natural food. For the vast majority of people, they have no possible access to a therapist, even if they wanted to or were able to afford it (unlikely in the case of the US healthcare system). And of course, since there's minimal insurance support for general therapy, there's a much smaller market for people to go into it. The negative feedback loop continues.

I agree with your general point that life gives back very little meaning in our society, but its important to understand that this doesn't just occur because life is too easy. For many people, life is hard. And there isn't a visible path out of the situation they're currently in. Checking out/dropping out/giving up is honestly a reasonable response.

TLDR: Try not to think of Welfare as a handout. See it as a signal of a broken society that needs fixing.


> modern day life is typically TOO easy for most people and gives back very little deep meaning.

That is about accurate for USA. People can start a garden or put a pepper plant under a CFL bulb. Grow some food to get some appreciation for how life has become easier.


So only poor people suffer from depression?


You really missed the point. He's saying "depression" means a lot of different things[0], and that many people are unhappy simply because their societal (economic and social) situation sucks and thus their life sucks.

[0]: It would be interesting to have a discussion about "depression" without actually using the word, since it's so overloaded.


I think OP is referring to the 2nd paragraph.


Poor not in wealth but in quality of life, which is almost everyone.


No not at all. Rich people who benefit from the system can also be victim to it in other ways. Not all managers are sociopaths and I’m sure a lot of them feel shit about some of the things they have to do in order to maintain their jobs. And everyone, regardless of wealth and status, is subject to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and whatever personal tragedies they may bring. As I said we need finer grained diagnoses. You might have for example:

- Catatonic depression, likely physical in nature

- Shit Life Syndrome [1], likely societal cause, possibly other issues are play

- Privilege Pathos, likely caused by past trauma, loss or existential issues

These are obviously exaggerated groupings to make the point. At the end of the day, at the receiving end of every diagnosis is an individual with a unique biology and backstory that lead to their depression. But if you want to have the most impact on reducing the ever skyrocketing amount of depression cases, you would be best to focus on the societal issues and that, in my opinion, is what is causing the most symptoms in the most amount of people. The people in the other two categories (the catatonic and the rich) are the people most likely to be currently receiving treatment anyway, the first because they can no longer look after themselves and so wind up in the system and the second because they have the means to access therapies.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_life_syndrome?wprov=sfti1


> political failures

If politics is being blamed for depression, it is because people voluntarily consume media about politics. Just say no. Refuse to be sucked in to that pattern.


Second and third order effects.

If the main cause of poverty is unaffordable housing and low wages and poverty is one of the leading causes of depression then the people who have the ability to tackle the housing crisis and low wages but instead choose to do nothing are also responsible for the causation of a lot of depression. The people who are able to do something about the housing crisis are politicians. I do agree with you though if you think political media is pretty toxic.


I tend to disagree. Our society is seriously not that bad, the fact we can talk freely about how bad it is show that is better than many other societies. While I didn't experience it first hand, a common thing I see when people visit really shitty places is how happy people are, from North Korean farmers to women of Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Scandinavian countries are often a model when it comes to a "good" society, topping all the "happiness" charts, and yet, they are in the worst quartile when it comes to suicide rate.

So, I won't blame society for depression, it looks like mentally healthy people are pretty resilient, and if put in extreme situations (ex: torture) to beyond breaking point, the result is usually more anxiety than depression. I know a few people with depression, treated and followed by psychiatrists. And while the trigger can be some hardship, which can be related to society, or can be a simple breakup, it is just that, a trigger, most people would have just moved on.

And one trait I notice the most is apathy, not sadness. And it is really unsettling. At least, when people are sad, they react to your sollicitations, they may cry, get angry, complain, attempts to get them out will be warmly welcome or they will oppose resistance. For the depressive people I know, there is no reaction, it is not catatonia, their intelligence is unaffected, but it looks like they can't have emotions of their own. They may get good support from friends, family, and even society, but it all seem to go down in a black hole, I really think it helps, but it doesn't show. Drugs seem to be the most effective treatment, unfortunately, because these things induce tolerance and are addictive.

Depression is a disease, and we don't know the cause. We know heredity is important, being healthy and well supported is certainly better than sick and alone, but we are not sure about the details, and therefore what society can do. Quoting scientists favorite phrase: "more research is needed".

As for what society can do to promote healthy habits, this is really a complex thing. You may not realize but that's what Hitler tried to do (for their own people), in fact Hitler could have seriously tackled depression, though eugenics, healthy labor and campaigning against unhealthy habits like smoking. And yet, it would be an absolutely terrible society to live in.

So, I don't think a better, more equal society, as good as it is, is the ultimate solution to depression. Still nice to have though.


> I tend to disagree. Our society is seriously not that bad, the fact we can talk freely about how bad it is show that is better than many other societies.

This seems analogous to Stockholm Syndrome. The “kidnappers aren’t that bad, if they were really bad they would have taped our mouths shut rather than just tying us up and locking us in this room”.

> While I didn't experience it first hand, a common thing I see when people visit really shitty places is how happy people are, from North Korean farmers to women of Saudi Arabia.

So if the people there are that happy, why are some of them risking their lives to flee?

> On the other hand, Scandinavian countries are often a model when it comes to a "good" society, topping all the "happiness" charts, and yet, they are in the worst quartile when it comes to suicide rate. So, I won't blame society for depression,

This argument doesn’t make sense. You seem to be saying:

- autocracies and democracies are societies

- some poor people in autocracies are happy

- some people in well regarded democracies kill themselves

- therefore societal factors do not play a leading role in depression.

> it looks like mentally healthy people are pretty resilient, and if put in extreme situations (ex: torture) to beyond breaking point, the result is usually more anxiety than depression.

not sure on this. PTSD correlates pretty strongly with both anxiety and depression.

> I know a few people with depression, treated and followed by psychiatrists. And while the trigger can be some hardship, which can be related to society, or can be a simple breakup, it is just that, a trigger, most people would have just moved on.

> And one trait I notice the most is apathy, not sadness. And it is really unsettling. At least, when people are sad, they react to your sollicitations, they may cry, get angry, complain, attempts to get them out will be warmly welcome or they will oppose resistance. For the depressive people I know, there is no reaction, it is not catatonia, their intelligence is unaffected, but it looks like they can't have emotions of their own. They may get good support from friends, family, and even society, but it all seem to go down in a black hole, I really think it helps, but it doesn't show. Drugs seem to be the most effective treatment, unfortunately, because these things induce tolerance and are addictive.

I agree with the apathy part. But I think it has varying levels of severity, and at its most severe is when it leads to a catatonic state. I agree that these people are the most likely to need medical treatment. I think this illustrates the first point I’m making though which is that we need to either do away with “depression” as a term or that people need to get more specific with it. Also just because drugs are the cure for the disease, doesn’t rule out the fact that the social triggers may have been responsible for causing the biological issues.

> Depression is a disease, and we don't know the cause.

Well if this thread is anything to go by, people can’t even agree on what the term ‘depression’ is meant to represent. You’re making a bold claim here stating it is a disease, which implies that the cause is purely biological. Most medical definitions state it is a mood disorder.

> We know heredity is important, being healthy and well supported is certainly better than sick and alone, but we are not sure about the details, and therefore what society can do. Quoting scientists favorite phrase: "more research is needed".

Quoting https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay0214

> Rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide correlate negatively with income (4–7) and employment (5, 8). Those with the lowest incomes in a community suffer 1.5 to 3 times more frequently from depression, anxiety, and other common mental illnesses than those with the highest incomes.

It would seem that actually yes, as a society we do know what to do to alleviate depression. We can help these people out of poverty.

> As for what society can do to promote healthy habits, this is really a complex thing.

Well yes but also no. We seem to have reduced smoking very effectively. Sugar taxes work well. It seems that in general, if you tax unhealthy things and subsidise healthy things, it tends to have the intended effect.

> You may not realize but that's what Hitler tried to do (for their own people), in fact Hitler could have seriously tackled depression, though eugenics, healthy labor and campaigning against unhealthy habits like smoking. And yet, it would be an absolutely terrible society to live in.

You seem to be trying to make the point that any societal attempts aimed at boosting physical and mental wellbeing should be avoided because Hitler also ran societal programs so any such initiatives are destined to lead to fascist societies. This does not appear to be the case.

> So, I don't think a better, more equal society, as good as it is, is the ultimate solution to depression. Still nice to have though.

No, it is not the “ultimate solution” (ironic choice of words given the contents of the last paragraph) to depression but it is a giant leap in the right direction.


Way to completely ignore the point. It is also addressing a spiritual problem with material concerns. Just throw more money at it and the problem goes away?

It is also founded on the premise that the government is in a position to remove any and all risk from people's lives. Indeed, it would be obligated to do this. It is extending a guarantee it has no way of fulfilling.


Let's see... Gut Biome comment? Check. Just diet and exercise, check. "It's really a social problem", check. Arguing about fat people? Check. Sometime I'm going to register hnbingo.com and show my clairvoyance, this is all predictable. Oh, arguments about the poor! Knew those had to be there.


Don’t you think that’s a little condescending. It’s predictable because those are all topics that are related and there of course differences in common opinions.

So you are trying to call everybody out for earnestly bringing relevant opinions and other points and just having a good discussion on an important topic. Is this not what comments are for? this isn’t Reddit where all the comment threads have to devolve into pithy jokes.


Seems there’s a lot of anger about the topic; maybe. One description I heard which sounds pretty good is: depression is anger turned inwards; rather than expressed: expressed through either being processed or turned outward, or both? I guess. Just find an outlet that does not take it out on someone else :)


It's really bizarre to me how fixated people are on viewing depression solely through the "disease with a biological cause" lens. Even in this article, which acknowledges the serious flaws in the serotonin hypothesis, all the alternatives they explore are around other biological things like other neurotransmitters, inflammation, etc.

Maybe more people are anxious and depressed than in the past because modern life really sucks for a lot of people. I'm not saying that's a simple thing to fix, and certainly there is a biological component for some people...but the idea that societal changes are increasing rates of anxiety and depression seems way more plausible than there being some sudden and mysterious shift in the biology of a significant percentage of the population that needs correcting via medication.


Here is a lecture by Robert Sapolsky, an extremely well-regarded researcher, that goes over some evidence on depression being a disease: https://youtu.be/NOAgplgTxfc

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I recall his evidence including some rather striking non-behavioral symptoms, like changes in sleep cycles.

To address your specific thoughts on it, his position (paraphrased from memory) is that social stressors like you describe cause elevated cortisol, which causes depression - such that your position that "modern life really sucks" is not incompatible with a biological cause.

It's extraordinarily interesting in a lot of other ways - definitely worth a watch in spite of the length.


Oh yeah, certainly, being depressed is correlated with all kinds of changes in biology. I'm not saying it's like "just in your head", but the question is, do those changes lead to being depressed or does being depressed lead to biological changes?

Of course that question is an oversimplification since the answer is certainly some of both; but the prevailing wisdom seems to be that it's mostly/all biological changes leading to feeling depressed, whereas I'm not convinced the scales don't lean more in the other direction, at least on average.

EDIT: but as to your point about stress leading to elevated cortisol levels, to me that's clearly not a biological cause. The cause is stress, and the elevated cortisol levels are an effect of the stress. It's not like the hormone levels just went up all by themselves due to some genetic abnormality or something; if they did, then yeah maybe that's a biological disease that warrants some kind of chemical correction, but that's not at all what we're talking about.


If you had crippling anxiety because someone actually was trying to kill you, don't you think you'd have changes in your sleep cycles? Why does that have to indicate some change that is based purely on chemical imbalances that are not caused by external factors?


It's very frustrating that you impugn the biological cause and receive comments defending the biological effect.


Not disagreeing with you I think depression is a constellation of things but anhedonia in my opinion definitely has a biological cause because it comes and goes.


This is really faulty logic. Your emotions moving in cycles is not in any way proof of some purely biological issue. Non biological stimuli like external stressors also come and go.


It's not faulty logic at all. Scientists have known for a while that your ability to experience pleasure is a result of certain biological processes.

"Recent findings in the field of neuroscience have, however, demonstrated that a single functional circuit, incorporated inside the broader dopaminergic mesocorticolimbic system, seems to be involved in the various experiences of pleasure"

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.0035...

Going back to your accusation of "faulty logic": an interruption in the ability to experience pleasure, which is established to be controlled by biological processes, having a basis in a biological process would be deductively valid logic. Anhedonia is an inability to experience pleasure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning


It's not faulty logic at all. Scientists have known for a while that your ability to experience pleasure is a result of certain biological processes

Well of course on a certain level your ability to feel anything is the result of biological processes, but that doesn't mean that the specific things you feel aren't a result of the specific experiences you've had.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that feelings happen completely independently of biological processes, but there's a hugely important difference between "I had a bad experience that altered my feelings, and that's reflected in my biology" vs "my biology just did something of its own accord that had nothing to do with my life circumstances, and that change altered the way I feel".

You seem to be arguing that because anhedonia correlates with certain biological changes, that it must be caused by those changes. That could be true (and probably is true in some cases) but it does not necessarily follow that it is always true, or even true the majority of the time; the causation could could flow in a different direction.


Let's come back to my original argument that anhedonia, which is a core feature of depression but is not the same as depression, is caused by biological processes. Do you have evidence to say that it is not?


Maybe it's different across cultures, but to me it was communicated that more serotonin makes you more risk-taking and removes anxiety from you. The anti-depressant effect is coming from the rewards of taking risk (e.g. asking someone out, applying for a new job, asking for extra ketchup on your fries).

There was a funny study about crayfish changing behaviour when exposed to SSRI, where they became bolder to the point of endangering their life.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/15/crayfish...


This is a little unfair to _Listening to Prozac_, which was raising speculation about SSRIs effect on trophic and atrophic factors back in the 90s. In fact it’s unclear whether anyone ever believed in the catecholamine hypothesis (excepting simplified accounts for marketing or doctor-patient communication), and it’s been for decades now a cottage industry to disprove it in favor of something ele.

It’s on the other hand disturbing that there’s talk of broadening the term “depression”, when it really needs narrowing. There’s such a thing as a medical condition “depression” that one might as well define as “responds to antidepressants” and then there’s everything else — the invisible boundary accounting for how little effectiveness antidepressants have at large. It’s a damn shame that we don’t have the means of diagnosing it (whereasw Kraepelin developed the bipolar/schizophrenia differential diagnosis before Freud even arrived on the scene).

Overall this article does nothing to inform or educate.


Depression and anxiety may as well be the cough and fever of the mental health world. We can certainly treat cough and fever symptoms but that is quite different from treating the underlying condition.

I think the big problem is we probably have a lot of recent societal/cultural changes which at least contribute to depression and anxiety, but are very hard to detect because of near universal adoption + too many confounding variables when examining holdout populations. Thinking of things like diet (and trace chemicals, pesticides), sleep habits, screen usage (internet, social media, porn, passive media, games), caffeine, etc. Somewhere in those areas, IMO, likely lie very large causal contributors to all of the reportedly increasing mental health problems we are seeing.

I can also speak from personal experience that I had very debilitating depression/anxiety as an adolescent which has since greatly leveled off but not quite cleared. While I could likely still be diagnosed with depression now, to me the two states comparing now vs then are so wildly, qualitatively different that I am convinced they represent different underlying pathologies. What I have now feels more like the same thing that most other malcontents seem to have.


We dont understand the brain nearly enough to form a cohesive understaning of depression. (or many other brain related things).

Now, some are saying that gut flora might also be involved. And possible genetic markers. This would create a gigantic number of permutations.

I doubt we can ever "fix" depression with just drugs / chemical imbalance. We may help it along.

Current treatment for depression, in so far as drugs are concerned, is a doctor throwing an "anti depression" pill at you and askinf you to try it for a while and see how you feel.

If you feel worse, or no better, you get to try another.

The loop repeats until something works better or until you are out of alternatives.

In which case, if you have severe depression, options like electrocution of the brain (forget proper English term) becomes an option.

It is often successful, but usually must be repeated and it is not a good thing for the brains other functionality.


This! Riffing on your comment I think probably what a lot of going on is, what’s called and labeled as depression is really a highly diverse, multi faceted multitude of different things for different people. So people come with a certain affect, certain behavior, and it gets labeled as depression, but actually what’s going on, is probably a whole range of distinctly (and likely because it’s complex: overlapping), pathologies, conditions, or whatever you wanna call them with different causes and different effective treatments and it’s all just getting lumped together.

And one reason is because we just don’t know enough exactly as you say.

Maybe one reason electroshock “works” (if it does and I’m speculating here and I feel like it sounds like a barbaric torturous medieval treatment) but maybe one reason is because it throws enough entropy into the brain to allow it to reset out of the local “optima” that it had settled into. And obviously there’s multiple you know assumptions going into that statement and I’m just speculating.

Riffing on that comment I think it’s interesting to consider that the depressive response may actually be an adaptive evolutionarily response of the brain, the nervous system, the body, the endocrine system, whatever and I think it’s interesting to consider what that adaptation might be trying to achieve.

Maybe depression is not the cause of unhappiness, but its result. The collection of symptoms is the result of unhappiness and a response by the body to try to slow somebody down when they’re sort of in a situation that the body brain system whatever has judged is dangerous or not good for them.

And that danger may be to mental health or some thing so it’s basically a way to try to take somebody out of circulation to protect them. It’s the self trying to protect itself from a dangerous environment, whatever the parameters of that environment may be: social, environmental, work whatever.

I was going to add my personal experience. I might be a bit of an anomaly. I have the full range of emotions, intensely experienced, and all kinds of crazy deep experiences in my life so far but I’ve never been depressed. And I always felt it was some thing I wasn’t gonna let happened to me: I was gonna Always find a way through and to keep moving through whatever situation. So I think in my case I mean riffing on what I previously said the depression response never came up because I always kept moving through whatever I was in and my body didn’t have to take me out of circulation, because I was always finding a way like actively to just keep going and doing what I want.


I definitely get the “we don’t understand the brain” aspect. This applies to a ton of things in psychology which I can’t say I’m a fan of. For instance my sister (a psych major) spent thanksgiving arguing with me that babies can be born sociopaths. This is something we definitely can’t state for sure and seems like predetermination with a fancy name.


>I definitely get the “we don’t understand the brain” aspect. This applies to a ton of things in psychology which I can’t say I’m a fan of. For instance my sister (a psych major) spent thanksgiving arguing with me that babies can be born sociopaths. This is something we definitely can’t state for sure and seems like predetermination with a fancy name.

I'd go further and say that most things we class as "mental illness" is just a way of categorizing our ignorance.

Even drugs that purport to help with "mental illness" at best treat some of the symptoms of the unknown causes of such symptoms often have side effects that can be worse than the symptoms.

While significant advances in neuroscience have given us more knowledge about how our brains/mental states work, most attempts at treatment are at the level of trepanning[0] to release evil spirits.

Hopefully that will change as we learn more. I'm not holding my breath.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning


…because literally nobody really knows what causes the depression.


We do actually have a lot of research into factors that can cause depression, which the article mentions:

"Different genetic variations can affect whether individuals respond to certain types of stress, such as sleep deprivation, physical or emotional abuse, and lack of social contact, by becoming depressed."


Yes, I agree that we know many correlating factors. We don’t now, however, how depression works on a biochemical level, and whether it is a process that could be described on such a level.


> Our knowledge of the genetics, however, is incomplete. Krystal noted that studies of twins suggest that genetics may account for 40% of the risk of depression. Yet the currently identified genes seem to explain only about 5%.

I see the value in analyzing genetics for depressive genes, but I also consider that how the genes interact with our environment that play a role. For example, if the state of women's rights around the world returned to where it was 200 years ago, it would likely appear a genetic cause of depression is related to having two X chromosomes. To wit - is the issue with the genes themselves, or is it that those with the genes are somehow repressed by the way society works?


Gene by environment interactions are super important for understanding how genotypes affect fitness in context. Change your environment to the open ocean instead of on land, for example, and you can readily see how your genes now hurt your chances for survival instead of improve them.

That being said, there's a lot to the genetic compotent of disease risk beyond just changes to the sequence of protein coding genes. How much protein that gene produces can be affected by a number of factors, such as the presence of singe nucleotide polymorphisms (changes to one site in the DNA) that may be well outside the gene region in the genome, but are a binding region for a transcription factor or an enhancer that drives expression of that gene and therefore dramatically lowers (or increases) the protein produced. You can also have epigenetic changes that similarly effect gene expression, but these are not reflected anywhere in the genomic sequence since these represent changes to the proteins that package DNA in the nucleus, not to the DNA itself.


Women have 2x the rates of depression as men. But is there any reason to think that 200 years ago it was even more so?

I think we overestimate the impact of external factors on our internal mental states. That's why the typical treatment for depression is CBT (literally changing your thoughts and behaviors) and not "improve your external situation".


At the same time, there's only so much to improve your external situation, especially if you are dealing with hard facts sort of situations (e.g. chronic health problems or terminal illness, poverty). If your source of depression is something external you can do something to improve, your therapist will definitely recommend you moving away from whatever that is (e.g. a toxic work environment or an abusive partner). The reason why we encourage cbt is that it gives you some tools in the mean time, as sometimes the external factors driving your depression are going to be difficult or impossible to change.


> Women have 2x the rates of depression as men. But is there any reason to think that 200 years ago it was even more so?

That's interesting. I would have thought men would have it more since it's an abnormality, and with only 1 X chromosome, men are much more frequently abnormal.

When I said "If the state of women's rights around the world returned to where it was 200 years ago," I meant if women who currently had normal human rights lost them. In that case we would see a major increase in depression among women, the point being that depression would be explained much more clearly by genetic factors, even though the genes didn't change; the interaction between the genes and the world changed.

> I think we overestimate the impact of external factors on our internal mental states.

We definitely do. And the external factors that affect our happiness the most are often the least controllable.


I think that's in part due to the fact that women are an oppressed group in this world. Even in this country, the rhetoric used against women by certain politicians is abhorrant, and startlingly accepted by a huge swath of the population. There are politicians who want teenagers to carry their rapists baby to term; we've had a rapist president and now there's a rapist sitting on the supreme court bench. Then you have a huge swath of people who still believe in the patriarchal mid century views towards women, or who have raised sons who continue to believe that crap and saddle that behavior on their partners, perpetuating mistreatment just like how racism continues to be perpetuated. Minorities are similarly at higher risk for chronic depression than whites.


If I drink to a very buzzed state three nights in a row, I become palpably depressed, irritable, and anxious. If something bad happens during this time, it cuts deep and feels overwhelming. All of the negative things in my life become tormenting devils.

It takes about 24 hours of sobriety for me to begin to feel normal again, and at least 48 to feel I am at my normal baseline.

I always assumed the alcohol was depleting my serotonin.

Beyond that, most of my depression seems to be due to my heroic and idealistic self raging and wallowing in the chasm between my ideals and hard realities that I cannot defeat.


Try activated charcoal first when the depression hits (your gut might have produced too much bad stuff leaking to your bloodstream, messing up your brain in the process), then get some probiotics for long-term maintenance. You might consider taking vitamin B1 and electrolytes while drinking as well.


I can't help but imagine the principal Skinner meme in this case. "Am I out of touch? Is society causing depression? No... It's the chemicals that are wrong."


Really surprised no one here has made the connection between depression and the fight-flight-freeze response. Depression is just the freeze response, just like we see in our animal relatives. Only difference is we can be triggered by thoughts and not only the presence of danger. Freezing is when you are so powerless, you cannot fight and you cannot fly away. You freeze. That response can be reinforced, and sadly, reinforced by thought alone.


Pet theory: It is a protection from negative emotions

Someone experiences too much sadness and other negative emotions, so the brain tries to stop the negative emotions by shutting down all emotion processing. Then you do not feel so many negative emotions anymore, but also no more positive emotions. You just do not feel anything. Since motivation comes from emotions, you also lose all motivation to do stuff


Sounds like psychodynamics. A core part of that theory is that unbearable emotions/thoughts are relegated to the "unconscious mind."


> Experiments in which researchers artificially lowered the serotonin levels of volunteers didn’t consistently cause depression

Jesus...hard to imagine volunteering for that study


I think it is the gut microbiome and chemicals. Basically drink too much alcohol, get depressed or inferred from the hangover. It's a negative feedback look b/c usually drinking relieves depression at first. Then fail to eat properly for what you and your microbiome need, you get depressed. Tryptophan depletion for example. Take a serious course of antibiotics get depressed since your microbiome is out of whack.

There's probably genetics involved as well. Sun light exposure modulates hormones and Vit D.

I wonder if there's a correlation with caesarean section births and depression as well. The hypothesis would be that the infant is born into a sterile environment and does not get populated by the moms microbiome.

Exercise probably plays a role as well since it boosts resilence.


"The Cause of Depression" assumes there is a single cause, which may not be the case.


I agree with this idea. I personally think there isn't. There are more parts of the system that can be attacked in order to cause depression


I wouldn't say attack is the right word. Depression seems to be an evolved mechanism that has developed in the brain, as a way to change the organism's behaviour, e.g. resting while sick (sickness behaviour depression), getting more sleep, getting out of a stressful situation, etc. The problem is, it's more like a generic "check engine" light, but without having access to an OBD, so you kinda have to look at your lifestyle and try to figure out what's causing the depression, which isn't always easy.


I’ve always thought depression to be a symptom to a larger cause. There’s many books that talk about why such as everyday stress, childhood trauma, genetics, spirituality/meaning, and even lack of quality human basics(foods, sleep, air, etc). So many factors and even all those can be wrong.

This article is promising that it seems science is rethinking this challenge one small step at a time. I’ve always been fascinated with stories where previously depressed people found the right combination of change to turn their lives around. Sometimes it feels like it is cyclical in life. Being able to treat it with a kitchen sink of tools could really help outside of a single drug solution.


“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.”

Been depressed and unhappy for ages. But I find it gets exacerbated when people are assholes.


Depression is social hopelessness.

You don't feel like you have a community that can help you achieve your goals, or even set goals that are attainable that will put you in the social role that you think you should be filling.

The interplay between your self concept and societal expectations for you individually determine your mood stability

Now, certain people (me) have behavioral contributors from childhood like massive trauma that makes it easier to feel low self worth. I would argue everyone has some trauma, but those with big trauma deal with it chronically.


Changing my diet helped me with energy levels.

My Parents moved when I was 5, and divorced when I was 14, ever since I've moved about every 5 years or so - it's a restless life.

I've been bullied and beaten when before I was 5, bullied by a teacher in elementary school, and when I left there my parents divorced.

Depression probably has been with me since I was 6 or 7. Nothing matters, and I don't want to do anything. At the age of about 31 I got diagnosed with heavy depression and adhd (I'm female and probably authistic as well).

With 35 the last thing I hadn't tried yet was ketogenic diet. Within a Week my energy levels rose dramatically, and it took another year to pull it together, but my life is normal now (at 40 years old).

I haven't found a definitive answer, but my guess is that I've ruined my gut when I first moved. Can't digest plants and they ferment in the belly. It takes about 4 days to have effects. Any effect stays for a few days and then leaves when I go back to Meat and Butter.

Either that or the brain/immune system just connects carbs and veggies with violence/danger (mum used to beat me over food I didn't want to eat)

I've been to gastro enterologist - no diagnosis, allergy testing - no allergies, general practicioner - no diagnosis, psychologist - no diagnosis except for the depression and adhd part (which are much much lighter on a meat based diet)


I’ve made the same personal observations.

Ketogenic diets have also been used for a century to treat epilepsy in children, so effects might not be limited to the gut. Maybe it’s ketone bodies as an alternative fuel for the brain that is doing the trick.


it's really interesting. I wish I'd be a researcher. I'd try to science the sht out of ketones.

There's anecdotal evidence that cocos fat helps with dementia and alzheimers as well. It already has MCT which can be forwarded by the liver to wherever it's needed.

I actually get migraines from most plant-fats, but not from cocos!


We really have no idea what "the" cause is. It maybe have one cause or many (it almost certainly has many...).

We don't even really know what depression is. Is it a disease or a symptom or both? Is it actually multiple different diseases all presenting similarly?

One look at how regularly professionals change the name/definition/diagnostic criteria for this shows you we are still in very early days for mental health...


Right, depression isn't just one thing. It's a general term we give for a family of related symptoms. Sometimes it can be caused by obvious external factors (your loved one dies or you lose your job), in which case it's not considered a "disorder", just a normal response of your brain. Other times there is no obvious external cause and you just have those symptoms for no apparent reason. In such cases we call it "depressive disorder" and treat it with therapy or drugs (which are at best only moderately effective).

Of course there are many things in medicine that have no known cause so it's not exactly unique to depression or even mental illness. For example some large % of chronic pain is idiopathic (no known cause), and there are a host of physical conditions that we similarly have no idea about (fibromyalgia, IBS, etc.).


Of course, before it was called "depressive disorder" it was called clinical depression and defined slightly differently. Before that it was just (unipolar) depression. Before that it was Melancholy. I think it is actually now called something else but I cannot for the life of me remember what...

It's like in the dark ages when people just had "fever" and died.


Chronic inflammation is also result of many other health problem. Depression is ultimately a natural process. It is known that depression caused by health issues probably big portion of cases. Nothing new. I realized that bluntly interfering with a mechanism built-in in our body is ridicules. People should be focusing in root causes. However i doubt that SSRIs really interfere with depression anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTDPV1XOIPY I think what happens is SSRIs make recovery faster for people who are at the stage of recovery by giving false hope. There are ones that really interfere with depression and result is drastically increased mortality. Which is really what should happen if you surpress a natural mechanism solely exists to increase survival.


They seem to look for causes on the hardware level, but maybe it's a software issue many times.


"Serotonin" is itself a complex entity.

There are 14 known serotonin receptors in 7 families

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT_receptor

not to mention other targets such as the serotonin transporter which is a target of many antidepressants.

Serotonin pharmacology includes antidepressant and antianxiety medication, psychedelic drugs such as LSD and mescaline, the nearly unique drug MDMA (aka Ecstacy), drugs to suppress vomiting, part of the action of some antipsychotic drugs, anti-migraine, and drugs that increase gastric and intestinal motility.

Platelets, your gut, and heart valves are just a few tissues that are full of serotonin receptors: some serotonin-active drugs can seriously damage your heart valves, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine

----

The conclusions that people made about free serotonin in spinal taps of psychiatric patients in the 1960s have been long used in a facile manner in psych med marketing and the chickens seem to finally be coming home to roost on that one.

I'd almost call the SSRIs "antineurotic" drugs in that they are helpful for both anxiety and depression in many people. There has been a lot of negativity about them in the news in the last months or so, particularly reports of bad efficacy which I think draw the wrong conclusion.

Basically if you try "X mg of fluoxetine vs a placebo" you are going to have poor response and a lot of side effects. In good clinical practice you see your doc, fill a script, talk to your doc in three weeks, maybe increase the dose, maybe try a different med if you don't get a response or if you are bothered by side effects. If you do that you get much better results that the average clinical trial of a single antidepressant but you are going to talk to your doc (maybe sometimes to the nurse over the phone) several times over 6 months or so.


What are some good ways to get a bunch of serotonin when seemingly nothing really excites you/brings you joy and you view almost everything in the form of “pros/cons” (aka everything is not without its downsides)?


This whole article about how "getting a bunch of serotonin" isn't the problem.


*is


I've struggled with this. In the end the solution was to just ignore my pros and cons list, and go with the flow. There's been plenty of times I've gone into something thinking not much of it, and being pleasantly surprised after. There's also a book that really helps me which I periodically reread every few years: Siddartha by Herman Hesse. Its a short read, ~150 pages. It reminds me how important the fullness of life is, the good and the bad.


I’ve been taking the precursor as a supplement (5-HTP) but I’m not sure of it’s efficacy as I’m not a nutritionist.


Some ideas: Signup for classes of some hobby you really like. Read good books about something that can help you see life from a different perspective. Learn from Dr Andrew Hubberman on YouTube


Hobbies I like: incessantly refreshing HackerNews/Reddit. Distracting myself with random coding projects. I feel like my attention span has been fried from TikTok/being a "computer kid" for the past 20 years or so. Books don't "capture" my attention I guess.


Lol. I guess I was referring to try something different. Not that I’m an expert but have tried many things & one of the best was taking classes for a hobby I enjoy. You met people with similar interest & have something to talk about. The mere fact of interacting with people & see life from a different perspective can have a real impact. Of course this is just the beginning.


Change your thought patterns to be less cynical.


How does one control their own mind?


I encourage you to look into CBT. The best version of it I've seen is in the David Burns book "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy". Although you can also try a therapist (but they might be more hit/miss).

The basic idea of CBT is that our thoughts are a result of our actions, and by changing our actions we can change our thoughts. I'm not going to say it's super easy, but it definitely does work.


It works for six months to mask problems.


Read philosophy, go to therapy(maybe CBT), generally change your inputs.


“If exercise could be packaged in a pill, it would be the single most widely prescribed and beneficial medicine in the nation.”

Robert Butler


I go for a 3 mile walk every now and then. Doesn't really do much to be honest. I guess you could be referring to the kind of exercise where you need to at least get sweaty.


Yes, unfortunately walking isn't really sufficient. You need to get your heart rate up sufficiently, so something like running, biking, weightlifting, dance, etc. work. I've long suffered from depression, and while I find it very hard to exercise regularly, when I do I definitely feels significant improvement to my mood. It's unfortunate that it's so hard to do it consistently.


For what it’s worth, try bringing the exercise to you. If you like cycling, set up a turbo trainer or exercise bike in your house. If you like weightlifting, get some dumbbells or a sandbag or a squat rack. Reduce the friction and set yourself a goal of doing 1 repetition or 1 minute of exercise a day. It’s such a trivial amount and you’ve reduced the friction of doing the task to such an amount that it makes it much easier to get a consistent habit going.


You can also bake in exercise into your daily life. Rather than drive 5 mins to the grocery store and put the groceries in your trunk, walk for 15 and carry them by hand. You can even do curls, squats, deadlifts, and overhead presses with your grocery bags along the way (in college I'd do this with beer cases, they are about a pound per can). It's also easy to add few more steps to your day you wouldn't normally do, like taking a lap around your house before you leave and when you get back. Take the scenic route to the neighborhood mailbox when you drop off a letter. Go up and down your stairs twice.


Put a backpack on with some weight in it and go for the same walk. You’ll get a much better workout, you’ll feel better and it doesn’t even feel all that different to walking without it. If you want more information on this have a read through this:

https://blog.goruck.com/rucking-training/the-rucking-white-p...

It helped me get through a depressing period in my life.


If you do this though I wouldn't use a jansport, I would use a dedicated hiking backpack with a waist and chest strap that is designed to support your back.


Haha yeah absolutely don't use something with unpadded straps!


Give yourself some credit here. Walking 3 miles is an accomplishment especially if you do it regularly. We evolved to walk, not to sit around all day. Simulate being the hunter gatherer ('modern' ones e.g. in Africa walk 3-8 miles a day), its good for your health to use your body for what its supposed to do. It's like driving the car every now and then so you don't get flat spots on the tires.


Tell that to exercise-intolerant people next...


I feel like you can get pretty close with a steroid+amphetamine cocktail.


More people have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_life_syndrome than depression


I think, to put it simply, depression is the inability to be happy.

It could be chemical, but usually at its core it's a constant sadness about something you cannot, or will not, change. Whether it's for your own self, or for someone else, or just about the state of affairs you witness in the world.

Money, friendship, family, a partner, security, a safety net, an optimistic future.. For most depressed people it's a lack of one or more of those things.


Can publications please put a publication date at the top of the piece? (There is a date, at the end, with the author, which is somewhat ambiguous.)


Agree in general, but this article seems fine for me. I think the placement might depend on screen width. With a narrow screen, the date is right at the top. Wider, it gets moved below a graphic, but still even with the end of the first paragraph. Maybe there's some other version you are seeing that puts it at the bottom? If by ambiguous you mean it's the same as today's date, yeah, but I'm not sure there's a way to avoid that ambiguity on the day of publication.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this could be the first real acknowledgement in science that RA, lupus, and autoimmune disease in general could be CAUSED by mental health issues? FTA:

"It’s also unclear whether simply treating inflammation could be enough to alleviate depression. Clinicians are still trying to parse whether depression causes inflammation or inflammation leads to depression. “It’s a sort of chicken-and-egg phenomenon,” Nemeroff said."


I was hoping to see Finasteride mentioned in the article. I've read that it was found to trigger suicidal thoughts in patients. I'm curious why that is.


I'm really curious what the long term effects of finasteride use will be or if there are side effects from withdrawl. So many people I know use it and this is the first I've read of this side effect, so it must be relatively understudied. I guess the silver lining with so many people testing out a drug like this is that it makes it easier to look at more rare side effects with a larger sample size. Sometimes I think if there's an actual perfectly safe cure for baldness out there, you'd at least see rich people like the British Royal Family or LeBron James using it.


Pregnenolone and DIM supplementation might help there. Though post-finasteride syndrome is likely a complex beast and very individualized.


The most common reason I've seen speculated is the neurosteroids that 5-alpha reductase is involved in, allopregnanole and isopregnanolone.


Depression is a result symptom of a human body fighting the anxiety of modern existence.

The DSM5 does not exist to aboriginal tribes, and those that live closer to how humans evolved. Similar to how the many issues related to obesity do not exist there. The day to day work of medicine in the 1st world is to put bandaids on problems we ourselves have created.


HN has seen a steep rise in mental health related posts in the last year. Am I the only one who has noticed?


No. I see an increase in mental health awareness in general across most media. Which is a good thing.


Ehhh it can be a good thing to an extent. Over-indulging yourself with mental health discussion is bad though imo. There's TOO MUCH talk about it nowadays. To the point where people with normal negative thoughts and emotions are diagnosing themselves with severe mental illnesses and running to the doctor for prescription meds.

From personal experience with anxiety it's also not great to continue discussing your issues 24/7 because you get to the point where you're only forcing yourself to stay in that mindset. You need to get out and live at some point or you'll never recover.


IMO people have historically been not talking nearly enough about mental health. I think everyone should be seeing a therapist regularly, mentally ill or not. The demands of society are stressful and people are expected to just put up with it and not ever have room to be anxious or sad. Most psychologists I've spoken with also have poor views of the psychiatric approach to a lot of mental health issues. Psychologists favor actually working with you and developing internal strategies to protect yourself long term such as cognitive behavioral therapy, whereas psychiatrists have a tendency to talk little and send you home with a prescription versus leaving that as an option of last resort.


Please accept an upvote for this wonderful comment. My experience bears out your view. Whilst there is good stress - the sort that can make us feel alive, the majority is harmful to a lot of people.

I've long felt there is an epidemic of stress which I think accounts for a host of poor outcomes for many, many people and society in general. I wish I had the ability to describe it more fully myself but my thinking on this is not fully formed given it must involve sociology, culture, politics, work, family, education and philosophy etc. In fact the whole fabric on the way we live our lives and why.

I think the foundations for possible solutions have been set by many cultures. Chinese, Japanese and Greek philosophies in particular are, of course, practised by a lot of people, myself included. Ultimately, I feel human evolution will be through the mind and perhaps generations, hundreds of years in the future, will look back at this time in horror the same way we may look back to when leg amputations were carried out with no anaesthetics.


I would say that too much mis-informed talk is probably not a good idea. The balanced view would be to acknowledge those normal negative thoughts and emotions. And that is the crux of the issue. Knowing when those thoughts become abnormal is, hopefully, helped though a broader public education and acceptance of mental health.

Knowing that, if you do in fact need to seek help whether from a friend, professional or even a stranger, you will not made to feel neurotic or told to "snap out of it" is where I hope the end game for increased mental health goes.

Mental and physical health are so closely related - mind and body. It's taken decades to start to get a foothold of acceptance for this type of thinking in the mainstream.

I hear what you are saying about not overdoing it, but lives have been lost because people were too afraid to talk. I don't know what the longer impact of more social acceptance of mental health issues will be but it is my wish it leads to a more compassionate world.


Yeah I agree. I had an ex that listened to mental health podcasts 8+ hours a day. It's all she'd talk about. It became pretty clear that she was addicted to mental health in a way. Her entire life revolved around grief and trauma. It's good for us to work on ourselves, but you have to actually BE yourself at some point.


I can't speak for depression but anxiety it 100% an addiction/habit. You get stuck in a loop and you "train" yourself to stay in it.


Is that increased exposure making us healthier (ie. mindful, tolerant, understanding, patient, ...) or more neurotic (ie. ruminative, paranoid, self-absorbed, defensive, ...)?


No doubt the correct answer is "it requires research." But I guess the answer is going to be "it depends, on the individual and the circumstances"


This is a good question and one that must vex most mental health practitioners. You list both states of mind and some potential mitigations.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the term neurotic myself as it can have dismissive connotations.


Unless it's symptomatic of a sharp increase in mental health difficulties. Most MH folks I know are completely booked months out at this point.


Those bookings could be increased willingness to seek treatment rather than increased difficulties.


Booked? What do you mean?


Oh, so what is it?

> To treat depression effectively, medical researchers may therefore need to develop a nuanced understanding of the ways it can arise. […]

> That prediction may frustrate some physicians and drug developers, since it’s much easier to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution.

But it will not frustrate headline writers.


Any approach to mental health that doesn't involve an holistic component = understanding the more subtle dynamics of consciousness, is limited. Our understanding of health is only ever as complete as our understanding of the universe and our place within it. Which makes sense considering "health" comes from Old English hǣlth, of Germanic origin, meaning "whole."

Mainstream healthcare is pretty ill-equipped when it comes to helping people with mental health because what's at stake is a lot more than atoms, it's learning how to be with one's self... Which is more the function of spiritual traditions and philosophies than it is the function of doctors. (Of course, sometimes there are extreme conditions where medication can be useful to limit harm. But most times I'd argue it simply covers up symptoms and prevents the person from actually growing from the experience.)


I wonder to what degree medicine would be "solved" if in the future chronic inflammation could be removed from the equation. Based on my own consumption of pop-medical articles it's the biggest recurring villain.


I made it a principle to never click a title (or a thumbnail in case of e.g. youtube) that is intentionally this click-baity.

If it's a topic I genuinely am interested in, I just look the information up somewhere else.


Or titles in the form of a question that ultimately is either answered “no” or “we have no idea. keep clicking each week to find out more!”


Just for the record, the original title was 'The real cause of depression is not what you think it is', or sth very close to that.

I am happy to see it was changed.


We’ve known for over a decade there is no such thing as an imbalance. Anyone who bothered to read the primary research would find this out.

It’s incredible how standard of care lags decades behind.


Very anecdotal, but I've noticed on HN that people taking the SSRI Lexapro for GAD seem to think it's incredible, and people taking it for depression seem to be underwhelmed


Also anecdotal, but everyone metabolizes these classes of drugs differently. I'm an "ultra-rapid metabolizer" of a slew of SSRIs, so they're next to worthless for me compared to other medications.


Also anecdotal. And some people are ultra-slow metabolizers, which can cause the drugs to stay in the body longer than anyone could have anticipated. So the effects of 1 pill daily can feel like twice that amount since previous day dosis is still in the blood.


SSRIs affect me strangely. I feel mentally like I’m not depressed but then I have all of the symptoms of depression amplified. Oversleep, no motivation etc but hey I feel like I’m not sad internally.


I have intense TRD. Only mirtazapine could scratch it partially. On mirtazapine, buproprion, and vilazodone.

Psychedelics, magnets, and if it takes protein intake or fecal transplant, sure.


Depression is often, not always, a symptom of another disorder. This is especially true if your depression symptoms are acute or cyclical. Conditions like Bipolar Disorder or ADHD are often mis-diagnosed as depression or anxiety. Beyond that, Depression could be caused by any of a myriad of internal or external variables.

It is no wonder that it is notoriously difficult to study Depression when it might just be a symptom of a dozen distinct conditions.

My anecdote is that I thought I experienced bouts of depression for no deeper reason right through my 20s. Turns out I have ADHD and my depression is just caused by my brain getting exhausted from masking/functioning.


I like how the website puts a progress bar at the top to compensate for browsers increasingly hiding the regular scroll bar on the right.


It's amazing how far we go to avoid seeing depression in the context of a person's social interactions.


I dont like myself and I have no way to change myself as the issues I face are of a genetic cause.

I wont be happy till I accept myself, but I wont accept myself like Im not accepted by others.

Simple as that. This is the burden Ill carry till the end of my days. Hopefully sooner than later.


SSRIs are just a way for pharmaceutical companies to monetise the placebo effect. They work vey well initially but quickly taper off (just like placebos).

Is there any aspect of modern life that doesnt come with a layer of bullshit attached?


There is literally no useful information in this article.

It could be summed up as "everything people have been told is bullshit and we don't know what isn't".

What a waste of time.


I hate articles like this. They are part of an entire genre of pseudo intellectual nonsense that seems to be this genius insight but directly ignores obvious causes.

They treat depression like it is some mystery of science when it is directly caused by…everything about modern society, institutions and lifestyles.

People in Africa living in villages don’t get depressed. People living in suburbs eating shitty food with no hope due to capitalism and crappy prison schools do.

The cause of depression is so obvious only a PHD would be able to write and publish a BS article like this, and it is total horse shit, and pretend it’s a mystery.

It’s not a mystery, they just want to try to solve it with crappy drugs that you don’t actually need rather than target the root problems, which they can’t target.

I hate these articles and think they are promoting an intellectual culture of pretending not to understand the obvious by drenching it in overly intellectualized nonsense.

This is a media coverup. We know what causes it.


> People in Africa living in villages don’t get depresse

Holy shit yes they do, I don't know where this myth comes from!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266724212...


It's an old myth... like here's an article in American Anthropologist from 1934 talking about it: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525...

There's a lot of data showing it isn't true, but it’s one of those “facts” that feels true because there’s a lot of stressors and unhealthy things about modern life.


> People in Africa living in villages don’t get depressed.

Any data or studies on this?


Agreed. I had an introduction to this perspective long ago by reading what Karl Marx wrote about suicide [0].

0: https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Suicide-Psychosocial-Issues-Karl...


When you cannot find something inside something you can try looking outside where you were looking for answers.

In my experience, my spiritual health, acceptances, lack of rejecting bad (and source of) things is the direct cause of all negative thoughts, feelings.

Reject the bad, false, negativity, darkness and move toward the love, true, light and goodness. When I was depressed, only spiritual teachings, love and God moved me nearer good feelings and comfort.


>Reject the bad, false, negativity, darkness and move toward the love, true, light and goodness. When I was depressed, only spiritual teachings, love and God moved me nearer good feelings and comfort.

I'm glad that works for you, and I encourage you to do those things that make your life better.

As an empiricist, for me "spirituality" is just a trope that many use as a crutch (which can be very useful to some). There is only the natural (nothing "super" about it) world. There is no "spirit" or "soul" that defines us separately from our physical existence (i.e., I reject the concept of Mind-Body Dualism[0])

And the "God" you mention is just an imaginary sky daddy, whose inscrutable "motives" are generally co-opted[1] by the opportunistic to gain acceptance from those who have such beliefs.

I prefer to create meaning from the natural world and take great comfort in the vastness and incredible beauty, variety and complexity of the universe as it actually is, rather than the, unsupported by evidence and often manipulative, ideas around the existence of supernatural beings/causes/effects.

All that said, what's most important is (by one's individual estimation) living a happy, satisfying life. If others require beliefs I reject to do so, I have no issue with that.

We all need to make our own (whether good or bad) decisions about what constitutes a "happy, satisfying life." And while expressing opinions about that is certainly reasonable and expected, attempting to force[2][3] those opinions on others is wrong.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

[1] https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/applied-and-social-scie...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...


>I prefer to create meaning from the natural world and take great comfort in the vastness and incredible beauty, variety and complexity of the universe as it actually is, rather than the, unsupported by evidence and often manipulative, ideas around the existence of supernatural beings/causes/effects.

If your life is so meaningful why are you taking so much time to prove how rational and knowledgeable you are? I mean are the references linked above really necessary? You sound like a teenager that just discovered Atheism.


If the grandparent post is your idea of "forcing opinions on others," how do you justify your much-more-forceful, judgmental response?


>We all need to make our own (whether good or bad) decisions about what constitutes a "happy, satisfying life." And while expressing opinions about that is certainly reasonable and expected, attempting to force[2][3] those opinions on others is wrong.

The above was meant generally (as evidenced by the associated links), rather than in response to GP's comment.

I'm sorry I was unable to effectively communicate my meaning to you.


For the love of God and all that is holy, please stop.


What did you find objectionable or offensive in the grandparent post?


> When I was depressed, only spiritual teachings, love and God moved me nearer good feelings and comfort.

This is a potentially dangerous statement. Many of the people reading this thread are probably struggling which makes them more vulnerable to snake oil. Talk to a priest if you like, but seek help from a trained specialist.


I strongly agree that spiritual-sounding platitudes can be a dangerous stand-in for actual mental health assistance. I grew up in conservative evangelical Christianity and saw that happen far too often.

I don't see how the OP describing his own experience is telling other people they should do that.

He offered spirituality as an option, and said it was the only one he'd found helpful.

I think that's an unusual experience, and I understand your concerns about it potentially misleading others into thinking it's the only legitimate path, but I don't think saying "Stop sharing your personal experience!" is actually going to help anyone.

Explaining your concerns, like you did for me above, seems much more likely to. Thanks for doing that.


Not that I've had extensive conversations with licensed professionals about this topic for the last 25+ years... but oh, wait.

It's a tripod, and you need all 3 to be aligned or else you can be susceptible to falling back into the shit. You don't have to have problems with all 3, problems with just 1 will do it. But you do need to aware that sometimes you do need to fix all 3.

Circumstances.

Biology.

Behavior.

And it's complicated.

Circumstances. If you have a ton of shit going on that isn't making you happy, you can be depressed. You'll need to work to avoid circumstances that get you down. But... we're seldom able to control our lives.

Biology. There can be unbalances. Lack of exercise, for me, is the most common way to feel shitty. If I didn't have my health, I'd feel shitty. Brain health, body health, just health. Also just physical comfort. You have to make sure you're physically OK.

Behavior. You have to want to be happy. You have to be open to it. You have to strive for it. You have to respond and interact with people in a way that doesn't make them feel shitty, or else you'll drive them away. And... you have to avoid people looking to just be shitty and drag others down.

If a friend tells me that they're depressed, my go to is to take them for a hike. Get them out of their surroundings, get some sunshine, fresh air, and get them moving. I like small tasks, small goals that can build into bigger ones. "We don't have to climb the mountain, let's just go a mile and see how we feel." And it's nice to just have someone there, in the moment with you, doing the same thing. And when I'm down, and I know I'm doing the same thing someone else is, and they're able to enjoy it, I am reminded to let myself enjoy it too.

For me personally... it's hard. We all live our own mistakes. Finding a way to forgive myself, while still learning how to improve. Finding ways to keep my step count up. Finding ways to cross off to-dos at work. I have a little consequence / reward system in my head... if I am late to a meeting, I have to do 10 pushups. If I do my chores (stuff like cleaning up, doing the dishes, and yard, and laundry), I get to play a video game at the end of the day... and not beat myself up for being lazy. You get to set your own.

It's important to reflect on why you do things. I get down when I feel like I'm just floating between things that are expected of me.

Anyway I don't know, if there were cures, if this shit were simple, it wouldn't just constantly be in the background. Routines, friendships, and small goals... staying active, try not to eat pure garbage, try to be thankful and show appreciation to others. I don't know, no real punchline here. Just that life is a struggle to keep decay at bay.


I’ve yet to see someone qualified on HN discussing this. It’s all vapid anecdotes and unfounded/untested beliefs and subscriptions to various pet theories.


Do actual scientists hang out here on HN in strength? It seems to be mostly a mix of technologists, startup-types and adjacents/aspirants.


> Reject the bad, false, negativity, darkness and move toward the love, true, light and goodness. When I was depressed, only spiritual teachings, love and God moved me nearer good feelings and comfort.

I have no idea what you're talking about.


Is there a randomized controlled trial of rejecting the darkness?


Move psychology and psychiatry into the Astrology department please. It ain't science.


I'd tend to agree that psychology can be unscientific at times. Certainly a lot in that field is derived from very abstract theories (e.g. psychodynamics) that are not as falsifiable as one might hope.

Yet, the comparison to astrology is also unfair. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that many psychological treatments (e.g. CBT, DBT, interpersonal therapy) are effective. A lot of early medicine worked this way: we knew a treatment was useful before we understood the fundamental biology of how it worked (e.g., rudimentary vaccines came before germ theory).


You are making a false equivalence between clearly identifiable physical disease (e.g. shingles), and this questionable concept called "mental illness" or "depression", and this false equivalence is at the root of the problem.

This is one of the problems of how the scientific revolution has been carried out in western society. The scientific method which was so successful in application to certain problems (mainly in the physical realm), has been assumed to be just as effective in other areas as well.

Then we see false inferences being drawn and faulty conclusions being reached based on philosophically questionable assumptions being drawn - "hey, it looks like we are applying the scientific method, therefore we must be right!". Badly applied science is just as bad a non-science like astrology.

Guess what - if you lock a chimpanzee in a cage it will become "depressed". Maybe just let it out and return it to the jungle? That ain't science, it's just common sense.


If you run a bunch of people who are unhappy through a standardized psychology program (e.g. CBT), they get happier compared to the people who didn't get that program. That's just a fact.

Maybe that's not the scientific method by your definition, but I'm not sure it matters.

And yes, I get that a lot of mental health problems are caused by problems in society. To extend your analogy, we're not the zookeepers, we're other chimpanzees. We're a lot smarter than monkeys so we even perhaps have a shot of escaping. But it is absolutely reasonable to try to help each other make the most of our lot.

So who care's what you call it, therapy is a way to help people have more fulfilling lives. Medications can be too.


Again you run face first into the brick wall of questionable assumptions and get a bloody nose.

What's happiness? How do we measure it? How long does this feeling last? Was it measured again 10 and 20 and 30 years later? And what was the "control measure"? People who did not go through any program at all? Was it simply the opportunity to think through their life issues rather than the "CBT" itself the main driver to improve their mood? Did the study attempt to identify different causal factors? Did the participants actually make substantive changes to their lives or did they simply start to "feel better"? Did different people with different backgrounds respond differently to different kinds of treatment? (rhetorical question obviously).

Are you now starting to get a taste of the absurdity of psychology and psychiatry? Sure getting people into a room to simply start talking and thinking about their lives is a good thing. It probably helps, in different ways for different people. But again, this is not science, just common sense.

The attempt to "sciencify" and pathologize lived human experience is like a kind of mental corruption by the scientific establishment that refuses to believe anything is beyond it's scope. But again, just because you run what looks like a "scientific study" and write a fancy "scientific paper" does not validate the corrupt and invalid assumptions and beliefs it is attempting to demostrate.

It's a bit like the cognitive failure that led to "software engineering". Engineering was created to formalize the manipulation of the physical world. Applying it to information synthesis was always wrong, yet people did it anyway, and it led to spectacular failure. We now have agile development as a result. Maybe the same thing needs to happen to psych "sciences".


I am a subscriber to the microbiome inflammasome hypothesis for major depression [0], so I wouldn't be surprised if a treatment course for depression in many people could be as simple as better dental hygiene + magnesium orotate + probiotic supplements. I've had my eye on studies linking schizophrenia with inflammatory cytokine markers, and it follows that other psychological conditions could have similar etiology and pathogenesis. Research on the influence of gut bacteria and intestinal dysbiosis on anxiety and depression has been coming out since at least 2013 [1].

After reading Robert Whitaker's 2010 Anatomy of an Epidemic [2], I'm convinced that future generations will look back on this era of psychiatric treatment with the same critical eye that our generation points at Moliere's 17th-century leeches or George Washington's personal doctor treating his strep throat with several blood-letting phlebotomies -- an absolute iatrogenic travesty. The overprescription of potentially mania-inducing antidepressants in children and teenagers is especially egregious to me. Add in the perverse incentives of profit-driven pharmaceutical companies, and you get issues like Zyprexa's 2009 class action lawsuit, for example [3].

For those looking for a readable introduction to the potential link between chronic inflammation and depression, there is The Inflamed Mind by Edward Bullmore from 2018 which did some rounds on talk shows and the like.

[0] https://sci-hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30004130/

[1] https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic

[3] https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2009/January/09-civ-0...


The fact that healthy people still get depression makes me skeptical of hypotheses like this. If it were as simple as taking probiotics, x and y supplements, and eating healthier, (and brushing teeth more), I think a lot more people would have beaten major depression by now.

Someone else in the thread suggested it's just exercise, sleep, and diet. Yet there are plenty of folks who do these things perfectly and still get depression.


Sure, I can understand your skepticism. The church was skeptical of Galileo when he made new claims about the nature of the earth as well, since it contradicted their own previous anecdotal perceptions and private ideology. If only we had developed tools like the scientific method to evaluate claims on the basis of evidence instead of personal skepticism -- then it could be possible to make some productive headway on the evaluation of whether or not an approach could be effective. Fortunately, these tools exist, so that someone who wanted to evaluate the claims behind the microbiota-inflammasome hypothesis of depression could click on a link to an overview of the scientific literature in support of the hypothesis, helpfully provided at the bottom of the comment [0], before posting a cursory dismissal on the basis of their personal skepticism.

The subject of the Quanta magazine article is a critical literature review which the article author describes as the "death knell for the serotonin hypothesis". The basis for your skepticism, "The fact that healthy people still get depression" could be addressed in the section of article where they explain how depression could be a catch-all umbrella term for the presentation of symptoms with a wide variety of causes, potentially including stress, genetic predisposition, tryptophan depletion, or chronic inflammation, among other possible causes like adverse childhood experiences or learned helplessness for example. Inflammation from periodontitis or gut dysbiosis can exist within the threshold of otherwise healthy people, as evidenced by the attenuation of symptoms in some sufferers of major depression by these interventions in the studies examined by the review I linked.

Maybe the reason a lot more people haven't beaten major depression through these interventions, as you suggest should have happened by now, is because when they go to the doctor, they get a script for an iatrogenic SSRI and a cognitive behavioral therapist and a kick out the door, instead of testing to see if they just need a root canal and some yogurt. And I protest your inclusion of magnesium orotate in the category of "x y supplements" as it is the target of specific studies which have examined its effectiveness in conjunction with probiotics in attenuating depression [1].

[0] https://sci-hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30004130/

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10787-017-0311-x


Lol Galileo over here. My comment was indeed a personal anecdote, nothing more. And I only wanted to establish that physiological factors like diet, exercise, and sleep, are not the ONLY contributors to major clinical depression. I'm pretty sure you agree? And you're saying there are MORE physiological factors (gut biome, gum health, etc), and... I don't disagree. The only purpose of my comment was to put to bed the assumption that some people have, which is that depression is purely, surface-level physiological (like just exercise/sleep/diet, not taking into account genetics, environment, stress, and all the other factors)


I have not specifically dug into depression, but I think I can overall agree with the line of thought. As far as modern medicine goes, it is almost undoubtedly primitive but puts forth a facade of sophistication.


Depression, and almost all mental disorders, can't even be defined or reliably identified by any diagnosis test, leave alone finding a biological cause.

Found a book recently on the topic, "Cracked: The Unhappy Truth about Psychiatry" by James Davies, an expert who worked as a clinical psychiatrist, and was himself present at meetings when organizations like the NHS worked on standardizing definitions for mental disorders (DSM and ICD).

My notes:

* Naming mental disorders is like naming constellations in the sky: the phenomena are real, but finding a pattern is completely subjective and arbitrary.

* There is a growing movement of professional psychiatrists calling for the abandonment of the DSM and ICD and other newly created terms for mental disorders.

* There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of ANY of the "mental disorders" described in the DSM or ICD, yet these mental health manuals are taken as bibles in the West. The authors of the manuals themselves are publicly quoted to have said that these manuals are simply subjective guidelines, with absolutely no biologically-identified cause for these "diseases".

* Most of these "disorders" are simply describing normal variations in personality found among people at different periods of life. Identifying behavioural patterns and assigning a name to it is a purely subjective matter.


> Most of these "disorders" are simply describing normal variations in personality found

What you call normal variations are obviously not very normal. This is almost a definition of disease: Something that deviates significantly from what is normal _and_ causes suffering for those affected (or perhaps for others).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: