Why are people so ignorant about suicide and depression?

It's an interesting article. As far as I'm aware though, neurogenesis in the human dentate gyrus is a little more controversial as opposed to in the rat brain in which it has been more empirically established. The rat brain has shown to be a very good model for the human brain in the past, so it wouldn't be surprising if it followed through. Obviously it is much harder to establish in the human brain due to the subject nature.

Interesting approach though.

I'm just quoting you to say well done for your posts, they were really interesting.

So...

Thanks! Nice to know I'm not just pissing into the wind.

No- I had always assumed that you either got depression because something bad happened, and that if you stopped it then the depression went away, or because there was some kind of chemical oddity flying around in your brain which caused it, so it was nice to have a different viewpoint. Might do some reading over the holidays because it sounds quite interesting.

People don't realise that the brain is more than just a big calculator, unless the right compounds and hormones (etc) are doing their thing we wouldn't even get up in the morning.

I'm wondering if you're aware of the fact that you come across as an idiotic ******* with that badly-structured piece of rubbish that you call an argument.

Wow another idiot. Noone said that anti-depressants were a long-term solution. The fact that they have to be taken daily shows that they only get rid of depression for 12 hours or whatever. How do they do that? Usually by increasing the amount of serotonin in the brain, but sometimes other ways. This is pretty much proof of a chemical imbalance.

Over the long term, things need to be changed to get rid of depression. Maybe getting a job, exercising, seeing friends and family more or whatever. This will naturally increase dopamine and whatnot. It is a chemical imbalance, the brain is just a big load of chemicals. Douche.

If it's not chemicals what is it? This is to all the other idiots too? Is is the soul? Something spiritual? Get a grip.

So, what your argument essentially boils down to is this:

Depression is caused by a deficiency of X neurotransmitter and you believe this because if you increase X transmitter then some patients are alleviated of depression. Therefore, that patient must have a deficiency of X neurotransmitter! And, if it does not work then it must be Y neurotransmitter! And if that does not work it must be Z neurotransmitter!

Firstly, increasing a neurotransmitter and seeing an alleviation of depression does not neccesarily mean that the depression is caused by a lack (or an imbalance, or whatever buzzword you choose) for the same reasons that headaches are not caused by a lack of aspirin. It's dodgy logic.

Secondly, you are claiming (using the above faulty logic) that depression is caused by lots of different NTs in lots of different people. So why is it that in rotational clinical trials, patients can respond to two different drugs that act on completely different NTs? Why is it that patients can suddenly change to which NT they respond to? Let me guess, you're going to add more post-hoc modifications to your theory by claiming that depression can be caused by a lack of X and Y neurotransmitters! What if I told you that icecream can alleviate depression, are you going to tell me that depression is caused by a lack of icecream? What if depression is alleviated when the patient is on serotonin and dopamine RIs but only when they eat icecream? Are you going to tell me that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, dopamine AND icecream!!!? What if I told you that depression can be alleviated when all of the icecream is taken away? Are you going to tell me that depression is also caused by too much icecream!!!?

To be honest, the theory falls at the first hurdle (point one) by employing dodgy logic. The evidence suggests that the picture is far far more complex than clumsy explanations of global neurotransmitter quantities. Current advancements in computational and molecular neuroscience can not yet accurately explain depression and at best we can resort to clumsily flooding the network with arbitrarily selected neurotransmitters. Subsequently, we are better off resorting to cognitive explanations and therapies for now until further developments in neural learning and molecular mechanisms that underpin said cognitive approaches. The reality is, a biological explanation of depression will be far more subtle and specific than quantities of global and arbitrary neurotransmitters, but instead will most likely refer to the synaptic weightings and potentiation of specific neural networks. This approach would be far less rigid and more capable of explaining specific depressive behaviours and beliefs, as well as being more able to explain the diversity of the condition.

To be fair, most people get depression from being utter pussys and crying that they do not have a girlfriend or a really big house or something equally pathetic. This then leads to the chemical imbalance etc. It is very rare that the person is born with this problem.
Of course when it is with children it is different because children are more emotionally vulnerable due to their age, but for older folk - grow a pair, it could be far far worse.

I don't think it's what you said, it's how you said it. Your debating skills aren't great and you didn't seem to answer any of the points

Douche. I could back everything I say with references but I have a life.

I know this is going to get a lot of thumbs down or whatever. But I don't care:

Most people (though not everyone) who commit suicide are pretty weak and pathetic.

Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison and was tortured. He could have committed suicide, but why didn't he? Because he had something to live for (and he said he was willing to die for), but he didn't kill himself because that's the pathetic and weak option.

That's a simple example, I'm sure someone has posted better ones.