Weekend Nonsense

Yes, losing access to ScienceDirect was the worst thing about graduating. I've tried auditing classes and taking non-matric throw-aways like golf that I would plan to fail by not showing up. It's hard.

I wouldn't discount these evolutionary theories of mental illness. They shouldn't all be lumped together. For example, if you look at the schizophrenia-autism theories posted at The Edge Foundation website, you can see that schizophrenia might not be an adaptation per se, but an unavoidable secondary effect of adaptation. Depression could have a completely different cause and be itself adaptive. I saw a paper once by someone from the Max Planck Insitute who had studied depression in hunter-gatherer societies and also concluded it was adaptive, but a recent development (essentially, an adaptation to social living, rather like the development of lactose tolerance as an adaptation to cattle).

Regarding comment by Eaton, yes, it's impressive that he may admit that he has learned something and has adapted his point of view after having made a conclusion.

Two things here to add.
1) It's easy to tear apart a strawman when you're not the first mover. When it's one of the first efforts to start developing hypotheses, it should be considered just a first salvo in a long exchange of competing observations. When a guy like Eaton, who has contributed so much foundation on which much of the discussion of the paleo world rest, may change his view this indeed is a good example for all of us.

2) The tendency to tear apart a guy like Eaton for being wrong in the first place but who has since changed his views as he opened his research to other science out there since making initial conclusion... well, it rather minimizes the paleo folks out there who just a few years ago were zombies of the lowfat dogma, but now argue that Eaton should be considered a crackpot for some of his earlier views. If Eaton is considered wishy-washy because he shamefully wasn't right on everything from the very beginning, then we're all a bunch of wishy-washy colleagues since 99% of us were SADly indoctrinated for most of our lives.

In short, it's easy to be a 2nd mover in the discussion, to tear apart the strawman, and don't get me wrong, the 2nd mover is very very important. But, blessed be the 1st mover who contributes initially vastly and maybe solely and who later has the magnanimity to craft a message with contributions by others who have contrary opinions to the original hypothesis. Yes, "eat his hat", indeed, with hat in hand, that's called wisdom.

24 access to research papers - no printing - $1
http://www.deepdyve.com/

I haven't tried it yet.

I do believe in evolutionary negative brain-bias, the concept that we are wired to register negative experiences more than positive ones because, at one time, it was more important to remember which mushrooms killed your neighbor or which cave the bear lived in than where the pretty flowers were growing. It was a survival mechanism.
I can tell you, from my own experience as a neurofeedback practitioner, that traumas and negative experiences become wired into the amygdala and then we filter all of our experiences through that reactive part of the brain.

I don't think negative brain bias automatically equates with depression, though, but it can certainly contribute. I do think diet (nutritional deficiencies, gluten intolerance) and lifestyle (soul-sucking work, lack of connection with others) and things like unexpressed anger and frustration are whet lead to depression.

There is an excellent book on neuropsychology I'm in the middle of called "Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love and Wisdom" that explains the negative brain bias and how to work with your brain to rewire your own neural networks. I've noticed a difference in the way that I think since I've been following many of the practices outlined in it.