Discussion depression vs aging

[tardis]

Looking at some symptoms of depression (from here):

• Loss of interest or pleasure in most or all normal activities, such as sex, hobbies or sports
• Tiredness and lack of energy, so even small tasks take extra effort
• Reduced appetite and weight loss or increased cravings for food and weight gain
• Slowed thinking, speaking or body movements
• Trouble thinking, concentrating, making decisions and remembering things
• Unexplained physical problems, such as back pain or headaches

Some of these things seem like normal consequences of the aging process.

So I have questions:
1. How can you tell if you are depressed vs just getting old?
2. Is there really a difference? Is it possible that just normal atrophy over a lifetime has the same effect on people as depression?

Just something I have noticed.

edit: I just read through the article I linked and it does say

Depression is not a normal part of growing older, and it should never be taken lightly

but how could they know this? It should be expected that as your body deteriorates so do your psychological and cognitive faculties.

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

I think "depression" is a terribly ill-defined term. The symptoms are far too vague and general to serve as an indication of any kind of mental illness. Rather, it seems to be the psychiatrist's universal weapon for anything that prevents patients from being obedient, productive members of society.
Am I saying that no one experiences these symptoms? Of course not. What I am objecting to is trying to pass these off as signs of some pathological mental illness instead of a natural reaction to personal experiences in this world we live in.
If you lock a man in a small dark cell for several months, he will undoubtedly experience several of the above symptoms. Is this a sign that he suddenly developed a mental illness, or merely a natural reaction to his confinement?
How can you cure him of it? You set him free, but this is not the way psychiatrists approach "depression". Instead of treating the fundamental problem, which for many people is society, human nature or the nature of this world itself, their approach is much more superficial.
Instead of giving a battered passenger ship that has suffered severe damage by traveling a route it was not constructed for a different route, the holes are patched up with duct-tape so it can be put back into service as soon as possible.
Like a doctor treating a lung cancer patient with cough drops, the root of the problem is ignored in favour of treating the symptom, as that is cheaper and more convenient.

but how could they know this?

They can't know anything with certainty, as psychiatry is not an exact science like mathematics. In fact, it is questionable whether it is a real science at all. Isn't it odd how Drapetomania was a legitimate illness in times when slavery was normal, Hysteria was a legitimate mental illness in times when women were subordinate to men and Homosexuality was a legitimate mental illness in times when Homosexuality was criminalised? Isn't that awfully convenient? Especially since all of these were dropped when social norms changed, as if they were just a tool for control in the first place. This entire discipline is a mere tool to keep neurological outliers in check and make them into obedient cogs in the machine (also known as "contributing members of society").

 

[motel rooms]

They can't know anything with certainty, as psychiatry is not an exact science like mathematics.

This entire discipline is a mere tool to keep neurological outliers in check and make them into obedient cogs in the machine (also known as "contributing members of society").

It's true that psychiatry is by no means an exact science, but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. There are people with disorders like schizophrenia who benefit immensely from antipsychotics...