After reading this article, the first thought that came to my mind was the analogy of “which came first – the chicken or the egg?” It appears that both the biological and psychological aspects of depression are both trying to figure out how depression is brought on, be it “mood changes to activity in specific brain regions” or “brain activity to changes in mood” (Deldin, Keller, Gergen, & Miller 2000). I found myself wondering if trying to figure out the cause if the cause for depression would be very helpful in terms of preventing it, as I know that both experiences shape the formation of neural connections in your brain, but that the neural connections in your brain can also shape the way in which you experience things. What I want to know is, can depression really be prevented? I feel like there are so many uncontrollable aspects in life that it would be impossible to prevent depression due to life-changing experiences, because instances that happen to other people by no fault of your own are uncontrollable, and it’s the way you react to these situations and deal with them that can determine whether or not someone slips into depression. Is it really possible to change the way someone reacts to situations, even if they are consciously telling themselves the way they should be reacting, they could subconsciously be doing the exact opposite. I don’t know if I’m making any sense here, but if you have never been diagnosed with depression, then how would one necessarily know how to prevent it? Perhaps it is not something that can be prevented, but only minimized once already knowing the symptoms or situations that can trigger depression.
I also agreed with Miller and Keller that depending on the severity of depression – or any psychological disorder – and the patient, either a psychological or chemical intervention could work best, or a combination of both. In this sense, I would suggest that both medical and clinical psychology fields need to know both biological and psychological points of view, though sometimes they cannot be used to explain the other (as Miller and Keller pointed out), but the information and point of view is still relevant in terms of the other, and could lead to looking at a disease or psychological disorder in a new and inventive way. There really does need to be a “conceptual and methodological collaboration”. Whilst we question the link between biology and psychology fields in terms of depression and other illnesses, why not question other fields, such as lifestyle and diet? I found this youtube video very interesting, as it gives sight to the cliché saying “you are what you eat.”
So…. Should we be eating more bananas?
On a completely different note, if depression is seen as a problem, is there such a problem as being OVERLY happy and upbeat? Are there people that are generally optimistic all the time, and should that be considered a disorder? Food for thought… if there is such a thing, would it be possible to learn from this “disorder” in terms of trying to understand depression?