self esteem

It is possible to have low self-esteem and not be depressed, but I don’t think it’s possible to be depressed with high self esteem, the two just don’t go together.

Firstly there is no such think as a depressive person…some people may choose to take a negative approach to life but that is not depression, in fact such a person might actually be very happy with that approach despite outward appearances! Depression is believed to be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, it’s how those chemical imbalance occurs in the first place that is harder to grasp.

Of course there are various levels of imbalance and therefore different levels of depression. At the lowest point, someone with depression will typically withdraw from the world, become uncommunicative, let go of personal hygiene…they may just retreat to one room and only come out for food and the bathroom, and even that may seem like a monumental effort.

When someone with depression is functioning (to use your words) their self esteem is low – is this a contributory factor in the depression or a symptom? Well it could be either, or, or both. However the person in this situation can appear to be self-obsessed and as if the world revolves around them; they may not be shut away in that room but they are still shut away within themselves, desperately trying to find a way out, and talking things through over and over again, trying to find a glimmer of light. There’s also a tendency to catastrophise everything, what once would have seemed insignificant is now a really big deal. But the fact that they are talking is good, even if it is wearing for the people who are trying to offer support as it seems like it’s not getting anywhere…but you never know just when that glimmer of light it going to appear.

If low self esteem makes someone feel they are not worthy of someone’s love, then that is back to their own sense of self-worth. That is low self-esteem, not depression…although it may in turn contribute to depression.

And now I’m talking around in circles lol

Hope some of that makes sense though.

@minim wrote:

It makes extremely good sense, but it does show just how complex the human mind is, and when you take into account the ego or is it id? not sure there, but when you take that into account, then the variations on a theme seem endless.

Oh the human mind is truly amazing and the least understood. It can empower us and enable us to do the most amazing things, and it can cripple us! It’s so easy to be dismissive and say that something is all in the mind, but that just underestimates its capacity. But it does ensure that no two people are the same even if they have the same labels attached to them – as you say, vive la difference! :D

How refreshingly civilised. God save the Queen.

To me, everyone’s answers seem to show how bankrupt psychology is as a philosophical system. Because it proceeds by diagnosis, there is an imperative to classify the many and varied states of human consciousness. It is my belief that the manifestations of the human psyche are too manifold, too layered and too complex to be described by such a system. I think the whole field is ripe for revolution and revision. It could be an exciting process to live through – akin to being around when Freud made such a splash. My guess is that the disciplines will have to look outside of medicine altogether for inspiration.

I’m sorry, Minim. I didn’t mean my reply to be a criticism of your ambition to study. I think that would be a fine endeavour. I was just airing my philosophical ideas about the whole thread, rather than your post.

I tend to think that when you diagnose, say, depression, you are actually labelling something in the same way you would, say, a broken leg and then proceeding accordingly. This works in cases of broken legs because a broken leg is a broken leg. I’m not sure one depression is the same as another, though. It’s a general problem with all the ‘softer’ sciences, I think, because they can never just point to an equation on a bit of paper, like a physicist or a chemist might, and say ‘but look, it’s true’.

However, as I said, I would hate to think my misgivings would ever count as a vote against studying anything.

@pikey wrote:

I’m sorry, Minim. I didn’t mean my reply to be a criticism of your ambition to study. I think that would be a fine endeavour. I was just airing my philosophical ideas about the whole thread, rather than your post.

I tend to think that when you diagnose, say, depression, you are actually labelling something in the same way you would, say, a broken leg and then proceeding accordingly. This works in cases of broken legs because a broken leg is a broken leg. I’m not sure one depression is the same as another, though. It’s a general problem with all the ‘softer’ sciences, I think, because they can never just point to an equation on a bit of paper, like a physicist or a chemist might, and say ‘but look, it’s true’.

However, as I said, I would hate to think my misgivings would ever count as a vote against studying anything.

That’s ok, I didn’t think you were remarking on my deciding I might like to study psychology, but I was asking where we should look for inspiration outside medicine. Although I think I get the gist of what you mean. Putting people into boxes and labelling them isn’t a holistic approach and every single person is different. I too dislike the way the medical profession categorise because labels of the kind we have been discussing on this thread are not helpful. They don’t tell the story, they just highlight certain aspects of somone’s personality but can hardly give the whole picture. Anyway, i truly am disappearing up my own fundamental orifice here I think. I don’t know enough about the subject to be able to discuss it at the level I would like to. Library here I come :)