disclaimer: I acknowledge depression as an illness and state of being.
that being said, if you take someone who is objectively "not depressed" and apply these same depression treatments, what would happen? some state of euphoria? heightened mood? happiness?
suppose that new state is now the normal state in which people are judged against. now, the before-mentioned person who was not depressed, may be considered depressed, relatively. so you now apply the same thought experiment again. clearly this can be recursively done infinitely...
such is an inflationary view. so my question really is around the cultural vs. biological construct of depression. what if it's ok to be depressed? this is not to say that we shouldn't be trying to "treat" it (and the symptoms), but I do wonder at what point do we say it's OK.
I would propose the following analogy as an answer:
1 - Person A has the flu
2 - Person B does not have the flu
3 - Person A treats the flu with rest, fluids and antiviral medications
If person B also rested, drank fluids and took antiviral medications, they would not become an unusually healthy person. Person B would not become the new normal.
What you're proposing is that it's OK to be sick. We treat every other form of illness with aggressive treatments. Depression is often ignored, poorly treated or treatment is inaccessible to many people due to cost.
Instead of imagining that it works like a number line and then observing that you can use induction, you could measure outcomes: suicide, suicidal ideation, quality of life, etc.
That puts a pretty reasonable lower bound on what is or isn't depressed. It is absolutely an altered state of mind, and an information processing disorder.
For anyone who might feel like "it's ok to be depressed", this is not a normal thought, and there is no normal amount of suicidal ideation. Seek professional help or strong social support; just ask for help anywhere it might exist (go to an emergency room and just have a seat if you must). If you aren't depressed, these thoughts literally don't happen, as strange as that may sound if you are in the thick of it.
This line of reasoning reminds me of a common misunderstanding of depression I've seen from people who've never been clinically depressed (1). It's an understandable mistake, albeit potentially dangerous (2).
Depression isn't on the happiness-sadness scale. It's quite tangential to that. In fact, perhaps quizzically, you can be happy and depressed. It's fairly common for people who learn about the loss of a loved one to recall how happy them seemed the day before.
Depression treatment, therefore, doesn't make one "less sad". And consequently it wouldn't make a healthy patient "more happy".
(1) I don't mean this in a negative way towards the comment I'm replying to. Nor am I implying that the commenter believes this. I just noticed a pattern and I'm responding in the spirit of education.
(2) It's okay to not understand depression; not everyone has to be an expert on everything. It only becomes dangerous when providing ill formed advice. Which is unfortunately common when it comes to depression.
The point I was trying to make isn’t about happiness or sadness per se, rather they depression has mental analogs that presumably are improved after treatment.
I think the more accurate way to conceptualise this is that treatment works by interfering with processes in the brain that cause depression, not that it cancels out the depression by adding enough euphoria/mania/happyness to compensate.
Antidepressants don't typically cause mania in healthy people, but they could paradoxically cause depression.
It's not okay to be depressed because it sucks to be a person who is depressed. Being depressed is not a nice state to be in.
This isn't an "ooo society is wrong" type of situation. Sure there are some societal pressures to appear happy which can make depression _worse_, but depression is still awful regardless of those and we treat it because it's awful.
one common effect of SSRIs is that they can dull emotions. This is helpful and can be a positive effect if you are very depressed or get stuck in anxious spiraling.
If you're very stable and happy emotionally, then that dulling might be unpleasant.
Beyond that, while SSRIs tend to have fewer side effects and be more safe than many other classes of anti-depressants, even SSRIs have very noticeable side effects. They are very easy to stomach if they make a dramatic difference in your mood and quality of life, but if you were already mentally well the side effects will be more impactful than whatever benefits you might get.
Exactly this. I take a low level of SSRIs because I am an otherwise highly functioning person who has a tendency to get into severe anxious spirals that can last days on end and induce vomiting. I do all the things that a person should do to mitigate, including meditating, exercising, lots of friends, etc etc.
I know that my medication dulls my most intense emotions, but that is the point. It is slightly sad knowing that I don't experience the highest highs that I used to, but it is completely worth it to stop experiencing the lowest lows that were completely debilitating. I would stop taking them immediately if I could be assured that I wouldn't fall back into physically debilitating anxiety.
Or, SSRIs dull you to the point of feeling like an observer (rather than participant) of your own life, which makes one even more depressed and hopeless.
It’s ok if it isn’t purposeless suffering which clinical depression most certainly is. Having an occasional low mood or a temporary bout of depression due to a bad event is ok because it is informing you that something bad has happened and maybe you should retreat from normal life a bit to deal with it. Just being depressed all the time because your brain got messed up somehow is not a state anyone should be left in.
Some symptoms are not OK in an absolute sense. For example, the exhaustion. It can be disabling (along with all the other nice things that go on inside your head) and go on for months without a break.
that being said, if you take someone who is objectively "not depressed" and apply these same depression treatments, what would happen? some state of euphoria? heightened mood? happiness?
suppose that new state is now the normal state in which people are judged against. now, the before-mentioned person who was not depressed, may be considered depressed, relatively. so you now apply the same thought experiment again. clearly this can be recursively done infinitely...
such is an inflationary view. so my question really is around the cultural vs. biological construct of depression. what if it's ok to be depressed? this is not to say that we shouldn't be trying to "treat" it (and the symptoms), but I do wonder at what point do we say it's OK.