Posted by Eddie Sylvano on January 3, 2003, at 9:25:53
In reply to Re: Weak-mindedness?, posted by Not Bob on January 2, 2003, at 22:11:39
> I actually think that they are saying that depression is the opposite of weak-mindedness. It is stubborn-mindedness to the (n)'th degree where (n) stands for negative and self defeating behavior.
-----------------------Yes, they're careful to emphasize the fact that although they support the idea of depression being caused by an individuals thinking styles, "That does NOT mean that people who become depressed are to be blamed, it simply gives us an insight into why depression occurs." The issue of blame (origin) is never addressed.
>This is where the child you save is your own thoughts and you sacrifice your biological life for those thoughts.
---------------That's a good way to put it, and more descriptive than the author's. My main tangle with the article (and it's mainly an academic one) was the avoidance of *why* person A or B should adopt such a severe thinking style, while the majority of others do not.
>Now I really didn't mean to get you upset about this site. I really thought it could help some people.
---------------It didn't upset me horribly. I just have a habit of arguing oppposing viewpoints when I see weak arguments for causation. Too many are allowed to pass without scrutiny. Half the people in my office probably hate me for doubting the efficacy of their HerbaLife products.
>I wish you could just see the good. I personally don't care to figure out which came first- the chicken or the egg- because it has turned into a demonic monkey on my back and I just want it off.
----------------Yeah, and I didn't mean to come across too harshly. After you get beyond the framework of their causation and dream theory, their advice to actively reform negative thought processes makes total sense and I agree with it. I'm sure they're not trying to mislead anyone, but to help people relate to their illness in a way they can address. In this regard, the site is engaging and approachable. 80% of it works for me. It's just the almost total dimunition of the constant role of the brain that worries me. The site only acknowledges depressive brain chemistry as a result of essentially bad habits, and assumes implicitly that we all work from the same ground state. To quote, "Depression can not be said to be a disease, because it is not primarily a biological disorder - that is, the root cause of the symptoms are not usually physical." Depression is, to decode the backplane, the result of previously normal people thinking themselves into it. That's not even an idea that I would disagree with, necessarily. It's more the lack of an explanation of why someone would do that. Is it a choice, or is one predisposed? If one is predisposed, what causes that? The theory lacks a true origin, beyond suggesting that it may be a result of the media, self centeredness, dispersed communities, and consumerism. If the site didn't try to be so authoritative on depressive causes and instead stuck to the issue of resolution through (what is essentially) therapy, it would be a better page. At any rate, if it helps someone get better, it's been a good resource.
poster:Eddie Sylvano
thread:1982
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20021230/msgs/2048.html