The fundamental problem is how cripplingly little we understand about neurobiology. "Depression" is a label given for a common cluster of symptoms, not a single disease originating from a few well-understood causes. We aren't able to objectively test for or treat it the way we can X-ray a broken bone and set it or swab a throat for strep and prescribe antibiotics. There are no methods that are guaranteed to help the vast majority of sufferers and no clear understood root causes. All we can do is ask for the patient to report their subjective experiences and try to tick some boxes in the DSM, find a label that describes at least N/N+M of their symptoms, and then work through an associated checklist of wildly different methods of "treatment" that reduce symptoms in some, but not all (or even a majority, AFAIK) of patients.
I personally think that many (if not most) of the mental illnesses listed in the DSM will eventually be understood to be multiple completely unrelated root conditions that all manifest similar symptoms, each with different methods of treatment. Unfortunately research initiatives tend to be shackled to the DSM's set of superficial symptom groupings in order to get funding, so a deeper understanding of them is probably a long time coming.
You're not wrong, but it's worth noting that there are some really obvious things we could do which would cure a lot of people. Not, for example, requiring people to work 40 hour weeks when there isn't enough work to employ the entire populace 40 hours a week is one obvious measure, because it removes the need for people to sit at their desks doing literally nothing, and would result in more people being employed. Restructuring business so that people are rewarded for providing value instead of acting as gatekeepers of value would be another. Removing the near-constant bombardment of advertising from our emotional and social landscape would remove a lot of demands on people's attention and allow them to focus on activities they find meaningful.
The fact is, people are depressed because the powerful in our society benefit from treating the majority of our society like shit.
> Not, for example, requiring people to work 40 hour weeks
> when there isn't enough work...
Indeed. And the problem isn't actually the work load - but the lack of appreciation and meaning, the former being connected to the latter.
In this context: "The boss, not the workload, causes workplace depression" (http://sciencenordic.com/boss-not-workload-causes-workplace-...) - EDIT: focus is on "not the workload", I believe bosses are incidental and themselves a variable very dependent on existence meaning
But even the best bosses can only do so much to make jobs that require convincing people to buy stuff you know they don't need seem meaningful.
I bet after WWII when in the war countries the part of the population that remained at home had to work their asses off to produce until then unimaginable quantities of stuff nobody was depressed. The work had meaning. After it was over it helped that they had good job and income prospects - and reasonable long-term job security too. "Flexibility" is nice for those who can afford it.
I agree on the lack of appreciation and meaning, but the problem is more fundamental than good or bad bosses: the problem is that "bosses" rarely are a needed part of the process at all. A good boss can minimize the damage they do, but in the end, most bosses are just middlemen between producers of value and consumers of value, a position which allows them to siphon off value without providing any value themselves. Giving someone who provides no value decision making power over people who provide value is always going to result in the person who provides no value overvaluing themselves. It's no surprise that many people feel undervalued, because inherently bosses are overvalued.
That's why I said that even the best bosses can only do so much to make jobs that require convincing people to buy stuff you know they don't need seem meaningful. The reason I linked that article wasn't the bosses who I agree are not the essential ingredient, but the other part, which is why I also have that last paragraph: It does not seem to be the work (load) that is the main cause. I added an edit to the comment, thanks for pointing out the possible misunderstanding of where the focus lies.
>there are some really obvious things we could do which would cure a lot of people
I agree with a lot of your bigger complaints re: the labor market, but I don't think this is necessarily true.
Let's say that for a lot of people, their symptoms of depression are a direct response to external circumstances, and that these external circumstances are overwhelmingly job-related. Even if you assume that this is true (which AFAIK is a assumption, research hasn't definitively demonstrated this), changing their situation for them to have a meaningful career doesn't necessarily magically fix the depression developed as a result of their situation--it might, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's an automatic solution. Some people diagnosed with depression see reduced or even eliminated symptoms with lifestyle changes, and some people don't respond to them at all. Even if the depressive symptoms were caused by external circumstances, they could be like a broken bone: caused by external trauma, but needing additional intervention to treat even after the violence has ended. Or a closer analogy, like PTSD: removing someone from the traumatic situation that gave them the disorder in the first place is necessary to treat their symptoms, but it's definitely not sufficient on its own. We don't understand enough about depression/mental illnesses in general to be able to offer any clear or universal cures, or suggest any clear and universal causes.
I personally think that many (if not most) of the mental illnesses listed in the DSM will eventually be understood to be multiple completely unrelated root conditions that all manifest similar symptoms, each with different methods of treatment. Unfortunately research initiatives tend to be shackled to the DSM's set of superficial symptom groupings in order to get funding, so a deeper understanding of them is probably a long time coming.
(Related read: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/08/why-depres...)
reply