"Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward."
Correction: Freud described depression as anger turned inwards.
Specifically, he described anger at external forces (your mother, etc.) turned inwards. In his view, the only way to get rid of depression would be to allow this anger to express itself against the actual external force. This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (which has dismissed the vast majority of Freudian thought), but I still hear it repeated all the damn time.
The reason I think it's important to correct it is that therapies based on Freud's notion of depression not only aren't helpful, they in many cases made a person worse. It turns out, getting a person to focus on all the things that should make them angry in their life is, in fact, not helpful for their general mental health.
It is true that depressives tend to think a lot of shitty things about themselves. More successful cognitive behavioral therapy (which has been clinically proven to be as helpful as antidepressants in treating non-severe depression), tries to train people to think of alternatives to those shitty thoughts without necessarily saying which one alternative is right. Turns out, getting in the habit of thinking not just the worse thing possible is actually quite helpful. It gets you out of the rut your in.
"This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (which has dismissed the vast majority of Freudian thought), but I still hear it repeated all the damn time."
Actually a lot of therapists still use personal mythology construction as a therapy tool, which is very similar to Freud's idea of directing anger outward in the sense that both creating a new identity for the person or strengthening their existing one. It's basically the same idea but expanded a bit and better explained. If you search for personal mythology on Amazon there are all sorts of books about this.
What a lot of therapists do is by definition part of the modern understanding of depression and its causes and solutions. Depression is a biopsychosocial disease, so to have any real understanding of it you need to look at it through a variety of lenses and disciplines.
I assumed "view of modern psychology" as used by parent meaning some generally accepted views of academics backed up by current experimental research results. Which as the parent states is in conflict with current practices of therapists.
Good point, his description of depression doesn't really match with what I was told by a person who was diagnosed with depression.
Actually, this tiny bit of the article makes me skeptical about its whole content. "Complicated"? - highly likely, but I think the author probably underestimate the real complexity.
As someone who is suffering from depression and tried therapy, I think this is too vast a topic to sum it up in one poignant description like that and there are definitely different "complicated minds" and each one of them can experience it differently. So, it is as valid a description as any other because it can have just as many different root causes. The same is true for the "complicated" part - ultimately, both are rather superficial summaries probably for the sake of brevity, so while not appreciative of the actual issues, both do fit in the article since the intentions weren't to really analyze anyone's state of mind.
Szasz is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist and if I understand it correctly, he said that a "mental illness" is not a real disease because it is not physical - he did not say these "problems" do not exist.
You missed the point. Szasz explained why these modern "treatments" and ways of looking at and dealing with people, which the OP talked about, are bad. Until Szasz's explanation is both understood and refuted -- instead of neither -- then it's both stupid and harmful to just go on talking about these things like they are OK and endorsing them because they are popular.
I am very interested in this and you seem to know more about Freudian therapy and behavior therapy - the usual counter argument from the Freudian side is that behavior therapy might help but ultimately the underlying issues can/will re-surface and manifest themselves in new, different issues. So typically they are calling it very superficial, just scratching the surface whereas Freudian therapy usually takes much, much, MUCH longer and in the end you might be wondering who you really are and how many. What is your take on this?
Correction: Freud described depression as anger turned inwards.
Specifically, he described anger at external forces (your mother, etc.) turned inwards. In his view, the only way to get rid of depression would be to allow this anger to express itself against the actual external force. This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (which has dismissed the vast majority of Freudian thought), but I still hear it repeated all the damn time.
The reason I think it's important to correct it is that therapies based on Freud's notion of depression not only aren't helpful, they in many cases made a person worse. It turns out, getting a person to focus on all the things that should make them angry in their life is, in fact, not helpful for their general mental health.
It is true that depressives tend to think a lot of shitty things about themselves. More successful cognitive behavioral therapy (which has been clinically proven to be as helpful as antidepressants in treating non-severe depression), tries to train people to think of alternatives to those shitty thoughts without necessarily saying which one alternative is right. Turns out, getting in the habit of thinking not just the worse thing possible is actually quite helpful. It gets you out of the rut your in.