A few days ago I started a thread called "Depression is a Symptom not a Diagnosis", in which I advanced MY thoughts in reaction to a program on PBS called, "Change your Brain, Change your Life" as recounted by Dr. Daniel G. Amen. I recounted my own experiences with depression and my reaction to Dr. Amen's thoughts on depression and I asked for input on the ideas of Dr. Amen's that I posted.

WELL..one would think I had suggested that skinning puppies alive in the public square was a solution to depression, based on the vituperative responses I received. I was forced to close the thread.

I understand the definition of "forum" to be a " public place of discussion ". I do not see that online forums can be a productive place to discuss new ideas and information,IF the reader is not open to ideas and wants to respond, just to SLAM the idea, rather than address a new idea politely and thoughtfully, without ranting and berating the poster.


I never said that I took this doctor's ideas as gospel. I merely tried to tie them to my own experiences and asked for input and other ideas. I can't help but wonder if a new possibility is such a threat to an long-held comfortable place of response - position, that a reader can't help but respond in an antagonistic fashion.

I don't believe that I ever once advanced the idea that depression cannot be an entrenched, physiological, chemical imbalance. I merely asked if, upon examination, if others could come to the conclusion that their depression was a result of environmental/emotional factors, that created the chemical imbalance. I was seeking input from others that had examined the circumstances that created their situation, and if they believed that addressing these circumstances, MAY alleviate the depression!

If online forums are to succeed, readers must respond without ranting, without attacking the thread originator, and calmly outline their reasons for disagreeing.

That is my take on the purpose and PRODUCTIVITY of forums!

Eh, I wouldn't call them vituperative. I think they rather strongly disagreed with you, but you asked for people's thoughts on the concepts you presented. They did outline their reasons quite well. I think the thing with forums is that in order to succeed, you have to expect people to disagree with you, strongly even.

i didnt read the whole thread. but i did read several responses. and i agree you were attempting to bend, twist, morph.....in other words....apply what was said to your own thoughts.

and since you didnt quote his entire talk in your post, the responses were to sevEral statements taken out of context. i totally "got" what you were saying. i didnt see where you had negated that depression is a serious illness.

and actually (in my opinion) the fact that someone is depressed is not the illness. it IS a symptom of a illness. just as extreme thirst can be a symptom of diabetes. but everytime you are thirsty; you are not diagnosed which diabetes. i think it is the word "depressed" is used to describe many many feelings. over used in my opinon. DEPRESSION is both a illness and a feeling.

i can be depressed because i am not losing weight but my doctor would not daignose me AS depressed and put me on medication.

and i can be diagnosed as DEPRESSED and not once in my entire life use the words "i am depressed".


the point i got from what you said (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that FEELING depressed is symptomatic (in the speech the doctor made and also in some people lives) of something else.

as in feeling powerless to change things, feeling no hope that things will change even if you are doing the right things to make it happen, feeling that expressing your opinion will cause others to become angry.

and feeling depressed (and not being in a state of depression which requires medication and or therapy) is a tool to recognize you need to approach the issue differently.


is that what you meant? cause if it was, I GOT IT.

LOUD AND CLEAR.

In any given forum setting, on any topic, you will have people with differing opinions.

I went and found the thread. Quite honestly, I didn't read anything that I felt was either ranting or meant as an attack on you. They just didn't agree. Perhaps there was a bit of a misunderstanding as well. This easily happens on forums since you can't see peoples facial expressions or hear tones of voice. It's also hard to discuss something of that nature when not everyone saw the same show.

Given that I was one of your "antagonistic" opponents in the original thread, here's my take on the matter.

Firstly, closing a thread because people don't agree with you, and then reopening one on the same subject and hoping that things don't flare up the way they did in the original thread is probably an exercise in futility. Having said that, you have given me the opportunity to explain myself, so here goes.

You put that out there. You did go on to relate this statement to your own situation, but this statement basically dismisses the medically accepted fact that there are cases of depression that are absolutely unrelated to outside influences, and that are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Actually, you did. See above statement - "depression is a symptom, not an illness".

Conversely, if the original poster is not open to ideas and just SLAMS responses, and then closes the thread because people don't agree with her, isn't this just as bad as what you perceived we did? I'd hardly call it ranting and berating. I stated I was insulted by the idea, because it goes against accepted and reviewed medical research.

Maybe next time you quote someone making statements like these, some sort of reference to the speech or article you are referring to would help those of us who have to take what you say as gospel, without having the resources at hand to indicate whether or not this statement was taken out of context and whether the person making the statement has evidence to back it up, would go some way towards encouraging people to make informed comments rather than reactionary ones.

I read your post and the posts following it, and it didn't seem to me that they were ranting or attacking anyone. They had good reasons, which were well written out. You have to expect that they are going to disagree with you especially considering the fact that many of us have clinical depression (myself included). It's difficult enough for those of us with depression already without people perpetuating the idea that depression is not a real medical condition. I think that's the root of most of the disagreement. Now, maybe for you depression is a symptom. And, for you to realize that is wonderful. But you must also realize that it doesn't mean it's true for the rest of us.

Sign my name to what Primm said.

You were in no way "forced" to close the thread. You chose to close it because you didn't like the responses you were getting. Responses that YOU solicited when you said: I asked for input on the ideas of Dr. Amen's that I posted.

So now what, exactly, is the point of this thread? To attack the people who disagreed with you? To complain about the fact that they did?

Seems to me that you're looking to pick a fight.

(Whoops - I bet you're going to be "forced" to close this thread too! )

.

Ok, the more I read this post of yours, the angrier I get. And I don't normally get angry about posts on forums.

Let me quote for you the ENTIRE post I wrote to you - bolding certain parts. I said:

Now please tell me where in there I vituperatively responded or implied that you were advocating suggested that skinning puppies alive in the public square.

Please. Point out where I was rude to you, angry, vituperative, or in any way attacked or demeaned you.

.