There is also a physiological reason for depression. Low salt status, or dehydration or hyponatremia.
Puberty increases the demand for salt in both sexes hence you get depression in teenagers.
Our physiology is underpinned by hydration not only oxygenation. Hydration equals SALT plus water.
In my article: How does salt restriction lead to heart dis-ease and fear based reactionary thinking? I link dehydration to the adrenals and the FIGHT/FLIGHT/FREEZE response. Chronic dehydration leads to chronic anxiety and fatigue and this becomes depression.
SALT TEST: next time you feel adrenal surge from bad news, fright, too many coffees, remember SALT.
Take a pinch of salt and let it dissolve under tongue, sip water.
Notice: calm returns, perspective returns, compassion returns and the creative strategic mind returns.
Salt restriction has led to the diabolical rise in chronic dis-ease.
Read my articles by clicking on my blue icon. Read and ponder.
I am trying to respond to Simon V's comment, but the post interface isn't displaying right on my phone.
Do dogs actually make people feel better? My mother has a dog and she's just as depressed as ever. I just wonder if this is one of those sort of annecdotal things that people start believing but might not be as true as we think it is.
I've done a cursory search for studies on dogs and depression and haven't found anything good yet. Some surveys of people that find that dog owners have different traits than non-dog owners, but that proves nothing, and a study about service dogs making their owners happier, but that could be specific to the services the dogs do--I bet wheelchairs also make mobility impaired people happier.
Being responsible for looking after a dog, gives owners a sense of purpose that may be needed to affirm their inherent value, missing from other interactions.
Yeah, that would work for any cherished pet, though. I suspect the fact that you’ve mostly got to walk the dog gets people who are not otherwise inclined to get up and go for walks to do, and exercise does seem to improve moods.
I’d also argue that having a dog results in much increased opportunities for random social encounters. A lot of people will strike up random encounters with dog walkers. Whether this just results in more conversations, or actual new friendships, or even romance (I was often told that if I wanted to meet more women, I should get a dog), just increased social interactions.
I’ve never had a dog - I’m a cat person - but I can see how those added benefits might help. On the other hand, the prospect of having to get up at 5am because my dog needs to go to the bathroom is deeply uncomfortable to me, so there’s probably self-selection bias.
Maybe the answer is to leash train my cats. It can be done, but if they need to use the bathroom, the litterbox is right there. Besides, there’s nothing meaner than cat shit; no way I’m letting them go outside.
This is not a post that I agree with, for three reasons.
Firstly, my own experience of depression is that it gets in the way of very obvious usefulness, and very clear recognition of love, friendship, and social status. I know I have absolutely critical responsibilities for which my efforts will be recognized, but I still don't care. For me depression has always been linked to low evaluation of other people around me; they seem foolish, crazy, and ugly, leaving me feeling lonely. How does my disappointment in others around me help to signal that I have no desire to challenge some one else's position? If the problem is that my status is low, why do stories work so well to combat depression? Stories have always been a critical anodyne to my experience of depression, because in good fiction, people show the kind of wisdom and depth that makes them register as real.
Secondly, while a naked ape may wisely signal harmlessness in the aftermath of a status conflict, the signal will be received after a few days. Episodes of depression typically last for the better part of a year, and it is much, much harder to argue that this is adaptive:
(Incidentally this is part of a pattern. Whenever rationalists and rationalist-adjecent bloggers on Substack talk about the importance of status, their claims are usually overblown. Rationalists in general are obsessed with status as a critical feature of society, but in many cases status is a red herring embraced by Narcissistic Millennials, with Rationalists being largely Millennials, and Millennials being well known to show elevated Narcissism: https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/137298885/jean-twenge-to-the-rescue )
Lastly, we know from the psychological literature that depression is not only a correlate of low Extraversion, but of the trait of psychosis-proneness which is studied under the handle of Disintegration:
Knezevic, G., Savic, D., Kutlesic, V., & Opacic, G. (2017). Disintegration: A reconceptualization of psychosis proneness as a personality trait separate from the Big Five. Journal of research in personality, 70, 187-201.
I've had to acknowledge recently that Disintegration does seem to have *some* upsides, but for the most part Disintegration is a psychological weakness which relates to problems like executive empairment, magical thinking, paranoia, and perceptual distortion as well as depression.
In other words, any kind of loss, failure, or disappointment which decreases Extraversion will promote depressive behavior (not just loss of social status), just like being generally prone to psychosis - say, because of genes passed on by a crazy relative. It's easy to make a case that some *aspect* of depression is adaptive to some *degree,* but it's much harder to say that full blown depression which lingers in the face of clear opportunities to improve one's social and material condition is adaptive. Most people treated by the mental health system for depression show signs of the latter, not the former; they're trapped in an emotional state which is inappropriate to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
You disagree with me. But I agree with you. I also believe that the importance of social status is exaggerated among humans.
>>For me depression has always been linked to low evaluation of other people around me; they seem foolish, crazy, and ugly, leaving me feeling lonely.
I have never heard anyone say that before. Which could be because it is a taboo subject. But I don't remember anything like that from my own depressive episodes either. I was very interested in people and liked them as much as usual.
>>How does my disappointment in others around me help to signal that I have no desire to challenge some one else's position?
It doesn't, because you are not a monkey. Signalling non-challenge is what monkeys do. I think depressed humans just lie low in general, in order to reduce costs and risks of acting in general.
>>Secondly, while a naked ape may wisely signal harmlessness in the aftermath of a status conflict, the signal will be received after a few days. Episodes of depression typically last for the better part of a year, and it is much, much harder to argue that this is adaptive.
If the point of depression is to reduce risks and costs in general, it makes sense that depression should last for extended times.
>>If the problem is that my status is low, why do stories work so well to combat depression?
I don't understand fiction very well, but I think that visions are the general antidote against depression. People get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward. In that light I don't find it strange if some people feel less depressed from reading and writing fiction.
>>It's easy to make a case that some *aspect* of depression is adaptive to some *degree,* but it's much harder to say that full blown depression which lingers in the face of clear opportunities to improve one's social and material condition is adaptive. Most people treated by the mental health system for depression show signs of the latter, not the former; they're trapped in an emotional state which is inappropriate to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
I think you are right on this point: Most people treated by the mental health system for depression probably have something worse than the depression that tens of percent of teenage girls have. I even think it could be two different mental conditions under the same name. But I think that the lighter version of depression, that largely goes untreated, is an interesting phenomenon too.
Growing up, it was a surprise to me when I was told I was pretty popular, but people found it frustrating that they couldn't really say anything without my disagreeing with what they said. To be clear I'm not sure I agree or disagree with *you,* but I'm definitely not with the ideas you expressed in your post, or your comment.
Granted, part of it may simply come down to the way you're using a clinical term to describe non-clinical experiences and behaviors, as you've mentioned. I can't stop you from using "depression" to mean a transitory, submissive, low energy, negative emotional state like those seen at the bottom left purple end of human emotional experience if you want...
...but I don't like that, as it leaves me without the ability to talk about a genuine problem which I've struggled with more than once in my life. I have enough trouble getting people to understand what I'm talking about without people deliberately repurposing useful words I need. What do I do to talk about depression without using the word depression? Do I say "major depression?" Do I say "deep depression?" Do I describe symptoms, like "severe lethargy, difficulty concentrating, struggle to get out of bed, the desire to remain in one room doing nothing in a state of hopeless misery for hours at a time?" I'd rather be able to say "depression" and have people go "oh, like the mental disorder" and call it a day.
> > For me depression has always been linked
> > to low evaluation of other people around me;
> > they seem foolish, crazy, and ugly, leaving me
> > feeling lonely.
>
> I have never heard anyone say that before. Which
> could be because it is a taboo subject
No no! It's well attested across American media! Note carefully as the Goth kids explain the critical distinction between themselves and Emos, who are total conformist posers who should suck our golf balls:
> If the point of depression is to reduce risks and costs in general, it makes sense that depression should last for extended times.
OK sure, if by "depression" and "extended times" you just mean "feeling down and submissive" for "a few days." But having trouble getting out of bed or concentrating on TV shows for months on end in a way that makes it difficult to do work, take care of things at home, or get along with other people isn't an evolutionarily useful way of reducing an organism's risk-taking behavior.
Three months ago I would have answered 3,3,2,3,0,0,2,3,1,Very Difficult, and qualified as having "Major depression, moderately severe" with "Antidepressant or psychotherapy" being the recommended course of action. Instead because I'm stubborn, way too busy, suspicious of the mental health system, and additionally had not yet begun to receive benefits from my new position, I just sucked it up and found ways of resolving the problem involving reading stories, and insisting that Mrs. Apple Pie stop being crazy.
> I don't understand fiction very well, but I think that visions are the general antidote against depression. People get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward.
This makes me frustrated. I don't know why you insist you agree with me, when it's pretty clear you aren't really listening when I tell you no, people don't always, or even usually, get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward.
Look, maybe I can get you to practice your fiction-appreciation skills for a moment here by asking you to imagine a person we'll call Franny. Just imagine Franny is a healthy, wealthy, and incredibly beautiful young woman who lives in paradise filled with drinks with little umbrellas, perpetual floor shows, free massages, aerial yoga, hot gay guys, and limitless add-free Netflix. She spends her days riding horses and visiting her handsome boyfriend on his yacht, and her nights alternately watching fireworks displays and visiting the kitten petting zoo. On Sundays she goes to church where she is reassured that God loves her and she will go to heaven so long as she is nice to the kittens. Is Franny A) depressed because she lacks a realistic vision to work towards, or B) having so much fun with the little umbrellas, the handsome boyfriend, and the kittens that she spares zero thought to the idea of depression?
First of all, I'm sorry I stole your word. I mean, for real. I talk about depression in the sense Jonathan Haidt says that tens of percent of teenagers are feeling depressed. That is, persistent low moods. And you are talking about a mental disorder. That causes confusion and that is stupid. I have to refer to my next post to discuss a solution to that problem.
That being said, I think you exaggerate the triviality of not-clinical-depression a bit. It is indeed unpleasant and it often lasts for extended times.
>>people don't always, or even usually, get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward.
Some other comment mentioned the book Good Reasons for Bad Feelings by Randolph Nesse. A quote from that book on this question:
“What proportion of cases is caused mostly by situations, what proportion is caused mostly by characteristics of the person, and what proportion by interactions between the two? A rough answer comes from the original classic study of depression by Aubrey Lewis, the chair of the Institute of Psychiatry in London during the middle of the twentieth century. He analyzed detailed notes on sixty-one of his patients with severe depression and concluded that in about a third the onset of depression was unconnected to any life event, another third had a vulnerability to depression that had magnified the effect of a negative experience, and the final third had depression caused by a specific event such as a death or divorce.”
Obviously, my ideas about depression being caused by a lack of a workable vision can only be applied to the third of cases caused by environmental factors. But I believe that the kind of lighter “depression” that I'm focusing on is more often caused by environmental factors than the severe kind of depression that you are talking about.
And no, I seem to be hopeless when it comes to fiction. I don't even get how Franny is feeling. Is she depressed or does she feel great in her fabulous environment? I don't say that all people who are not visionaries are depressed. Only that people tend to get depressed when their lives feel less meaningful than they subjectively crave.
> I think you exaggerate the triviality of not-clinical-depression a bit. It is indeed unpleasant and it often lasts for extended times.
Maybe I give that impression because my argument is strongest when I say clinical depression is not adaptive. I usually don't try to argue except where I know my position is easily defended. But being genuine about what I think, I can write that non-clinical depression is also probably not evolutionarily adaptive, particularly when it lasts for an extended period of time. Really I don't agree with you on this subject at all.
In fact, our biggest disagreement overall may be that you think Mother Nature is vaguely sensible. "Depression is adaptive," "insanity is adaptive," none of this makes any sense unless deep down that Mommy Has a Plan, and I'm totally convinced She seriously doesn't. I think She's stupid and crazy, and only succeeds most of the time, on the average, after like a zillion years of trying, and we mostly have to sit here and deal with her random obsessions because even if Mommy doesn't know best, She's still basically our god.
> And no, I seem to be hopeless when it comes to fiction. I don't even get how Franny is feeling.
Ah! Well to be fair, even as I was writing that, I was keenly aware that many people are not Franny and would experience her situation differently. For example, if Apple Pie were stuck in Franny's situation, I might be bored because there are no obvious Things to Read, it seems a bit hot, I have no idea where my aesthetic or intellectual stimulation is coming from, and I'm not sure whether any of these people are worth talking to. However, if I were disengaged from the surroundings, this would come through in my ignoring everyone, staring out the window, sitting alone and reading a book I brought over and over again, and so on. There would be clues.
That's a useful strategy for reading fiction: to analyze the clues in the text to answer questions. If our question is "How is Franny feeling?" well, what are some clues?
If you're feeling like a challege, go back, reread it, and see if you can form a sense of what Franny is likely feeling, and then I'll tell you what I think below this series of horizontal lines I typed in which look like a staircase with something that could be a crude ASCII apple at the bottom:
___
______
_________
____________
_______________
__________________
______________________ (` )
OK. Right away we see that Franny isn't like Apple Pie, and probably not much like Tove, either. Franny is actively engaging in stereotypical vacation activities, she seems to have personal qualities (health, beauty, money) which satisfy most people, she's actively attending church, and is described as being reassured of good things to come. And given that she is wealthy, Franny probably has the ability to leave and pursue other options if this situation isn't to her liking.
The best reading is to say that Franny is reasonably happy. Definitely she isn't depressed, because she's not lying in bed or moping around inside, but is actively getting out and pursuing her interests.
Is this really accurate? I wrote the story and the analysis, so maybe I'm not really doing it right. However, when I read it to Mrs. Apple Pie, she said there's no way Franny is depressed. And the duckduckgoAI, Mixtral, gives a similar analysis of Franny's likely feelings:
"Based on the description provided, Franny appears to lead a very privileged and luxurious life. She seems to have an abundance of material comforts and access to various forms of entertainment. However, it's important to note that emotions and feelings cannot be accurately inferred solely based on external circumstances, as they are subjective and can vary greatly from person to person.
That being said, the text does provide some clues about Franny's emotional state. For instance, the fact that she goes to church and is reassured of God's love and her path to heaven suggests that she may find comfort and security in her religious beliefs. Additionally, her activities, such as visiting her boyfriend on his yacht and riding horses, could indicate that she enjoys spending time with loved ones and being in nature."
When asked specifically whether Franny is depressed, the AI says,
"The description of Franny's life does not suggest that she is depressed. In fact, the text portrays her life in a very positive light, highlighting her wealth, beauty, and access to various forms of entertainment and leisure activities."
The great thing about being alive in 2024 is that no one has to be any worse at this kind of thing than their friendly neighborhood large language model! ;)
This sounds quite plausible for the condition most often labelled "depression": Not a disease, but a potentially (and as the author points out, evolutionarily) adaptive response to life circumstances.
In addition I think there are at least three other meaningful categories of depressive conditions.
* Chronically depressed personality (disorder), measured as high neuroticism on personality scales. Mainly affects women due to their being more neurotic than men on average.
* Depression directly caused by inflammatory or other bodily illness. Often seen in cancer patients, depressed by the actual disease, not necessarily the thought of being sick. ("Inflamed Mind" by Edward Bullmore is a good introduction.)
* Depression caused by biological illness in the nervous system. Arguably a subcategory of the above, but more challenging to diagnose objectively due to the blood-brain barrier and the relative difficulty of analyzing the live state of the brain as compared to, for example, the cardiovascular system. Some (like encephalitis) can still be diagnosed with objective markers, and are mainly treated by neurologists; the rest (like severe recurrent mania/depression with periods of more or less normal functioning inbetween) are left to the psychiatrists.
These can all interplay, but not necessarily, and it seems extremely unfortunate to me that many clinical studies on "depression" don't really make an effort to separate conditions that potentially have nothing but a bunch of symptoms in common; like, say, the common cold vs influenza vs pneumonia. It wouldn't surprise me if that explains why treatments for depression don't work very well on average, but can be very effective in individual cases.
Your theory also neatly explains how exercise helps against depression: It is a way to experience oneself as effective and its effect (weight loss and improved body composition) often yields status benefits. Getting a dog is also helpful: It integrates a non-negotiable duty into one's life, which makes you feel useful and dogs are well known to make their appreciation amply understood, which lifts the mood.
I’m sure you’d find evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph Nesse’s book Good Reasons for Bad Feelings highly intriguing. In it, he presents a case for mood disorders that closely aligns with your perspective. Nesse compares mood disorders to other self-regulating systems that possess motivational energy (approach or avoidance) and are prone to disruption.
For example, while pain alerts us to physical harm (see also the smoke detector principle: https://web.mit.edu/hst527/www/readings/Nesse%20Defensive%20Responses.pdf), depression may signal the need to withdraw from unattainable goals or adverse environments, potentially serving an adaptive purpose in specific contexts. However, like other self-regulating systems, this mechanism can become excessive, resulting in conditions such as major depressive disorder, which can be characterized as pathological.
I also had my ongoing depressive moods wiped away by the responsibilities of parenthood (and a housing co-op to co-manage). You've previously outlined the relationship work that worlds this possibility, and how men don't find this useful....
All of what you describe, and what brainlenses reports, is what I would call _worlding_, which is part of a 'selfing' complex. A Janus dance of potential realities we world into the self and vice versa. (My purple prose also indicates the lack of common vocabulary in this area).
Where we each negotiate towards an integration of our self & world (a world of other selves doing the same). A negotiation/interaction which you split as follows:
"①Being useful
② Being liked and appreciated by people around - in other words, having that usefulness recognized and transformed into love, friendship and social status."
For baboons and psychopaths the (self=world=hierarchy-position) but(probably not schizoids, they may be an indicator of our success at worlding together). If we do not police the narcissists they will turn the world into a baboon hierarchy, just as they turn every interaction/negotiation into a win-lose game. Which suits them fine.
I really have started to think about the similarities between psychopaths and non-human animals recently. All dogs have ADHD, all cats have Aspergers... and all baboons are psychopaths?
This is excellent. It is often very useful to view emotions as a *strategy* not just a response to circumstances. One turning point for me was when my wife read a book about Growth Mindset and put her foot down. I’m not a growth mindset person! I’m neurotic!
That triggered in me a desire to understand the evolutionary purposes behind neuroticism, and to reframe it in terms of risk aversion. I realized that while I am prone to making very big mistakes, my wife is not. She has never made a serious life altering mistake. There’s a lot to be said for that.
This is possibly brilliant. Thanks for sharing!
There is also a physiological reason for depression. Low salt status, or dehydration or hyponatremia.
Puberty increases the demand for salt in both sexes hence you get depression in teenagers.
Our physiology is underpinned by hydration not only oxygenation. Hydration equals SALT plus water.
In my article: How does salt restriction lead to heart dis-ease and fear based reactionary thinking? I link dehydration to the adrenals and the FIGHT/FLIGHT/FREEZE response. Chronic dehydration leads to chronic anxiety and fatigue and this becomes depression.
SALT TEST: next time you feel adrenal surge from bad news, fright, too many coffees, remember SALT.
Take a pinch of salt and let it dissolve under tongue, sip water.
Notice: calm returns, perspective returns, compassion returns and the creative strategic mind returns.
Salt restriction has led to the diabolical rise in chronic dis-ease.
Read my articles by clicking on my blue icon. Read and ponder.
I am trying to respond to Simon V's comment, but the post interface isn't displaying right on my phone.
Do dogs actually make people feel better? My mother has a dog and she's just as depressed as ever. I just wonder if this is one of those sort of annecdotal things that people start believing but might not be as true as we think it is.
I've done a cursory search for studies on dogs and depression and haven't found anything good yet. Some surveys of people that find that dog owners have different traits than non-dog owners, but that proves nothing, and a study about service dogs making their owners happier, but that could be specific to the services the dogs do--I bet wheelchairs also make mobility impaired people happier.
Being responsible for looking after a dog, gives owners a sense of purpose that may be needed to affirm their inherent value, missing from other interactions.
Yeah, that would work for any cherished pet, though. I suspect the fact that you’ve mostly got to walk the dog gets people who are not otherwise inclined to get up and go for walks to do, and exercise does seem to improve moods.
I’d also argue that having a dog results in much increased opportunities for random social encounters. A lot of people will strike up random encounters with dog walkers. Whether this just results in more conversations, or actual new friendships, or even romance (I was often told that if I wanted to meet more women, I should get a dog), just increased social interactions.
I’ve never had a dog - I’m a cat person - but I can see how those added benefits might help. On the other hand, the prospect of having to get up at 5am because my dog needs to go to the bathroom is deeply uncomfortable to me, so there’s probably self-selection bias.
Maybe the answer is to leash train my cats. It can be done, but if they need to use the bathroom, the litterbox is right there. Besides, there’s nothing meaner than cat shit; no way I’m letting them go outside.
Yes, that's the theory, but is there any data supporting it?
This is not a post that I agree with, for three reasons.
Firstly, my own experience of depression is that it gets in the way of very obvious usefulness, and very clear recognition of love, friendship, and social status. I know I have absolutely critical responsibilities for which my efforts will be recognized, but I still don't care. For me depression has always been linked to low evaluation of other people around me; they seem foolish, crazy, and ugly, leaving me feeling lonely. How does my disappointment in others around me help to signal that I have no desire to challenge some one else's position? If the problem is that my status is low, why do stories work so well to combat depression? Stories have always been a critical anodyne to my experience of depression, because in good fiction, people show the kind of wisdom and depth that makes them register as real.
Secondly, while a naked ape may wisely signal harmlessness in the aftermath of a status conflict, the signal will be received after a few days. Episodes of depression typically last for the better part of a year, and it is much, much harder to argue that this is adaptive:
https://psychcentral.com/depression/how-long-does-depression-last
(Incidentally this is part of a pattern. Whenever rationalists and rationalist-adjecent bloggers on Substack talk about the importance of status, their claims are usually overblown. Rationalists in general are obsessed with status as a critical feature of society, but in many cases status is a red herring embraced by Narcissistic Millennials, with Rationalists being largely Millennials, and Millennials being well known to show elevated Narcissism: https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/137298885/jean-twenge-to-the-rescue )
Lastly, we know from the psychological literature that depression is not only a correlate of low Extraversion, but of the trait of psychosis-proneness which is studied under the handle of Disintegration:
Knezevic, G., Savic, D., Kutlesic, V., & Opacic, G. (2017). Disintegration: A reconceptualization of psychosis proneness as a personality trait separate from the Big Five. Journal of research in personality, 70, 187-201.
I've had to acknowledge recently that Disintegration does seem to have *some* upsides, but for the most part Disintegration is a psychological weakness which relates to problems like executive empairment, magical thinking, paranoia, and perceptual distortion as well as depression.
In other words, any kind of loss, failure, or disappointment which decreases Extraversion will promote depressive behavior (not just loss of social status), just like being generally prone to psychosis - say, because of genes passed on by a crazy relative. It's easy to make a case that some *aspect* of depression is adaptive to some *degree,* but it's much harder to say that full blown depression which lingers in the face of clear opportunities to improve one's social and material condition is adaptive. Most people treated by the mental health system for depression show signs of the latter, not the former; they're trapped in an emotional state which is inappropriate to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
You disagree with me. But I agree with you. I also believe that the importance of social status is exaggerated among humans.
>>For me depression has always been linked to low evaluation of other people around me; they seem foolish, crazy, and ugly, leaving me feeling lonely.
I have never heard anyone say that before. Which could be because it is a taboo subject. But I don't remember anything like that from my own depressive episodes either. I was very interested in people and liked them as much as usual.
>>How does my disappointment in others around me help to signal that I have no desire to challenge some one else's position?
It doesn't, because you are not a monkey. Signalling non-challenge is what monkeys do. I think depressed humans just lie low in general, in order to reduce costs and risks of acting in general.
>>Secondly, while a naked ape may wisely signal harmlessness in the aftermath of a status conflict, the signal will be received after a few days. Episodes of depression typically last for the better part of a year, and it is much, much harder to argue that this is adaptive.
If the point of depression is to reduce risks and costs in general, it makes sense that depression should last for extended times.
>>If the problem is that my status is low, why do stories work so well to combat depression?
I don't understand fiction very well, but I think that visions are the general antidote against depression. People get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward. In that light I don't find it strange if some people feel less depressed from reading and writing fiction.
>>It's easy to make a case that some *aspect* of depression is adaptive to some *degree,* but it's much harder to say that full blown depression which lingers in the face of clear opportunities to improve one's social and material condition is adaptive. Most people treated by the mental health system for depression show signs of the latter, not the former; they're trapped in an emotional state which is inappropriate to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
I think you are right on this point: Most people treated by the mental health system for depression probably have something worse than the depression that tens of percent of teenage girls have. I even think it could be two different mental conditions under the same name. But I think that the lighter version of depression, that largely goes untreated, is an interesting phenomenon too.
Growing up, it was a surprise to me when I was told I was pretty popular, but people found it frustrating that they couldn't really say anything without my disagreeing with what they said. To be clear I'm not sure I agree or disagree with *you,* but I'm definitely not with the ideas you expressed in your post, or your comment.
Granted, part of it may simply come down to the way you're using a clinical term to describe non-clinical experiences and behaviors, as you've mentioned. I can't stop you from using "depression" to mean a transitory, submissive, low energy, negative emotional state like those seen at the bottom left purple end of human emotional experience if you want...
https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/146810574/and-the-answer-is
...but I don't like that, as it leaves me without the ability to talk about a genuine problem which I've struggled with more than once in my life. I have enough trouble getting people to understand what I'm talking about without people deliberately repurposing useful words I need. What do I do to talk about depression without using the word depression? Do I say "major depression?" Do I say "deep depression?" Do I describe symptoms, like "severe lethargy, difficulty concentrating, struggle to get out of bed, the desire to remain in one room doing nothing in a state of hopeless misery for hours at a time?" I'd rather be able to say "depression" and have people go "oh, like the mental disorder" and call it a day.
> > For me depression has always been linked
> > to low evaluation of other people around me;
> > they seem foolish, crazy, and ugly, leaving me
> > feeling lonely.
>
> I have never heard anyone say that before. Which
> could be because it is a taboo subject
No no! It's well attested across American media! Note carefully as the Goth kids explain the critical distinction between themselves and Emos, who are total conformist posers who should suck our golf balls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZvFNQjYB6Q
> If the point of depression is to reduce risks and costs in general, it makes sense that depression should last for extended times.
OK sure, if by "depression" and "extended times" you just mean "feeling down and submissive" for "a few days." But having trouble getting out of bed or concentrating on TV shows for months on end in a way that makes it difficult to do work, take care of things at home, or get along with other people isn't an evolutionarily useful way of reducing an organism's risk-taking behavior.
Look, here's a screening tool for depression: https://coepes.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/PHQ-9%20depression%20scale.pdf
Three months ago I would have answered 3,3,2,3,0,0,2,3,1,Very Difficult, and qualified as having "Major depression, moderately severe" with "Antidepressant or psychotherapy" being the recommended course of action. Instead because I'm stubborn, way too busy, suspicious of the mental health system, and additionally had not yet begun to receive benefits from my new position, I just sucked it up and found ways of resolving the problem involving reading stories, and insisting that Mrs. Apple Pie stop being crazy.
> I don't understand fiction very well, but I think that visions are the general antidote against depression. People get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward.
This makes me frustrated. I don't know why you insist you agree with me, when it's pretty clear you aren't really listening when I tell you no, people don't always, or even usually, get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward.
Look, maybe I can get you to practice your fiction-appreciation skills for a moment here by asking you to imagine a person we'll call Franny. Just imagine Franny is a healthy, wealthy, and incredibly beautiful young woman who lives in paradise filled with drinks with little umbrellas, perpetual floor shows, free massages, aerial yoga, hot gay guys, and limitless add-free Netflix. She spends her days riding horses and visiting her handsome boyfriend on his yacht, and her nights alternately watching fireworks displays and visiting the kitten petting zoo. On Sundays she goes to church where she is reassured that God loves her and she will go to heaven so long as she is nice to the kittens. Is Franny A) depressed because she lacks a realistic vision to work towards, or B) having so much fun with the little umbrellas, the handsome boyfriend, and the kittens that she spares zero thought to the idea of depression?
First of all, I'm sorry I stole your word. I mean, for real. I talk about depression in the sense Jonathan Haidt says that tens of percent of teenagers are feeling depressed. That is, persistent low moods. And you are talking about a mental disorder. That causes confusion and that is stupid. I have to refer to my next post to discuss a solution to that problem.
That being said, I think you exaggerate the triviality of not-clinical-depression a bit. It is indeed unpleasant and it often lasts for extended times.
>>people don't always, or even usually, get depressed because they lack a realistic vision to work toward.
Some other comment mentioned the book Good Reasons for Bad Feelings by Randolph Nesse. A quote from that book on this question:
“What proportion of cases is caused mostly by situations, what proportion is caused mostly by characteristics of the person, and what proportion by interactions between the two? A rough answer comes from the original classic study of depression by Aubrey Lewis, the chair of the Institute of Psychiatry in London during the middle of the twentieth century. He analyzed detailed notes on sixty-one of his patients with severe depression and concluded that in about a third the onset of depression was unconnected to any life event, another third had a vulnerability to depression that had magnified the effect of a negative experience, and the final third had depression caused by a specific event such as a death or divorce.”
Obviously, my ideas about depression being caused by a lack of a workable vision can only be applied to the third of cases caused by environmental factors. But I believe that the kind of lighter “depression” that I'm focusing on is more often caused by environmental factors than the severe kind of depression that you are talking about.
And no, I seem to be hopeless when it comes to fiction. I don't even get how Franny is feeling. Is she depressed or does she feel great in her fabulous environment? I don't say that all people who are not visionaries are depressed. Only that people tend to get depressed when their lives feel less meaningful than they subjectively crave.
> I think you exaggerate the triviality of not-clinical-depression a bit. It is indeed unpleasant and it often lasts for extended times.
Maybe I give that impression because my argument is strongest when I say clinical depression is not adaptive. I usually don't try to argue except where I know my position is easily defended. But being genuine about what I think, I can write that non-clinical depression is also probably not evolutionarily adaptive, particularly when it lasts for an extended period of time. Really I don't agree with you on this subject at all.
In fact, our biggest disagreement overall may be that you think Mother Nature is vaguely sensible. "Depression is adaptive," "insanity is adaptive," none of this makes any sense unless deep down that Mommy Has a Plan, and I'm totally convinced She seriously doesn't. I think She's stupid and crazy, and only succeeds most of the time, on the average, after like a zillion years of trying, and we mostly have to sit here and deal with her random obsessions because even if Mommy doesn't know best, She's still basically our god.
> And no, I seem to be hopeless when it comes to fiction. I don't even get how Franny is feeling.
Ah! Well to be fair, even as I was writing that, I was keenly aware that many people are not Franny and would experience her situation differently. For example, if Apple Pie were stuck in Franny's situation, I might be bored because there are no obvious Things to Read, it seems a bit hot, I have no idea where my aesthetic or intellectual stimulation is coming from, and I'm not sure whether any of these people are worth talking to. However, if I were disengaged from the surroundings, this would come through in my ignoring everyone, staring out the window, sitting alone and reading a book I brought over and over again, and so on. There would be clues.
That's a useful strategy for reading fiction: to analyze the clues in the text to answer questions. If our question is "How is Franny feeling?" well, what are some clues?
If you're feeling like a challege, go back, reread it, and see if you can form a sense of what Franny is likely feeling, and then I'll tell you what I think below this series of horizontal lines I typed in which look like a staircase with something that could be a crude ASCII apple at the bottom:
___
______
_________
____________
_______________
__________________
______________________ (` )
OK. Right away we see that Franny isn't like Apple Pie, and probably not much like Tove, either. Franny is actively engaging in stereotypical vacation activities, she seems to have personal qualities (health, beauty, money) which satisfy most people, she's actively attending church, and is described as being reassured of good things to come. And given that she is wealthy, Franny probably has the ability to leave and pursue other options if this situation isn't to her liking.
The best reading is to say that Franny is reasonably happy. Definitely she isn't depressed, because she's not lying in bed or moping around inside, but is actively getting out and pursuing her interests.
Is this really accurate? I wrote the story and the analysis, so maybe I'm not really doing it right. However, when I read it to Mrs. Apple Pie, she said there's no way Franny is depressed. And the duckduckgoAI, Mixtral, gives a similar analysis of Franny's likely feelings:
"Based on the description provided, Franny appears to lead a very privileged and luxurious life. She seems to have an abundance of material comforts and access to various forms of entertainment. However, it's important to note that emotions and feelings cannot be accurately inferred solely based on external circumstances, as they are subjective and can vary greatly from person to person.
That being said, the text does provide some clues about Franny's emotional state. For instance, the fact that she goes to church and is reassured of God's love and her path to heaven suggests that she may find comfort and security in her religious beliefs. Additionally, her activities, such as visiting her boyfriend on his yacht and riding horses, could indicate that she enjoys spending time with loved ones and being in nature."
When asked specifically whether Franny is depressed, the AI says,
"The description of Franny's life does not suggest that she is depressed. In fact, the text portrays her life in a very positive light, highlighting her wealth, beauty, and access to various forms of entertainment and leisure activities."
The great thing about being alive in 2024 is that no one has to be any worse at this kind of thing than their friendly neighborhood large language model! ;)
agree totes with the status/narcissism nexus, still think Tove is on point with whatever we are discussing which is not depression then
This sounds quite plausible for the condition most often labelled "depression": Not a disease, but a potentially (and as the author points out, evolutionarily) adaptive response to life circumstances.
In addition I think there are at least three other meaningful categories of depressive conditions.
* Chronically depressed personality (disorder), measured as high neuroticism on personality scales. Mainly affects women due to their being more neurotic than men on average.
* Depression directly caused by inflammatory or other bodily illness. Often seen in cancer patients, depressed by the actual disease, not necessarily the thought of being sick. ("Inflamed Mind" by Edward Bullmore is a good introduction.)
* Depression caused by biological illness in the nervous system. Arguably a subcategory of the above, but more challenging to diagnose objectively due to the blood-brain barrier and the relative difficulty of analyzing the live state of the brain as compared to, for example, the cardiovascular system. Some (like encephalitis) can still be diagnosed with objective markers, and are mainly treated by neurologists; the rest (like severe recurrent mania/depression with periods of more or less normal functioning inbetween) are left to the psychiatrists.
These can all interplay, but not necessarily, and it seems extremely unfortunate to me that many clinical studies on "depression" don't really make an effort to separate conditions that potentially have nothing but a bunch of symptoms in common; like, say, the common cold vs influenza vs pneumonia. It wouldn't surprise me if that explains why treatments for depression don't work very well on average, but can be very effective in individual cases.
Psychiatry really is held back by its taxonomy problem. Working on a post about it.
Another great essay. I especially loved your analysis of the formation of 'teenagers' as a group and why today's teenagers are depressed.
A dozen Substack articles a day land in my inbox and Wood From Eden has gradually become among the first I click on.
Your theory also neatly explains how exercise helps against depression: It is a way to experience oneself as effective and its effect (weight loss and improved body composition) often yields status benefits. Getting a dog is also helpful: It integrates a non-negotiable duty into one's life, which makes you feel useful and dogs are well known to make their appreciation amply understood, which lifts the mood.
Yes, weight loss and dogs. I like the examples you use to back up Tove K's theory.
Please read my refined comment below:
I’m sure you’d find evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph Nesse’s book Good Reasons for Bad Feelings highly intriguing. In it, he presents a case for mood disorders that closely aligns with your perspective. Nesse compares mood disorders to other self-regulating systems that possess motivational energy (approach or avoidance) and are prone to disruption.
For example, while pain alerts us to physical harm (see also the smoke detector principle: https://web.mit.edu/hst527/www/readings/Nesse%20Defensive%20Responses.pdf), depression may signal the need to withdraw from unattainable goals or adverse environments, potentially serving an adaptive purpose in specific contexts. However, like other self-regulating systems, this mechanism can become excessive, resulting in conditions such as major depressive disorder, which can be characterized as pathological.
Yes, that is a really interesting book. Thank you!
You may also like: https://brainlenses.substack.com/p/heartbreak
I also had my ongoing depressive moods wiped away by the responsibilities of parenthood (and a housing co-op to co-manage). You've previously outlined the relationship work that worlds this possibility, and how men don't find this useful....
All of what you describe, and what brainlenses reports, is what I would call _worlding_, which is part of a 'selfing' complex. A Janus dance of potential realities we world into the self and vice versa. (My purple prose also indicates the lack of common vocabulary in this area).
Where we each negotiate towards an integration of our self & world (a world of other selves doing the same). A negotiation/interaction which you split as follows:
"①Being useful
② Being liked and appreciated by people around - in other words, having that usefulness recognized and transformed into love, friendship and social status."
For baboons and psychopaths the (self=world=hierarchy-position) but(probably not schizoids, they may be an indicator of our success at worlding together). If we do not police the narcissists they will turn the world into a baboon hierarchy, just as they turn every interaction/negotiation into a win-lose game. Which suits them fine.
I really have started to think about the similarities between psychopaths and non-human animals recently. All dogs have ADHD, all cats have Aspergers... and all baboons are psychopaths?
well, now we are getting _fabulous_ !!
This is excellent. It is often very useful to view emotions as a *strategy* not just a response to circumstances. One turning point for me was when my wife read a book about Growth Mindset and put her foot down. I’m not a growth mindset person! I’m neurotic!
That triggered in me a desire to understand the evolutionary purposes behind neuroticism, and to reframe it in terms of risk aversion. I realized that while I am prone to making very big mistakes, my wife is not. She has never made a serious life altering mistake. There’s a lot to be said for that.
What is a life altering "mistake"? In certain mindsets and worldviews even death(s) is just a learning experience .
Every challenge and pain is a twist in a story, an opportunity to grow, to overcome. To turn a new page or even to start a new story altogether
Perhaps for someone with a growth mindset there is no such thing as a mistake. It’s a valid perspective, but certainly not the only valid perspective.