I have difficulty imagining how depression—not “feeling sad”, but clinical depression—could be adaptive, either in the evolutionary environment or the modern one. Perhaps I am insufficiently imaginative (but I imagine not).
I have difficulty imagining how depression—not “feeling sad”, but clinical depression—could be adaptive, either in the evolutionary environment or the modern one. Perhaps I am insufficiently imaginative (but I imagine not).
(One could also argue that even if depression were a feature in the EEA, it’s still a bug in the sense of being too easily activated in a modern environment… but that’s starting to sound too much like a debate over definitions.)
I disagreed with (the strength of) your position back when you made that post. I believe you privileged ‘alternative explanations’ too highly—not being adaptation is not a default that gets special epistemic rights until onerous proof is supplied. When something is as prevalent as depression is and also has a blatantly obvious precautionary social role in less civilised cultures (and even abusive situations in otherwise civilised cultures) it is ‘not being an adaptation’ that becomes an onerous claim.
That said:
I’d still assign at least a 20% chance for depression to be a bug.
I only go a couple of bits little lower than that myself.
“As a matter of fact” was meant to convey that the disagreement was not to the spirit or sentiment (which I share), merely to a historical detail. This is distinct from the usage “this is known with complete confidence so there”.
That’s interesting, although “it’s a failure mode, like chronic pain, of a normal mechanism” is the most immediately reasonable-sounding one to me.
If any of the others are even partially true, I would characterize them as “hardware has evolved to be broken”. Which I believe puts us into violent agreement.
That’s interesting, although “it’s a failure mode, like chronic pain, of a normal mechanism” is the most immediately reasonable-sounding one to me.
There is a failure mode—much like ‘autoimmune disease’ is a failure mode of the infection fighting feature. But most of depression just doesn’t fit that category. The ‘reasonableness’ here tends to be a social judgement more than a descriptive one. But evolution just doesn’t have our social instincts.
Which I believe puts us into violent agreement.
About the desirability of the feature and approach to managing it if not of the nature, cause and adaptive purpose. Depression is a normal and natural feature of the human animal. It is also bad, evil, deprecated and an enemy to terminated with extreme prejudice.
I have difficulty imagining how depression—not “feeling sad”, but clinical depression—could be adaptive, either in the evolutionary environment or the modern one. Perhaps I am insufficiently imaginative (but I imagine not).
Yes, I’m afraid that is a failure of imagination. Theorists have imagined various adaptive causes.
Those are interesting hypotheses, but it still seems overconfident to claim “as a matter of fact” that depression is a feature. “Adaptation is an ‘onerous concept’ to be invoked only when alternative explanations fail”. I’d still assign at least a 20% chance for depression to be a bug.
(One could also argue that even if depression were a feature in the EEA, it’s still a bug in the sense of being too easily activated in a modern environment… but that’s starting to sound too much like a debate over definitions.)
I disagreed with (the strength of) your position back when you made that post. I believe you privileged ‘alternative explanations’ too highly—not being adaptation is not a default that gets special epistemic rights until onerous proof is supplied. When something is as prevalent as depression is and also has a blatantly obvious precautionary social role in less civilised cultures (and even abusive situations in otherwise civilised cultures) it is ‘not being an adaptation’ that becomes an onerous claim.
That said:
I only go a couple of bits little lower than that myself.
“As a matter of fact” was meant to convey that the disagreement was not to the spirit or sentiment (which I share), merely to a historical detail. This is distinct from the usage “this is known with complete confidence so there”.
That’s interesting, although “it’s a failure mode, like chronic pain, of a normal mechanism” is the most immediately reasonable-sounding one to me.
If any of the others are even partially true, I would characterize them as “hardware has evolved to be broken”. Which I believe puts us into violent agreement.
There is a failure mode—much like ‘autoimmune disease’ is a failure mode of the infection fighting feature. But most of depression just doesn’t fit that category. The ‘reasonableness’ here tends to be a social judgement more than a descriptive one. But evolution just doesn’t have our social instincts.
About the desirability of the feature and approach to managing it if not of the nature, cause and adaptive purpose. Depression is a normal and natural feature of the human animal. It is also bad, evil, deprecated and an enemy to terminated with extreme prejudice.