People who live in Western culture may get depressed more than those from East Asian culture because Westerners don't have the cultural support that can protect them from a genetic vulnerability to depression, suggests a new study from Northwestern University, in Evanston, Ill..

Researchers say Western culture is more individualistic and more concerned with "me" while East Asian culture is more collectivistic and focused on "we."

Psychologist Joan Chiao, the study's lead author, says those from more collectivist cultures are more likely to value social harmony over individualism and support behaviors that increase group cohesion and interdependence. She says more collectivist cultures may give individuals who are genetically susceptible to depression an implied or expressed social support which buffers them from depressive episodes.

Those from highly individualistic cultures such as the USA and Western Europe are more likely to "value uniqueness over harmony, expression over agreement and to define themselves as unique or different from the group," she says.

Research has shown that depression results from the interplay between genes and environment. This study is part of a growing field of research called cultural neuroscience, which takes a global look at mental health across social groups and nations.


In the study published online in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, researchers used genetic frequency information and cultural value data across 29 countries, including those in Eastern and Western Europe, South Africa, South Asia, East Asia and South America.

Northwestern researchers studied the serotonin transporter gene, which has two variants — a short allele and a long allele. Those with a short allele have a genetic vulnerability to depression.

Previous research has found that people from nations in East Asia have a disproportionate number of short allele carriers. Northwestern researchers replicated that finding and also replicated cultural psychology research which has shown that nations within East Asia are typically more collectivistic.

But the researchers found that in collectivistic nations, such as East Asia, where nearly 80% of the population is genetically susceptible to depression, "the actual prevalence of depression is significantly lower than in individualistic nations, such as the United States and Western Europe."



http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-27-Depression_culture_N.htm?csp=usat.me



what a choice...lol


more freedom = more depression


how much freedom/individualism is TOO MUCH,, apparently , mentally speaking,, it could actually exist

Individualism =/= freedom

Seriously, they're not synonymous. There's a certain freedom in knowing you have strong social support rather than being thrown out there into the world on your own to sink or swim individually. Frankly, I think it's healthier for people to pull together and work through life's struggles (and let's face it, much of life is a struggle) side-by-side than for us all to try to face it alone, and this study supports my thinking here.

Throughout most of human history, strongly group-oriented cultures have been the norm. It's only within recent history that we've seen the rise of individualism and lauded those who try to "go it alone" as though that in itself were some sort of virtue. In nearly every holy scripture, regardless of the faith involved, the idea that we are all our brothers' and sisters' keeper is present, and social responsibility is promoted as being in harmony with and even required for right living. Jesus said it, many of the Old Testament prophets said it, Buddha and Confucius taught it, and so did many other spiritual teachers of antiquity.

I think there's a very good reason why those teachings exist.

There is a difference between freedom and individualism.

Genes don't cause or determine depression. A genetic vulnerability? I doubt it. Scientists are always anxious to look for some scientific reason or a way to blame something like "genes" for the problems of society, or certain genetic groups.

I'm not buying it. psssft!

Msharmoney is your conclusion:
more freedom = more depression ????

is THAT really what you got out of that article??

FYI Individualism does not represent freedom.
They are not the same thing.

I agree with Dodo-David. There is a difference between freedom and individualism.

Freedom is paramount to ultimate happiness.

Individualism is more like thinking for yourself instead of being connected to the BORG MACHINE. lol

Well, I do think there can be genetic predispositions for certain things, and mood disorders can have a biochemical component. On the other hand, as evidenced by the study itself, a biochemical predisposition can be circumvented by a number of other things, including the society in which one lives.

Basically, people with well-developed support networks (the basis for which are often cultural) tend to do better than those who lack such networks. Human beings evolved from social primates who lived in groups whose members were interdependent to a large degree, and this tendency has carried down throughout our history. I'm not one to say that biology is destiny, but on the other hand, sometimes fighting certain things without a very good reason to do so is just stupid, IMO.

Humans, by and large, are social creatures. To pretend that this is a flaw to be overcome is as ridiculous as it is pointless.

>>>>Humans, by and large, are social creatures. To pretend that this is a flaw to be overcome is as ridiculous as it is pointless.<<<


Yes.

Humans are both individuals and social creatures.

One needs to embrace our individual talents and interests and the things that make us different, and we will enrich each other.

No single person can know or do everything. We need diversity and individualism in order to form a working society.

If everyone wanted to be a doctor, who would build the sky scrapers?

Also, there is nothing inherently "unfree" about living in an interdependent society. And individualism, in the context of that article, isn't about thinking for oneself vs. the Borg, but rather of thinking for oneself within the wider context of one's connection to others.

I'm in what I think is a somewhat unique position to comment on this. I have no legal or biological siblings, no children, no spouse, and both of my parents are deceased. I have very few relatives, and am not close to most of the ones I do have, all of whom live in other states from the one where I live. I'm pretty damn alone in this world, if we're talking about family.

And I feel it. Quite honestly, I'd feel a heck of a lot more "free" if I knew that I had a circle of people who felt obligated to me, even if the price of that were for me to feel likewise obligated to them. There is safety in numbers.

My workaround is to draw my closest friends into my inner circle, "adopting" them as family (and some of them are in a similar situation to mine vis-a-vis "biolegal" family). I've chosen to take responsibility for close friends, and they've chosen to do the same for me, so that we can have the advantages of being un-alone.

There's a reason why the majority of human beings feel a drive to belong to a group and to identify with others.

I feel for you. My family, (two sisters and my mom) are all I have right now, and I will probably out live them... if I stay healthy. I don't know how I will manage that... I do have my cats.

Hey, how about I adopt you as a sister!

Here is something to make you smile:

"Just one of the litter."

But that isn't the context in which "individualism" is being used in the article or the OP.

Nothing in there is talking about people not recognizing or utilizing, even celebrating, their individual talents and capabilities.

What's being talked about is the cult of "rugged individualism" that says each man is an island, that everyone should look only to him or herself and his/her own needs, and that everyone is on their own. That nobody is responsible to anyone but themselves, and that striving to be completely self-sufficient is a virtuous goal.

That way lies madness, or at least the potential for some serious depression. What's more, it isn't even possible to have a healthy society in that context, for the very reason you yourself noted: No single person can know or do everything.

For some strange reason, American society (and to a lesser extent, Western society overall) seems to forget this and place a high value on total self-sufficiency at the expense of social responsibility. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a world where the two are balanced.

Awww... what an adorable picture!

Yes that would be a dog eat dog world if you ask me.

People generally come together to help each other, so I am not worried about it coming to every man for himself.

That is living in fear of everyone and being selfish.

Good night folks!

Yep, exactly. I don't think it will come to that either, but the subtextually-promoted idea in our culture that everyone should be self-sufficient is really fertile ground for depression in anyone who simultaneously buys into that thinking while realizing that he or she isn't actually capable of reaching that goal (and doesn't realize that nobody is).

I mean, I love Heinlein's "Lazarus Long" books, and the following quote attributed to "Lazarus":

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

However, the reality is that Lazarus is a fictional character who had several times over the normal human lifespan (as we understand it) in which to learn all these things, and the rest of us don't. We have to do the best we can and that requires us to lean on each other now and then.

I agree.

agreed

Interesting study but I think it implies that being geographically located in collectivist cultures actually physically affects these alleles or that these disproportionate allele amounts cause a culture to be collectivist. Both of which don't make sense to me. It all makes sense that it breeds or harbours depression but the implications about the alleles were oddly written. Does anyone else kind of get that implication from reading this? I could just be tired... Hour 11 of my 12 hour shift :/

very sweet sleeping away from worries

I suppose it could be read that way (and maybe it is because you're tired) but the way I read it was that those cultures overcome any potentially deleterious effect of the shorter alleles by being more collectivist. Or it's even possible that because of this, the shorter alleles have been able to remain in the population and increase in frequency rather than being weeded out over generations, because they don't confer the kind of mating disadvantage they might in a more individualistic culture.

In cultures where "rugged individualism" is prized over collectivism and social cohesion, those who are prone to depression often have more trouble finding mates and producing children, let alone raising them successfully than do their non-depressed counterparts. In cultures with more collectivist/cohesive tendencies, depression may be less prevalent due to supportive social networks (as stated in the article) and I would surmise that since such cultures have historically also practiced strong traditions of marriage and family that don't rely solely on individual choice (note that I am NOT saying this is a good thing), it stands to reason that even if people with the shorter, possibly depression-inducing allele were thus mating and reproducing, the frequency of the shorter alleles would at worst remain steady and quite possibly increase. That's a simple matter of statistics in genetic reproduction.

I'm still trying to figure out the point or agenda for this entire thread.

Eye of the beholder... the article made one point, and MsHarmony turned around and made a different one... then we all got involved and it was off to the races.

Just another day at the Mingle2 office.