Cops rediscover cure for mental illness

[Wild]

What are the odds we'd be missing out on anything valuable if the kid died too?

[dead last]

Low. That is what I was trying to imply in my last post.

[Wild]

I'm a blunt guy. 

[Tralfamadorian]

What is "depression"? Is it a condition one has from birth? How would you know whether he was "depressed"?

Clinical depression is thought to be heritable and manifests itself in the form of apathy, reclusion, and general feelings of hopelessness.  We know from Nietzsche's correspondence with friends and family that these symptoms were present. While this is not 100% incontrovertible proof, it does lend itself to the idea that something was amiss with Nietzsche's mind, or rather, his brain.

I'm more inclined to believe great people are great in spite of their dysfunction, not because of it.

Human behavior is multifaceted and can't really be distilled down to a single motivating factor. That being said, I think Nietzsche's depression played a part in his greatness. Nietzsche's writings could very well have been put to paper as a sort of tonic for his internal struggles, like he was writing his own self help book.

It's indeed a depressing state of affairs when being on unproven and damaging drugs is considered a state of normalcy.

This is largely specious. The efficacy of pharmaceutical psychotropics has been shown many times over and the side effects are largely negligible compared to the benefits they yield.

[Wild]

Clinical depression is thought to be heritable

Who thinks this?

manifests itself in the form of apathy, reclusion, and general feelings of hopelessness.

This is your diagnosis of Nietzsche? First you'd need to prove that he was any of these things, then explain that this is caused by an already existing condition and not as a reaction to something else, such as being intelligent in an age of morons.

Good luck!

The efficacy of pharmaceutical psychotropics has been shown many times over and the side effects are largely negligible compared to the benefits they yield.

That's your claim and you have provided no proof.

[Tralfamadorian]

Who thinks this?

Odd. I thought this community was generally aware that most things are, in fact, heritable. Anyway, the Stanford School of Medicine seems to agree with me.

This is your diagnosis of Nietzsche? First you'd need to prove that he was any of these things, then explain that this is caused by an already existing condition and not as a reaction to something else, such as being intelligent in an age of morons.

Here's a letter Nietzsche wrote to his mother, in which he asks for money to go on a journey so as to alleviate his 'extraordinary' feelings of depression. His letters have many allusions to his melancholy condition, particularly in the 1880s before his breakdown.

That's your claim and you have provided no proof.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, as you made the original claim about psychiatric medication. Besides, my words are backed by thousands of MDs. As for yours... well, I'm sure those on the 'holistic' side of medicine would support you.

[Wild]

Odd. I thought this community was generally aware that most things are, in fact, heritable. Anyway, the Stanford School of Medicine seems to agree with me.

That article speaks of depression as a disease. What are the scientific and verifiable tests one can conduct to see if one has contracted this disease? Is there a blood test for depression?

Here's a letter Nietzsche wrote to his mother, in which he asks for money to go on a journey so as to alleviate his 'extraordinary' feelings of depression. His letters have many allusions to his melancholy condition, particularly in the 1880s before his breakdown.

That's what the translator says he wrote. Regardless, jumping from a letter that describes his state at the time to asserting that he had a genetic disease that made him depressed is ludicrous.

The article also states directly that clinical depression is not heritable: "So no one simply “inherits” depression from their mother or father.  Each person inherits a unique combination of genes from their mother and father, and certain combinations can predispose to a particular illness."

That claim is much less certain than yours.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, as you made the original claim about psychiatric medication. Besides, my words are backed by thousands of MDs. As for yours... well, I'm sure those on the 'holistic' side of medicine would support you.

In science, claims are assumed to be void until proven true. If you want to assert the existence of depression as a disease and that anti-depressants are safe, you need to back that up.

It's like a Christian who says to atheists: "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so that means my belief is equally valid."

[Tralfamadorian]

That article speaks of depression as a disease. What are the scientific and verifiable tests one can conduct to see if one has contracted this disease? Is there a blood test for depression?

Just because a condition can't be diagnosed via traditional methods such as blood testing does not make said condition any less legitimate. Mental disorders arise from oftentimes subtle aberrations in brain structure and chemistry for which there is no known test for. The best we have are the inferences made through psychiatric evaluation. However, brain MRIs of people with depression show a marked difference from those without it, lending credence to the hypothesis that depression's origins lie, at least in part, in biology.

That's what the translator says he wrote.

It is highly doubtful there is any error with the translation.

Regardless, jumping from a letter that describes his state at the time to asserting that he had a genetic disease that made him depressed is ludicrous.

One or two mentions of depression? Likely part of the normal mood cycle all humans go through. But as the number of instances increases, a pattern begins to emerge -- a pattern that is consistent with the symptoms of major depressive disorder.

Furthermore, Nietzsche had an image to maintain, especially in light of his writings on the overman. It is likely he sequestered his true emotional state in order to maintain this image. Thus it is not unreasonable to assume his depression was likely more severe than he let on.

The article also states directly that clinical depression is not heritable: "So no one simply “inherits” depression from their mother or father.  Each person inherits a unique combination of genes from their mother and father, and certain combinations can predispose to a particular illness."

That claim is much less certain than yours.

There is no single 'depression gene'. Scientists believe there are a multitude of genes whose interrelationships give rise to a proclivity towards depression. While environmental factor undoubtedly do play a role, one should not discount the 'nature' side of the equation.

In science, claims are assumed to be void until proven true. If you want to assert the existence of depression as a disease and that anti-depressants are safe, you need to back that up.

I hope you realize that cuts both ways. In any case, seeing as you were the first to make a claim on this subject, you can be the first to provide evidence.

It's like a Christian who says to atheists: "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so that means my belief is equally valid."

How are a Christians beliefs any less valid than an atheist's?

[Wild]

Just because a condition can't be diagnosed via traditional methods such as blood testing does not make said condition any less legitimate.

Actually, the fact that there is no verifiable scientific test for depression makes it illegitimate. Psychology is not a serious discipline.

However, brain MRIs of people with depression show a marked difference from those without it, lending credence to the hypothesis that depression's origins lie, at least in part, in biology.

You have no idea whether depression causes those changes, or those changes cause depression.

I hope you realize that cuts both ways. In any case, seeing as you were the first to make a claim on this subject, you can be the first to provide evidence.

No, I don't: you are the one making a positive assertion concerning the existence of a disease. As you have done nothing to show that the assertion is true, skepticism should be the default position of any thinking person.

You can't ask someone to disprove the existence of something that has never been shown to exist.
This relates to "God" as well.

How are a Christians beliefs any less valid than an atheist's?

To clarify: I mean an atheist in the sense of: "There is no reason to think there is a god" as opposed to "There is no god".

[Tralfamadorian]

Actually, the fact that there is no verifiable scientific test for depression makes it illegitimate.

Where are you getting your definition of legitimate disease from? A Scientology blog? I suppose you consider  autism and Parkinson's, diseases which also cannot be diagnosed via laboratory test, to be "all in the mind" as well?

Psychology is not a serious discipline.

This statement bespeaks your ignorance of the topic at hand. Psychology is a social science that deals with abstract theories about the structure and processes of the mind. Psychiatry, on the other hand, is a hard science practiced by physicians which emphasizes the biological/medical nature of mental illnesses.

 Popular opinion seems to ascribe a magical significance to the brain because it is the seat of consciousness and thus the source our personalities. But it is really no different than any other organ in the body. Just as certain genetic combinations might give rise to complications with the intestinal tract (Crohn's), so too can genetics lead to complications with the brain. The fact of the matter is, depression is a result of chemical/physical anomalies within a particular organ, just like any other disease. Trying to think your way out of a major depression is akin to trying to think your way out of a high after smoking meth: it's a physical impossibility.

No, I don't: you are the one making a positive assertion concerning the existence of a disease. As you have done nothing to show that the assertion is true, skepticism should be the default position of any thinking person.

Any assertion can become a positive assertion through rewording. For instance:

depression is not biological -> depression is environmental
anti-depressants are not safe -> anti-depressants are dangerous

Now about that evidence...

[Wild]

Any assertion can become a positive assertion through rewording.

depression is not biological -> depression is environmental
anti-depressants are not safe -> anti-depressants are dangerous

If you think those reworded statements are equal to the original, I don't know what to tell you.

[trystero]

All personality is heritable. SSRIs and related drugs are effective but not a cure, they are a patch. Endogenous depression exists, but is likely secondary to some environmental or perhaps even pathogenic cause. Some people suspect viral. Most depression has some sort of trigger though, which is why cognitive behavioural therapy is so effective. The efficacy of medication is overstated here.

[Time Curator 23]

"The efficacy of pharmaceutical psychotropics has been shown many times over and the side effects are largely negligible compared to the benefits they yield."

Wrong.

No casual link has ever been established.

NEXT?

[Tralfamadorian]

No casual link has ever been established.

Bullshit. "Pharmaceutical psychotropics" (eg psychiatric medication) encompasses many different classes of drugs--from mood stabilizers to anti-psychotics to stimulants--each of which containing dozens of  unique drugs. To make a blanket statement claiming that every single one of these drugs is ineffective is utterly absurd and smacks of an emotional reaction to an idea you don't like.

[Vigilance]

There is a large push within psychology to get it to adopt evidence based practice. This would be a significant step towards the discipline becoming a science.  However,  it should be understood,  that there are limits for psychology as it concerns itself with the mind. Which is not itself an empirical phenomenon. The best science can do is deal with the brain.