It's a long read, but my short version would be this: "Depression is a mode where the brain underweighs evidence from new experiences in favor of pre-existing negative prior assumptions."
I like to say that the brain is very good at adjusting to adversity, but apparently very bad at adjusting to it's absence. I've heard that people who went through the Great Depression (unrelated :-), tended to spend the rest of their lives hording supplies.
I think it's well established that negative experiences impact most people more highly than positive ones, even if logically they are of the same degree. Based on your conjecture I suppose this would simply mean this lingers, informing the brain how to react in the future.
Yes. Anyone who has had to handle the affairs of someone in that "greatest generation" who has passed away knows, the amount of stuff they have accumulated is immense, almost overwhelming.
It was a charming part of their lives (e.g. going to see all 7 of grandma's prized typewriters in their basement), but trying to sell those 7 typewriters on ebay only to just give up and have some estate sale person come through and basically pay a small portion of the value of things just to get it off your hands is the only option.
I believe my grandma, who survived the war, never threw away any glass jar for similar reasons. It was also hard to convince her not to eat molded food.
Not sure about hoarding specifically, but depression can definitely cause similar outcomes. It usually causes a lack of motivation, resulting in many consequences ranging from procrastination up to neglect of personal hygiene and of course keeping things tidy. Pair this with a potential shopping addiction or something in that vein and the differences start to blur.
Isn't the definition of depression basically feeling that way over anextended period despite not having a logical reason to do so?
Regardless, if you're depression is because your life sucks so much that it makes sense to be that way, and has so for years, something is still very wrong.
Not necessarily. You can split a definition in many different ways depending on what you're trying to explore, but one way of differentiating types of depression is exogenous vs endogenous. Exogenous depression is a reasonable reaction to bad circumstances - a close family member dying - whereas endogenous depression is internally generated and not related to any circumstances. There are many different ways of talking about "depression", many of them talking about different things - one of the difficulties with psychological terminology is that often that it's just descriptive of someone's behaviour rather than underlying causes, because it's such a complex area.
Yes and no? In such a situation their brain has high confidence in a bad world. If the world is actually bad, then that's not a malfunction, but among the strengths of the predictive hypothesis is that it allows the same explanation for the malfunctioning and normal cases.
>If the world is actually bad, then that's not a malfunction
In either case the treatment is the same. Doctors and psychiatrists are powerless to do anything to actually put their patients in safe and wholesome environments.
Absolutely true, and a huge issue in mental health treatment. That being said, I wonder if there's something to be said for medicine even in such situations. Maybe we should consider the basis for treatment to be 'is better able to function in current situation'. For instance, ADD is realistically just rounding out the wrong end of the focus bell curve, and depending on how much focus is needed in your day to day life you might be functional or nonfunctional with the same natural level.
> brain underweighs evidence from new experiences in favor of pre-existing [...] prior assumptions.
Isn't this what brains do typically, outside of depression?
I omitted the word "negative" from the quote as that part I don't think is universal. It still seems a somewhat limited modifier in modelling depression.
The linked article's paragraph on "lumping together depression and trauma" also seems to accidentally expand on this conflation. I understand the causes of depression are likely numerous, so natural tendencies of those not prone to depression can't be ruled out as contributory factors, but I'm not sure I see an argument there for their being significant.
> I omitted the word "negative" from the quote as that part I don't think is universal.
For a definition of "depression", it is. If somebody always believes that everything is great, regardless of the evidence, that might be a problem, but that problem would not be called "depression".
> Isn't this what brains do typically, outside of depression?
No; the theory is that typical brains do a certain amount of consideration of new evidence, and depressed brains do less than that.
The same article goes on to point out that there must be more to it, since as described this model would still result in depression naturally clearing up.
What drugs are best at extinguishing those negative priors? Vorinostat worked for me when a slew of antidepressants did not, but it's hard to find and can have side effects. It was really astounding. I just felt normal, unafraid, but not in a weird amped up way as with Adderall. I could just talk to people fluidly and think normally.
