With All Due Respects

I read a recent article in the NY Times Science Section, "Depression Defies the Rush to Find an Evolutionary Upside", by Dr. Richard A. Friedman (his Website). Well, he attacks evolutionary biologists who suggest depression has some beneficial aspect, but fails in some respects.

First, he supports pharmacological (drug) solutions to depression, including conducting clinical trials for drug companies, which he doesn't seem to inform the reader his bias from the outset of the article. Second, he generalizes from studies conducted evolutionary biologists which is exactly what he criticize others for their criticism of clinical and drug therapies for depression.

But mostly he forgets the obvious, depression is part of the human expression and experience which has been a part of human evolution, and to push a position that we shouldn't have it because it not essential to modern times doesn't make sense. In short, we should all be happy and if you're not, then try drugs to make you happy? Ok, overstatement, but it's at the heart of his argument.

He discounts studies showing depression helps people be better judges in some situation, especially deception. Studies have shown slightly depressed or Dysthymic people are often better judges of reality where "happy" people tend to overemphasize the positive side of situations or circumstance, often leading to problems or failure.

He dismisses studies that depressed people have often had periods of creativity, sometimes great as noted by the list of writers who frequently or often had periods of moderate to severe depression, and recovery has hurt that creativity. Depression changes your view of life, and he ignores the many who have benefited from it.

He dismisses that studies which show Dysthymic people are often the most leveled headed, realistic people, seeing the greater complexity of issues and many possible directions to question, investigate and solve issues or problems. In short they're often self-contained brain-stormers doing more than many teams of people because they see the many sides.

He dismisses the many benefits of Dysthymia and depression, to suggest that the inherit benefits aren't necessary to society and culture. He's an advocate for anyone feeling depressed and especially clinically depressed to seek help and especially seek drugs to overcome their depression, and not seeking to see the benefits of it.

I won't argue his points that people suffering moderate and especially severe depression should seek help and especially if they're having thoughts of suicide. I won't agree that drugs are the solution to suicide, often one of the various types of conversational therapy is better and drugs should be the last resort, at least in my mind.

The reasons are that all drugs aren't effective for all people, usually about 50% , all drugs aren't always effective for those it does work, usually to some degree of effectiveness and taking time to work, where the individual is left wondering when and how much it will help, and all drugs eventually lose their effectiveness requiring an increasing dosage or a new drug.

Anyway, it's a complex issue. The writer tries to reduce it to simplicity and only succeeds in expressing an opinion than establishing any answers. So why does he make the point? Well, maybe just to complain. Like that's helpful? Not to me.