you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

How can it exist and not be real?


Hysteria was "real" and was written about and diagnosed and treated . . . until we had a far better science-to-supposition ratio going and diagnostics improved. Now we know there are a lot of distinct physiological and psychological issues that present as (what used to be called) "hysteria," and none of them have to do with wandering wombs or whatever else.

Depression is also way more complex than presented, and it may or may not be genetic. Clinical depression can be triggered by genetics, stress, pain, trauma, low light exposure, severe nutritional deficiencies, endocrine and autonomic dysregulation, reactions to nonpsychiatric meds, physical illness, and a whole buncha stuff.

Diagnosing relies on signs and symptoms. Sometimes it reveals an easily identifiable problem (like an easily detected infection). Sometimes it can only describe a syndrome that shows up in a number of people, or a pronounced dysfunction whose causes we don't yet understand (like GD). In no way does that mean that the dysfunction isn't real.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (14 children)

'It may or may not be genetic.'

This is an anti-scientific claim. Depression has long been understood to be virtually entirely genetic.

What kind of mental illness is environmentally produced and sustained? If it is, it's not a mental illness, since there's nothing biological about it.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Depression is not exclusively genetic. Many illnesses are multifactorial. These are well-established understandings.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (12 children)

'Research shows that the hippocampus is smaller in some depressed people. For example, in one fMRI study published in The Journal of Neuroscience, investigators studied 24 women who had a history of depression. On average, the hippocampus was 9% to 13% smaller in depressed women compared with those who were not depressed. The more bouts of depression a woman had, the smaller the hippocampus.'

Bruh, your own study seems to disprove what you've been saying (though, I must admit, the sample size was pretty small, unfortunately). Additionally, the article you referenced literally showed which exact areas of the brain were affected by depression, meaning that it can, accurately, be neurologically examined.

[–]Juniperius 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Brains are plastic. They change in function, interconnectivity, and size of various areas in response to the environment and habits of the person. If the hippocampus is smaller in depressed people, it could just as easily be an effect of depression, rather than a cause. Furthermore, a) fMRI studies are stupid, they can find what appears to be brain activity in a dead fish, b) 24 study participants is insufficient to draw any kind of conclusion and should only be used to suggest that further study might be interesting, c) one study doesn't mean anything until it has been replicated, it's only when a mass of evidence starts to build up that scientists will begin to treat the hypothesis as being strongly supported.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

In one research tram drivers all had similar brain structure.

Tram-driving is the new sex!

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

one study doesn't mean anything until it has been replicated, it's only when a mass of evidence starts to build up that scientists will begin to treat the hypothesis as being strongly supported.

Hugely important point. Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses are our friends.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

'If the hippocampus is smaller in depressed people, it could just as easily be an effect of depression, rather than a cause.'

This would still mean depression is genetic, or else this brain area would not be affected. Also, it was your study, not mine, and it didn't even agree with you. It's still, even with the lackluster sample size, most likely, statistically, that is, the case that the brain is functioning differently when it comes to those with depression. Depression is persistent, what prevents happiness, and is ongoing and continuous, unlike mere sadness. Depression is genetic because if it's not, there's no such thing as depression. What you're referring to, then, is just sadness. Depression should be understood as a disease.

[–]Juniperius 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You should probably go look up the word "genetic" before you try to have this conversation.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I know what genetic means. I know what biology is. Depression is genetic, or else what's being referred to as depression is just intense sadness, or long lasting waves of sadness.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, you crearly don't. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest you learn more about genetics, neuroplasticity and how they work. Otherwise, you can expect to keep being corrected.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How am I misusing the term 'genetics'?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Suggest you read the entire article for context and clarity on that. And feel free to address your concerns to the authors and editors at Harvard Medical School.

ETA you've formed a conclusion and are cherry-picking evidence to support it. That's backwards sciencing. Also academically dishonest.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

Your comment isn't a helpful comment. It's not adding anything to anything. I would advise at least attempting to rebut any of what I've stated.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The entire Harvard article supports my assertions, which I've already articulated. I stand firmly by my conclusion-to-proof assessment of your reasoning. Please take your trolling elsewhere.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, you've made no argument. You claim I'm trolling, while also refusing to engage with any of my ideas. Again, the article you yourself cited does not agree with your beliefs.