Little d – depression is normal, big D Depression is not. It is a pathology with no evolutionary advantage. However, some believe that it may survive by following other traits with tremendous advantages in modern and even tribal societies ( Intellect, charisma, artistic ability ).

Little d depression could easily have some evolutionary advantage in any social animal. Increased self awareness through increased introspection can easily seen as tremendously valuable in any complex social order. To see another clearly, you must first know your self.

Like almost every other trait, excessive expression becomes destructive. That does not mean that the premise is without merit. Appropriate expression can offer insights that allow the sufferer to avoid the causes of pain in the future, and perhaps help head off other more directly destructive traits and tendencies.

You could, of course paint it another way. That big or little d depression is simply the over-expression of the evolutionarily advantageous traits of intellect, empathy and critical thinking.

The article doesn’t necessarily rule that out, it simply points out that this is one possible explanation for a trait that many see as having no value to the species.

Mostly they collect cats, and stink a great deal.

That may have to do with the fact that we now routinely refer to anxiety as anxiety-depression or just depression. Probably because anti-depressants are easier to prescribe (albeit incorrectly) and have a higher profit margin than anxiolytics.

Is having depression not like that? I kindof don’t quite understand why so many people are depressed. It seems to be almost a “common” condition – we all know at least one or more people who are depressed, right?

And lastly, I’ve also noticed another interesting thing (this is purely an unscientific opinion so please don’t get mad) – I have a lot of friends and family scattered around the world (Europe and Asia mostly) who I stay in touch with frequently – I have observed that depression doesn’t come up at all when I talk to them but it certainly is a topic of conversation with my American friends. I’ve often wondered why this is: is it because American culture encourages talking about it more openly or is it because there is less depression in other cultures?

Sorry, for the long post, as I said, this topic is fascinating to me. Hope I haven’t offended anyone.

Since evolution is based on the proliferation of the highest RELATIVE effectiveness, an adaptation need not be HIGHLY effective to be favored. Only MORE effective.

It’s not at all surprising that we can come up with more effective problem solving techniques using some understanding of human psychology and experimental data. This does not in any way refute the hypothesis that depression is a natural adaptation used for solving problems.

Here is another equally plausible speculation, that assumes the opposite.

“Humans have a handful of genes that control mood, personality traits, and people who inherit some combinations of these genes are predisposed to be creative intellectually, to do well, prosper, have a big family, etc. but other combinations of the same genes predispose the people who carry them to depression – the net benefit on the genes, through the people who get the right sets of genes more than compensates for those who get the ‘bad’ sets. and so the negative conditions – depression – schizophrenia – etc. – are never bred out.”

That’s because depression and anxiety are comorbid – around the 80% mark. Personally I would much rather have an antidepressant than an anxiolytic prescription. Anxiolytics make good crutches, but relapse rates are very high when people stop taking them (around 75% in the first year). Cognitive-behavioural therapy is incredibly effective for the treatment of anxiety, and some studies have shown anxiolytic medications may attenuate the effects of therapy, with those receiving therapy alone having better outcomes than those with both therapy and anxiolytics. I’d love to have doctors cut back substantially on axiolytic prescriptions, and also not doling out antidepressants like candy (I know this is only some doctors, many are very good).

But it may be that depressive thought is better than no thought at all, but that it’s usefullness has been surpassed by a superior strategy, namely culture placing value on thought for it’s own sake and providing for people who think for a living.

It’s important to note that there is a significant, if often overlooked difference between clinical and situational depression, and this article seems to be in reference to the latter. (It would probably help if the author made this more clear.) Obviously, the concept of rumination does not apply to depression where there is no external cause to ruminate on. Post-surgical depression is an example that springs to mind.

If for a moment we accept what the article says as being plausible, part of the problem of depression in in modern life could be that the depressed person is not able to take the time and mental space to ruminate a problem to its resolution. So much of our work is intensely analytical, using the same mental muscles that, according to this article, might otherwise be working out the problems that spark depression. It’s not much of a stretch to see how this conflict could lead to anxiety, and in turn squirrel caging*;
-Take two opposing and urgent needs,
-mix in some guilt for following one above the other,
-throw in some willpower to keep pulling you back to a task, and trying to quash the rumination
-pepper on some (by this time, welcome) distraction like computer games, TV, or interesting blogs
-and allow to stew with a few healthy failures resulting from an inability to focus on one’s work, a lack of confidence, etc, etc
… and you’ve got a nice recipe for making a much bigger problem than you started out with.

I’ll give this one a “plausible.”

It occurred to me, after reading this article, that my ongoing battle with what seems to be situational depression made habit began not long after I gave up writing (as I thought at the time) stupid stories for my own pleasure. There were other factors that would have kicked it off as well, but I’m beginning to wonder if the “made habit” part of my problem could have come from not having my old release valve.

Will have to investigate this idea further.

*squirrel caging refers to thoughts that rattle around in one’s head without going anywhere, much like a squirrel trapped in a hamster wheel. Stolen from an article on Douglas Repetto.

But yeah, 10 years of depression –> figuring it out, and it was worth every single miserable lonely second.

I think the idea is not that depression itself is useful, but that depression is a side effect of a useful brain-adaptation for introspection. A bit like how autism is possibly a side effect of our ability to think abstractly.

Being able to shut the world out and concentrate is obviously very useful for some problems. Perhaps depression is a result of super-expression of this ability. Depressives may get stuck in a negative feedback loop as their brain tryies to ‘solve’ the problem by getting progressively more introspective and withdrawn. The ‘introspection’ adaptation can start getting harmful, because extreme introspection stops helping analytical problem solving.

For me, the best way to get out of a depression is to try and get distracted by the real world – or to force myself (or get forced by ‘events’) to do something practical about my problems rather than just introspectively thinking about them in the hope that a theoretical solution will present itself. Usually, I soon realise that my depressive thoughts were a pessimistic parody of reality and that ‘breaks the cycle’ of my depression.

Obviously, different types of depression are different (I don’t suffer from severe depression and don’t take/require any medication) so this won’t be some silver bullet theory that explains all depression. It’s an interesting hypothesis though.

I’ve been struggling with it for over thirty years (cognitive-behavioral therapy, no meds). I have to fight it every damn day. Rumination is not my friend, it’s my #1 enemy–the feedback loop from hell.

I am a programmer/scientist/artist and often find myself in a long arc of productivity that separates me from friends and loved ones while I carve out the next opus. The reaction to this behavior is to label me as depressed… thing is, I’m not. I live a life filled with joy. The concept of the pro-evolutionary nature of depression fits. Its that right kind of “well… duh” psychology that makes you think it will stick. Great theory. Love it.

Maybe emotional happiness is a bad choice for a personal teleology, eh? Now,

quit your happy and get something done.

Right. Nice troll. Because people with long-term clinical depression oh-so desire to have a malady. This isn’t a case of rejecting a new concept. People are criticizing a theory (with no real root in fact) that makes no distinction between ‘sadness’ and true depression. Read up on clinical depression. Hell, even read wikipedia. Shouldn’t you be too busy working on your next ‘opus’ to comment here anyway? Maybe you are just kidding and all of it went over my head.

@26 Nidsquid: Appreciate the sensitivity in the questions, and well-asked. Often little distinction is made between the colloquial depression and clinical depression. The clinical variety is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and is an illness. Medication is used to treat the chemical imbalance. This article seems to be talking about the universal experience being sad or in a funk, like after a breakup or job loss, like another poster commented. As for the cultural angle: interesting, and I’m sure there’s been a lot of research. Often in N. America physicians overprescribe antidepressants, specifically in non-clinical depressive cases. Perhaps there is a disparity in treatment and social acceptance, but I have no idea.