Hacker News Reader

Comment by doctorcroc | Hacker News Reader

Tangential, but this psychologist argues that depression evolved as a behavioral shutdown mechanism to prevent humans from over-investing in tactics or behaviors that did not yield any benefit (from a dopaminergic standpoint) -- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201604.... The reasoning is that we conserve energy by not pursuing "dead-ends". Naturally, this evolutionary mechanism is thrown for a loop in an existence where survival is assured, and meaning becomes the main spectre psychologically.

View on HN

> this evolutionary mechanism is thrown for a loop in an existence where survival is assured, and meaning becomes the main spectre psychologically.

Most people who suffer from depression because of environmental factors have no real substantial changes they can make to their life that would resolve the root issue of their depression.

I could "fix" my depression once I had an independent high paying job that let me live anywhere and choose to live in the way I need to live in order to be happy. My episodes are far between now and, again, caused by things I don't have enough control over.

What I'm saying is that we paper over the contradictions of the illusion of self determination peddled to us in rich Western societies by making depression seem like a personal, idiopathic problem.

Could you please rephrase or elaborate on this? I'm not sure if I interpreted it correctly.

> What I'm saying is that we paper over the contradictions of the illusion of self determination peddled to us in rich Western societies by making depression seem like a personal, idiopathic problem.

There's a particular essay I would like to link to that would better articulate the point, but I can't find it so easily. I'll keep looking and respond when I do.

I think I can elaborate on how this usually works in my own life. The conditions that allow you to meet your various needs tend to be high-friction to get into, sticky once in them, and prone to ending abruptly. So, if I am in a situation where I have a job, a relationship, friends, and hobbies, then I have more than enough energy to maintain them.

But when a chapter of my life comes to an end, it's like a game of musical chairs. And I'm just a little bit slow to find a seat. This slowness or non-resourcefulness in securing my next seat doesn't come anywhere near the symptoms of major depression. Suppose there's a layoff at work. I'm just a bit slower than others to catch on that I need to find another job. Just a bit less likely to talk to people and chase down opportunities. So I stay unemployed longer, along with the other compounded problems that can cause. After a long time not having my needs met, I get depressed, and eventually I'll be diagnosed with major depression and probably hospitalized.

This is perhaps subtle, but I don't believe I'm especially prone to depression per se. When I'm in a stable life situation, I'm very positive, optimistic, and industrious. I seem to have it all together, and I do. What I'm prone to is being a little bit passive, and fairly introverted. That's not depression, and it doesn't cause any big problems if I'm only maintaining a full life.

But jobs and romantic relationships can end abruptly. And with me it's always one or the other, and often both, that puts me in a situation where I have to act, be assertive, and secure that next seat. And sometimes I have adequate initiative to do that, and it's fine. If I don't though, one of these two things (job or romantic relationship ending suddenly) turns out to be the beginning of a slide. It's usually at least a year after the event that I start having symptoms, and by that time, 4 times out of 5 I'll wind up hospitalized.

Obviously this is just one person's life, one person's experience with depression, and their own interpretation of the mechanisms.

"I could "fix" my depression once I had an independent high paying job that let me live anywhere and choose to live in the way I need to live in order to be happy."

My girlfriend works in a psychiartry for people with depression and she told me that it has nothing todo with success.

The success didn't cure my depression. The success meant I had the independence and financial ability to address the problems in my life that caused my depression. Of course, the first step was going to a Psych and getting medication and therapy to start the process, but I have been able to manage my depression without either for quite some time now.

There are two general sources of depression: environmental and biochemical. The parent acknowledged that:

people who suffer from depression because of environmental factors

Folks who have brain wonkiness can't fix it by fixing other life problems. But people who are depressed because their life sucks absolutely can see their mood improve by fixing other problems.

> There are two general sources of depression: environmental and biochemical.

This is not at all what the field of psychology has identified as the "general sources"

So enlighten me. What does psychology have to say about it?

Far more than would be appropriate for a hacker news comment ;)

I will share that it is both more complex than many believe - and also less mysterious. "it's chemical" gets overplayed, while our relationship with our emotions is often left unexamined. There's a great deal of interconnectedness and sometimes cause & effect become confused or are tightly coupled. In the end, we're still learning, and everyone is different.

In my personal experience, psychology is to depression what nutrition science is to obesity. They act like they know what they're doing, but really don't.

The fact that conditions such as sleep apnea (insufficient nocturnal brain oxygenation) lead to depression and anxiety in a significant number of cases illustrates that depression isn't always an indicative of a social problem. It can also be a strictly biochemical issue (there are a lot of things that affect neurotransmitter efficiency for instance).

(edited)

> It can also be a biochemical issue

Presumably, it's always a biochemical issue, though sometimes the biochemical state may be triggered by events in the social context.

The distinction I am trying to make is that brain chemistry can apparently be wonky and resistant to change in the absence of triggering life events.

My point was, depression can come from a variety of sources; not just environmental or biochemical. Saying it's generally those two sources glazes over all the others - and is not representative.

Rank Theory suggests otherwise. Not sure why she would say that.

Because it's not the only valuable theory in the field?

Rank Theory tethers itself to depressive experiences in situations where social pecking order is the trigger. Basically, to help aide success and survival in a group setting.

Psychic pain hypothesis, for example, comes to a similar conclusion about the evolutionary value of depression, but does so without considering social pecking order.

We know depression can also be triggered just from screwed up biology. So "lack of success" really may not be the issue in a lot of cases.

Because many people there are successful yet depressive.

It seems that depression forces people to search for problems that aren't there

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've had on-and-off severe depression for most of my life, both during times of high disposable income and times with very limited cash. Depression with disposable income is much, much more manageable. Maslow's hierarchy is kind of a bitch.

If you don't mind, what sort of patients does she work with?

"My girlfriend works in a psychiartry for people with depression and she told me that it has nothing todo with success"

Hm, even though I don't work in a psychatry, I would claim otherwise. But I think it depends on the definition of success.

So yes, there are lots of people having depression who are successful by ordinary standards, meaning good career and money. But maybe they focused too much on the money/prestige part and instead should have focused more on doing what they really wanted. But they didn't and therefore failed in life and now blame their brain chemistry for it, instead of their own choices. Much easier, sure.

success is relative.

Could you explain what you mean, particularly the last part? So you're saying having that independent high paying job, in your experience, really helped things? For me, that's almost my only "hope" of a better future - I'm involuntarily living with my parents due to renting in my city not making financial sense, and I think that causes me a bit of depression because I feel totally out of control of my situation (I feel monitored and treated like a idiotic teenager still, despite turning 29 this year) UNLESS I move to work in the States (paid more, have excuse to rent my own place). If it sounds entitled that I am complaining about free rent, it probably is, but from my point of view I've barely grown up as an adult because the environment at home has never changed.

> So you're saying having that independent high paying job, in your experience, really helped things?

The job didn't cure my depression but the money let me do the things I need to do to be happy. I stayed with my parents for a bit when I got my first programming job. Moving out was one major positive thing for me.

Money doesn't make you happy, but you only really have power over your life when you have money. That's the blunt truth. Most of us, even us relatively well off programmers are subordinated to the system that gives us money. My mental health would be in even better shape if I didn't have to consign 40 hours of my life per week to work.

If one needed that time to get their life in order to cure their depression, it would be impossible unless they were rich, right? The way we talk about depression often ignores this crucial point.

I can vouch for this. Money is not sufficient, and it might not be strictly necessary, but it's a huge lever.

But it can buy things that help make a healthier lifestyle like foods with real value.

There was a study in Sweden where people got a small amount of money (500skr, about $60) per month instead of a prescription of anti-depressants. Turns out the people who got the money were happier.

Link: https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/studie-psykisk-ohalsa-blir...

(only in Swedish, sorry!)

Did the study investigated the effect on a long run ?

The study followed the people who took part in it for nine months and did a follow-up survey six months after the end of the experiment. However, the follow-up results were only obtained when the report was already finished.

Here is the complete report (in Swedish): http://ltblekinge.se/globalassets/forskning-och-utveckling/b...

They mention a smiliar study from the US, but here money was only one out of multiple factors:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229888823_Supported...

"I'd rather cry in a Ferrari"

The right kind of work for the right person can be uplifting; for example on the joys of being a professional carpet cleaner: https://web.archive.org/web/20030807105050/http://www.unconv... "More than a few people agree the best career would be one which provides challenge, intellectual stimulation, and rewards for quality work. Many however, would be surprised to discover they can have all of those benefits and more in some of the unlikeliest of careers. Case in point: I'm a professional carpet cleaner. Some people think this is a second-rate career. I don't agree with them. Carpet cleaning gives me challenges, intellectual stimulation, and many other rewards. To prove this, permit me to walk you through one of my work days."

On the other hand, much work isn't like that. See for example Disciplines Minds: http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/ "The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."

Or Bob Black: https://web.archive.org/web/20161031034600/http://whywork.or... "Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing. And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. ..."

Or Mickey Z: "The Murdering of My Years: Artists and Activists Making Ends Meet"

Yet, some jobs are better than others. Some families are healthier than others. Once can wonder what the difference is? For creating better organizations, last year I put together a reading list here: https://github.com/pdfernhout/High-Performance-Organizations...

I also explore some related issues in terms of rethinking Princeton University (or any similar place) to be more health-promoting in this 2008 book-length essay I wrote: "Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease" http://pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html

Perhaps E.F. Schumacher put it best in "Buddhist Economics": http://www.centerforneweconomics.org/buddhist-economics "The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure."

I agree otherwise though that in our society having money gives you more flexibility in the work you can choose --- as well as how you can address other needs in your life of the lives of those you care about when you are not working. Sometimes there is a tradeoff between money earned and job happiness -- but not always.

There are also other ways to meet needs besides having a job in the exchange economy (or maybe someday a basic income). There is frugality to reduce wants and needs. There is subsistence production to make things yourself and have the joy of crafting or living off the land (how most humans have lived for most of the time). There is the gift economy of getting things for free (like information on the internet) and giving back to the community somehow (again, something humans have been going as part of tribes for a long time). There is the planned economy we participate in as citizens and where government allocates money hopefully to specific worthwhile social purposes (though the money is obtained from the citizenry under duress via taxes). Sadly, some people also turn to theft for whatever reasons. So, there are a variety of options, some better, some worse, depending on an individual's situation and what is feasible in a specific society.

Here are some other ideas I collected on dealing with other causes of depression (like poor nutrition, lack of sunlight, etc.): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15455259

Here's what people who don't have depression, constantly think about depression:

I just need X and then I won't be depressed!

That's a NORMAL psychological process (not having something important, feeling negative about it). If obtaining X (career, significant relationship, etc.) does cure your "depression" then you didn't have clinical depression to begin with. You're a human being who was unhappy that their situation in life was crappy.

The litmus test for depression is when, even after obtaining X, your baseline resets to a depressed state as you were before you had X. So while obtaining X might bring some relief, you always return to a baseline happiness that is significantly lower than the average person.

> "If obtaining X (career, significant relationship, etc.) does cure your "depression" then you didn't have clinical depression to begin with."

Depends. There's a decent amount of evidence that exercise can help reduce episodes of depression, even clinical depression. If obtaining X is obtaining a healthier body, then there's a decent chance you can help to lift yourself out of a funk by getting it. However, there's comfort in believing that something can't be helped, so I won't blame you if you don't believe me.

To clarify my point... Exercise, good sleep, healthy diet, a social life, and a career, are some pre-requisites before you get to start talking about being CLINICALLY depressed. Situationally depressed, sure. But I'm making a distinction between someone who is depressed because they aren't meeting some basic needs (of which exercise is one), and the type of depression that persists DESPITE meeting these basic needs.

By no means am I saying that a clinically depressed individual "cant be helped". There's nothing comforting about that thought at all. Quite the contrary, those types of people DO exist and have found relief visa vi standard modes of care (CBT, and medication).

> "Quite the contrary, those types of people DO exist and have found relief visa vi standard modes of care (CBT, and medication)."

If a clinically depressed person tries both medication and exercise, and finds exercise helps them more, does that bother you? Are you suggesting that they can't have been clinically depressed?

Of course that wouldn't bother me. In fact, that's what I would expect.

If you're "depressed" but you don't workout, adding a solid workout plan to your life can be a bigger positive effect in your mood than therapy or medication.

But... if you're managing your life well, including exercising, and still feel depressed then that's what I am qualifying as "clinically depressed".

Of course we all get "depressed" when we eat like shit, don't have meaningful relationships, don't have a meaningful career, and never workout. That's to be expected.

> "if you're managing your life well, including exercising, and still feel depressed then that's what I am qualifying as "clinically depressed"."

This is the point I still can't understand. So in other words you're only clinically depressed if the only thing that helps you is external help (medication, CBT, etc...)? Why do you use that definition? It doesn't seem to be a definition shared by the psychiatry community or the psychology community.

I imagine there are "people diagnosed with clinically depression" who could cure their depression by exercising and/or changing their life in some way.

However, I know a couple people who do not fall into that bucket. Both of these people suffer bouts of totally debilitating depression. They are both respected within their communities, smart, successful, and have full lives. Both of them get a lot of exercise, both are extremely fit and have been their whole lives.

In my opinion, the way to look at this kind of depression is as a chemical imbalance. Theorizing that there's some missing piece in their lives seems ridiculous to me. And yes, antidepressants work.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-illness-metaphor...

> In my opinion, the way to look at this kind of depression is as a chemical imbalance.

Having lived my entire life dealing with depression, I believe you are wrong. Any "chemical imbalance" is a symptom, the physical expression of a mind suffering.

"Clinical depression" means you've been diagnosed by a qualified medical doctor. The litmus test is whether you're experiencing symptoms that meet the criteria. Patients receive comparable treatment, whether the underlying causes are presumed to be situational or organic. The many psychiatrists I've seen acknowledge biological, psychological, and social causes. Everything I've read on the subject indicates that most psychiatrists do.

Perhaps then, my use of "clinical" is in error. I should say something more like, "treatment resistant".

For god sakes, if you smoke a pack a day, don't have a job, and haven't left the house for 2 weeks... I'd sure bet you qualify as being "depressed" in the literal sense. I'm more interested in the individual who fixes those things, and yet, still wants to die.

I firmly believe that there are different kinds of depression. The kind of depression Christina Ricci has in 'Prozac Nation', or the author of 'Noonday Demon' has, is not the same thing, which a lot of people face on episodic level.

The kind of depression you're talking about (which you incorrectly term as 'clinical depression') is exactly how you describe it. There is no cause X, in the world which would fix it.

However, a lot of people feel depressed and their cause is different, than the cause for the first kind of depression.

The article GP linked, is talking about a theory that it's caused by body shutting down to prevent you from overinvesting in failed strategy is quite true for people feeling second kind of depression, and this may be the evolutionary reason for depression.

For the first kind of depression, I believe it's a disease caused by the depression (which has evolutionary reasons) working erratically.

> I'm involuntarily living with my parents due to renting in my city not making financial sense

It could be argued that you are voluntarily living with your parents because renting doesn't make financial sense.

It's a trade-off.

If you felt strongly enough about it you might potentially say something like "despite the financial trade-off being in favour of living with my parents, I find doing so makes me feel controlled and depressed, so I choose to [rent a room in a share-house / whatever other option might be available."

I know, for me, my cyclic depression and suicidal ideation didn't lift until I started taking 1000+mg of magnesium as magnesium amino acid chelate and 8,000IU of vitamin D per day, despite having a relatively high-paying job and owning a (mortgaged) house.

> but from my point of view I've barely grown up as an adult because the environment at home has never changed.

With all the best of intentions and kindness: as an adult, it's probably up to you* to change that.

> If it sounds entitled that I am complaining about free rent

No, it does not, I'd positively go crazy if I were to stay with my parents, even though I love them and they've been giving me plenty of freedom and independence.

I just need _my_ space. Heck, I didn't even let my grandma cook dinner when my grandparents flew from out of state.

Get out of there, even if it means living with other roommates. You know it will make you feel better. No shame in complaining about free rent when that makes you unhappy. All your points are valid.

With a nomadic species (which has only very recently ended), depression would select against bad environments. You did what you were supposed to: change your environment.

There seem to be two general responses to problems: anger or depression.

Righteous anger properly channeled can be a force for good. But if your current crappy situation is the least worst answer you can come up with, depression is the lesser evil. You shouldn't rock the boat if there is zero upside and a lot of downside to doing so.

It's been said that depression is anger turned inward.

"Depression is anger without enthusiasm" - Steven Wright and/or Charles Saatchi

This was the Eureka! moment of the article for me:

What’s more, once the researchers took the effect of physical strength out of the equation, men and women were equally likely to be depressed.

Humans, and men especially, are pre-disposed to solve social problems with violence. In cultures where violence is restrained or completely removed as a solution, it's not surprising that more men are depressed.

> Righteous anger properly channeled can be a force for good.

There's a Terry Pratchett quote which I like on this subject:

> Granny Weatherwax was often angry. She considered it one of her strong points. Genuine anger was one of the world's greatest creative forces. But you had to learn how to control it. That didn't mean you let it trickle away. It meant you dammed it, carefully, let it develop a working head, let it drown whole valleys of the mind and then, just when the whole structure was about to collapse, opened a tiny pipeline at the base and let the iron-hard stream of wrath power the turbines of revenge.

I think it's too reductionist to assume that evolutionary drives are "solved" because survival is assured. Reproduction with an (genetically/physically/socially) fit partner and strong prospects for your children aren't solved at all, because they're an arms race.

These also relate to the things that tend to make teenagers/young adults depressed.

I would've called that procrastination.

There is a massive difference between procrastination and depression. To be flippant, the difference between having changed clothes by 4pm or being still in your pyjama, trying to get out of bed and having breakfast.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com