[bigmealbigmeal]

> Clinical depression rarely has anything to do with what you've done or events in the outside world.

Do you have any evidence for this? This contradicts some studies I've seen on the matter, for example, one where 75% of chronically depressed patients reported clinically significant histories of childhood trauma.[1]

Not to mention that your second cure, sunlight, is literally an example of things we've done or events in the outside world (i.e. time spent outside).

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4677006/

[Maursault]

> Do you have any evidence for this?

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-chemistry-of-depression-106...

> This contradicts some studies I've seen on the matter, for example, one where 75% of chronically depressed patients reported clinically significant histories of childhood trauma

There is no contradiction here; the correlation you think you see is not causation. Generally, if there is an external trigger for depression, it is more immediate than having an abusive childhood decades ago, such as recently losing a loved one, or recently getting fired, or recently being physically abused. But in essence, our bodies make us feel the way we do, and more specifically, the brain and its electrical and chemical processes, no matter what external trigger we may want to point to for a cause, the reaction is fundamentally an internal process.

> Not to mention that your second cure, sunlight, is literally an example of things we've done or events in the outside world (i.e. time spent outside).

We evolved on a rotating planet. Daylight regulates mood as it does circadian rhythms. Sunlight will cure depression; it does not cause depression.

[bigmealbigmeal]

You've linked me to a summary article on depression by Verywellmind. Please provide actual specific evidence for your blanket assertion that depression is very rarely caused by lifestyle or life events. Remember, you've made this assertion as if it were fact, and I'm merely asking you to actually prove it. If you can't, then stop asserting it as if it were fact.

> There is no contradiction here; the correlation you think you see is not causation.

You're doing literally the exact same thing. You're pointing to chemical differences in people with depression and saying "there, that's causation! it has nothing to do with lifestyle or life events!". Consider that the chemical differences that result in depression could be caused by lifestyle factors and life events (and it's undisputed that these things cause chemical differences).

> You misunderstood. Daylight regulates mood. Sunlight can cure depression; it does not cause depression.

No, it's you who misunderstood me. If sunlight cures depression, then our basic actions in life are the issue, i.e. our lifestyle is a low-sunlight lifestyle (something very much in conflict with the environment our brains evolved in).

You simply haven't given enough evidence to back up your confidence on the idea that depression isn't caused by our actions in life, or life events. Yes, brain chemistry is involved, we know that. But our actions and experiences affect our brain chemistry. So you're going to have to work a lot harder than you have to rule it out.

The most I can see you saying is that the start of the causal chain (life events) doesn't matter because you only care about the end of the causal chain (brain chemistry). But this is a wildly different statement to saying that actions or life events aren't part of the causal chain, which you appear to be asserting.

You're basically saying "getting shot doesn't kill you, bleeding to death does!"

[Maursault]

You asked for any evidence, and I provided it. I am not in the slightest bit interested in chasing your moving goal posts.

Then you employ the tu quoque fallacy, which I am not inclined to entertain. You elegantly complete your rant with straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

I tell ya what... how about you believe whatever the hell you want and leave me out of it? Appreciated, friend.