Interesting hypothesis. However, isn't depression sometimes getting in the way of pursuing perfectly attainable goals? For example, finding more friends or losing a bit of weight are definitely not overly ambitious goals, but depressed people often despair that they will never be able to reach them.
From the opening paragraph: [He] likens the relationship between mild and clinical depression to the one between normal and chronic pain. He sees both pain and low mood as warning mechanisms and thinks that, just as understanding chronic pain means first understanding normal pain, so understanding clinical depression means understanding mild depression.
In other words, yes, people with clinical depression find that it gets in the way of their daily life. His hypothesis is about why normal, healthy people suffer from low mood / mild depression from time-to-time, and what evolutionary advantage that might give us.
isn't depression sometimes getting in the way of pursuing perfectly attainable goals?
It certainly plays out that way in actual medical cases, and cognitive therapy for depression is all about showing patients that they can still succeed in goal-directed behavior.
Perhaps the hypothesis would apply more to the approach/situation rather than the goal.
If depressed people despair that they cannot find new friends or lose some weight, maybe the depression might direct them to try something new. That's how I see the idea presented here. (Unfortunately, you're right that many people are quick to give up and deem a goal impossible.)
This is one of those concepts that I always simply assumed to be true. Ordinary feelings of depression (i.e. specifically not chronic or "clinical" depression) are quite normal responses to situations that are, in fact, depressing. These feelings can help shake us out of situations we might otherwise suffer through.
This is interesting. I wonder if it means anything more than "depressive people are those that are unable to let go of failure"? Seems like an apt description of many generally depressed people I know.
Side note: Anyone have thoughts on whether 'depression' is an umbrella term for distinct mental traits?
In addition to tokenadult's comment, which I would expect is probably correct, I would relate this from my abnormal psych class: A number of conditions given the same label are known to be distinct, in that we can tell there's definitely more than one distinct thing going on, but nobody quite knows where to draw the line. Part of the purpose of the label is to give psychologists simply a word with an agreed meaning so they can discuss it with each other. As they narrow down exactly what the variants are and figure out where to draw the line, psychologists will give the variants new, separate names.
This is closely analogous to the justification given in the Design Patterns book for programmers. And in both the design pattern and the DSM case, there is widespread misunderstanding about the fact that the most important thing for both is simply giving things names, since we can not talk clearly about what we do not have proper names for.
Schizophrenia is the classic example, which started out as all but a synonym for "idiopathic mental disorder" and has gradually been refined into various distinct pieces, but not without controversy [1]. It remains an over-broad distinction, but of course that's because nobody really knows how to cut it down better yet.
Depression definitely would seem to be very similar; just look at all the types listed here [2], which I'd hardly expect to be an exhaustive list. Certainly in the popular press, which rarely takes the time to really nail down what they are talking about, "depression" is a term so broad it has hardly any meaning beyond "I feel sad a lot".
There's a lot of slicing and dicing done by the real professionals, which the popular press is entirely oblivious to. (I only sampled at the beginning, but I can at least say that's a true statement with confidence.) And there's more defining yet to be done. If you're interested in the subject, it's definitely an interesting one for hackers, seeing how the most complicated computing device known to man can go wrong. It can be... scary, though. (I don't have specific book recommendations though. Perhaps others will chime in.)
My theory on it is something between "pack" benefit and "individual" benefit. I believe that depression is beneficial to pack hunters.
It goes like this: Operating in groups offers a great advantage. If a member of the group is lost, however, there follows a period of time where the group is more vulnerable. They haven't yet adapted (tactically) to a smaller group, so business as usual could end up getting them killed.
A period of mourning, however, with lowered dangerous activity, puts the group in less danger while they recoup from their loss. During this time they're more likely to gain new members, train young ones or simply adapt their tactics to fit their smaller numbers.
Think of it like this: Take Kobe off the team and the Lakers start to really suck. However, let them fill the fifth spot and rethink their strategies... and they start to look like a good team again.
I don't think the journalist did a good job when he took his conclusions as:
"Depression may turn out to be an inevitable price of living in a dynamic society."
That amounts to, Hey, we are doing something that hurt us as a society, but what the heck, lets all take the symptom of our mistake as a 'price' for our 'correct' path.
My environment shapes me far more than my genes. I know this because I'm not the same person who woke up this morning. Sure, my genes may predispose me to Alzheimers or Diabetes or cancer. They drive my physical characteristics, and maybe much more. But my essence is not pre-destined by my genes.
It's an intriguing idea that seems to be associated with Soviet-era training and the mechanization of human beings, coerced into insect-like castes, as in Brave New World, and the lovely short-story Unaccompanied Sonatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccompanied_Sonata (or Ender's Game itself for that matter.)
I know you don't mean coercion, but simply informed choice; but I think the rebuttal is the same: our theories are not adequate to predict such things, even if we had all the information; especially when factors like 10,000 hours of practice and motivation seem so important. At best, they can suggest a probability distribution. Or: you don't know til you try.
I guess some specifics could be useful, like a probability distribution of expected height for a baby, for his/her potential as a basketball player. However, at the very young age where genome knowledge is most effective (by revealing as yet unexpressed traits). the baby is not able to make a choice. So it would effectively be Soviet-era training.
Having thought about this article for a day, I'm wondering what the view of the cited scientist is of elevated human mood states, those that correspond to pathological states of hypomania and mania. One of the tricky issues in treating depression is to avoid inducing mania.
I disagree with this argument. I think another one's more salient. For a pack animal such as primal humans probably were, a certain type of moderate depression is a survival mechanism for dealing with low social status. Your appetite and libido decrease, you become inassertive, you accept mistreatment from others. Subjectively, this process and experience sucks, but lacking desire to mate with the alpha female keeps the omega male alive. Much more importantly (since nature doesn't care much about unsuccessful individuals) it's a survival mechanism for the pack; the depressive response ensures that, in extreme scarcity, the less successful individuals slink away and accept starvation, rather than challenging and potentially causing harm to the more important ones.
In modern society, this reaction is completely useless and utterly maladaptive. It also has a tendency to fire in people at all levels of social status, because modern society (with its dynamic, subtle, and multileveled play of social status) is confusing to the primal mind. So a depressive response can be rightly considered an illness.
Civilization expects everyone to assume the role most closely analogous to high beta/low alpha. People who have omega traits tend to be depressives; people who have too many alpha traits are sociopaths.
Much more importantly (since nature doesn't care much about unsuccessful individuals) it's a survival mechanism for the pack
I am not a biologist, but according to (what I understood of) "The Selfish Gene" and the like, the natural selection takes place on the level of genes. Since the successful reproduction of a gene is usually (barring some exceptional situations mentioned in the book) tightly coupled with the fate of the individual carrying the gene, reasoning about natural selection that operates on individuals typically leads to correct conclusions. Reasoning about natural selection on packs is on the other hand typically incorrect, if it leads to conclusions different from the individuals-based selection.
In your example, if you imagine two genes, one that tells the low status carrier to accept starvation, and the other that tells its carrier to fight for dear life no matter what its social status, the second gene will win and the first one will go extinct, even if from the point of view of the whole pack the first gene could be better.
This is not to say that your hypothesis is invalid, as I'm sure it can be rephrased in terms of genes/individuals without losing the core message.
> Civilization expects everyone to assume the role most closely analogous to high beta/low alpha. People who have omega traits tend to be depressives; people who have too many alpha traits are sociopaths.
This is, far and away, one of the most intelligent and insightful comments I've read on Hacker News and explains a hell of a lot to me. I might quote you on this one later in an article I've got in the que to write: Is there any particular way you'd care for me to source you? I've got the permanent link and your screenname and can use that, but if you'd like it attributed differently I'd be happy to.
Thanks very much for the insight, and welcome to HN. I hope you stick around, this really got the gears turning in my head.
Sounds reasonable, leading to the prime exception I take with this whole line of inquiry known as "evolutionary psychology": the lack of falsifiability of any plausible hypothesis. You can handwave pretty much any narrative that somewhat fits the data and publish.
Arguing by group selection is far fetched as it is almost inherently wrong in concept, and demands further explanation in gene mechanics.
Even if accepting the group selection idea for the sake of argument, there are inconsistencies to what behavior one would expect to find. As the article elaborates on, depression is, crudely put, mental pain, and it comes with symptoms such as general lack of motivation. How does that fit with the over all good of the pack? Wouldn't the expected behavior be acceptance of the omega situation and great motivation to sacrifice itself for the pack (as in wolf packs where there is kinship involved)? How is an individual being gloomy and doing nothing - mental pain being inflicted - beneficial to the pack?
The thing is, clinical [endogenous] depression strikes the successful and the unsuccessful alike - it's a biochemical imbalance, not a psychological reaction.
Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? The evidence is quite convincing that pre-agricultural humans were not so much hierarchical. Humans are not gorillas. It seems like various insecure nerds are very eager to project popularity issues.
I think depression is more about simple calorie preservation. People in situations where they feel they have no control get depressed. Imagine a famine. The cheerful go-getter says "By gum, there's food out there somewhere and I'm going to find it!" He tramps out of camp on a hunt, and drops dead of starvation two days later. Our depressive fellow says "We're fucked. I'm going to lie down and wait to die." He stays still and doesn't even think much, saving calories. Then by chance a deer wanders into camp eight days later and he's saved.
In this age of plentiful energy and food people seem to forget how central metabolism and energy scarcity is to evolution. The human body is mostly a machine set up to cope with highly variable energy intake. Energy efficiency and conservation should typically be the starting point when considering these issues.
As recently as 100 years ago huge numbers of people in northern climes would spend most of four months of the year lying in bed in a semi-depressive state to save energy.
[+] [-] miloshh|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darshan|17 years ago|reply
In other words, yes, people with clinical depression find that it gets in the way of their daily life. His hypothesis is about why normal, healthy people suffer from low mood / mild depression from time-to-time, and what evolutionary advantage that might give us.
[+] [-] tokenadult|17 years ago|reply
It certainly plays out that way in actual medical cases, and cognitive therapy for depression is all about showing patients that they can still succeed in goal-directed behavior.
[+] [-] pie|17 years ago|reply
If depressed people despair that they cannot find new friends or lose some weight, maybe the depression might direct them to try something new. That's how I see the idea presented here. (Unfortunately, you're right that many people are quick to give up and deem a goal impossible.)
[+] [-] pie|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Afton|17 years ago|reply
Side note: Anyone have thoughts on whether 'depression' is an umbrella term for distinct mental traits?
[+] [-] tokenadult|17 years ago|reply
My sense of the evidence, as I read the masterwork on the subject
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195135792/
just now for research I am doing, is that depression has multiple distinct causes, and a variety of particular manifestations.
[+] [-] jerf|17 years ago|reply
This is closely analogous to the justification given in the Design Patterns book for programmers. And in both the design pattern and the DSM case, there is widespread misunderstanding about the fact that the most important thing for both is simply giving things names, since we can not talk clearly about what we do not have proper names for.
Schizophrenia is the classic example, which started out as all but a synonym for "idiopathic mental disorder" and has gradually been refined into various distinct pieces, but not without controversy [1]. It remains an over-broad distinction, but of course that's because nobody really knows how to cut it down better yet.
Depression definitely would seem to be very similar; just look at all the types listed here [2], which I'd hardly expect to be an exhaustive list. Certainly in the popular press, which rarely takes the time to really nail down what they are talking about, "depression" is a term so broad it has hardly any meaning beyond "I feel sad a lot".
There's a lot of slicing and dicing done by the real professionals, which the popular press is entirely oblivious to. (I only sampled at the beginning, but I can at least say that's a true statement with confidence.) And there's more defining yet to be done. If you're interested in the subject, it's definitely an interesting one for hackers, seeing how the most complicated computing device known to man can go wrong. It can be... scary, though. (I don't have specific book recommendations though. Perhaps others will chime in.)
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Controversies_and...
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_psychological_depressi...
[+] [-] wallflower|17 years ago|reply
Axis I: clinical disorders, including major mental disorders, as well as developmental and learning disorders
Common Axis I disorders include depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, ADHD, Autism, phobias, and schizophrenia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manu...
[+] [-] rriepe|17 years ago|reply
It goes like this: Operating in groups offers a great advantage. If a member of the group is lost, however, there follows a period of time where the group is more vulnerable. They haven't yet adapted (tactically) to a smaller group, so business as usual could end up getting them killed.
A period of mourning, however, with lowered dangerous activity, puts the group in less danger while they recoup from their loss. During this time they're more likely to gain new members, train young ones or simply adapt their tactics to fit their smaller numbers.
Think of it like this: Take Kobe off the team and the Lakers start to really suck. However, let them fill the fifth spot and rethink their strategies... and they start to look like a good team again.
[+] [-] TheSOB88|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b-man|17 years ago|reply
"Depression may turn out to be an inevitable price of living in a dynamic society."
That amounts to, Hey, we are doing something that hurt us as a society, but what the heck, lets all take the symptom of our mistake as a 'price' for our 'correct' path.
The blind leading the wounded.
[+] [-] amichail|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colins_pride|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 10ren|17 years ago|reply
I know you don't mean coercion, but simply informed choice; but I think the rebuttal is the same: our theories are not adequate to predict such things, even if we had all the information; especially when factors like 10,000 hours of practice and motivation seem so important. At best, they can suggest a probability distribution. Or: you don't know til you try.
I guess some specifics could be useful, like a probability distribution of expected height for a baby, for his/her potential as a basketball player. However, at the very young age where genome knowledge is most effective (by revealing as yet unexpressed traits). the baby is not able to make a choice. So it would effectively be Soviet-era training.
[+] [-] Retric|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|17 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] diN0bot|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwncat|17 years ago|reply
In modern society, this reaction is completely useless and utterly maladaptive. It also has a tendency to fire in people at all levels of social status, because modern society (with its dynamic, subtle, and multileveled play of social status) is confusing to the primal mind. So a depressive response can be rightly considered an illness.
Civilization expects everyone to assume the role most closely analogous to high beta/low alpha. People who have omega traits tend to be depressives; people who have too many alpha traits are sociopaths.
[+] [-] pfedor|17 years ago|reply
I am not a biologist, but according to (what I understood of) "The Selfish Gene" and the like, the natural selection takes place on the level of genes. Since the successful reproduction of a gene is usually (barring some exceptional situations mentioned in the book) tightly coupled with the fate of the individual carrying the gene, reasoning about natural selection that operates on individuals typically leads to correct conclusions. Reasoning about natural selection on packs is on the other hand typically incorrect, if it leads to conclusions different from the individuals-based selection.
In your example, if you imagine two genes, one that tells the low status carrier to accept starvation, and the other that tells its carrier to fight for dear life no matter what its social status, the second gene will win and the first one will go extinct, even if from the point of view of the whole pack the first gene could be better.
This is not to say that your hypothesis is invalid, as I'm sure it can be rephrased in terms of genes/individuals without losing the core message.
[+] [-] lionhearted|17 years ago|reply
This is, far and away, one of the most intelligent and insightful comments I've read on Hacker News and explains a hell of a lot to me. I might quote you on this one later in an article I've got in the que to write: Is there any particular way you'd care for me to source you? I've got the permanent link and your screenname and can use that, but if you'd like it attributed differently I'd be happy to.
Thanks very much for the insight, and welcome to HN. I hope you stick around, this really got the gears turning in my head.
[+] [-] aswanson|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShardPhoenix|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|17 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arketyp|17 years ago|reply
Even if accepting the group selection idea for the sake of argument, there are inconsistencies to what behavior one would expect to find. As the article elaborates on, depression is, crudely put, mental pain, and it comes with symptoms such as general lack of motivation. How does that fit with the over all good of the pack? Wouldn't the expected behavior be acceptance of the omega situation and great motivation to sacrifice itself for the pack (as in wolf packs where there is kinship involved)? How is an individual being gloomy and doing nothing - mental pain being inflicted - beneficial to the pack?
[+] [-] MaysonL|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bored|17 years ago|reply
Sounds like group selection, common fallacy.
[+] [-] kingkongrevenge|17 years ago|reply
Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? The evidence is quite convincing that pre-agricultural humans were not so much hierarchical. Humans are not gorillas. It seems like various insecure nerds are very eager to project popularity issues.
I think depression is more about simple calorie preservation. People in situations where they feel they have no control get depressed. Imagine a famine. The cheerful go-getter says "By gum, there's food out there somewhere and I'm going to find it!" He tramps out of camp on a hunt, and drops dead of starvation two days later. Our depressive fellow says "We're fucked. I'm going to lie down and wait to die." He stays still and doesn't even think much, saving calories. Then by chance a deer wanders into camp eight days later and he's saved.
In this age of plentiful energy and food people seem to forget how central metabolism and energy scarcity is to evolution. The human body is mostly a machine set up to cope with highly variable energy intake. Energy efficiency and conservation should typically be the starting point when considering these issues.
As recently as 100 years ago huge numbers of people in northern climes would spend most of four months of the year lying in bed in a semi-depressive state to save energy.