[doctorcroc]

It's a shame that this moderately spoken, and well documented counter to the OP's ad hominem attack on the author of the linked article is downvoted so heavily. I appreciate HN's love for science and disciplined understanding of the world, but disappointed by the lack of open-mindedness towards beliefs and perspectives that aren't peer reviewed or approved.

[TheLilHipster]

Keep in mind every community is a hive-mind that gravitates to the mean.

Hacker news is good for intelligent discussion, but when the topic is on something that isn't empirically measure-able (IE: mental health in this scenario) conversation goes downhill pretty quickly. I'm quite concerned about how the majority are medicating so quickly, early and in a way that's mostly unchallenged.

I mean we barely understand the I/O of the brain, yet we're claiming some pretty heavy positive bias on chemical remediation. It's a pretty farked situation, being unable to talk about it in a neutral environment frustrates me to no end. The top comment on this thread though, perfectly sums up my perspective on depression:

"It's the realization that I was depressed for actual emotional reasons and not just because of some putative neurochemical imbalance, the idea of which in such huge numbers makes absolutely no evolutionary sense. A trait this common is not a disorder---it's a survival mechanism."

I want to understand depression, it's just such a hard issue to tackle scientifically. The scientific method takes the subject out of the equation, nuking any sort of bias. But that doesn't work when the issue that needs to be understood IS the subject.

I need data, subjective perspective from all walks of life is the best dataset I think I can use to shape my understanding. I want to talk about depression from a neutral, logical, mindful and philosophical perspective. Maybe then I might understand where, why and how medication would or should come into play.

[splawn]

In absence of any valid science what criteria should used to sort out BS from "the good stuff"?

[doctorcroc]

It's a good question -- the way I look at it is that science is the realm of the things we understand using our mathematical representation of natural phenomena (eg. physics, etc). However, it would be foolish to believe that this set of knowledge represents entire understanding of the universe. Thus, given the premise that there is a large (probably near infinite) set of things we don't know outside of our current understanding, I try to keep an open mind towards things that seem estoeric or unfounded.

But how to distinguish this from absolute nonsense? Intuition is probably the number one thing -- what smells like BS? It's not a perfect substitute for objective knowledge, but I think as engineers and scientists, we undervalue our subjective life experiences in shaping our view. Also, it helps to have a discerning eye for the macroscopic message the author is trying to deliver. Many times, we tend to attack the articulation or delivery of a thought, and miss the underlying message. In the context of the author of that article was saying, we can all agree that we have a poor understanding of pharmaceuticals (SSRI's in particular), and it helps to stay with the feeling of depression to know what your body is trying to convey to you, rather than flood the body with more input to make the "negative" emotion leave. I took that thought and discarded all the other specifics -- because I don't expect anyone to be 100% right, and hence I take the kernel in each viewpoint and leave the husk.