Uh no, sorry, it's the argument. You've been on this site for four years now - be honest, have you ever seen someone with a lazy armchair opinion enter a debate, receive strong pushback including scientific citations, and then refuse to change their opinion? It's literally every fifth thread here. Though imo, more fun when it's idiots telling tptacek he's wrong about security than when it's someone a dick to someone with depression (my victim mentality!!)
But sure, let me actually respond to you:
* At no point have you acknowledged or shown any awareness that depression is not "one thing". Like how people discuss "curing cancer" as if that's any sort of meaningful statement. How complex do you think depression is? What point of complexity does something need to reach before you defer to experts? Depression is still more or less a black box (watch the Sapolsky video I linked or look up some starslatecodex articles on ketamine.) Again, no sign of awareness of this on your part, which suggests you haven't done the most basic research.
* Yep, you never said there are no biomarkers. You said:
> Depression is a set of guidelines in a book that ask vague subjective questions about how someone perceives the world. And then if the person decides you have it you have it. If they don't you dont. This has very little to do with the first scenario."
This was your reason for stating that depression wasn't an illness. That it was based on a list of subjective questions. Sadly you didn't respond to the person saying that this was equally true for schizophrenia. Is schizophrenia an illness?
* I said it was an undercurrent, meaning subtext. Do you understand why subtext can't be quoted, and why that's work that you need to do for yourself? (If you somehow can quote subtext, though, immediately switch careers to political journalism, you'll be a wonder.)
* The only really offensive part was when you said "I do also believe that people don't have zero agency in this problem." Like, cool, a few sentences in and you've also added in a complete strawman to make yourself look reasonable. So this was just debate club to you.
The last point, combined with the fact that you're only responding when it might let you feel superior, leads me to believe you're not here in any sort of attempt to learn. How's your own mental health? You're clearly get some need fulfilled by arguing on the internet, which generally isn't the best sign. Watch that video, it's good, and absolutely full of things you do not know.
But sure, let me actually respond to you:
* At no point have you acknowledged or shown any awareness that depression is not "one thing". Like how people discuss "curing cancer" as if that's any sort of meaningful statement. How complex do you think depression is? What point of complexity does something need to reach before you defer to experts? Depression is still more or less a black box (watch the Sapolsky video I linked or look up some starslatecodex articles on ketamine.) Again, no sign of awareness of this on your part, which suggests you haven't done the most basic research.
* Yep, you never said there are no biomarkers. You said:
> Depression is a set of guidelines in a book that ask vague subjective questions about how someone perceives the world. And then if the person decides you have it you have it. If they don't you dont. This has very little to do with the first scenario."
This was your reason for stating that depression wasn't an illness. That it was based on a list of subjective questions. Sadly you didn't respond to the person saying that this was equally true for schizophrenia. Is schizophrenia an illness?
* I said it was an undercurrent, meaning subtext. Do you understand why subtext can't be quoted, and why that's work that you need to do for yourself? (If you somehow can quote subtext, though, immediately switch careers to political journalism, you'll be a wonder.)
* The only really offensive part was when you said "I do also believe that people don't have zero agency in this problem." Like, cool, a few sentences in and you've also added in a complete strawman to make yourself look reasonable. So this was just debate club to you.
The last point, combined with the fact that you're only responding when it might let you feel superior, leads me to believe you're not here in any sort of attempt to learn. How's your own mental health? You're clearly get some need fulfilled by arguing on the internet, which generally isn't the best sign. Watch that video, it's good, and absolutely full of things you do not know.