Prozac 'no Better Than Placebo' for Treating Children with Depression, Experts
Key topics
A provocative study claiming Prozac is no more effective than a placebo in treating childhood depression has sparked a heated debate about the complex relationship between antidepressants and suicidal thoughts. Some commenters shared harrowing personal experiences, with one family member's tragic suicide attributed to Prozac dosage adjustments, while others pointed out that antidepressants can sometimes paradoxically increase the risk of suicidal behavior by alleviating the lethargy that previously prevented attempts. Despite disagreements, a consensus emerged that awareness and careful monitoring are crucial when prescribing these medications, with many advocating for a nuanced approach that weighs the potential benefits against the risks. As one commenter astutely observed, the fact that antidepressants can sometimes have this unintended effect doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be used, but rather that their use requires careful consideration and vigilance.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
31m
Peak period
55
0-6h
Avg / period
12.3
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 20, 2025 at 7:02 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 20, 2025 at 7:33 PM EST
31m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
55 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 24, 2025 at 7:58 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> They can also increase suicidal ideation.
A very close family member committed suicide, after Prozac dosage adjustments made his brain chemistry go haywire.
This happened 30 years ago, and it has been known to us that Prozac can cause this, since then.
The Guardians headline is way, way understating the real situation here.
Medications almost always target symptoms and never address root causes.
I'm not sure what kinds of studies have been done about it, but I've had a few therapists same similar ideas. If it's not a studied phenomenon, then it has folks that believe it exists.
I went through a frankly terrible few months on my current meds because they removed the emotional numbness before removing the bad feelings. However, once that was over they effectively gave me my life back after 10+ years of continual exhaustion and brain fog.
Furthermore, if the latter were true, it would be an indication that depression was a symptom rather than a cause and the psychiatrist misdiagnosed and improperly treated the patient.
But is the only true cure to the suffering. We’d have to undergo a massive reorganization of society (and upset a few hefty profit margins) to prioritize that, so we settle for the messy symptom management we have.
I grew up in a stable household with a loving family and both parents present and supportive. I’ve never had financial hardship, either as a kid depending on my parents to provide or as an adult providing for myself and family. I did very well in school, had plenty of friends, never had enemies, never got bullied or even talked bad about in social circles (so far as I know…). I have no traumatic memories.
I could go on and on, but despite having a virtually perfect life on paper, I have always struggled with depression and suicidal ideation. It wasn’t until my wife sat down and forced me to talk to a psychiatrist and start medication that those problems actually largely went away.
In other words, I don’t think there’s a metaphorical “cow” that could have helped me. It’s annoying we don’t understand what causes depression or how antidepressants help, and their side effects suck. But for some of us, it’s literally life saving in a way nothing else has ever been.
Though, I am curious about the, "otherwise have very good lives" part.
Whose definition are you using? It seems the criteria you laid out fits a "very good life" in a sociological sense -- very important, sure. You could very well have the same definition, and perhaps that is what I am trying to ask. Would you say you were satisfied in life? Despite having a good upbringing, were you (prior to medication) content or happy?
I am by no means trying to change your opinion nor invalidate your experiences. I just struggle to understand how that can be true.
As someone that has suffered with deep depressive bouts many times over, I just cannot subscribe to the idea that depression is inherently some sort of disorder of the brain. In fact, I am in the midst of another bout now. One that's lasted about 3 or so years.
To me, I have always considered emotions/states like depression and anxiety to be signals. A warning that something in one's current environment is wrong -- even if consciously not known or difficult to observe. And if anyone is curious, I have analyzed this for myself, and I believe the etiology of my issues are directly linked to my circumstances/environment.
> I don’t think there’s a metaphorical “cow” that could have helped me.
The smart-ass in me can't help but suggest that maybe medication was your cow?
To be honest, I've never really thought about it... I suppose I mean in both a sociological and self fulfillment way.
> Would you say you were satisfied in life? Despite having a good upbringing, were you (prior to medication) content or happy?
I would say "yes" overall. Aside from the depression (typically manifesting as a week or two of me emotionally spiraling down to deep dark places every month or so), I was very happy and satisfied. That's what makes the depression so annoying for me. It makes no sense compared to my other aspects of life.
> In fact, I am in the midst of another bout now. One that's lasted about 3 or so years.
*fist bump*
> To me, I have always considered emotions/states like depression and anxiety to be signals. A warning that something in one's current environment is wrong -- even if consciously not known or difficult to observe. And if anyone is curious, I have analyzed this for myself, and I believe the etiology of my issues are directly linked to my circumstances/environment.
I think that's a great hypothesis so long as it's not a blanket applied to everyone (which I don't think you're doing, to be clear; I mention this only because it is what motivated my original response to the other commenter).
I don't want to go into private details of family members without their permission, but I will say that given the pervasive depression in my family and mental health issues like schizophrenia and bipolar disorders (neither of which I have, thank goodness), I feel like there's something biologically... wrong (for lack of a better word?)... with us, particularly since you can easily trace this through my mother's side.
> The smart-ass in me can't help but suggest that maybe medication was your cow?
Ha fair. I interpreted the story to be about depression being a symptom of your situation (job, health, etc.) and if you just fixed that then there's no need for medication. That definitely makes sense in some (many? most?) situations. But not all, unfortunately.
The medication is the cow for you. In this story your support system figured out what would work best for you, which was medication, and facilitated that.
It’s a story about a doctor that serves patients in rural Cambodia. Help from the local community would look different in Borey Peng Huoth, for example.
I’m bipolar and a lot of the medication I take does not become fully effective for months. For me, my medication slowly became more effective over years as my brain no longer had to compensate for hardware problems.
For some people, Prozac is a very dangerous drug. It is fully deserving of its FDA black label warning (which it didn't have 30 years ago).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20616621/
Results: Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the pre-specified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STARD analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase.*
> "Mark Horowitz, an associate professor of psychiatry at Adelaide University and a co-author of the study,"
Austria - cold, has mountains, but not Adelaide University
Australia - hot, has kangaroos, and Adelaide University
Is the Grauniad returning to form?
Do not care what the science says. It 100% worked for me. Please get help if you need it, tens of millions of people use this medicine successfully
Articles like this are part of the narrative that SSRIs in general are no better than placebo. Absolutely not true for me!
Having a child forced me to fix my life, and I'm incredibly happy because of it.
It was so pervasive at the time that the references to it spilled over into SF Bay Area hip hop culture...
SSRIs have been proven to be very effective against anxiety disorders, which in many ways mimic depression, but have different pathologies and causes.
Also, they saved me.
If you're a doctor, and if Prozac helps your patients, then it's obviously excellent. You should keep writing prescriptions.
If you're a scientist, you obviously want to distinguish between "real" drugs and drugs that help because people believe they should. So, you do these kinds of tests.
And then, from the perspective of ethics, once you know it's just placebo, you kinda shouldn't keep giving it to people, even if it helps? Maybe? I don't know. That's the weird part.
That's a very big ethical question in the medical field. Placebos _do_ help, but only if people believe they will. So is it ethical to lie to a patient and give them a placebo knowing it's likely to help?
There have been some serious efforts made to reproduce the original groundbreaking results that showed how effective SSRIs were, without much success. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who have benefited from them, so I would not say they are ineffective as a blanket statement. I do think it’s important to understand that nobody really knows how these drugs will impact any one individual, and it’s trial and error to find something that may help.
Does "placebo" mean "no effect" to some people? Placebo absolutely has an effect. Testimonies like this are on the level of "vaccines caused autism" pseudoscience and the serotonin theory of depression isn't even taught any more. It belongs in the bin of crackpot treatments like chiropractic. There is zero chance Prozac would receive FDA approval today.
How is it different from the expected hormonal changes that an adolescent is expected to go through?
@dang it's hard to believe that I'm not being brigaded.
Of the recent downvoted comments, one was a complaint about moderation that anyone who has paid attention to dang's track record here over more than a decade knows is baseless. (And if you think the top comment on any thread is a bad one, you can always choose to be a helpful contributor to the community and email us to let us know).
Of the other two of your downvoted comments, none were downvoted by the same users.
The choice is yours to make an effort to observe the guidelines and be a positive contributor to HN, or alternatively to keep using HN for political/ideological battle and complain to the moderators when things don't go your way, but it's clear what others in the community want to see.
You're a ridiculous person.
> or alternatively to keep using HN for political/ideological battle
Which ones? The one about ML and programming languages? Or the one about asking a genuine question about an experience with childhood depression? Or the one observing that you and dang unevenly apply moderation rules? Or the one commenting about how you can't say the word for the literal definition of fascism on this site without getting downvoted? Or the one about dishwashers?
Where's my ideological battle?
You have no credibility. You unlike dang, don't do a good job. Go ahead and ban me or put me on a cool down to prove my point.
It's notable in this instance:
- You posted a series of comments about controversial topics, having established a history of participating on HN with this persona of being a brave combatant for, I don't know, some worldview or philosophy that you seem to be fighting for;
- When a handful of your comments receive even a solitary downvote, you call in "the cops" (dang) to come to your aid, with a claim of "brigading";
- When we investigated and found that, no, there's no "brigading", some of those comments are not even net-downvoted anymore, and that any downvotes you're getting are to be expected given your combative style of commenting, you've responded with these incoherent attacks on moderation/moderators.
Whether we all agree that many of your flamewar-style comments really are, in fact, political/ideological, is not the point and seems to be a way for you to deflect from being held to account for your conduct.
What I'm saying to you is that people who care about making HN better have all kinds of ways of showing it, and it begins with making an effort to observe the guidelines, and it also involves engaging respectfully with other community members and the moderation system. We are always, always working to make HN better and our moderation approaches better, and we always welcome and engage with feedback, as dang has been doing with you in another subthread today. But we've both been doing this job long enough to sense when someone isn't really wanting to help make HN better at all.
Please.
> having established a history of participating on HN with this persona of being a brave combatant for, I don't know, some worldview or philosophy that you seem to be fighting for;
What? Just because I have a different worldview than you, doesn't mean I am fighting for or am a brave combatant of anything. But it's extremely telling that you think that, and revealing about your own views. And furthermore troubling that you are a moderator here.
Maybe you should read up on the clustering phenomena wiki and understand your own personal biases a little more.
You don't know what my worldview is or what dang's worldview is and honestly I don't know what your worldview is and this is never relevant to how we moderate HN. We want HN to be a place where difficult topics can be discussed and all perspectives can be represented. That's what we optimise HN for, with the caveat that the guidelines foremost ask us all to "be kind" in comments. It's notable that you keep complaining about some kind of "bias" without being able to point to any evidence for your claims, and that all of your comments in this subthread ultimately resort to ad hominem. If you had any basis to your claims you would have presented it by now.
Let's be clear what's going on here: you're claiming to be a victim; you can't demonstrate exactly how you've been made a victim; when we investigate your claims, which we've taken time to do in good faith, we find that, no, there's no evidence for your claims of victimhood; when we tell you that, you respond with ad hominem attacks.
Please just observe the guidelines like everyone here is expected to do.
Your continued aggressive dismissal of milquetoast commentary against your moderation style is offensive.
Your characterization of my posts here as a warrior championing some cause is similarly offensive.
Your words, not mine:
> ... having established a history of participating on HN with this persona of being a brave combatant ...
How kind.
You clearly feel something towards my worldview. Your language is charged, you have opinions directed at me. To be clear: I don't care about you at all. But I do find it amusing to watch such a visceral reaction to a general commentary, "the mods are biased, and shape the bias of this website."
I have no problem with your worldview, and certainly no visceral reactions to anything you’re writing. I still don’t really know what your worldview it is and even if I did, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. This place’s entire worth is built on the fact that a broad range of worldviews are represented, and our entire moderation philosophy is intended to allow everyone’s worldview to be fairly represented.
The only reason I’m expressing any assessment of your conduct is that you’ve claimed to be a victim and claimed that there is systemic bias against your worldview, but neither claim holds up to any scrutiny and every comment you add just generates more noise and no signal.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Interrupted
Some people would rather believe that pediatric depression isn't real, rather than confront the reality of a loved and cared-for child who is constantly tearful, severely underweight, sleeps for three or four hours a night, spends most of their time staring into space and frequently talks about wanting to die.
Depression is an utterly dreadful illness and should not be confused with normal sadness or unhappiness.
We saw a similar whiplash with Ritalin after over-prescribing in the 90’s/2000’s. ADHD medication absolutely works, but for a lot of people it didn’t for this reason.
As crazy as it may sound, I think a lot of my depression stems from living a life that is not true to myself and due to countless failed attempts to be someone I cannot never be. As far as I am concerned, depression is just a symptom of my situation and not some true disorder. For the sake of analogy, I would say it's like food poisoning. Yes, the GI issues are awful, but the body is responding appropriately.
At first it sounded like your antipathy was with SSRIs specifically (which I largely share), but it seems like it's anti-depressants in general.
FWIW, I used to think similar to you, and roughly agree with the gist of your second paragraph, but I've come to think of antidepressants as useful in a specific way: people say "it's a crutch" as a negative thing (about a lot of things including antidepressants), but a crutch was very useful to me when recovering from a fracture, and helped me enormously with my progress; similarly, even if "depression is just a symptom of my situation", it can and does often lead to a cycle where the depression itself feeds into the situation and in turn sustains itself. An antidepressant that works for you is a good way to be able to see things more clearly, feel the motivation and insight that depression clouds out, and thus be able to break out of the cycle.
It doesn't have to be a "cure" that counters a disorder, it can be a tool that you use for its purpose and then throw away (and it does sound like you're well-motivated to do that).
Years later there was a time when me and my sister noticed our mom was acting a bit strange -- more snappish and irritable than usual, and she even started dressing differently. Then at dinner she announced proudly that she had been off Prozac for a month. My sister and I looked at each other and at the same time went, "Ohhhh!" Mom was shocked that we'd noticed such a difference in her behavior and started taking the medication again.
I've been on the exact same dose as her for 15 years, and my 7-year-old son just started half that dose.
If I have a good day it's impossible to day whether that's due to Prozac. But since starting Prozac I have been much more likely to have good days than bad. So, since Prozac is cheap and I don't seem to suffer any side effects, I plan to keep taking it in perpetuity.
What I tell my kids is that getting depressed, feeling sad, feeling hopeless -- those are all normal feelings that everyone has from time to time. Pills can't or shouldn't keep you from feeling depressed if you have something to be depressed about. Pills are for people who feel depressed but don't have something to be depressed about -- they have food, shelter, friends, opportunities to contribute and be productive, nothing traumatic has happened, but they feel hopeless anyway -- and that's called Depression, which is different from "being depressed."
Beyond the response someone else commented explaining exactly where the comparison was mentioned, the anecdote itself is useful in offering an experience of someone who's life has been changed by the drug.
In any case, the study mentioned in the article is a meta-analysis about children, not adults, so there is no onus on OP to qualify anything about placebo or not.
I was acknowledging that the "good days" could be due to Prozac or could be a placebo effect, but since being on Prozac correlates with having significantly more good days, and I experience virtually no ill effects, I choose to continue with it.
(OK bad brain chemistry is also a real problem, but one that's fixable with a pill).
Also yes that's all a bit simplified.
There's a stigma against pills for a number of reasons, some good and some bad, the fact that often they don't work being one reason.
This is horrifying.
It most certainly has not been debunked and mind altering chemicals most certainly do work.
SSRIs have _questionable_ efficacy but that's not the same as proven to have none, which is an exceptionally high bar.
This is close minded dogma no better a religion.
(I have many first-hand and second-hand experiences.)
Pretty weird the article we're commenting on about Prozac being no better than placebo for children is just now coming out when it was already approved for use in children, then.
There’s an interesting theory lately [0] that the antidepressant effect of SSRIs is actually unrelated to its effect on serotonin. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is completely true: serotonin has nothing to do with depression, increasing serotonin levels is useless for treating depression, and everything everyone has ever claimed about chemical imbalances causing depression is flat-out wrong.
If so, pharma companies should probably try to develop different drugs instead of new SSRIs. But it does not follow that a patient with depression ought not to take an SSRI. That would be like saying that taking aspirin for aches has been completely debunked because there is no connection between aches and aspirin’s anticoagulant effect.
[0] See, for example, https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/trkb-bdnf-and-depr...
There has been a phenomenal positive shift in his behavior since he started medication. All that said, another commenter pointed out that the study specifically says that Prozac is no better than placebo for depression, which is similar to but distinct from anxiety, which is what my son is being treated for. My mom and I were both diagnosed with depression, but anxiety may be more accurate -- I'm not sure.
I wish there were a way to shortcut this process for society so that so many people didn't need to either go through a similar experience personally to have such an epiphany, or worse, never have it at all. (Speaking not only about medication for kids, but other polarizing issues as well.)
You said elsewhere that there were "no known long-term side effects". Aside from that not being universally true for any drug I've ever personally researched, no side effect is more long-term than suicide.
It sounds like you made a wise decision given your personal and family history and your son is benefiting. Kudos.
There is however also benefit in updating your priors as new research comes out. I won't say this particular research discounts your experience. But maybe some day your son will prefer a different medication.
As someone who lived through that, I refuse to let him. All of memories of school are just feeling anxious about everything, just tight and suffocated, always in a panic. I started living when I started taking anxiety pills at 39 years old, and I can see my 2 year old having the exact same anxiety ticks and fits I have.
I don't know at what age I'll medicate him, but I'll do it as soon as I notice he isn't coping and happy anymore.
Horrifying is forcing him to experience that because you can't comprehend us.
Do you think that there is a way to treat the underlying cause and not the symptoms?
We can say certain behaviors, experiences, illnesses and some genetic identifiers can trigger the conditions, but not the underlying cause. We can say things like some therapy and medication can help with the illness, but not the cause.
Not to trivialize therapy, but for many illnesses, not just mental, a portion of it can be described as ways of learning to live with the illness, not necessarily treating the underlying cause.
Medicine is advancing. We're increasingly able to understand and adjust dysfunctions that cause major, negative quality of life impacts. These dysfunctions have always existed, we're just getting better at finding ways to help people work through it.
I trust a cohort of scientists significantly more than anonymous strangers online, and you should too.
NONE of the current theories being experimented with on patients have a concrete, proven scientific basis with some such as the decades-long SSRI scam have actively harmed patients and created physical dependence/addiction and actively causing harm to patients and their families (eg, SSRI-induced suicides).
I trust science, but I don't trust scientists any more than I trust any other human with their money, career, and reputation on the line. I trust the FDA and pharmaceutical company ethics even less (eg, Bayer knowingly selling HIV-infested drugs to hemophiliacs, saying Oxycotin is non-addictive, or the revolving door that allows non-working SSRIs to be released and marketed as working despite all evidence to the contrary).
50 years ago many people with mental illness would go undiagnosed. They would instead self-medicate through alcohol, illicit drugs, or risky behavior and die far too young after leading miserable lives.
50 years ago was 1975. It wasn’t the dark ages and the worst cases were already being moved to asylums for at least 150 years before that.
Suicide in particular is hard to hide any suicide rates are going up despite treatment. If mental illness rates are the same as 50 years ago and more people are getting effective treatment, we’d expect per capita rates to decrease.
Impoverished third world countries where people have nothing but problems almost universally have higher reported happiness and less suicide.
Severe mental health issues don’t just go away because you drink and if alcohol could suppress the problems, we’d never have made treatments to begin with.
In terms of “self medicating” with drugs, we’re hitting an all-time high (pun intended). Risky and self destructive behavior is also way up as evidence with our prison systems overflowing.
Nothing indicates to me that mental health is improving and everything seems to indicate it getting worse despite all the attempted interventions.
I agree with this.
I've learned a lot through life, one thing I've learned is about detrimental long term physical and even social effects of antidepressants, and other medications like adderal. Both I used to take.
At this point in my life, if I realized my parents gave me an antidepressant prescription when I was SEVEN years old because I said something stupid WHEN I WAS SEVEN I'd be very disturbed and disappointed in them, I'd definitely give both of them a solid scolding.
Before you respond to this remember I'm talking about me. Not your kid or your friends kid or your cousins kid.
EDIT: Quick edit to add when I was a kid I was a total outcast, I was weird, anxious, and definitely often depressed. A lot of kids in my religious schooling systems were.
If my parents said this to me the moment I realized what I was on and that I had to deal with coming off of it late in life I would be beside myself.
I'd probably also look up the doctor that encouraged my parents to put their seven year old on SSRIs so I could warn friends.
These huge lists of side effects are haunting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine
If my parents were like "uh well I had virtually no symptoms" I'd lose my mind!
Life sucks, I'm depressed all the time, kids are depressed all the time. There's material everywhere explaining a decline in general mental health. I'm happy and lucky that when my parents (or the one that was paying attention, who was certainly also depressed) noticed I was depressed or sad during a few events, some long lasting, they asked me about it, listened to me, and did their best to give me advice instead of giving up when I was seven and giving me drugs.
Remember when replying, this post has all been about myself, a victim of depression.
Often, people react to the concept of a thing rather than the ground reality of life and its complexities of lived experience. Most people also extrapolate (in either direction) others' lived experiences based on their learnings, understandings, pasts and future ambitions. In this case especially, there's also added stigma around mental health, antidepressants and the locus of personal responsibility when it comes to mental health issues.
The _concept_ of a child on antidepressants suspends trust in parents, that's often assumed and unquestioned depending, depending on the child's age. Maybe close to 18yo? Supportive parents. 7yo? Horrible parents. I'd argue it also tends to suspend critical thinking and introduces an unshakeable bias, that a child of 7yo _never [ever]_ needs antidepressants. Why? What makes you say that? What's your evidence and reasoning?
If you feel so horrified by that, can you consider for a moment that the parents recognize the weight and gravity of this decision too? That they had to really think this through, pursue more thorough medical advice than usual, make a judgement call, and have to live through this decision throughout all their lives?
OP's response to multiple comments indicates that they did not make this decision lightly and without making sure that this was the better thing to do overall. I commend OP's openness and honesty in talking about it. It's certainly inspiring to see a parent care for their child's mental health, and not dismissing that to be "oh, the kid's just young and moody, they'll feel better tomorrow."
PS. We (as a society) are always learning more and newer things about mental health and treatments. It might look like we know a lot. Perhaps. But we also don't know so much!
Have some empathy.
I suppose the next step would be to upgrade from single-blind to double-blind, so that your mom won't know which month is the placebo month...
I always thought DNA determined pretty much everything, and we raised them exactly the same, but they have distinct personalities and some different physical features, although of course they're much more similar than they are different. My other son shows some symptoms of anxiety but not as much, yet.
Glad to see you have your priorities straight! :p
https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20090706
This warrants a whole different discussion, and I'll be down voted for it, but one that's never addressed: quality over quantity.
Pills are the individuals response to a society that feeds empty food, bland sterile shelter, fake friends, and meaningless jobs.
The natural human response to a lack of meaning is hopelessness, and this comes from our society. Pills helps individuals cope with continuing the meat grinder just a little while longer.
I had depression, and I cured it by finding meaning and beauty in the world. I get told "if you can cure it without pills, you never really had it" yeah cool, self fullfilling prophecy in that case innit. Can't cure it, because it doesn't exist without meds. It just comes out of "nowhere" and is here to stay.
That's incredibly fortunate and I'm very jealous of you. How would you recommend one goes about finding meaning and beauty? I'm fortunate to have had lots of unique experiences and traveled to lots of unique places and still haven't found the fulfillment that you seem to. That's basically what depression is: a debilitating feeling of lack of fulfillment, without any idea of what's missing.
I'm happiest when busy building and fixing things. It could be that if I was born 200 years ago into an agrarian society where day-to-day life was focused on building and fixing things to survive, then I would have felt very fulfilled and done quite well. What were gainful full-time jobs back then have been reduced to hobbies now, though: blacksmithing, cobbling, weaving, hunting, making furniture, etc. Hobbies don't fill the hole for me. Sure, a few artisans are still able to turn those into a living, but a large part of the job is marketing and the clients are largely the wealthy elite. I've enjoyed working in food service and construction but it's hard to support a family of 4 doing those. So my career has been in software engineering since that involves building and fixing and pays well, but it still doesn't fill the hole.
If this sounds whiny I'm painfully aware. What right do I have to complain about feeling unfulfilled when there are real problems in the world? And that's the very essence of major depression.
Pills, on the other hand, are easy to understand. This is not to say that they are a viable substitute in any way, but it does explain why so many prefer substance treatments.
Meaning in life is hard and personal. Some might have no idea where to start.
But I'd argue (somewhat pointlessly as I'm not going to change anything) -- This is the role that society, traditions, family, etc. has: "to bring people up" swimming in the same stream, given a purpose and meaning, etc.
A brief thought on this - I’ve found working in large software companies to be fairly unfulfilling, but working at smaller shops focused on delivering something other than software, or for which there’s some tangible connection to the real world, to be much more fulfilling. At its best, software engineering is indeed a craft and something you can take pride in and something where you can have a real impact on people’s lives by building things. A lot of that gets lost somewhere between the third roadmap meeting and the weekly scrum session to figure out how to prioritize product’s requests alongside paying down tech debt so we can improve ad unit performance, but the craft of software itself is still a creative act.
For comparison I've barely traveled more than 1000kms. Never had a passport. Travel is not related.
> where day-to-day life was focused on building and fixing things to survive, then I would have felt very fulfilled and done quite well.
Incorrect assumption; It's not the building and busy-ness. And the experience doing hobbies supports that. Nothing fills that "hole".
The feeling, the "hole" you're missing, is a combi-mix of purpose/meaning/larger-picture. I know it because I also had it. Many people try politics to fill their hole too, which also doesn't work: political parties are not big enough.
I'm not going to try to persuade you to change your life, I'm going to talk about what did it for me, and you (and others) can spectate and speculate, take and leave whatever you want. I'm sure I'll get flagged anyway.
My great realization is that nothing is set in stone, everything changes at all times, and humans have survived it.
> a debilitating feeling of lack of fulfillment, without any idea of what's missing.
A good way to start out is to start thinking about: what is your mission? What is your tribe in the world stage? are there messages or lessons from the ancestors of your tribe?
Shy away from getting over-scientific. Simple broad points. The universe is in constant change and chaos. But humans have survived for a long time. We have "lizard" brains that give us reactions, then we have learned / ingrained behavior on top of that, through all this time we've encoded "how to survive" in our brains and throughout our history; we are a storytelling species, so what stories do we have from history (note: not about history, but from history).
Realising stories, like fairytales,(ie: Rumpelstiltskin) etc - ARE old stories that ENCODE information as a way to pass knowledge from culture to culture. WHAT information is in there? what are they trying to tell us? This is the tribe of "humans" telling us something from the past, which is actually absurdly interesting and fulfilling to try and learn from.
Yes this is all "woo-woo" stuff, none of this is going to be a revelation to you. I'll probably look like a quack, but You can have a ponder about it, and realise that there's a big group that you're a part of, and there is a bit of a cosmic mission, and history plays out every day.
this won't give you purpose or fill the hole, but I think you might start to chip away at some different things in your life, (or you won't and I've just wasted 5 mins of your time, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who cares)
I also really admire the way you're dealing patiently with everyone in this thread arguing in bad faith, you have a lot more tolerance than I do! Hopefully it's not getting to you. Best wishes.
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/wk4et_v3
Clinical trials of antidepressants are weird because they're usually short-term (6-12 weeks), whereas practical use of antidepressants usually lasts years. I personally suspect that short-term trials show an exaggerated placebo effect, because the novelty doesn't have time to wear off.
358 more comments available on Hacker News