Hi Intel, interesting abstract, I am currently searching for the full text, to clarify some procedural points that sound shaky to me. But then one of the reasons I switched majors from psychology to behavioral neuroscience was because of the lack of rigor that is acceptable in a lot of psych research.
Don't get me wrong I do think these folks are definitely on to something, but I do not think they are clearly identifying what actually may be going on. I'm going to try finding the full text before commenting further, although there is enough information here to make some definite suggestions for refining the focus of the results, I'd like more information first. I also want to check on the psychometric ratings of The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Lifetime Version, I am not familiar with this instrument.

---

I would be interested to see other parameters such as social/economic standing which one might suppose plays a part in depression. The 'religion/spirituality ' variable can cover a wide area too. Some people may only be church going because their children can thus attend a better school. (why faith schools tend to provide better education than secular ones is food for another survey).

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz

I can answer your indirect question saying that schools run by religious congregations are mostly private and whenever you pay you generally obtain a better service; at least, that's what happens in Italystan.

---

Death is the ultimate dream

The UK faith schools (for Sarah's benefit) are part of the system partly (well, to a great extent) funded by the state through grant aid.
Pedro My observations (over some 20 years) is that parents only need to be churchgoing for a year to get preference for church schools. Once the kid is on, you can drop the church attendance .....

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

In the UK around one third of state schools are ones 'with a religious character' which is a significant minority. Some argue that it is not that which supposedly promotes better behaviour, but rather the fact that most such schools will have a fairly rigid school uniform policy making it easier to report wrongdoing outside the school boundary. [/quote]

what I stated before wasn't correct: in recent years, italian private religious schools (that means 90% private ones) have received state funds, in addition to usual fees paid by families to grant their children an "upscale" education. I do think that families should have the right to choose whatever is best for their children, nevertheless I would like that every school organization had the same opportunities in terms of money, facilities, teacher's professional level. My words do not aim to criticize faith school in itself, I'm just pointing out a biased behaviour of our state administration.

---

Death is the ultimate dream

Rather than waiting for Amazon to send them on to me, could you perhaps give us a run down on them and which arguments they use which you reckon might be relevant/useful to the religion/depression topic, please RubyMoon ?

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

I am, really waiting for Epiphileonto get his egg whisk lined up. I would hazard a guess that he will have something useful to say. Meanwhile, to keep things going:
There was a lot of stuff buzzing about the applied social science field some while ago regarding "locus of control". The idea is that folk fall on a line running from external control, - i.e. those who find it hard to do anything without referring to others, including forming opinions, what way to vote, whether be for or against anything - to the other extreme where folk tend not to take others into consideration, never review their opinions in the light of info, you get the picture. It seemed that those who were predominantly externally controlled, found religion "useful", but were more inclined (obviously) to self doubt and crises of confidence and, ultimately depression. But religion (in a very broad sense) protected them from mental illness. Extremes on the other end of the range would be psychopathic as opposed to neurotic.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

Neurotic went out with DSM4 (US classification of mental disorders) and ICD10 (Rest of the world) that is, in psychiatry, but the use continued in clinical psychology and, to some extent where strict diagnosis wasn't required (as it is in US) - but recall, I said it was some years ago that this stuff was "in".

Psychopath, sociopath, fiddle de dee; no, not synonymous with psychotic (although everybody else might say a psychopath is out of touch with reality}. But, back to the topic. Psychopaths are very rarely depressed; in twenty years of working with mental illness and offenders, I never saw a depressed psychopath. And why would somebody who is sure of their beliefs and thinks their actions, however cruel, are justified? A psychopath, by definition, has no remorse, no guilt, no self doubt.

Your first para, RubyMoon,
"so the externally-controlled, religious neurotic is less depressed, or at least has less of a depression-tendency (re-occur)than the psychopath?-- whether or not he (the psychopath) is religious/controlled?"

I was trying to draw out the thread until Epi came back, hence my trying to meld two things. I was suggesting that somebody who is "controlled" by external factors might be "neurotic" (by the old definition) but would be able to replace the changing winds and buffets, contradictions and illogic of the differing views of other people (which had been their reference points), for one reference point, God, the bible, the rapture, or whatever. Thus, peace, in the single source of guidance and direction, refined over centuries.

So, back to your point "the externally-controlled, religious neurotic is less depressed, or at least has less of a depression-tendency (re-occur)than the psychopath?-- whether or not he (the psychopath) is religious/controlled?".
But remember the folk on the "internal locus of control" side of the median are less likely to be depressed anyway. So, in short, no. And psychopaths (really extreme) have no real need of god, unless he agrees with them, then he is a useful ally.....

I was throwing this point in, I admit, without a lot of thought, just because it might have some relevance. I shall have to go to the attic if you want more details. Remember this is a scale with most people falling somewhere around the middle. Chuck in the fact that research suggests that the majority of the captains of industry are alleged to have strong psychopathic elements in their personalities and you may see that "normal" is a wide range of differing degrees of response to external persuaders - and folk will also vary in the degree of control as opposed to the breadth of control -if that makes sense? I mean, you may have an external locus of control when it comes to, say. family. You just can't say no to a request, you agree with everybody to try to keep the peace etc. Yet as far as religion goes, you may well have an internal locus of control; you are certain of your faith and would maintain its veracity in the face of any amount of ridicule. So it's wise to take research with a pinch of salt.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

Guess you summarised my "locus of control" sally much better then I, RuthP, many thanks. As I said, I should really have gone to the attic but, like you, the thought was too, too daunting.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

---

This is an argument of high merit, and I love that he stood up to big-pharma.

---

I am still digtesing Epi's comments but I would just ask you PP whether these folk suffered depression before finding faith or vice versa. Not trying to prove anything, just wondering whether it could add something to the discussion.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

I agree, and also know people where this is the case.

I am also wary of surveys/studies/research... often-times, the reverse study can't be performed.

An example: What if the people in this study were given concrete proof that God does not exist (or whatever divine/spiritual beliefs)--
that all of the teachings of their faith were a hoax/joke/scam... all gone...(indisputable proof)--
Would they become ultra suicidal-depressed or feel a sort of freedom&relief, etc.?

PP: glad you no longer wish to not wake up (I assume)... admiration for the admission

Good morning Intel, I would appreciate knowing what it is you would like clarified of what I said, in looking back at it, I don't think I said it all that well. I had a really hard time staying off my soapbox, and in fact had written a long 3 paragraph rant about the research design which I subsequently deleted, then I think I may have synopsized my views on the issue in question a bit too much for clarity of communication.

I understand Percival's and Ruby's feelings about studies conducted on the basis of self report and the ease and even the prevalence with which researchers can either, massage the data, or manipulate the analysis to support a hypothesis. This is known as bad science, unethical research, or fundamental stupidity on the part of those conducting the research; however,it does not mean that well constructed research of this type, conducted with proper scientific rigor and discipline can not yield reliable results. Unfortunately so much crap gets published that the view expressed by these members is nearly unavoidable, it is one of the reasons why I get so incensed about such abuses of knowledge acquisition procedures.

---

Sorry Epi I should, perhaps have said "the painkillers affect my ability to bring my amazingly powerful brain to work, except for a small window of lucidity in which I wanted to read what Epi wrote" It really is a source of frustration to me and I tend to shorthand it! I would like to feel that we could address your points about the possible validity of the connections aside from the poor research design and, this being a subject I am interested in, I hoped to give it justice. As you may tell from this post, I am not in that window presently ....

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

I think the labels differ, depending which discipline wants to pontificate, Epi!! As someone who worked in mental health, I usually use the (BE) psychiatric jargon. In which case, depression is called an affective disorder, i.e. a disorder of mood or affect. Older terms, which are still used in the UK, which try to address the causes are reactive depression i.e. a mood disorder in response to situational factors, like unemployment, and so on. If there is no obvious environmental cause or to add the previously mentioned errors of self reporting, if the sufferer cann't identify one, it used to be called endogenous depression (or even, if the psych wanted to be florid, depression of unknow aetriology). As the treatment (according to the psychs) is much the same, then the terms aren't used so much nowadays. In the UK there is a stepwise pathway in depression treatment and, in medical terms, the treatment is the same for both types.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

As I proposed above and with RubyMoons permission, I have copied her bit about Carlat over to Medicine and hope anybody will contribute with their experience/knowledge of what or where is psychiatry.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller