Just as broken bones are a danger inherent in riding a motorbike, depression is one of the dangers inherent in trying to start a company.
Understanding this leads to two helpful realizations:
1. It's nothing to be ashamed of and should not be stigmatised
2. You would be wise to take precautions to protect against the danger (just like you would wear a helmet when riding).
The danger is particularly strong for solo founders, simply because of the lifestyle some have to live. Long periods of time spent on your own, slow progress toward your goals -- these are signals that the depression-triggering algorithms in your mind will latch onto.
Some things that may work to counter those signals:
* Socialise with friends, family or new people every day. If you can't socialise on a particular day, spend some time making plans with people to socialise in the near future.
* Be having sex, and regularly. Seriously, this is a very strong signal.
* Exercise a lot. Run, swim, work out -- even just walk around the neighbourhood.
* Plan your work to have near-term achievable milestones.
* Eat healthily and avoid alcohol. A weak immune system leads to frequent illness, which leads to slower progress.
I live by these five rules and agree, but I agree succinctly, that is with the letter of what you wrote: these things work to counter the signals, they do not necessarily work to remove depression.
As I understand it, depression can be caused by external issues (a loved one dying, losing a job) or internal issues (chemical imbalances). Again, as I understand it this list of ways to counter can help run-of-the-mill ennui, but it is not going to forestall the abyss for someone suffering from real depression.
There is no real evidence for the chemical imbalance theory of depression, in fact the meme about chemical imbalance was begun by pharmacuetical companies to explain how SSRI's work. That, and the failure of many of the new reuptake inhibitors, suggests that depression is not caused by chemical imbalances.
This could easily suggest to a casual reader (particularly one that is a part of a pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps culture) to forgo pharmaceutical help.
I cannot speak on that and recommend professional help.
When someone starts out on antidepressants, their neurotransmitter [1] levels return to normal almost immediately. However, patients usually only begin to see improvements 2 - 4 weeks later. This wouldn't be the case if depression was simply due to lowered neurotransmitter levels.
However, all is not lost. A new theory suggests that patients have a lowered rate of neurogenesis (creation of new brain cells) and that serotonin is crucial in kick starting the process.
[1] Patients usually have lowered levels of Serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.
To say that depression is a chemical imbalance is to over-simplify the cause and treatment.
People hearing the chemical imbalance hypothesis may think that there's no effective evidence based therapy available, or that they will need meds for the rest of their life, or that they are going to relapse for the rest of their life.
That's not true. There are effective, evidence based, talking therapies. The most well known (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy) is simple to understand, easy to apply, and can be given by therapists or can be self-applied through websites (the Australian "Mood Gym" is one) or books ("mind over matter" is a good example).
A person given just meds will be more likely to relapse than someone given meds and CBT.
> I cannot speak on that and recommend professional help.
Yes, professional help is important. In the UK front line treatment for mild to moderate depression is not medication, but is CBT. And CBT should be used for other illnesses too.
My emphasis on things like CBT is because they have been shown to work; not because I don't think that depression is a "real illness'. See, for example, the use of CBT to treat pain suffered by cancer patients.
in fact the meme about chemical imbalance was begun by pharmacuetical companies to explain how SSRI's work
Just as a gut-check here, are you saying that the pharma companies actually came up with a drug, passed it through human trials and everything, and then came up with the reason for its existence? I'm skeptical.
I don't care enough about your ridiculous statement to go dig up evidence, but I care enough to relate my own anecdote: I have chemically induced depression in myself, as a side effect of a drug. As soon as I went off the drug, the depression went away.
I am a depression patient. It is certainly true that various substances can induce depression. I do not believe that the original poster was implying that depression is without very real biological causes; merely that these causes are more nuanced than the phrase "chemical imbalance" implies. Here is some food for thought.
SSRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants in the United States due to their relative safety and efficacy. It is widely thought that these drugs achieve effectiveness through their ability to increase serotonin levels in the brain. Now, here comes the mystery: while serotonin levels rise almost immediately following introduction of the drug, the antidepressant effects do not become apparent until several weeks of treatment have passed. Why is that? No one knows for sure, but a few interesting theories have emerged.
The most interesting theory, in my opinion, involves hippocampal neurogenesis and BDNF levels. A few recent studies have shown that one thing that the SSRIs share in common is that they all promote neurogenesis in the hippocampus. A further study showed that the antidepressant effects of SSRIs on behavior in rats exposed to artificially induced stressors could be completely nullified by slightly irradiating the hippocampus, thus negating the growth of new neurons promoted by the SSRIs. The antidepressant effect was gone even though serotonin levels remained elevated.
This conclusion provided compelling but not conclusive evidence that neurogenesis is involved in antidepressant effectiveness. Yet even here, the picture was not altogether clear: while patients diagnosed with clinical depression generally show less hippocampal neurogenesis than controls, it is not at all clear whether this deficit is a cause or effect of clinical depression. Is it possible that depression, once established, can cause physical changes in brain structure? If so, that might explain why cognitive behavioral therapy in conjunction with antidepressant medication is a more effective depression treatment than either of the two alone.
Interestingly enough, strenuous aerobic exercise is known both to be an effective treatment for mild to moderate forms of depression as well as a promoter of hippocampal neurogenesis. An increasing number of psychiatrists are in fact prescribing exercise regimens as treatment for some forms of depression because it seems to work.
The bottom line is: there's a lot we don't know about depression, and while we have effective treatments, the reality is that the causes of depression simply cannot be adequately summed up as a "chemical imbalance." Drugs are appropriate for some patients and inappropriate for others. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to do some reading, as the brain is (at least, to a layman like me) the most fascinating information processing system ever.
While we don't know the exact causes, and there are complex factors in play, it is most certainly a chemical imbalance. Imagine you could take a perfect chemical "snapshot" of the brain/body when it's in a normal mood and again in depressed state. Do you seriously think there would be no difference chemically?
I've take SSRIs off & on for the last 15 years. I'm currently on them after experiencing suicidal depression this summer. (I suspect it was partially induced by taking Chantix.)
Exercise can help, but in my case it doesn't make much difference. When my latest onset hit I was (and still am) in the best shape of my life and maintaining 10% body fat. I've been doing Crossfit for the last 15 months. Very strenuous.
"Do you seriously think there would be no difference chemically?"
No, I do not think that. In fact, I stated quite clearly that depression causes measurable changes in brain morphology and function. My entire argument was to support the assertion that the phrase "chemical imbalance" is merely an insufficient label for a complex psychological and biological phenomenon.
Excellent info Benl. Having been on the startup ropes many times, your above points are key. I find that exercise has been a real boost to my mental health and allowing me new clarity of focus to problems.
Startups are very, very hard, the percentage of success is very small. The media and techcrunch make it look so easy...but there are many that do not make it any where close to the big liquidity. Mix in questionable investors, that are motivated by greed, salaries that need to be paid and a girlfriend that needs to get....
I'd include abstaining from a regular caffeine habit as well. It will mask sleeping problems, and can increase stress and anxiety which lead to a loss of sleep which leads to more caffeine!
> It will mask sleeping problems, and can increase stress and anxiety which lead to a loss of sleep which leads to more caffeine!
It's either: be dependent on caffeine to start the day and help me go through it, or be dependent on alcohol to end a lousy and stressful day. I chose caffeine.
I find that this is exactly true. Caffeine makes me feel worse in the medium term and exacerbates stressful situations. Having said that, it sometimes feels like a necessary evil to keep operating when sleep deprived :(
There's a large body of solid research showing striking benefits from regular exercise in helping avoid and overcome mental illness, as well as physical illness.
Even if you feel like you don't have the time or conditioning to do anything else, try going outside and taking a walk for fifteen minutes, and do at least this much every day, then gradually incorporate longer periods of exercise and other types of exercise on some days. The mental and physical health benefits are worth more than that much time invested.
Edit to add: Also, no matter what you're working on, this is also a great way to clear your mind, get away from the daily routine, and let your most important thoughts float up to the surface, and/or give your thoughts a chance to float freely enough to come together in new ways.
Absolutely! I'm a recovering drug addict (3 years sober) and I have found the closest thing to the heaven I once experienced on heroin is the state of mind regular exercise puts you in. You're in control, you feel more energetic, and on and on. It's a wonderful tool and it isn't used as often as its prescribed!
I know that hipsters and other socially capable people have invaded the technology industry in the last few years, but it should be noted that an entreaty to most technologists to "just have more sex" is extremely unhelpful. Would you tell a homeless person to "just make more money"?
As a matter of fact, telling this to someone whose depression has a large social disconnect component to it may trigger further feelings of inadequacy via the mental model of "I'm the only one who seems to be incapable of doing what is obviously so easy to this person, and everybody else."
The "have sex" comment is less "you suck if you're not getting laid" and more "if you have a SigOther, have sex". I've definitely found myself too tired for it after all the craziness of a day...
The problem is that somebody who is depressed doesn't think rationally - in fact, in the vast majority of the cases this dysfunctional thinking is precisely WHY they are depressed to begin with. They WILL see the advice in the negative way, not the positive way. Furthermore, in cases of severe depression or stress, a diminished sex drive is quite normal so sex isn't even an option - further fueling the feelings of inadequacies mentioned.
Would you tell a homeless person to "just make more money"?
Most homeless people are just plain crazy (e.g. schizophrenic or drug addict) and are unlikely to accept your advice.
However, I would tell a typical non-crazy poor person to work harder [1] and develop moneymaking skills. Similarly, I'd tell a person who isn't getting laid to work harder at getting laid, and also to develop some getting-laid skills (I'd probably point him at pickup artist literature).
I've found that the biggest difference between men who get laid and men who don't is that the former category ask a lot more women to sleep with them.
[1] Most poor people don't work at all and many of those that do work only part time.
This has to be some of the worst advice I've read, work harder and develop money making skills. If only it were so easy given that they are already short on resources (not only money but time) and may be responsible for more than just themselves.
And your comment about homeless is equally ridiculous.
"The recession will force 1.5 million more people into homelessness over the next two years, according to estimates by The National Alliance to End Homelessness. In a 2008 report, the U.S. Conference of Mayors cited a major increase in the number of homeless in 19 out of the 25 cities surveyed. On average, cities reported a 12 percent increase of homelessness since 2007."
Are those people suddenly crazy? Maybe they should just work harder. Right?
Your whole comment speaks to never having actually met or worked with anyone who was really struggling financially. There isn't an easy solution to solve this issue, this myth of just working harder is bullshit. Some of those people are the people doing the jobs nobody else would dream of doing but they work really fucking hard at it and get next to nothing in return. Perhaps even working two of those jobs. Now throw in a kid or two that they are responsible for, just working harder solves nothing.
It seems the causation is not (drunk OR crazy) => homeless but more homeless => (drunk OR crazy). The fundamental attribution error says that to explain a behavior, we frequently overlook situational explanations (upbringing, environment) to favor dispositional explanations(character, identity) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error. Same reason why immigrants cause problems, it's not because of them being immigrants but of them living in hard conditions.
I made no claims concerning causality. I only made a factual claim that "most homeless are crazy" and inferred that as a result they would be "are unlikely to accept your advice" (to make more money).
If you have evidence as to the direction of causality, feel free to post it.
My comment was to be read in the context of the discussion, as in, it's not as simple as to tell to homeless people to go "develop their moneymaking skills" and it's not simple because of a myriad of factors, not because they're crazy and drunk (consequence of their situation).
I don't have direct evidence of the causality other than the comment I've posted above.
It's a pity the replies to your insightful comment are focusing purely on your analogy.
While I'm sure these 5 points were made with good intentions, I find them to really miss the point: somebody who is most susceptible to severe depression (of the sort that leads to suicide) is NOT going to be in a position to have sex regularly, to have the motivation to exercise, quite possibly won't have anybody close to them (or will have dysfunctional thoughts about spending time with friends), etc. For somebody who feels they are inadequate and life is hopeless, telling them to do things that seem impossible (because of their depressive mood) will just frustrate them more and 'prove' they are inadequate and life is hopeless, as you say (I've been there, been depressed by those thoughts so I recognize them well).
Even for people susceptible to mild and moderate depressions, these points are risky advice. While these activities are great in principle for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, people must execute them with the correct sense of awareness. Example: encouraging socialising every day can be some of the worst advice you can give somebody who is suffering from depression induced by feelings of low self-esteem brought on by a love/approval addiction. All you do in that case is encourage them to develop social dependence and an avoidance strategy for being alone. People with such issues need to spend time carefully learning to develop self-love and self-esteem, and that requires spending significant amounts of time consciously alone and with others, identifying and analysing their dysfunctional thoughts of being alone/being with others to develop more rational responses.
Same thing applies to telling somebody to have sex regularly: if they are suffering from a love/approval addiction, they could just be feeding this without addressing it. The second their partner leaves them - kaboom. Someone with an achievement addiction (very likely in the context we're discussing) may be similarly setting themselves up unwittingly if they focus too much on goal setting (yes, smaller goals make it less likely to trigger this since smaller goals are more likely to be achieved, but the point is people can become obsessive regardless of the size of the goal.)
Ultimately, AWARENESS is the biggest thing people in our industry can use as a precaution. Learn about depression and how to spot the warning signs, then seek further help if required (self-help, personal therapy, medication or some combination). Curiously, every person in the industry whom I've suggested e.g. David Burns' "Feeling Good" to has been super interested (because they identify with the mood issues and dysfunctional thinking)... until they discover the book is about "depression". This is most unfortunate (but I made the same mistake; fortunately when dysthymia turned into severe depression for me I'd at least read the first chapter of the book a year prior and so could recognize the symptoms).
Understanding this leads to two helpful realizations:
1. It's nothing to be ashamed of and should not be stigmatised
2. You would be wise to take precautions to protect against the danger (just like you would wear a helmet when riding).
The danger is particularly strong for solo founders, simply because of the lifestyle some have to live. Long periods of time spent on your own, slow progress toward your goals -- these are signals that the depression-triggering algorithms in your mind will latch onto.
Some things that may work to counter those signals:
* Socialise with friends, family or new people every day. If you can't socialise on a particular day, spend some time making plans with people to socialise in the near future.
* Be having sex, and regularly. Seriously, this is a very strong signal.
* Exercise a lot. Run, swim, work out -- even just walk around the neighbourhood.
* Plan your work to have near-term achievable milestones.
* Eat healthily and avoid alcohol. A weak immune system leads to frequent illness, which leads to slower progress.