Reply to comment

I was reading this post and I found it pretty interesting, especially how depression was referred to as chic in current society.  I strongly agree that it seems that the number of people who are diagnosed with depression is higher than it was in the past, and this indeed could be because it is glorified now in our culture and the connotations of such, however, although the number of people marked as depressed is larger, we have no way of knowing if in fact that the number of depressed people has increased because of the bias that is present, making people of the past not accurate responders.  A lack of acceptance and admittance could have lowered the numbers in the past for it was not as "accepted" to have such an emotional disorder and therefore less people would tell of their depression and the disorder would go unmarked.  However, although the recorded number of those with depression is lower, the actual number of those depressed is still the same.  It is the societal impact toward the disease which can alter the accuracy to which the disease is actually present, for the numbers will be insufficient.

However, the idea that those of the past did not admit and accept their depression in the same sense as humans do presently, could actually have altered the number of those who were depressed.  If we follow the notion that women are more depressed than men, for many possible reasons, but for one important reason, that while women ruminate about their depression and continually want to talk about their emotions, men will often ignore it and distract themselves with another activity, which actually helps to rid the person of his depression.  Distraction and activity can be a form of a cure for depression.  Therefore, if we look at the manner in which the people of the past dealt with his or her depression, it was often ignored and such can be compared to these men who use the notion of distraction and other engagements to solve their problems.  Thus, the number of depressed people of the past may have in fact been lower than the number of depressed people currently, because the societal influence forced them to deal with the disorder in a certain manner which has proved effective in curing depression.  However, such societal influence is not intentional, and thus, we will never truly be able to answer that question.

 Also, when you started talking about House and how the image of the depressed of manic atist flourishes, I began to think about ER, which is a television show more from the past, and Abby's mother who is manic depressive, but she does not flourish on the show.  So, it was just an example of hoe the societal acceptance of mental disorders has changed and can be seen in the media.  And although we see the acceptance as a good thing, and I completely agree that it is good, I wonder if a lack of acceptance can be just as good for it serves almost as an indirect cure.It is kindoff a wierd thought, but it seems to work as a possible explanation that goes in agreement with the recorded number of those with depression.  I know that studies has shown that it is the current teenagers and young adults who are the "population" with the largest number of depression, especially in comparison to our grandparents.

Also, I wonder if people rely too much on medication currently, and if it is more the idea that a pill is the answer that makes them better, as if mentally taking medication is the answer.  For example, could the patients just take placebos and still be ok and say that they feel better.  Does society play any role in this idea that medication is the answer?  I feel that if someone is truly depressed that medication cam help, but should not remain the sole method aimed toward ridding the person of depression.  What would be the most beneficial society in terms of helping those who are depressed?