Drawing correct conclusions from correctly interpreted personal experience is a lot more important than clinical studies.
People brandy about "clinical studies" and "show me the data" constantly, and yet such studies generally are open to interpretation and seem to conflict with one another. If we rejected all other forms of learning, we wouldn't know anything at all.
I didn't see the guy's comment (it's deleted now), but the mistake isn't not having a clinical study, it's not correctly interpreting the "data" he has actually seen in real life.
In other words, the right policy is actually being rational, and clinical studies cannot replace that.
I realize now this is kind of a nit pick/off topic, but I've already typed it so there it is.
Yes, I deleted all my comments here (under another username), due to the ridiculous responses that it prompted. Sure, I have some personal experience of depression -- both myself and family members. However there is also a lot of evidence behind what I'm saying, namely:
- situational depression, which -- as it's title says -- is in fact in response to situations.
- situational depression (e.g. bereavement) has been shown to meet all the criteria of clinical/major depression in many cases.
My hypothesis simply involved making a small (in my opinion) logical jump to offer a possible explanation for why situational depression exists. Given that the article itself mentioned a number of theories for the evolutionary role of depression, I didn't think mentioning my own theory would start such a firestorm. I think it is logically tenable.
What is the reason for the hostility? Are we supposed to write peer-reviewed comments for HN? Is it just that many HN posters exhibit excessive negativity and mispaced arrogance? I've certainly seen a lot of negativity and mispaced arrogance in the past on HN, and a number of times it has made me reconsider whether or not I want to be part of this community. This time I'm getting closer to that decision.
It could also be depression itself. As others have noted, sometimes it isn't necessarily the situation that is the problem, but your reaction to events (this is what CBT aims to fix). Perhaps the excessive negativity in HN is what is causing/exacerbating some people's depression?
Anyway, I'm not really interested in interacting with idiots (and I'm not referring to you here, javert) who downvote and are overly hostile when people like me share their personal experiences and make general comments on science without posting a frickin peer reviewed paper. Feck that...
As far as I can tell, people were claiming you were wrong because their anecdotal data showed the opposite of your anecdotal data (upon which you built your hypothesis) or because they were not persuaded by your argument.
Situational depression (adjustment disorder) is not the same as clinical depression (major depressive disorder), which is what it seems people are discussing in this thread.
While the original comments are now deleted, the quotes I can see refer to "depression", which it seems people interpreted as major depressive disorder.
I think this is why people have reacted strongly to the idea that it is "your brain's way of getting you to change something...", as major depressive disorder is not situational, and sufferers are often not able to change much, if anything without proper treatment. The history of societies' views on mental illness (stigma and discrimination), as well as peoples own horrible experiences with mental illness, probably also contributes to emotional and sometimes hostile responses in these discussions.
Depression is a pretty touchy topic. People use their own beliefs about depression either as a buffer that helps them feel that they can handle their problems, or as an excuse for not being able to handle them. I can forgive people for being sensitive to disagreement on this topic. Also, it's easy to damage people if you convince them of a wrong view of depression. I'm concerned about that.
> I've certainly seen a lot of negativity and mispaced arrogance in the past on HN, and a number of times it has made me reconsider whether or not I want to be part of this community. This time I'm getting closer to that decision.
I've had that feeling sometimes. I've just changed my behavior to not get into debates when it isn't worth it. I find that people tend to appreciate my comments... some get upvoted a moderate amount, some get downvoted a moderate amount, but it comes out in the positive territory.
> Perhaps the excessive negativity in HN is what is causing/exacerbating some people's depression?
Well, people need to diagnose that and then stop participating in HN if that's the case. I think that can be a completely reasonable course of action. Ultimately, you can't blame HN for it; you have to blame the person's choice to stay or leave.
People brandy about "clinical studies" and "show me the data" constantly, and yet such studies generally are open to interpretation and seem to conflict with one another. If we rejected all other forms of learning, we wouldn't know anything at all.
I didn't see the guy's comment (it's deleted now), but the mistake isn't not having a clinical study, it's not correctly interpreting the "data" he has actually seen in real life.
In other words, the right policy is actually being rational, and clinical studies cannot replace that.
I realize now this is kind of a nit pick/off topic, but I've already typed it so there it is.