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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.