Depression - TalkSport Diagnosis

[Purple Monkey]

Do you think that the "wealthier" (I mean in materialistic terms - money, possessions etc) in our culture the less likely you are to admit you are depressed? Won't you feel like people will hate you and think you're a pathetic wimp? Whenever I have a moan about things, there's always SOMEONE who implies I'm being a whiny dick by saying "At least you have <x> and <y>". I suspect that guilt would be magnified the higher up the pyramid you go (unless you're a psychopath - either way mental help is required).

It seems if you have money, house, the so-called "perfect life" you're less allowed to be depressed. What I mean is, the taboo gets stronger, and the compulsion to remain in denial, to bottle it up, becomes unbearable? Gary Speed has been mentioned. He ticked all of the boxes for a perfect life on paper, living "the dream" but really none of his own boxes were being ticked at all.

I think it comes down to aspirations and self-actualisation. The world we live in makes self-actualising very difficult. Very few of us do what we really want to every day. Very few of us do jobs we want to do, because we're in this horrific system of wage-slavery. We take jobs because we need the money, not because that's our role. It's hard to feel welcomed in a society that gives you the cold shoulder. Ostracism is HUGELY damaging psychologically and that's exactly what our society does. Our society is uncaring, and trapped in a system which carries a devastating human-cost. I've walked past countless homeless people and given them nothing - the combination of guilt, self-loathing, self-interest, and utter, utter helplessness is a good example of the cognitive dissonance we all face every day. When I buy something cheap, I know it's probably come at the cost of some slave in a sweatshop, but I can't afford anything else. It seems that happiness requires ignorance, and that alone is depressing. When people say borderline psychopathic shit like "why should you care?" and "that's the way the world is, deal with it" or the one that really grinds my gears due to how patronisingly ignorant it is: "Just enjoy it!" - that's depressing. Having empathy of any kind is depressing in this world, not just from the endless wars and famine and economic turmoil, but the spiritual suffering and loss of meaning in a materialistic society with little correlation between work and reward (which is what I think our society is suffering from). Sitting on our arses eating food we can't trust, day in, day fucking out, bored out of our skulls as arbitrary numbers flow in and out of our bank accounts for meaningless work that never ends.

Maybe we all need to get depressed. Maybe it's the human immune system kicking in, telling us on a collective basis that something is seriously fucking wrong with how we're living our lives, which is exactly why it's pigeon-holed as only something crazy people get. I think if you have a critical mind, you'll probably get depressed in this world, because it's run by morons.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Purple Monkey

[worm]

Who are you to belittle what Katster was feeling

[eFestivals]

I'm not.

She was belittling people who suffer from depression by suggesting that summoning up the energy to go for a walk will help every form of it. That's clearly untrue and a gross generalisation.

No, she said it worked. For her that's clearly true.

It's you who's generalising by your dismissal of her experience as worth very little - particularly in light of the wider facts (you know, the things that shrinks and their followers like you do very little of) which get to show they're actually worth a lot.

She didn't say "walking will cure every form of it", she said it will help every form of it. The few tested facts that there are around this idea back it up, and don't back up your dismissal of that.

Perhaps it's only really distraction therapy in some cases, but seeing as she didn't delve into the 'why', nothing she said was wrong.

Meanwhile, your words were certainly aimed at belittling what she's said, when your belittling is based only on the self-same presumptive ideas of the mind which stop a lot of proper medical progress on these issues.

[Purple Monkey]

Endorphins are a feel good drug and exercise does help release them. Makes sense that exercise lifts depression somewhat, unless there's a severe physical inhibition.

Won't do much in the long term though - unless it opens doors to discovery and a change of life which makes you far happier, but that can come from any break of a damaging routine.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Purple Monkey

[kaosmark2]

We're still in the dark ages when it comes to these sorts of things, but it certainly seem to be the case from the little knowledge that exists outside of the only-presumption-based-ideas-of-the-mind that there's a far stronger physical and chemical link to mind issues than the likes of shrinks have been saying up till now.

In the future it's quite possible that all of the current beliefs of how the mind works will be dismissed in favour of a purely physical/chemical view of it all. It's certainly true that the newer discoveries are tending to suggest that might be the case.

[kaosmark2]

Do you think that the "wealthier" (I mean in materialistic terms - money, possessions etc) in our culture the less likely you are to admit you are depressed? Won't you feel like people will hate you and think you're a pathetic wimp? Whenever I have a moan about things, there's always SOMEONE who implies I'm being a whiny dick by saying "At least you have <x> and <y>". I suspect that guilt would be magnified the higher up the pyramid you go (unless you're a psychopath - either way mental help is required).

It seems if you have money, house, the so-called "perfect life" you're less allowed to be depressed. What I mean is, the taboo gets stronger, and the compulsion to remain in denial, to bottle it up, becomes unbearable? Gary Speed has been mentioned. He ticked all of the boxes for a perfect life on paper, living "the dream" but really none of his own boxes were being ticked at all.

I think it comes down to aspirations and self-actualisation. The world we live in makes self-actualising very difficult. Very few of us do what we really want to every day. Very few of us do jobs we want to do, because we're in this horrific system of wage-slavery. We take jobs because we need the money, not because that's our role. It's hard to feel welcomed in a society that gives you the cold shoulder. Ostracism is HUGELY damaging psychologically and that's exactly what our society does. Our society is uncaring, and trapped in a system which carries a devastating human-cost. I've walked past countless homeless people and given them nothing - the combination of guilt, self-loathing, self-interest, and utter, utter helplessness is a good example of the cognitive dissonance we all face every day. When I buy something cheap, I know it's probably come at the cost of some slave in a sweatshop, but I can't afford anything else. It seems that happiness requires ignorance, and that alone is depressing. When people say borderline psychopathic shit like "why should you care?" and "that's the way the world is, deal with it" or the one that really grinds my gears due to how patronisingly ignorant it is: "Just enjoy it!" - that's depressing. Having empathy of any kind is depressing in this world, not just from the endless wars and famine and economic turmoil, but the spiritual suffering and loss of meaning in a materialistic society with little correlation between work and reward (which is what I think our society is suffering from). Sitting on our arses eating food we can't trust, day in, day fucking out, bored out of our skulls as arbitrary numbers flow in and out of our bank accounts for meaningless work that never ends.

Maybe we all need to get depressed. Maybe it's the human immune system kicking in, telling us on a collective basis that something is seriously fucking wrong with how we're living our lives, which is exactly why it's pigeon-holed as only something crazy people get. I think if you have a critical mind, you'll probably get depressed in this world, because it's run by morons.

[eFestivals]

I don't think it's just a placebo effect when it is helpful, and I don't think there will ever be a precise, universal cure. But anyone, in any profession, who thinks they know it all and is scared of new things that might undermine, is an idiot or a twat, probably both.

You don't think it's placebo effect when it's helpful, and nor do (I'm using this as a catch all for a range of mental issues) 'therapists'. But no one actually knows one way or another.

That doesn't stop those 'therapists' from saying they don't think it's a placebo effect, or pushing the idea that they're offering 'real treatments' when they don't have a clue one way or another, or dismissing new and proven ideas on the subject because it doesn't match up with the mumbo-jumbo they've been pushing - and because of the position of power they've wormed their way into, their dismissal of evidence in favour of mumbo-jumbo is holding things back.

And that's the problem stopping things moving forwards in the way that they should. Like all branches of medicine it should be evidence led and not led by what is nothing more than presumptive hunches (which is where things are currently).

[kaosmark2]

You don't think it's placebo effect when it's helpful, and nor do (I'm using this as a catch all for a range of mental issues) 'therapists'. But no one actually knows one way or another.

That doesn't stop those 'therapists' from saying they don't think it's a placebo effect, or pushing the idea that they're offering 'real treatments' when they don't have a clue one way or another, or dismissing new and proven ideas on the subject because it doesn't match up with the mumbo-jumbo they've been pushing - and because of the position of power they've wormed their way into, their dismissal of evidence in favour of mumbo-jumbo is holding things back.

And that's the problem stopping things moving forwards in the way that they should. Like all branches of medicine it should be evidence led and not led by what is nothing more than presumptive hunches (which is where things are currently).

[eFestivals]

I just don't think you can make a blanket statement saying that it's never helpful beyond that.

I didn't, I wouldn't, and I won't.

It's clearly helpful to some people, but what no one knows is whether it's the the right sort of help. It might simply be keep-pumping air into a tyre with a hole, when somewhere out there there's a puncture repair kit.

The current problem is that the people with the footpump say there's no need to look for the puncture repair kit, and if someone finds a part of that kit they say it's not a part of that kit and succeed in convincing others of that falsehood.

But yes, ones rejecting new ideas just to maintain their own control/job/whatever do exist and are twats.

it's not 'ones', it's whole disciplines.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

If what you say here is the established current thinking, then I absolutely do.

It's slowly being discovered that the idea of "social causes of mental illness" is wrong, that it's a completely wrong path, and that the causes are more from the physical and chemical than the social or mental.

And so the approach you give there is looking like it's not getting close to starting to resolve the causes but are only scratching lightly at the symptoms.

It might be that that 'scratching at the symptoms' is all that can ultimately be done towards any 'cure', but if there's much more to the physical and chemical than the established current thinking accepts then there's a whole mis-placed 'academic discipline' to be over-turned and re-aligned, which is already proving difficult with the smallish discoveries that have been made so far.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[eFestivals]

Is that the case? From what I have read the social "causes" of mental illness are coming to the forefront again. The approach to mental illness is usually taken with the holistic view of BioPsychoSocial, and some would cynically say that is the order of priority. However the biological side of things are been superceded e.g. there is firm evidence of the importance of social stressors in "schizophrenia" such as you are twice as likely to develop it if you live in a city than in a rural area. Does Anorexia have a biological basis??

It guess it depends on the relevance that is put on various aspects as to which way you look at it.

It's certainly the case that schizophrenia is now believed to be caused by a physical brain 'abnormality' (in quotes because what is 'normal' to then say something is 'abnormal'?), while I'd guess that what you say there about city dwellers being twice as likely to suffer from it is something triggering it for that 'abnormality' to come into play. So it could be regarded as either physical or social, dependent on the take a person makes of those.

My beef is that those with the power they have via the established thinking want to dismiss that physical discovery as as-good-as-meaningless in favour of the social, because that physical angle is one that they have no power over, but which stands the chance of undermining all they've been saying.

They want to push the social aspect not because there's evidence that that is the right path, but because of the risks to them and their power if the alternative is the right way to go. So it stands a decent chance that what you say about the social causes coming to the forefront again in what you've been reading is a reaction against the newer physical evidence rather than anything evidence driven - because the whole subject area is one that's extremely short of evidence, but when they get some they want to say it's nothing worth pursuing.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It guess it depends on the relevance that is put on various aspects as to which way you look at it.

It's certainly the case that schizophrenia is now believed to be caused by a physical brain 'abnormality' (in quotes because what is 'normal' to then say something is 'abnormal'?), while I'd guess that what you say there about city dwellers being twice as likely to suffer from it is something triggering it for that 'abnormality' to come into play. So it could be regarded as either physical or social, dependent on the take a person makes of those.

My beef is that those with the power they have via the established thinking want to dismiss that physical discovery as as-good-as-meaningless in favour of the social, because that physical angle is one that they have no power over, but which stands the chance of undermining all they've been saying.

They want to push the social aspect not because there's evidence that that is the right path, but because of the risks to them and their power if the alternative is the right way to go. So it stands a decent chance that what you say about the social causes coming to the forefront again in what you've been reading is a reaction against the newer physical evidence rather than anything evidence driven - because the whole subject area is one that's extremely short of evidence, but when they get some they want to say it's nothing worth pursuing.

[Katster]

That's very twee. ''Ah, a good walk will sort it out''. Knitting's another one.

I'm sure it'll work if you have the blues, but it's not going to do anything for depression I'm afraid. I'm not so sure that they'd bother giving it a clinical trial.

[worm]

I was talking about my own personal experience thank you very much and it most certainly did help me.

[Katster]

It will help.

Note I said help and not cure.

Edit: and that's what I know from both personal experience and from advice given by doctors/mental health professionals.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Katster

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

An NHS website says the following;

Who can benefit and what type of exercise is best?

Anyone with depression can benefit from doing regular exercise, but it's especially useful for people with mild depression.

This would seem to imply (to me anyway) that all forms of depression can benefit from exercise. I know the operative word there is 'can' but it's not ruling out any form of depression - although it does indeed emphasis it's more useful for mild depression.

[feral chile]

Anyone who claims that there isn't a biochemical side to depression is talking bollocks.

Anyone who claims you can cure depression just by correcting the seratonin balance in your head using drugs is talking bollocks.

It doesn't matter whether you're a shrink, a doctor, a friend, whatever, if depression is a problem, there is a mental and biochemical side to it. By sorting out the triggers that lead to the biochemical imbalance you might be able to manage it without drugs, but throwing happy pills at someone without sorting out the real issues that are causing depression won't help.

Fair enough. Therapists are often incredibly useless, or can even make things worse. I'm not trying to defend everyone who's ever gone into it, there's certainly a lot of twats involved, like in most things.

I don't think it's just a placebo effect when it is helpful, and I don't think there will ever be a precise, universal cure. But anyone, in any profession, who thinks they know it all and is scared of new things that might undermine, is an idiot or a twat, probably both.

[feral chile]

No, that's not what I'm trying to say.

There's clearly a problem, but the support often ends up supporting the problem rather than gives support in overcoming that problem.

And yet the current trends for 'therapy' pushes the idea of people needing constant therapy (cos it gives repeat business ) which is of course support for the idea of long-term wallowing.

I've not trying to say that it can't be helpful in some cases.

But if the overall basis it works from is wrong and it's (say) having little more than a placebo effect, then the idea that "sometimes it's helpful" tends to stop progress towards a more meaningful 'cure'. The newer discoveries of there being physical reasons for some instances of mental issues are struggling to be widely accepted, precisely because of the 'damage' they do to the 'established thinking' in these areas.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I was talking about my own personal experience thank you very much and it most certainly did help me. I never suggested clinical trials and I never claimed walking could cure depression.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I agree with this. There are lots of studies showing that stress,particularly within the family, is a risk factor in those predisposed to mental illness. Of course the stress causes physical symptoms,and it'sl;ikely that the sufferer was vulnerable to mental illness.

They think now that stress increases dopamine levels, which is thought to be one of the causes of schizophrenia.

All experience affects the brain, so can be said to affect brain chemistry.

And I firmly believe that we're living in a society where we have emotional stress that we can't flee from, or express fear of, or aggression, or do anything we're probably primed to do as primates, and that's screwing our heads up.

(Not that I think we should be able to attack people who piss us off, but you get the gist)

[Katster]

You may know that I do work for the Royal Mail, and I know a lot of depressed postmen. Neil is right that exercise can help, but wrong in saying lack of exercise is the cause.

[Katster]

An NHS website says the following;

Who can benefit and what type of exercise is best?

Anyone with depression can benefit from doing regular exercise, but it's especially useful for people with mild depression.

This would seem to imply (to me anyway) that all forms of depression can benefit from exercise. I know the operative word there is 'can' but it's not ruling out any form of depression - although it does indeed emphasis it's more useful for mild depression.

[eFestivals]

Outside of medication and ECT what does the medical model bring to the situation (I am not dismissing this as they have their uses).

What does it bring? Solid, irrefutable evidence, the very thing the whole area is lacking, instead it's working off presumptive hunches and nothing more.

And the sad thing is that the dark age-ists keep winning the battles against that solid irrefutable evidence. Until the evidence starts taking the lead it's an area of 'treatment' which will not progress.

[eFestivals]

They think now that stress increases dopamine levels, which is thought to be one of the causes of schizophrenia.

Nope, 100% wrong.

The cause of schizophrenia is absolutely a brain 'abnormality', and nothing else. There are many triggers that work with that cause, to bring symptoms out into the open.

The very point I'm getting at is that people want to dismiss this finding, instead choosing to go with made up bollocks and presenting it as science.

[eFestivals]

It's not that there's anything organically wrong with the brain, it's that the brain chemistry gets out of balance - and brain chemistry changes according to external stimuli.

wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.