Either this article is rhetorically clever or I'm reading too much into the tactic. It's an interesting simulation of enquiry theatrically performed for the re

Either this article is rhetorically clever or I'm reading too much into the tactic. It's an interesting simulation of enquiry theatrically performed for the reader to address the disingenuous and rhetorical question "Why are our children killing themselves ?", before admitting this is basically common sense. The amusing pivot, where it pretends to fail to notice it's answering it's own question comes here: > A lot of people believe we will, at some point, with enough data, be able to answer this question definitively. We won’t. This leaves us in a Rorschachian space. That space, between academic posturing and the bleedin' obvious, is illustrated by difference between medicalised psychiatry and psychotherapy (which people often confuse). The former measures the patients head, EEG, blood pressure, eye movement, and heart rate. It does CAT scans, analyses blood, and subjects the patient to a battery of tests. When "enough data" has been collected, an authoritative pronouncement can be made. The latter just asks the patient "What do you think is wrong?" So I ask, where in all this "science" is the broad and sustained longitudinal study in which we ask 300 million children "How do you feel?" And who would have the courage to publish the results of that?