Comment by eivarv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eivarv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

TLDR; It's not so much that it seems naïve, as it is about not providing any reasoning, sources or data to back it up - thereby not being reliable. Also, tone is hard to convey on the internet.

While I think many would agree that the answer is short and snappy, I don't really care and I don't take it personally. And it's not about you "not taking the time to properly explain" yourself, nor your experience - and I say this in an apathetic, and not an antipathetic sense.

It's about your non-answer response to my pointing out your invalid assumptions (and thereby faulty reasoning) about CBT and depression, which indicates that you either couldn't or wouldn't argue your point.

This makes it have very little to no value in a discussion, where one ideally makes logically coherent and well reasoned arguments (perhaps even backed by data), since no one can assess any claim properly without the application of skeptical inquiry. Also, as javert pointed out, the response appears overtly patronizing.

Additionally, I think that participants in discussions pertaining to mental illness (amongst other subjects) in particular have a unique responsibility (i.e. a moral obligation) to back their claims up and rely upon knowledge, as the subject is fraught with ignorance - which results in all sorts of negative outcomes for those affected (see stigma and history of societal views of mental illness, provably ineffective treatments leading to avoidable suffering, etc.)

If you were not up for a "lengthy debate" about psychology, I have a hard time seeing your previous contributions in this thread as anything other than the airing of an opinion for its own sake followed by closing of the ears. And an opinion holds no merit by virtue of being an opinion. You also have yet to comment upon a single point I've made in either comment, and the only response is a google query presented as a retort - the results for which don't even make the point you set out to make, as far as I can tell.

I'm sorry if this comes off as cranky - I'm really not!

My point was that CBT is ineffective against depression in the face of a hostile environment. As in, the depression will not lift, even if it gets a little better. I wasn't clear about the role of sadness, anger, and shame in depression; those aren't wholly different, but they aren't wholly the same either. I didn't feel like getting into it based on how receptive you were in general.

You wrote: "Depression (clinical, major depressive disorder) is ... (generally) in fact not a results of bad treatment or other external factors."

This is a straightforward dismissal of what I wrote. Furthermore, there are no sources. I knew you were wrong, and I knew a simple Google search would suffice to prove it. You failed to concede the point graciously, although you did actually concede it. At this juncture I decided I didn't want to argue with you.

> Additionally, I think that participants in discussions pertaining to mental illness (amongst other subjects) in particular have a unique responsibility (i.e. a moral obligation) to back their claims up and rely upon knowledge

I don't owe you anything - that's a cognitive distortion, number 8 on the classic list in Feeling Good ("should statements").

http://www.apsu.edu/sites/apsu.edu/files/counseling/COGNITIV...

If your point was external actors of a hostile environment potentially reinforcing the cognitive distortions of a depressed person, rather than a healthy person developing major depressive disorder solely from disparaging comments, then I agree. I don't think that it's made very clear, though. And I don't see why it would necessarily keep depression from lifting regardless of the subject's own thoughts.

What I meant was that depression (major depressive disorder) does not equal anger, sadness and shame. Though it does involve them to some extent, depression is something different than a combination of these emotions.

Yes - I straightforwardly dismiss what you wrote. No concession, sorry. There are plenty of sources in my response to your google-search, but I'll summarize:

First of all: environmental factors are not the same as external causal agents or events. They may be anything from triggering scenarios to contributing factors (such as childhood trauma, disease, pollution, malnutrition and drug abuse).

The American Psychological Association [0], the American National Institute of Mental Health [1] , the University of Maryland's patient education article [2], and Saveanu and Nemeroff's paper "Etiology of depression: genetic and environmental factors" [3] (all results from the google search you linked) describe major depressive disorder and its causes (as they are currently understood). They describe an interplay of various factors (see biopsychosocial and diathesis-stress models), but none of them mention anything about it being a response to external events in the way that "normal"/healthy emotions are - which is what I'm getting at in previous comments. My point here is that major depressive disorder isn't something that spontaneously arises from a difficult circumstance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, though I'd prefer some sources.

There is, however, something which is sometimes called reactive or situational depression - adjustment disorder - which is not the same as major depressive disorder.

The fact that you think you knew that I was wrong holds no meaning here, as you are basically claiming to be right (surprise) - and you have yet to prove your point, e.g. reference an authoritative definition that supports your case - which should be no problem if what you "know" is indeed knowledge.

Even if you had been right, a link to a google search wouldn't prove your point any more than a search for "vaccines cause autism" would prove Jenny McCarthy's "point". Not to mention that the results from the link did not back up your claims, as far as I could tell.

I never claimed that you owed me anything. I merely presented my opinion on why participants in discussions regarding mental illness (amongst other subjects) should take caution, as people's opinions and perceptions of mental illnesses have practical consequences, and so the usual no standard opinion-spouting carries a greater risk in this context. This is no cognitive distortion, and if I were to use the same poor understanding and low standard of classifying these, I could claim that your allegation is a cognitive distortion itself - number 5 on the same list.

[0]: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding-depression.aspx

[1]: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/index...

[2]: http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/depression

[3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22370490

This conversation was too hostile for me a long time ago. I apologize for my contributions to that. Take care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com