4 ms·

There’s a better way to frame this issue: being able to consistently label a characteristic is only useful if it can help in identifying the underlying mechani

There’s a better way to frame this issue: being able to consistently label a characteristic is only useful if it can help in identifying the underlying mechanism or is helpful in choosing an effective treatment. A whole lot of mental health knowledge fits into the category of repeatably identifiable categories of dubious usefulness. Think phrenology: it is indeed possible to categorize the shape of people’s head in a statistically valid way… it just has nothing to do with their mental health.

LeonB 2y ago
Are you a libra? This sounds like something a libra might would say! /s “Repeatable identifiable categories of dubious usefulness” Yep, there’s a lot of this in modern science. “Is this method of classification useful? wrong question! All you need to ask is, is it easy to write a reproducible paper (or shareable web content) on this method of classification? Yes, yes it is!” There’s a lamppost problem at work here.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  Eh, it's more like the DSM was written primarily with the concept of billing and charting in mind. If you track and bill medical conditions, you need a consistent language for things that will be consistent across medical providers. It solves a problem, just not the problem most people think it solves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5
d0mine 2y ago
If we consider science as a way to document reality (among other things) then "information -> decision" is an elegant point of view (if information doesn't help make decision, it is just noise). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41881872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41881872 It reminds me of "brain (mostly) for movement " (no decisions to make, no brain is necessary). Sea squirts being a prime example: "As an adult, the sea squirt attaches itself to a stationary object and then digests most of its own brain." (Rodolfo R. Llinas I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self) https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Neurons-Rodolfo-R-Llinas/dp/0262122332 https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Neurons-Rodolfo-R-Llinas/dp/02...

LeonB 2y ago

Are you a libra? This sounds like something a libra might would say! /s “Repeatable identifiable categories of dubious usefulness” Yep, there’s a lot of this in modern science. “Is this method of classification useful? wrong question! All you need to ask is, is it easy to write a reproducible paper (or shareable web content) on this method of classification? Yes, yes it is!” There’s a lamppost problem at work here.

colechristensen 2y ago
Eh, it's more like the DSM was written primarily with the concept of billing and charting in mind. If you track and bill medical conditions, you need a consistent language for things that will be consistent across medical providers. It solves a problem, just not the problem most people think it solves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5

d0mine 2y ago

If we consider science as a way to document reality (among other things) then "information -> decision" is an elegant point of view (if information doesn't help make decision, it is just noise). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41881872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41881872 It reminds me of "brain (mostly) for movement " (no decisions to make, no brain is necessary). Sea squirts being a prime example: "As an adult, the sea squirt attaches itself to a stationary object and then digests most of its own brain." (Rodolfo R. Llinas I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self) https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Neurons-Rodolfo-R-Llinas/dp/0262122332 https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Neurons-Rodolfo-R-Llinas/dp/02...