People, having had experience within and from their own neural organs, tend to think they have some sort of insight and authority on the matter of psychology and psychiatry. As it happens, our intuitions are only occasionally correct, and at the most obtuse level of description.
For those that suggest that psychiatry and brain research should be integrated more, all I can say is that it is an active area of research today, and moreover, it is not restricted to psychiatry and MRIs, but to genetic research, animal models, basic neuroscience. We are attempting to under developmental disorders at every level of description, simultaneously, and across levels. There are big efforts to form unified understanding of the relations between several disorders, ADHD, debilitating types of autism, depression, anxiety, etc, which are frequently comorbid. The problems is just damn difficult.
Also, its not just 8-years of domain specific education. We never stop learning.
Experience is different than authority and I don't think the parent comment was complaining that the first reply didn't have the authority to say what they did. I assume they were saying that you shouldn't place a lot of importance on someone with all of three seconds of experience in this problem. Especially when compared to researchers who have been thinking about it for decades. There are probably good reasons why they think boiling the problem down to so few dimensions is useful that I don't fully understand because I have literally no experience in psychology.
it's not about "on an internet forum" it's in general - why don't we all reserve judgement more? we all know the answer of course: because we're arrogant and believe that our abilities to write software translate into abilities to do xyz.
>Intellectual curiosity
intellectual curiosity is much much more than reading a couple of online articles and making declarations
I'm not sure what you're doing on this site if not to listen to randoms talk. Even on other topics, its not like the various language fanboys that want to rewrite every program in $language are actual experts.
I would also add rejecting a comment that doesnt depend on credentials out of hands due to lack of credentials is a form of the genetic fallacy
there's nothing in the least bit thought provoking about it because it have any substance only claims (vague allusion to "memes" and undefined "Predictive Processing"). i wonder why that is? might it be because GP admits they aren't actually expert enough to substantiate any of the claims?
and that's my point. i see claims all the time from people not entitled to make claims. i see substance very rarely. why? because claims are easy.
Every human being is entitled to make claims. Some claims have more merit and some have less. You can choose to engage or not based on the merit of their argument.
God this is so tired. No one is questioning anyone's right to free speech. What I'm questioning is the value of that speech and the humility involved in making claims. That's it.
Lest we forget, Psychiatry isn’t a science and has its roots in the most appalling forms of pseudo scientifific babble since it’s beginning. 8 years of education or no.
The DSM considered homosexuality an illness until 1973. That’s problematic because nothing really changed in our understanding of homosexuality. It just became more accepted culturally. That makes it hard to argue in favor of the strict scientific rigor of the DSM.
There is so much hubris on here it’s difficult to separate reality from bullshit. The trump election fiasco convinced me of that with all the nonsense of “at this point, I know he was financed by Russia” without a single source of evidence.
Why does good commentary get downvoted simply because people don’t agree with it? I wish you would moderate this as much as you moderate bad commentary dang.
Honestly: if you don’t know what you are talking about, spare us the bullshit. You’d be much better contributors by asking questions rather than acting as factual sources.
