<p>I'm not any kind of professional in this field, but I can say just a few things about this from experience in my family. </p>

<p>I thought depressive feelings and being diagnosed with depression are one and the same. But health of a family member gave me insight into feelings that can't be changed just because your belief changes. </p>

<p>Depressed person, with altered brain chemistry, is not a person whose mood you can change by persuading him/her and changing his/her beliefs. Once brain chemistry is not in balance, like in average healthy person, it's not a healthy brain anymore. You can feel ups and downs, but depressed person is feeling down or pretending to be ok. It's not a regular mood wave of the day. </p>

<p>Also, even if you could present to such person different beliefs, I believe they are unable to change/learn because of their dark mood. I mean, who in the world learns with mind focused on depressive thoughts? </p>

<p>Person that isn't ill, and is just feeling down during the day is the one that can change their depressive feeling with change of beliefs, because it's temporary anyway. </p>

<p>For example, when I feel down, i have two options, keep feeling down until it's gone on it's own,or look at my belief and check if I'm too negative/harsh. But someone who is ill,isn't really capable of looking inwards with compassion or with rationality,for that matter. It's really two different worlds. </p>

<p>I hope this helps any.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-22T13:54:10.960Z
2014-04-22T13:54:10.960Z
DetectiveShmee
<p>I'm not an expert but I would like to try an answer.</p>

<p>Freud said: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>There's a story behind every person. There's a reason why they're the
  way they are. They aren't just like that because they want to.
  Something in the past created them, and sometimes it's impossible to
  fix them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wayne Dyer in his main <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0060919760" rel="nofollow">book</a> clearly explains the influence of the education on the making of our beliefs.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology" rel="nofollow">cognitive psychology</a> explains how beliefs, emotions and behavior are strongly bound each together. </p>

<p>For personal experience I can state that changing our beliefs is a really slow process. It's like drop some colour in a point of a spider net. The color changes but the net has thousand of joints and it's hard to spread the change of color to all the joints.</p>

<p>There are techniques such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing" rel="nofollow">EMDR</a> for helping at spreading the thought restructuration from more and more thoughts.</p>

<p>Some one may state that Freud's sentence is lacking of a scientific evidence based demostration, but it doesn't mean that it's false. It only mean that it should be proved by other researches. And that it could be partially true and partially false.</p>

<p>However an intuitive proof of the validity of Freud theory could come by Warren Buffet. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Warren Buffett took the Dale Carnegie course "How to Win Friends and
  Influence People" when he was 20 years old, and to this day has the
  diploma in his office.<a href="https://www.google.it/search?q=cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20efficacy&amp;rlz=1C1CHFX_itIT495IT495&amp;oq=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20eff&amp;aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3523j0j9&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">4</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I simply think that it's very intuitive that it's easier to be happier if we are winner and receive positive feedback by the society, and this can be learned as everything else. I believe that the available data on the <a href="https://www.google.it/search?q=cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20efficacy&amp;rlz=1C1CHFX_itIT495IT495&amp;oq=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20eff&amp;aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3523j0j9&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">effectiveness of cognitive &amp; comportamental psychotherapy at solving anxiety, doc, anxious attack and depression</a> proves this hypothesis very well. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.google.it/search?q=cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20efficacy&amp;rlz=1C1CHFX_itIT495IT495&amp;oq=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20eff&amp;aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3523j0j9&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">4</a>: Brady, Diane (July 22, 2013). "Charles Manson's turning point: Dale Carnegie classes". Business Week. Retrieved October 23, 2013.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-27T22:42:29.653Z
2014-04-27T22:42:29.653Z
Revious
<p>The proverb you mention is overly general to the point of being largely false (or at least unfalsifiable, to give some credit to the defensibility of philosophical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">solipsism</a> otherwise). @JunJun and @felino's answers also generalize too much, but this is partly a consequence of a lack of specificity in the OP. Depression in general is widely misunderstood and commonly oversimplified. </p>

<p>I prefer to conceptualize depression in general as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_variable" rel="nofollow noreferrer">latent</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dimensional</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptom" rel="nofollow noreferrer">symptomatic</a> state that is linked to its causes by theory, not by definition. This means not directly measured, not truly dichotomous (like clinical diagnosis often is – people are generally either diagnosed as having a mood disorder or not having one, but whether they truly are depressed is more a matter of degree), not a disease or disorder per se but rather a consequence thereof, and not defined as resulting from any one cause. This concept permits research to identify several partial influences that may operate together or separately to produce depression, and this is in fact what research on depression has done.</p>

<p>As @what points out, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood)#Causes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">depression is known to have both genetic and environmental influences</a>. Environmental influences are certainly not decided exclusively in the mind – this is the first reason your proverb overgeneralizes. Second, genetic influences are hardly <em>decided</em> in the sense of being voluntary. What remains may permit voluntary intervention, but not every case of depression leaves anything remaining.</p>

<ul>
<li>Some cases arise entirely due to overwhelming, unforeseeable, and effectively unavoidable stress.</li>
<li>Some cases arise entirely due to genetic or other neurochemical influences (e.g., drugs, disorders).</li>
</ul>

<p>Attitude change may aid coping in these circumstances, but one could hardly expect it to cure depressed affect altogether when one has good reasons to feel depressed or no real control over its sources.</p>

<p>However, many cases may arise from problematic attitudes (e.g., <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-esteem#Importance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">low self-esteem</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Personality_orientation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">external locus of control</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_alienation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">social alienation</a>). As mentioned in my answer to "<a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/5803/4086">https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/5803/4086</a>" <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0028N72O4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lyubomirsky <sup>(2008)</sup></a> argues that for average people in average circumstances, roughly 2/5 of one's happiness may be altered voluntarily, as through attitude change: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://www.edbatista.com/2010/09/happiness.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wvtD8.jpg" alt=""></a><br>
  <sub>(source: <a href="http://www.edbatista.com/images/2010/09/lyubomirsky_chart.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">edbatista.com</a>)</sub>  <sup>(Based on <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B0028N72O4" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lyubomirsky, 2008</a>)</sup>  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, this won't be true in every case, especially those affected by special circumstances or involuntary or biological factors. Still, in many cases, it's enough malleability to facilitate important changes. In a falsely dichotomous model of depression, it's plenty of room in which to cross a clinical threshold and thereby become "not depressed". From a more dimensional standpoint, it's not going to allow anyone to change from the most depressed person to the happiest or vice versa: it's only enough to allow a percentile change of roughly 40% on average.</p>

<p>Several therapeutic modalities and positive psychological interventions incorporate attitude change, e.g.:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cognitive behavioral therapy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Psychotherapy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Positive psychotherapy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_therapy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Expressive therapy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_therapy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Narrative therapy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratitude#Psychological_interventions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gratitude exercises</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_kindness_meditation#.22Compassion_meditation.22_research" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Compassion meditation</a></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p><sup><strong>Reference</strong><br>
Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). <em><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B0028N72O4" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want</a></em>. Penguin.</sup></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T10:11:25.047Z
where does this 50/40/10 breakdown come from?
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T14:02:29.043Z
@Alex: It's apparent from your downvote that you've already judged it to be invalid (I'm guessing you're not interested in the rest of the answer). I've already cited the source; I suggest you consult it instead of me if you don't find my information useful.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T15:47:19.070Z
It's not that I don't find it useful, but if you posted this pie chart it means you agree with it; I find it utterly wrong mainly for two reasons: 1) the true roots of depression are still unknown 2) it will make many people think they're 50% doomed to be depressed. I don't like either point.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T15:52:11.997Z
Then again, I refer you to the book. Seems it will take about that much convincing – or not, in which case you will have a better understanding than I can give you of why you disagree with the theory behind the figure. FWIW, I don't know what you mean by "the true roots" if none of the above counts, and not liking the second point doesn't make it false. Maybe you know that, but it won't necessarily be easy to come up with a much better argument against the genetic component of negative emotionality.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-22T21:26:35.783Z
On second thought, I should acknowledge that I'm not sure whether the figure incorporates information about positive AND negative emotionality or just one or the other. Both play a role in depression etiology, but are somewhat more independent than we're inclined to assume (excluding Asian cultures, which may recognize more duality in emotions than Western culture). My guess is that the figure is a rough summary of heritability research in both emotions in general, and that neither is particularly more or less heritable than the other, but Lyubomirsky (2008) may not be the best source on that.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-25T20:40:55.120Z
This is from Burns' 'Feeling good', where he cites this paper: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/26/6/574/, 'genetic influences appear to account for about 16% of depression'. In my opinion such variance in estimates means only one thing: noone has a goddamn idea what really causes it; hence such piecharts are utterly invalid.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-25T20:51:00.677Z
Thanks for explaining your perspective, but I disagree. At first glance, I wouldn't put too much stock in a quoted estimate of heritability that's almost 20 years old and coming from an article that's not really about the heritability of depression. Some people surely have less of an idea than others. This isn't to say that I'm prepared to vouch for Lyubomirksy's estimate being much more accurate, or that I recommend taking "50%" very literally. I will say it's certainly better than "utterly invalid" though, and there seems to be a reasonable consensus that *some* portion is genetic in origin.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2014-04-27T22:06:07.393Z
2019-02-22T19:46:01.140Z
2019-02-22T19:46:01.140Z
Nick Stauner
<p>There's a proverb: "everything's decided in mind" - changing attitude of thing may help going through things.</p>

<p>Does it also mean that if someone is depressed then there'd be enough to change how he sees the world to cure his/her depression? Or is it a deeper problem?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-22T13:23:07.520Z
You would have to keep the attitude change for an extended period of time, which is really hard in depression. My experience suggests that next morning a person would "reboot" back into depressive state.
Alex Stone
<depression>
Can changing attitude cure depression?
Zoltán Schmidt
# Can changing attitude cure depression?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-04-19)

There's a proverb: "everything's decided in mind" - changing attitude of thing may help going through things.

Does it also mean that if someone is depressed then there'd be enough to change how he sees the world to cure his/her depression? Or is it a deeper problem?

**Tags:** depression

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You would have to keep the attitude change for an extended period of time, which is really hard in depression. My experience suggests that next morning a person would "reboot" back into depressive state.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2014-04-27. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

The proverb you mention is overly general to the point of being largely false (or at least unfalsifiable, to give some credit to the defensibility of philosophical [solipsism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) otherwise). @JunJun and @felino's answers also generalize too much, but this is partly a consequence of a lack of specificity in the OP. Depression in general is widely misunderstood and commonly oversimplified.

I prefer to conceptualize depression in general as a [latent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_variable), [dimensional](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension), [symptomatic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptom) state that is linked to its causes by theory, not by definition. This means not directly measured, not truly dichotomous (like clinical diagnosis often is – people are generally either diagnosed as having a mood disorder or not having one, but whether they truly are depressed is more a matter of degree), not a disease or disorder per se but rather a consequence thereof, and not defined as resulting from any one cause. This concept permits research to identify several partial influences that may operate together or separately to produce depression, and this is in fact what research on depression has done.

As @what points out, [depression is known to have both genetic and environmental influences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood)#Causes). Environmental influences are certainly not decided exclusively in the mind – this is the first reason your proverb overgeneralizes. Second, genetic influences are hardly *decided* in the sense of being voluntary. What remains may permit voluntary intervention, but not every case of depression leaves anything remaining.

* Some cases arise entirely due to overwhelming, unforeseeable, and effectively unavoidable stress.
* Some cases arise entirely due to genetic or other neurochemical influences (e.g., drugs, disorders).

Attitude change may aid coping in these circumstances, but one could hardly expect it to cure depressed affect altogether when one has good reasons to feel depressed or no real control over its sources.

However, many cases may arise from problematic attitudes (e.g., [low self-esteem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-esteem#Importance), [external locus of control](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Personality_orientation), [social alienation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_alienation)). As mentioned in my answer to "<https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/5803/4086>" [Lyubomirsky (2008)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0028N72O4) argues that for average people in average circumstances, roughly 2/5 of one's happiness may be altered voluntarily, as through attitude change:

> [![](https://i.sstatic.net/wvtD8.jpg)](http://www.edbatista.com/2010/09/happiness.html)  
> (source: [edbatista.com](http://www.edbatista.com/images/2010/09/lyubomirsky_chart.jpg)) (Based on [Lyubomirsky, 2008](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B0028N72O4))

Again, this won't be true in every case, especially those affected by special circumstances or involuntary or biological factors. Still, in many cases, it's enough malleability to facilitate important changes. In a falsely dichotomous model of depression, it's plenty of room in which to cross a clinical threshold and thereby become "not depressed". From a more dimensional standpoint, it's not going to allow anyone to change from the most depressed person to the happiest or vice versa: it's only enough to allow a percentile change of roughly 40% on average.

Several therapeutic modalities and positive psychological interventions incorporate attitude change, e.g.:

* [Cognitive behavioral therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy)
* [Positive psychotherapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Psychotherapy)
* [Expressive therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_therapy)
* [Narrative therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_therapy)
* [Gratitude exercises](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratitude#Psychological_interventions)
* [Compassion meditation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_kindness_meditation#.22Compassion_meditation.22_research)

---

**Reference**  
Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). *[The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B0028N72O4)*. Penguin.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: where does this 50/40/10 breakdown come from?  
> **username_4**: @username_5: It's apparent from your downvote that you've already judged it to be invalid (I'm guessing you're not interested in the rest of the answer). I've already cited the source; I suggest you consult it instead of me if you don't find my information useful.  
> **username_5**: It's not that I don't find it useful, but if you posted this pie chart it means you agree with it; I find it utterly wrong mainly for two reasons: 1) the true roots of depression are still unknown 2) it will make many people think they're 50% doomed to be depressed. I don't like either point.  
> **username_4**: Then again, I refer you to the book. Seems it will take about that much convincing – or not, in which case you will have a better understanding than I can give you of why you disagree with the theory behind the figure. FWIW, I don't know what you mean by "the true roots" if none of the above counts, and not liking the second point doesn't make it false. Maybe you know that, but it won't necessarily be easy to come up with a much better argument against the genetic component of negative emotionality.  
> **username_4**: On second thought, I should acknowledge that I'm not sure whether the figure incorporates information about positive AND negative emotionality or just one or the other. Both play a role in depression etiology, but are somewhat more independent than we're inclined to assume (excluding Asian cultures, which may recognize more duality in emotions than Western culture). My guess is that the figure is a rough summary of heritability research in both emotions in general, and that neither is particularly more or less heritable than the other, but Lyubomirsky (2008) may not be the best source on that.  
> **username_5**: This is from Burns' 'Feeling good', where he cites this paper: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/26/6/574/, 'genetic influences appear to account for about 16% of depression'. In my opinion such variance in estimates means only one thing: noone has a goddamn idea what really causes it; hence such piecharts are utterly invalid.  
> **username_4**: Thanks for explaining your perspective, but I disagree. At first glance, I wouldn't put too much stock in a quoted estimate of heritability that's almost 20 years old and coming from an article that's not really about the heritability of depression. Some people surely have less of an idea than others. This isn't to say that I'm prepared to vouch for Lyubomirksy's estimate being much more accurate, or that I recommend taking "50%" very literally. I will say it's certainly better than "utterly invalid" though, and there seems to be a reasonable consensus that *some* portion is genetic in origin.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-04-22. Score: 3

I'm not any kind of professional in this field, but I can say just a few things about this from experience in my family.

I thought depressive feelings and being diagnosed with depression are one and the same. But health of a family member gave me insight into feelings that can't be changed just because your belief changes.

Depressed person, with altered brain chemistry, is not a person whose mood you can change by persuading him/her and changing his/her beliefs. Once brain chemistry is not in balance, like in average healthy person, it's not a healthy brain anymore. You can feel ups and downs, but depressed person is feeling down or pretending to be ok. It's not a regular mood wave of the day.

Also, even if you could present to such person different beliefs, I believe they are unable to change/learn because of their dark mood. I mean, who in the world learns with mind focused on depressive thoughts?

Person that isn't ill, and is just feeling down during the day is the one that can change their depressive feeling with change of beliefs, because it's temporary anyway.

For example, when I feel down, i have two options, keep feeling down until it's gone on it's own,or look at my belief and check if I'm too negative/harsh. But someone who is ill,isn't really capable of looking inwards with compassion or with rationality,for that matter. It's really two different worlds.

I hope this helps any.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-04-27. Score: 1

I'm not an expert but I would like to try an answer.

Freud said:

> There's a story behind every person. There's a reason why they're the
> way they are. They aren't just like that because they want to.
> Something in the past created them, and sometimes it's impossible to
> fix them.

Wayne Dyer in his main [book](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0060919760) clearly explains the influence of the education on the making of our beliefs.

The [cognitive psychology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology) explains how beliefs, emotions and behavior are strongly bound each together.

For personal experience I can state that changing our beliefs is a really slow process. It's like drop some colour in a point of a spider net. The color changes but the net has thousand of joints and it's hard to spread the change of color to all the joints.

There are techniques such as the [EMDR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing) for helping at spreading the thought restructuration from more and more thoughts.

Some one may state that Freud's sentence is lacking of a scientific evidence based demostration, but it doesn't mean that it's false. It only mean that it should be proved by other researches. And that it could be partially true and partially false.

However an intuitive proof of the validity of Freud theory could come by Warren Buffet.

> Warren Buffett took the Dale Carnegie course "How to Win Friends and
> Influence People" when he was 20 years old, and to this day has the
> diploma in his office.[4](https://www.google.it/search?q=cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20efficacy&rlz=1C1CHFX_itIT495IT495&oq=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20eff&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3523j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)

I simply think that it's very intuitive that it's easier to be happier if we are winner and receive positive feedback by the society, and this can be learned as everything else. I believe that the available data on the [effectiveness of cognitive & comportamental psychotherapy at solving anxiety, doc, anxious attack and depression](https://www.google.it/search?q=cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20efficacy&rlz=1C1CHFX_itIT495IT495&oq=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20eff&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3523j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) proves this hypothesis very well.

[4](https://www.google.it/search?q=cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20efficacy&rlz=1C1CHFX_itIT495IT495&oq=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20eff&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3523j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8): Brady, Diane (July 22, 2013). "Charles Manson's turning point: Dale Carnegie classes". Business Week. Retrieved October 23, 2013.


---

