I'm sorry you dislike my tone. But do you disagree with any of the factual claims I made? If so, which one?
From your comment, it sounds as if pills motivated you to try CBT, and then you lifted yourself out of it (via fun or other methods). I.e., you underwent the exact process I described - pills make you happier short term, therapist taught you to solve your own problems long term.
I'm also glad that you've also discovered CBT is an enjoyable hobby.
Depression is an illness just like addiction or diabetes. I mention addiction because that's another one people like to write off as a moral failing or something that just isn't a real illness.
Why do you feel that being an illness and being a moral failing are mutually exclusive?
Try reading the lesswrong link I posted. The gist of it is that the label "disease" describes a collection of heterogeneous objects, and drawing implications by analogy to some objects in the collection (e.g. cancer) can give misleading results when applied to other objects in the collection (e.g., drug addiction).
Similarly, this claim is an example of the same logical fallacy: "A penguin is a bird, just like a pigeon, therefore it can fly."
Maybe you don't mean it, but I also hear a contemptuous tone when you describe CBT as "funning" your way out of depression, or when you call Bill's CBT an enjoyable hobby.
(CBT is an enjoyable hobby, I still get mileage out of rereading Seligman's Learned Optimism (which is CBT based). But, being condescending and being factually accurate are not mutually exclusive either.)
"As I understand it, CBT is basically teaching the depressed person how to "fun" (or stress manage/expectation manage) their way out of depression."
Most people would not describe "stress management" or "expectation management" as "fun"
CBT is not about fun. It often involves journaling (challenging irrationally negative thoughts). It's also certainly not positive thinking. Far from it. It's focused, rational, balanced thinking. Then again, on HN maybe careful, logical thinking is considered fun.
On a lighter note, for some people (not me), CBT is fun. But it's a different kind of CBT. I have a hard time not laughing when a psychologist says she's a practitioner of CBT. (If you're unfamiliar with what I am talking about Google CBT. Prepare to see some seriously NSFW cringeworthy images).
The thing I really didn't like was how you used the word "fun" as if to minimize the seriousness of the problem. In fact, it came off to me as if you were minimizing the seriousness of depression in general. I could have just taken it that way without you meaning it like that.
Your comment about pills also came off as if to say its not a valid solution. Like maybe pills are somehow for the weak or lazy.
Honestly, I just really detected a lot of snark in that comment and in this one and I don't know why. You just called my participation in CBT "an enjoyable hobby" like a backhanded compliment. I wouldn't call it a hobby at all.
Maybe if you want to get technical and argue semantics a moral failing and disease may not be mutually exclusive. But we're talking about the real world. As it applies to depression and addiction, disease and moral failing are mutually exclusive. People are looked down upon and carry a stigma because so many people want to call it a moral failing. They say "just snap out of it" for depression and they call addicts weak people when the reality is so far from being so black and white.
Everyone can pull out studies to discredit the other guy's study that he pulled out. Let's be real when we talk about this stuff and not hide behind studies. Researchers disagree all the time so the best we can do is use our own experience, best judgement, and widely accepted truths to argue our points.
At the end of the day I took less issue with your facts than your ton. It just sounded demeaning and like you were minimizing the seriousness of this stuff. Plus there was a bit of snark detected. I don't think I was the only one either. That's all, this isn't a personal attack, man. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You said you "...still go to CBT...just because I really enjoy it...Even the therapist agrees I'd be fine without it...". If you don't call such an activity a hobby, what would you call it?
Maybe if you want to get technical and argue semantics a moral failing and disease may not be mutually exclusive. But we're talking about the real world. As it applies to depression and addiction, disease and moral failing are mutually exclusive.
If you wish to argue that they are not "moral failings", then make such an argument. Define your morality explain why addiction to drugs does not meet your criteria for immorality.
For example, I'd argue thusly: "I believe an action is only immoral if it harms another person against their will. Drug addiction/depression does not do this, hence the choice to use and become addicted to drugs is not a moral failing."
Don't try to confuse people with logically invalid argument such as "it's an illness, not a moral failing". That's as logically invalid as arguing "penguins are birds, and therefore can fly."
I'm not really arguing. Seems like someone is looking to start a fight. I saw a comment that seemed to belittle the depressed and minimize the seriousness of the problem as well as a veiled mockery of CBT.
I don't really know what you mean by moral failing. To morally failyou have to start doing something that is immoral, like killing kitten or something
Just out of curiosity (I don't really know what the answer is because I don't have depression), but do you think it's impossible for a person to become depressed due to being weak or having a weak character?
Could for example being a loser make your life difficult and lead to depression?
Now I understand "loser" is kind of a meaningless term, but I'm just using it as an illustrative example.
Say for a particular set of reasons (having to due with your character/personality) everyone around you always teases you. Couldn't that lead to depression; and if you were that kind of person, wouldn't addressing what makes you a "loser" be the correct way ultimately to deal with your depression.
Or is depression never caused by problems with one's own personality/character?
Your point about being a loser is exactly the kind of thing that hurts people more than helps them. Don't get me wrong, I get your point and the way you put it really makes sense. Yes, I'm sure failing can lead to depression and I have no doubt that it happens. But consider this.
Very often the very thing that creates a "loser" is not a personal failing but actually a symptom of depression. People will fly off the handle on me for not citing a study but it's the best I've got right now. I'll take my own case. From birth I was as happy and normal as anyone. Smart as anything, lots of success, and so on. Suddenly depression comes out of nowhere. The symptoms of depression brought me to a point where I could no longer work, study, or do anything really. It also led me to self medicate and become an addict. That's the point where my situation fed my depression and made it worse much like you describe.
Stories like this are very common from the depressed. Everyone fails at some point but that failure doesn't always lead to depression. People just pick up the pieces and move on.
So while what you say could likely be true for some, it's most likely not true for most NAND even if it is, that line of thought prevents people from seeking the help they need soon enough if at all. They come to think that they are flawed and weak which then feeds the depression beast and on top of it they believe that they can somehow snap themselves out of it and become "strong" by sheer will power.
Your comment also implies that there's no difference between situational depression and other forms of the disease. You could also read it as saying depression is the same as being really really sad. I know you didn't mean it that way and I can't blame you for it. Honestly, people who haven't been there will have thoughts like these. That's why I always argue for more education and it's why the professionals keep shoving the "it's a disease" line down our throats. Because people who don't have the experience are inadvertently doing harm to those who need help.
And you're right, I might have been just a touch sensitive. It's not that I take it personally. It's just that having seen myself and others in that situation I know that they'd cringe for fear that some poor soul will take it to heart and actually try to will their way out of it instead of seeking help.
From your comment, it sounds as if pills motivated you to try CBT, and then you lifted yourself out of it (via fun or other methods). I.e., you underwent the exact process I described - pills make you happier short term, therapist taught you to solve your own problems long term.
I'm also glad that you've also discovered CBT is an enjoyable hobby.
Depression is an illness just like addiction or diabetes. I mention addiction because that's another one people like to write off as a moral failing or something that just isn't a real illness.
Why do you feel that being an illness and being a moral failing are mutually exclusive?
Try reading the lesswrong link I posted. The gist of it is that the label "disease" describes a collection of heterogeneous objects, and drawing implications by analogy to some objects in the collection (e.g. cancer) can give misleading results when applied to other objects in the collection (e.g., drug addiction).
Similarly, this claim is an example of the same logical fallacy: "A penguin is a bird, just like a pigeon, therefore it can fly."