3 ms·
> I'm not disagreeing, but is this something that everyone reasonable would agree on without any sort of support? Somehow, the field of psychiatry doesn't seem
by lambda 8y ago
> I'm not disagreeing, but is this something that everyone reasonable would agree on without any sort of support?
Somehow, the field of psychiatry doesn't seem to actually act on it.
Or they do, since they prescribe drugs which are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, but even when they decide to prescribe drugs, they don't actually do any kind of blood tests to determine which drugs are likely to be effective.
They prescribe drugs based on simply you talking about your own symptoms, or observing your symptoms, and then just trying things until they find something that works or that you report works. They don't even seem to use any kind of formal testing of cognitive functionality to determine what effects the drugs are having; they just rely on purely subjective chats with the patient.
- perl4ever 8y agoThis seems consistent with what I know of psychiatry - and to be clear, I am not someone who disputes that psychiatric medications can be helpful. Was anyone down-voting this because they said to themselves "no, that's not how psychiatrists work at all"? To me, believing in the physicality of the mind is the most important qualification a psychiatrist needs. That's not at all consistent with naive behaviorism though.
- lambda 8y agoI think people may have been downvoting me because I misinterpreted the question I was replying to; but I stand by my description of one of the things I find wrong with psychiatry, the lack of much in the way of rigorous objective testing.