Depression as an intellectual discapacity?

So i'm kinda into psychology and i overheard a conversation about considering depression as mentioned above. Didnt find much on the internet, so i was hoping any of you could help me out.

cross out about

Psychology and psychiatry are both pseudo-sciences that engage in nothing but projection and bulverism.

The fact is that many famous intellectuals displayed all sorts of behavioral patterns society at large didn't like.

The very idea that everything people don't like are diseases, disorders, etc... is without merit (as of yet).

The majority of APA members even take issue with many of the diagnostics concepts in the DSM.

There is a reason why the lead editor the DSM quit his job, and why the inventor of some DSM terms (ADD for instance) also quit his job.

There is too much false equivocation and bulverism in the diagnostic and description fields of psychiatry and psychology.

I'm well aware of that, in fact i agree all the diagnostic labels are kinda bullshit, not only for the "etiquette" they establish on people, but also to make this discipline a more easy, experimental-medic approach to be considered a science like medicine or maths.
I believe eache person has its own form of living and behaving, and that is my opinion on psychology. The thing is, for this question i used the label to just generalize a behaviour so someone could answer my question.
What i know until now, is that someone who suffers from cronical sadness have their hipocampus slighty injured, leading to possible memory loss and other features that includes a discapacity of emocional, social and rational intelligence. So, im hoping if someone could explain to me the physical changes inside the brain, since the cognitive changes are quite-to-be known.

with this meme

Depression is linked with above average intelligence, so no. At most it takes your focus away, but it's not really a disability like ADHD.

I'd like you to explain that a bit more. Its proven that it deteriorates certain connexions and structures of the brain, even though you say it is linked to a higher intelligence

I haven't researched into that specific topic, but I do think that even though the brain gets deteriorated, a lot of people who are born with depression are also born with the genes responsible for higher intelligence, and the connections and structures being cut are probably a handicap to those people not reaching their full potentials. About the people who suffer depression caused by a trauma I don't know.
I do (want to) believe that with treatment one can reverse the negative effects of depression in the brain, though.

God is a great engineer. He devised mechanisms that would make sinners destroy themselves if they reached for the forbidden fruit. Contemplate life too much? Congratulations, your hippocampus and basal ganglia will rot away, siphoning your very ability to comprehend the sublime.

Anti-depressants have been observed to regenerate lost hippocampal tissue when they are effective.

Theoretically depression, its symptoms and the cerebral structures can be "fixed" or be reversed with tratment and time, since the hipocampus is one of the structures which are known to have more neuronal plasticity most part of the brain, allowing to create new connections once you overcome depression.
Dont know until what point this is true, but i believe its not a direct effect on the hipocampus, but the indirect effect of eliminating depression, causing a reconnection on neuronal network.

If thats the case, sheep would be the most intelligent species on earth

>If thats the case, sheep would be the most intelligent species on earth

Not at all. Just commenting on how intelligence leads to depression. Makes it seem like there are fundamental limits on intelligence after a certain level.

>Makes it seem like there are fundamental limits on intelligence after a certain level.
I don't really think so. I think that most genes linked to intelligence must also be linked with depression. But there is a few who aren't. There are lots of genius who were pretty happy with their lives. Einstein or Feynman are examples of that.

>I think that most genes linked to intelligence must also be linked with depression
not this wankery nonsense again

Citations please

Actually the medical definitions band ways of treatment and diagnosis of disease are just as difficult or inconsistent as in psychiatry. The major difference is that there has been a microscopic technological revolution in biology. We do not have such technology in psychiatry. I guess psychiatry is like early medicine. Neither medicine or psychiatry are strictly sciences I'd say. I think the labels used can and often are uneven though I think that's more to do with difficulty in diagnosis.

Its a mood disorder and has little to no impact on intellect

I feel a lot of it is just stereotype. I feel people didn't hear about it from papers and probably don't have any.

I've actually seen papers where schizophrenia is linked to lower intelligence and higher intelligence is actually protective against schizophrenia unlike some stereotypes suggest. Wouldn't be surprised if same with any other mental illness.

People associate art and mental illness too but it's probably not mentally I'll people being especially creative (e.g. genetically). I
Havent read about it desu but shouldny just accept stereotypes without thinking
maybe just mental illness makes good material/ inspirations out of struggle.

A while ago I was read that depression was evolutionarily advantageous as in times of hardship it is better to keep your head down and expend less energy. Extrapolating from this, suicide could be explained as killing yourself cpuld be benifitial to the species during hardship as you wouldnt be consuming others resources, populations adjusting themselves for scarcity.

I don't buy those evolutionary explanations. In no way does a behaviour need to have survival value to exist. Those explanations are all ad hoc and purely speculative.

It's a matter of semantics in my opinion. Practicing medicine or being a doctor is honestly an applied branch of biology. That 'branch of biology' is the Medical Sciences which is very much a science.
Medical Sciences is broad in it's focus, but narrow in it's application. We can say this because MedSci takes things like chemistry, physics, biology and pretty much distills them regarding their application to human and animals. This can be elaborated further.

Psychiatry is a field of MedSci and Med. The reason for this is mostly thanks to huge advancements in technology and Neuroscience (and genetics). One can even say that, at this point, psychiatry has almost become an applied neurology of sorts.

This has allowed psychiatry to understand why and how particular psychiatric conditions behave and come about, thus allowing Med practitioners to treat patients more effectively and even study these conditions in more detail.

Yes of course medicine is applied science looking at diseases and treating them through the lense of biology. But technically the subject of medicine and psychiatry isn't just biology but disease which as a concept is to an extent a social construction and can be very arbitrary. Just like how mental illnesses are. There are just fewer and less obvious blurry examples in medicine though they do exist, both in terms of diagnostic uncertainty and the continuous nature of individual variation.

If we talk about these fields as clarifying disease then medicines method is as inconsistent and unscientific as psychiatry. The classification is subjective to an extent though they do rely on biological mechanisms. A loose analogy I think is how race is a social construct but ancestry/genetics is obviously objective. The classification of disease in medicine is the first category while the biology underlying it is the second. As with this, you see that doctors methods of treatment and diagnosis often are not rigorous compared to a biologist. And I guess biologists try to do different things anyway.

I'd actually say neurology and psychiatry are not more advanced than each other. They are just arbitrarily separated I think due to historical/sociological reasons. I wouldn't really say one is more scientific than the other in terms of understanding or treatment/efficacy.

It's funny coz psychiatry and neurology treat different conditions almost arbitrarily but the level of understanding in either field and both the types of symptoms and treatments are these days, largely indistinguishable I'm quite sure.

here were i live, we dont separate those professions. they are called neuropsychiatrist

Hopefully it's true, super intelligent AIs will just commit suicide instead of wiping us out.

But neither psychology nor psychiatry use the scientific method.

The very idea that psychiatry is just mysterious to those ignorant of biomed is completely false.

It's a absolute fact that they have no scientific laws, no scientific theories, etc...

Just load of unproven hypotheses, disproven hypotheses, fallacy-prone concepts, etc.

No. There are few neuro-psychiatrists because psychiatry makes claims without foundation reasoning while engaging in socio-political thought about how people "out to be" based on cultural and sociological dictation.

Less than 1% of the DSM diagnoses are psychotic, and the same is true for how many diagnoses cross over into neuroscience.

The chemical imbalance hypotheses and weak genetics hypotheses are both bunk, and the APA and WHO admit this.

Psychiatry and psychology are sinking ships.

Wake up.