Anyone else get the feeling that the vast majority of depressed people are just reacting normally to the fact that...

makes sense because most lanklets dont have enough bloodflow for abstract thoughts

How is that "biasing"?

Assuming there were two groups estimating their abilities at a task (depressive and non-depressive), and the non-depressive group included a sub-group great over-estimating their abilities, while the depressed group had a sub-group correctly estimating their abilities, even if the groups were otherwise equal, the results could point to a difference. This would lead some to conclude that depressive correctly estimate their abilities at tasks whereas non-depressed people overestimate them, while that conclusion may only hold true for a sub-group.

Before comparing means you test for the criterions distribution, usually for normality, so a distribution like you assume would be recognized as a deviation from a gaussian distribution.

There is no reason for there to be a difference in criteria due to a sub-group bias, and there is no reason to believe means were compared (or any parametric test for that matter). I recommend you post some of those studies so we can evaluate their statistical methods.

>and there is no reason to believe means were compared
That's the standard procedure, but that's not even the point I wanted to make. My point is that sub-groups are not a problem as long as you analyze your datas distribution competently. IF that has been done is of course a different issue. Naturally you can fuck up any analysis if you don't know what you're doing.
Anyway, testing for the assumptions of your tests is such a standard procedure, that not many studies which fail to do so will pass peer review. There are much more glaring issues when it comes to methodic problems in psychology.

As for the effect itself: Sorry, I was merely making a little anecdote here, I don't have any interest in discussing some specific studies methodolgy.

People with major depressive disorder do have clear differences in brain anatomy in terms of hippocampus size, respond differently to antidepression and have greater activity in part of the right prefront cortex that is posirively correlated with increased anxiety and such and they respond differently tomedication so I do not doubt many cases are as real of illinesses as cancer.

Now that is not to say everyone diagonsed or that claims to be depressed is actually clinically depressed and there could be an issue of over diagnosing.

Well there is another study that says the depressed people underestimated themselves. This may factor into your comment about depression. Non-depress people often inflate their self-worth and that usually leads to narcissistic personality disorder. This is why humans act like hyenas.

...

Republicans have notable brain deviances from say, democrats, but we don't really regard either as illnesses. The same is true of virtually all definable groups of people.

Because those differences do not create excessive pain through the patients or those around themselves but depression does.

Plus the question asked if depression is purely cognitive while I am pointing out there are many powerful biological markers for the disorder.

Hell even if it was purely cognitive it would still be considered a disorder.

I'm not. The more I hang around people, the more I realize my family is pretty fucking great.
So why am I so miserable all the time?

The question was not whether its entirely cognitive but whether depression is a normal response to shitty circumstances. Note that many of the body's normal responses to shitty circumstances can cause extreme damage to an organism, but generally are used because their absence would mean certain or near certain death.

>implying life itself doesn't suck dick a priori

Then how do you explain how studies also show there is a genetic component?

Also plenty of studies use standardized measures which compare the amount of shitty circumstances and people with depression respond much more negatively to the same amount of shittiness as control groups.

Sub-groups are one of the biggest problems and biases in epidemiology in general, and epidemiology of psychiatry specifically, since the different psychiatric pathologies don't have construct validity as a result of the way in which they are defined (DSM). This is especially true fro depression, which is clearly made up of many different diseases that don't actually have much in common.
As for comparing means being the standard, it absolutely depends on the type of data you are measuring (for instance a study like you are detailing could use categorical data), what you are comparing, your assumptions, etc.

But sure, anecdote accepted

live love laugh amirite

Chemical imbalance. For me it's hereditary and it sucks. I know my life is actually pretty good (average), but I can't help but feel like shit when I'm not on any medication

I kind of suspect that a lot of disorders have more obvious answers than people have come to suspect. One of the most interesting papers I've read suggested that depression, characterized as a state devoid of pleasure, existed biologically as a state by which the creature, free of illusions resulting from certain neurochemical reactions, can look at an issue more objectively. The example was an animal trapped. This has been made more complicated by living in a society with highly complex and varied division of labor, technology, etc. But ultimately the state is the same, a perceived question exists and the brain is attempting to resolve it

The chemical imbalance theory of clinical depression is actually considered old and busted especially when dealing with serotonin. People with depression do not have lower than average serotonin levels. Instead we look at things like for bio markers.

Well, it's imaginable that most is from a lack of chemical producers like tryptophan, and not enough adrenaline engagement.

n-no if you r depressed you are sick and broken, TAKE UR MEDS, pharma heals all, I can trust their peer reviewed panels sponsored by industry insiders, if you think they would lie you are a CONSPIRACIST!

get well soon sickies, hope u get normal one day :)

It has to do with something of what you define, and you could just look around what doesn't suck around you - like science, and do that with belief that it is what you're doing that's your life purpose - and you won't feel depressed.

This. Define your life though some meaning. Scientists define their life through the pursuit of knowledge of the unknown. Just don't fucking take the Veeky Forums route. Those fuckers are depressed for a reason.

And if you would want to take the route of social scientist - just combine w/e you like from public life from your circles into something that tells a story about science... that's a fast way to even become famous.

You could do that even as a musician - appeal to a category of humans that share scientific mindset - and create your own social movement from behind an public opinion influence icon.

You do realize the current disease paradigm and treatment is Bio-psycho-social, right? This isn't the 70s

Clinical depression is real.

Over-diagnosis of depression is real.

Over-prescription of anti-depressant medication is very real.

Its Bio-psycho-social-enviromental.

Reminder: studies show that with an increase of antidepressant use that has risen 400% since 1987 a huge increase of suicides has shown to be in relation with it

When I "was" depressed I was thinking illogically. Suicide would be the answer to everything. I felt like a failure but it was exaggerated. If I forgot to butter my toast I would consider that reason to kill myself. I would debate death for a few minutes. I mean If I cant remember to butter my toast how is anything else possible? My mood was always the same. I was never happy for even a moment, for several months. You could find a joke funny, but that isn't the same as being happy. I would wake up thinking of suicide and continue to think of suicide until I fell asleep again.

Its not hte anti-depressants fault. Its the doctor fault. They tend give you a higher dosage or lower depending on the doctor. This creates these weird imbalances. The anti-depressants work but the problem is doctors are fuckign retarded when it comes to real science.

> "was"
Fix me!