While I agree that neither exist in complete isolation, it still doesn't preclude one from being the dominant cause.
Well the argument I was responding to was that the two are completely unrelated, so if you accept that they're not, we're mostly on the same page.
The question then is how common it is for one to be overwhelmingly dominant.
From my experiences and research, I'd suggest that like most other biological phenomena, it fits a Gaussian distribution, in which for the majority of people it would be within 75/25 in either direction.
Moreover, not many people would advance the same argument in regards to conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder
This may be where I lose you completely, but I would make the same argument for those conditions.
It's common for the manifestations of those illnesses to be triggered by an acute trauma or prolonged exposure to abuse. But of course the innate propensity to develop that condition had to be there too.
In my own experience, I exhibited bipolar tendencies years ago (as strongly as others I know who were formally diagnosed with it). Since changing both my environment and my emotional tendencies, I no longer do.
Others with schizophrenia report becoming symptom-free by following a similar approach.
I'd contend that the whole reason mainstream medicine continues to be so hit-and-miss when it comes to treating mental "illness" is that it continues to resist viewing it in this way.
>This may be where I lose you completely, but I would make the same argument for those conditions.
While I'm not disputing that emotional techniques can be beneficial, my main point was that in certain cases, the cause of the condition is probably the result of overwhelmingly dominant biochemical or physiological factors.
Meta-analysis has shown that approximately 80% of all cases of depression are initially caused by a major life stress (1). So "exogenous" factors seem to play a large role in triggering most depression. That said, not everyone develops depression following a major life stress - people have different levels of "endogenous" stress resilience/susceptibility. "Endogenous" stress resilience can be modulated, however, by "exogenous" interventions. For example, resilience can be increased by behavioral stress inoculation or even exercise, and it can be decreased by things like sleep deprivation or illness. It can also be partially inherited (i.e., if someone's parents were "exogenously" stressed, the offspring can inherit lower levels of stress resilience through "endogenous" epigenetic changes) (2).
And though 80% of initial depressive episodes may be triggered by stress, this tight correlation between stress and depression does not persist as strongly after the first depressive episode. Essentially, once someone has been depressed a first time, they are then "endogenously" more susceptible to subsequent episodes of depression.
So, is it exogenous or endogenous? Long story short, in most cases, it's both. Even if it doesn't start as both, it becomes both. And both "exogenous" and "endogenous" contributing factors interact in an on-going dynamic process.
Well the argument I was responding to was that the two are completely unrelated, so if you accept that they're not, we're mostly on the same page.
The question then is how common it is for one to be overwhelmingly dominant.
From my experiences and research, I'd suggest that like most other biological phenomena, it fits a Gaussian distribution, in which for the majority of people it would be within 75/25 in either direction.
Moreover, not many people would advance the same argument in regards to conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder
This may be where I lose you completely, but I would make the same argument for those conditions.
It's common for the manifestations of those illnesses to be triggered by an acute trauma or prolonged exposure to abuse. But of course the innate propensity to develop that condition had to be there too.
In my own experience, I exhibited bipolar tendencies years ago (as strongly as others I know who were formally diagnosed with it). Since changing both my environment and my emotional tendencies, I no longer do.
Others with schizophrenia report becoming symptom-free by following a similar approach.
I'd contend that the whole reason mainstream medicine continues to be so hit-and-miss when it comes to treating mental "illness" is that it continues to resist viewing it in this way.