Thing is, as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, our knowledge of depression and it's causes and solutions is so rudimentary that we can't really make that distinction in the first place, which means we can't really argue whether treatment needs to be 'drastically different'.
I'd argue that based on this lack of knowledge, both categories should probably first try the first solution you mention, and settle for the second if that's no help. Who's to say, for example, that someone who's entire being has been shaped over decades into 'having too much self-esteem' can actually be 'fixed' without medication?
Or consider schizophrenia. Is it nature or nurture, when there's some evidence that it can very well lay dormant until it's 'triggered'.
tl;dr: what's the value in creating ill-supported distinctions on an issue that is already rife with judgment, unwanted advice, self-esteem issues (across the board, whatever you suffer from), and so on?
> It sounds like you're less against judgment and more against hasty, lazy, dismissive, or leave-them-out-to-dry judgments. But that's not what I'm advocating at all. I just have sympathy for the war veteran rolling their eyes when they hear someone who got mugged telling a story about PTSD. Of course no one should be mugged, but come on, let the guy roll his eyes.
Such a person is free to roll their eyes, but I don't see how we should have sympathy for the 'my situation is worse than yours' kind of judgment. We can tolerate it and perhaps understand it, but it's still harmful, judgmental, and pointless.
I lost my sympathy over this behavior once I realized that much of the worst judgment I've seen and, sadly, experienced, is caused by this attitude. The people with the worst attitude to the poor are often those who used to be poor but are not anymore, obviously by not being lazy like the rest of them. The same goes for the attitude of people who used to be fat, ugly, insecure, etc. At least in my experience (and overwhelmingly so).