Evolutionary psychology explains depression

[Eduard E]

I thought you might find this interesting:

Depression: rank theory

I've been reading a lot of evolutionary psychology lately, and it has a lot of insights into humans emotions, instincts and behavior. I'm planning on writing a post about it on my blog.

[dulaney0330]

Interesting article. I agree, although it can be easily said:

Popularity brings happiness!

Although, it has it's issues. Many celebrities struggle with depression and self-hatred.

I believe if one is not loved and accepted by one's parents, the foundation for depression strengthens.

[Sven Schoene]

Originally Posted by Eduard E

I thought you might find this interesting:

Depression: rank theory

I've been reading a lot of evolutionary psychology lately, and it has a lot of insights into humans emotions, instincts and behavior. I'm planning on writing a post about it on my blog.

Wow, big thanks for this valuable link. This site is great!

This theory is absolutely ridiculous! When I clicked on the link I thought "Ok, let's see if this is going to be a waste of time..." but this theory makes so much sense!

It connects a lot of dots for me and gives me a new perspective that I never had before.

Originally Posted by dulaney0330

Although, it has it's issues. Many celebrities struggle with depression and self-hatred.

I think we should use the term "perceived status" instead of status. If a celebrity doesn't perceive herself as high-status then of course, she will get depressed.

It's always just a point of view: My little sister thinks I'm a genius when it comes to maths. However, I don't think I'm good at maths at all, especially not when I compare myself to a math-professor.

We might perceive a celebrity as high-status and that she has achieved so many thing. However, a celebrity is sorrounded by tons of other celebrities. Everything she achieves is always compared to all the other successful people around her.

And now you can also factor in recent break-ups or arguments with her friends or parents. What if we perceive a certain celebrity as successful and high-status because from our perspective she has achieved so much BUT her father might always tell her that she is useless and she should do something better and more worthwile with her life than being a movie star?

This was just an example. I wanted to make clear that there are tons of reasons why a relatively successful person compared to "normal" people might not feel worthy and high-status that we will never know about.

Anyway, great post and I think your summary is still right:

Originally Posted by dulaney0330

Popularity brings happiness!

[dulaney0330]

Originally Posted by Sven Schoene

Wow, big thanks for this valuable link. This site is great!

This theory is absolutely ridiculous! When I clicked on the link I thought "Ok, let's see if this is going to be a waste of time..." but this theory makes so much sense!

It connects a lot of dots for me and gives me a new perspective that I never had before.



I think we should use the term "perceived status" instead of status. If a celebrity doesn't perceive herself as high-status then of course, she will get depressed.

It's always just a point of view: My little sister thinks I'm a genius when it comes to maths. However, I don't think I'm good at maths at all, especially not when I compare myself to a math-professor.

We might perceive a celebrity as high-status and that she has achieved so many thing. However, a celebrity is sorrounded by tons of other celebrities. Everything she achieves is always compared to all the other successful people around her.

And now you can also factor in recent break-ups or arguments with her friends or parents. What if we perceive a certain celebrity as successful and high-status because from our perspective she has achieved so much BUT her father might always tell her that she is useless and she should do something better and more worthwile with her life than being a movie star?

This was just an example. I wanted to make clear that there are tons of reasons why a relatively successful person compared to "normal" people might not feel worthy and high-status that we will never know about.

Anyway, great post and I think your summary is still right:

Good point. A faulty self-perception can get us in trouble!

[Sven Schoene]

Originally Posted by dulaney0330

Good point. A faulty self-perception can get us in trouble!

Yup, you're right!

[Excellent Lodestar]

Rank: another "gift" that Civilization has given us.

I've been reading UCLA Professor Jared Diamonds work lately and he believes that Civilization, specifically the Agricultural Revolution is responsible for more human suffering than any other event in history.

Agricultural "prosperity" created class structure, Land ownership(haves and have-nots) Wars, "power" etc
It created "free time"(for those who weren't slaves) and in that free time became Maslow's hierarchy of needs (IMO)

Hunter Gatherer's spent most of their time, well, Hunting and gathering...they didn't have TIME to be miserable, thinking about rank (4th step in the hierarchy, I believe)
While rank existed most certainly in Hunter gatherer man, (how much disparity can there be in a group of 30?) It was not anywhere near the scale and that exists in society today.

I'm not saying Civilization is completely evil or that I want to wear a loincloth ( I mean we love our God--The Internet, as well as Mozart, Bach, Pat Metheny and Spinal Tap) but Civilization has a lot of S*** to account for, too much to list here...

[Sven Schoene]

Originally Posted by Excellent Lodestar

Rank: another "gift" that Civilization has given us.

I've been reading UCLA Professor Jared Diamonds work lately and he believes that Civilization, specifically the Agricultural Revolution is responsible for more human suffering than any other event in history.

Agricultural "prosperity" created class structure, Land ownership(haves and have-nots) Wars, "power" etc
It created "free time"(for those who weren't slaves) and in that free time became Maslow's hierarchy of needs (IMO)

Hunter Gatherer's spent most of their time, well, Hunting and gathering...they didn't have TIME to be miserable, thinking about rank (4th step in the hierarchy, I believe)
While rank existed most certainly in Hunter gatherer man, (how much disparity can there be in a group of 30?) It was not anywhere near the scale and that exists in society today.

I'm not saying Civilization is completely evil or that I want to wear a loincloth ( I mean we love our God--The Internet, as well as Mozart, Bach, Pat Metheny and Spinal Tap) but Civilization has a lot of S*** to account for, too much to list here...

Don't misinterpret this as an attack of any kind but I have to ask:

What would a better way of evolution have been? How could we have prevented the way evolution happened and why would another way have been better?

I just want to know what you think would be possible alternatives to the way the world has unfolded.

Personally, I think everything made total sense the way it developed. Obviously, just because it made sense it doesn't mean that it has been good. Also, I believe that the way we humans live in this world will drastically change in the next 1000 years (I believe, for example, that we will get rid of such a thing as currency, but this is better saved for another post).

I'm asking because I just can't envision any other way of evolution and development. It just makes sense that agriculture was "invented". It just makes sense that people were enslaved because of this. What else could or should have happenend and how?


[EDIT] I guess, what I'm trying to say is the following: You should be very cautious when you make statements like that, Excellent Lodestar, if you can't give suggestions for more constructive alternatives. It's like "these people" who talk about how bad our economy is and how it's all these politicians fault instead of actually proposing a better way of doing it, getting their asses of the couch and doing something. Also, sometimes a bit more compassion and understanding for the thing that is criticized can go a long way in having a more constructive debate.

[Excellent Lodestar]

Well, I wasn't "selling" anything with my post, just making an observation. The fact that civilization is unsustainable is simply a fact as well, So I agree that things will be VERY different in the not to distant future,and not by "our choice" either. Honestly, I think we will all be back at square one(Hunter gatherer) at some point so we may indeed have a chance to see what "alternative" path we could have taken.

What is, is. I don't have a "solution". I don't want one. why is anything the way it is? Chaos is a beautiful thing.

"When I argue with reality, I lose, but only 100% of the time" ---Byron Katie

[Sven Schoene]

Originally Posted by Excellent Lodestar

Well, I wasn't "selling" anything with my post, just making an observation. The fact that civilization is unsustainable is simply a fact as well, So I agree that things will be VERY different in the not to distant future,and not by "our choice" either. Honestly, I think we will all be back at square one(Hunter gatherer) at some point so we may indeed have a chance to see what "alternative" path we could have taken.

What is, is. I don't have a "solution". I don't want one. why is anything the way it is? Chaos is a beautiful thing.

"When I argue with reality, I lose, but only 100% of the time" ---Byron Katie

Good answer, repped you for it.

I have read an article a few days ago that talked about how systems/ bureaucracies/nations/societies get more and more complex until they collapse at one point.

The cited examples for the Roman empire, the Maya, the Aztec and so on. It said something like: "It is easier to make a system more complex by a new law than to make it simpler. At some point the complexity reaches a tipping point where all parties are paralyzed and unable to move. Emerging chaos is the only possible answer."

Let's see what we as humans can do about this problem. I'm going to try my best.