I think your first comment is what is really absurd. Psychopaths are unable to empathize, and feelings of happiness may also evade some very narrowly categorized groups of individuals. Apart from those very special cases, everyone has experienced the feeling/emotion of happiness.

Second, I didn't say REALLY depressed, I said depressed, having a depressing moment, or the feeling of depression.

Your post contains the absurdities.

You are both being silly. Hoopman, happiness and depression might not be on a continuous distribution. Madnak, they might be on a continuous distribution.

Hoopman, it might be a trait rather than a state. Madnak, it might be a state rather than a trait.

What seems clear is that some people are having a good day today, and others are not. Whether those states are potentially permanent and irrevocable is an interesting subject, but relatively unimportant on an individual level.

The reason it lacks real importance is because people strive to not be miserable. It is the motivation to be happy (loosely defined and admittedly circular) that drives us.

So, what matters is whether cbt is something that people can use to chase this nebulous happiness thing. Since it seems clear that some people are using really bad strategies, it makes sense that teaching them better strategies is possibly useful.

Of course, it might be the same as a get rich scheme, but the advocates seem genuinely concerned about the welfare of their patients.

Can you elaborate a bit. I don't disagree totally but it depends on where you are going with this.

I would argue that it's both but if happiness/depression is a state rather than a trait then what is the point of seeing a therapist or trying to do anything about it? I think the context of the thread is obviously about the "state" of happiness/depression and how to increase/decrease it.

So everybody is happy sometimes, except those who aren't?

You talked about people who are depressed. I'm to understand you don't include people suffering from clinical depression in that category?

If character x is a state, it's binary. If character x is a trait, it's continuous. (I'm sure someone will contradict this generality.)

My main two points, if I have communicated them poorly are:

1) People are genetically predisposed to depression/happiness but I think people can increase or decrease the amounts of these based on life choices. Genetics have a great deal to do with obesity, but life choices like diet and exercise can overcome being genetically predisposed to obesity.

2) I believe professional help/therapy and/or medication are essential for the initial steps in the road to recovery for sever depression. The problem I have is that I think there are much fewer people suffering massive depression than are clinically diagnosed with it. I feel similarly about conditions like ADD and ADHD.

I believe the pharmaceutical industry is out of control. A modern day culture that desires to pop pills to fix all their problems has been created by by those more interested in profits than public health.

I will contradict it, as you expected.

A trait is something built in and not easily changed. "He is a born *******" qualifies as a trait.

A state is something ephemeral. "He is acting like an ******* because his dog just died" qualifies as a state.

There are a lot of people who are unhappy but not at all depressed.

Depression and happiness belong on different scales, even though depression and happiness rarely (if ever) coincide.

+1

+1

I think this is just semantics. I should have said, "depressed" and "not depressed." Upon using the word happiness to try and make my point I unintentionally implied that happiness is the reciprocal of depression.