(One could also argue that even if depression were a feature in the EEA, it’s still a bug in the sense of being too easily activated in a modern environment… but that’s starting to sound too much like a debate over definitions.)
I disagreed with (the strength of) your position back when you made that post. I believe you privileged ‘alternative explanations’ too highly—not being adaptation is not a default that gets special epistemic rights until onerous proof is supplied. When something is as prevalent as depression is and also has a blatantly obvious precautionary social role in less civilised cultures (and even abusive situations in otherwise civilised cultures) it is ‘not being an adaptation’ that becomes an onerous claim.
That said:
I’d still assign at least a 20% chance for depression to be a bug.
I only go a couple of bits little lower than that myself.
“As a matter of fact” was meant to convey that the disagreement was not to the spirit or sentiment (which I share), merely to a historical detail. This is distinct from the usage “this is known with complete confidence so there”.
Those are interesting hypotheses, but it still seems overconfident to claim “as a matter of fact” that depression is a feature. “Adaptation is an ‘onerous concept’ to be invoked only when alternative explanations fail”. I’d still assign at least a 20% chance for depression to be a bug.
(One could also argue that even if depression were a feature in the EEA, it’s still a bug in the sense of being too easily activated in a modern environment… but that’s starting to sound too much like a debate over definitions.)
I disagreed with (the strength of) your position back when you made that post. I believe you privileged ‘alternative explanations’ too highly—not being adaptation is not a default that gets special epistemic rights until onerous proof is supplied. When something is as prevalent as depression is and also has a blatantly obvious precautionary social role in less civilised cultures (and even abusive situations in otherwise civilised cultures) it is ‘not being an adaptation’ that becomes an onerous claim.
That said:
I only go a couple of bits little lower than that myself.
“As a matter of fact” was meant to convey that the disagreement was not to the spirit or sentiment (which I share), merely to a historical detail. This is distinct from the usage “this is known with complete confidence so there”.