Live data from Hacker News

Depression's Upside (2010)

nytimes.com

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#61
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the underlying problem, which is usually emotional trauma This is untrue. The emotional trauma hypothesis is thoroughly debunked and has been for very many years. The vast majority of people with depression do not have any emotional trauma.

If you attempt to reduce an extremely complex system of incidental traumas, re-enforcements, psycho-social effects and a multitude of many other factors down to "there was a death in the family" or "my father hit me once" then I would totally agree with you, that has been thoroughly debunked. There are healthy people whose fathers hit them, or have had deaths in their families, this is absolutely true. However, you d…

I didn't say that thoughts don't matter. I'm not sure if you're aware that I strongly advocate for CBT.

But CBT doesn't aim to uncover emotional trauma. You talk about an emotion that is causing you distress; the hot thought that's associated with that thought; and then evidence for that.

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think depression has a similar role. Why? I can't see any basis for your belief other than "it just makes sense to me", which is the epistemology of bloodletting and witchburning. Evolutionary just-so stories have been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked that no one thinks they can be evidence for anything. They may be useful motivators for testable ideas, but that's all. So where is your evidence, your clinica…

Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're…

That isn't correct, exactly, and your response to someone else who tried to point this out that only contained a link to a naive google search is really offensive. (Because it is patronizing, because it trivializes a complex issue, because it poses as a retort without actually being one.)

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#63
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're…

Your own thoughts and other people's communication do not have the same effect in the context you're describing. You could agree or disagree with what other people say (or whether it matters), for one, while the unreasonable thoughts and irrational thought patterns associated with depression is part of your own perspective in this case. These negative thoughts are identified by and refuted because of the fact that th…

Correct. You are clearly dealing rationally with a complicated topic, and for someone to just spit in your face about it (the Google link comment) is incredible. There is a sibling comment to your own addressing this.

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#64
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> I think depression has a similar role. Why? I can't see any basis for your belief other than "it just makes sense to me", which is the epistemology of bloodletting and witchburning. Evolutionary just-so stories have been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked that no one thinks they can be evidence for anything. They may be useful motivators for testable ideas, but that's all. So where is your evidence, your clinica…

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.

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#66
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're…

That isn't correct, exactly, and your response to someone else who tried to point this out that only contained a link to a naive google search is really offensive. (Because it is patronizing, because it trivializes a complex issue, because it poses as a retort without actually being one.)

[deleted]

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#67
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're…

That isn't correct, exactly, and your response to someone else who tried to point this out that only contained a link to a naive google search is really offensive. (Because it is patronizing, because it trivializes a complex issue, because it poses as a retort without actually being one.)

[deleted]

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#68
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, we know that CBT works for depression, yeah? CBT postulates that your thoughts cause your emotions. Part of the therapy is identifying and refuting negative thoughts like, "You're worthless!" Well, if other people are telling you that you're worthless, in one way or another, then it has the same effect. It doesn't matter how much CBT you do, if everyone is around you is telling you that you're worthless, you're…

That isn't correct, exactly, and your response to someone else who tried to point this out that only contained a link to a naive google search is really offensive. (Because it is patronizing, because it trivializes a complex issue, because it poses as a retort without actually being one.)

[deleted]

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#69
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck. I did some and found it helpful. I kind guess personally that it works by a kind of neural network rewiring. Before CBT some neurones are taking input, processing it as indicating things being crappy and directly signalling that to the older reptilian bits of the brain that deal with that, without conscious awareness. By consciously becoming aware of the things are crappy reasoning you can argue against it…

That's essentially mindfulness too -- you catch a negative thought and then you construct a counter-argument against it to placate the reptile-brain. It's like living with a little child who's prone to temper-tantrums. Whatever it can take poorly it will, and it's your responsibility to re-frame things in a good light quickly.

+1 for a combination of both CBT and mindfulness. Both have really helped me with my depression.

Re: Depression's Upside (2010)

#70

And Jonah Lehrer has magically regained credibility how?

Something something ad hominem. Besides that, to what are you referring?

In real world, ad hominem arguments make more sense that they are sometimes given credit.

Of course, in an ideal world, we should be able to just judge someone's argument based on its own merit; however, in practice, an 99% arguments (pretty much everything that is not a mathematical proof?) will cite external facts and references. This creates an ample opportunity for manipulation for someone dishonest and hence credibility is important.

Post reply on HN