I agree to a large part of that. I would say there is still a lot of discussion surrounding the mind body problem, and the medical treatment of depression in general is being called into question rather regularly as well. For example, serotonin's role isn't as clear as often made to believe.

But yes, biological predispositions might play a role in general for anyone suffering depression, and there is a certain subpopulation where the biological predisposition may be the largest contributor to the depression. But what % of the whole is this subpopulation? Can it even be considered in that way? There are a lot of problems with the biological model, like it or not.

That's the problem with depression as a disease. It's where the criticism comes from (not just mine - the criticism is out there in the psychological community all around, and especially within the Jungian tradition. See for example). Depression is supposed to describe a mood state, a certain bias in thinking and feeling. But really, more and more the idea has become that there is a depression present (a disease) and the expression of it is a mood state, thinking and feeling bias, etc. Considering it in this way, generalises depression to having one cause. It gives off the impression of being a singular thing - indeed, a disease like cancer. However, the symptoms of depression can be caused by several variables on a spectrum, interacting. So even if one has biological predispositions, even if the state is - in some sense, ignoring the problematic objectivistic assumptions - caused by genetic components, the depression is not the thing that is genetic. It's that which is genetically causing depression to occur, as a symptom, that is genetic. I can faint because I have low blood sugar or because I have low blood pressure. Quite different. That doesn't even get into what exactly it is that is genetic; is it about brain chemistry, is it about a tendency to be sensitive to internal shifts (very different from being depression prone as such, and leaves room for transformation of said tendency), etc.

I would never go so far to say that someone suffers the ridiculous awfulness of severe clinical depression because they're too ignorant.

Why? Personal experience? You seem rather defensive about it. Anyway, that was not what I was saying. My 'ignorance' comment was to be taken literal, as in 'unaware,' not as in 'too dim.' Also, of course there is still a lot to be said about 'clinical depression.' You get into the same bind, giving off the appearance that there is such a singular thing as clinical depression, whereas it probably has many causes even just on the behavioural level, and you can't tell by severity, and how well medication covers up the symptoms, whether actually it's a case of a malfunctioning brain.

Suffering is real and not always a matter of simply needing to do a better job at listening to the unconscious. I give you that, and that was far too reductionistic and simplistic a comment on my part, so thank you for calling me on that.