[speechduh]

As you yourself said, the claim is "qualitatively" different, not "quantitatively" different. If you think about what qualitatively means, I really have no idea what you're trying to say. "Just" being "more extreme" is sufficient for something to be qualitatively different. Different symptoms start manifesting, especially as compensatory systems start to fail. As far as I can tell your point is vacuous; please clarify, otherwise.

If you're instead trying to say that they're biologically / mechanically similar phenomena, well, that's a different discussion we could have.

Have you ever experienced severe depression (i.e., the type that prevents you from getting out of bed for months or causes you to be hospitalized)? Because it's absolutely fucking awful. I'd love some clarification of where you're going with this hypothetical, because right now it sounds like you're denying the experience of a whole lot of people in a whole lot of pain, without having much of a point.

[formulaT]

The main point is that there are a number of different axes along which "severe", "major" or "clinical" depression is said to differ from ordinary sadness, and that the qualitative distinction is used to justify all of these.

The main ones are

1) Depression (unlike sadness) is not caused by circumstances that cause a person to be unhappy.

2) Depression (unlike sadness) can only be cured by addressing to root (medical) cause of unbalanced brain chemistry.

3) Depression (unlike sadness) either is not curable, only the symptoms can be cured, or people who recover are prone to relapse.

>Have you ever experienced severe depression (i.e., the type that prevents you from getting out of bed for months or causes you to be hospitalized)? Because it's absolutely fucking awful.

No, but maybe I've experienced things just as bad? I don't really know, but I also don't know how you claim to be able to compare your experience to mine.

I'd love some clarification of where you're going with this hypothetical, because right now it sounds like you're denying the experience of a whole lot of people in a whole lot of pain, without having much of a point.

It's a logical fallacy to think that people do/should only make arguments with some end goal. My goal is to express my opinion on the nature of mental illness. Another fallacy is that arguing that "X is true" can be immoral, because of X were true, then some immoral consequence would follow. If I am right, we should still be just as compassionate towards other people's problems.

You can be compassionate and understanding towards someone's problems without categorizing those problems as a medical illness. Similarly, you can use this categorization as an excuse not to be compassionate, e.g. treating a person as irrational or untrustworthy because they have had a mental illness in the past.

[DanBC]

> and that the qualitative distinction is used to justify all of these.

Yes - does it pose a risk of harm to yourself or other people; does it interfere with your day to day life? These quality statements are used as part of the process of assessing whether someone needs or wants a treatment, and they should be common across all forms of mental illness. (EG people with auditory hallucinations often go unmedicated because they can live with their voices.)

> You can be compassionate and understanding towards someone's problems without categorizing those problems as a medical illness.

Compassion does not treat depression, although it's important part of preventing depression. Talking therapies like CBT are pretty structured, and the evidence says they seem to work. We know the counseling generally doesn't, and can be harmful. And also, if a person needs treatment then they might need money to pay for that treatment and protected time off work to get treatment. Calling dysfunctional forms of sadness "depression" is partly a bureaucratic measure we take to fund treatment and protect people from losing a job.

Strongly agree with your last sentence. A few people on HN equate mental illness with violence but mental illness does not predict violent behaviour (drug addiction; or previous violence are much better predictors, and if you have a combination of either / both of those and a mental illness that's a better predictor, but merely mental illness itself isn't predictive).