>>11403253>>11403258You're both completely wrong because the evidence for "physical" depression is THIN.
According to a study listed on Wikipedia, only 37% of your risk of major depression is thought to be genetic (based on twin studies) - the other 63% is thought to be mostly your environment.
But the thing is, we have no idea what those genes might be. Scientists have only just, in the last couple of years, started to identify genes that are associated with a higher RISK of major depression. But those genes could be anything. Maybe they're genes that make you ugly, and then the ugliness is what results in you having a bad life, which makes you depressed. That might be a crass example, but it demonstrates that we have no idea what these genes are, or HOW they might increase a person's RISK of depression.
And the reason I'm capitalising the word "RISK" there is because that's all it is; a risk. Having certain genes does not mean that you WILL become depressed. It's not fatalistic. It's just that some genes increase your LIKELIHOOD of getting depressed.
Let's look at another mental condition, schizophrenia. Genes are thought to play a much bigger role in schizophrenia than in depression - 80% of your risk of schizophrenia is thought to be genetic. So that's over double the rate for major depression. But even with schizophrenia, having genes associated with schizophrenia does not mean that you WILL develop schizophrenia:
>A genetic predisposition on its own, without interacting environmental factors will not give rise to the development of schizophrenia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#GeneticSo what the hell are you talking about when you say physical depression? The evidence indicates that depression is essentially ALWAYS brought about by environmental factors. And the genes that might increase your tendency to get depressed - we don't even know what those genes are, nor what physical processes they affect.
So what the fuck are you on about?
