4 ms·

Depression can be diagnosed pretty easily by running through a form of questions and checking off checkboxes. You are depressed if some statistical measures sco

by marvin 14y ago

Depression can be diagnosed pretty easily by running through a form of questions and checking off checkboxes. You are depressed if some statistical measures score above a certain value. To which degree are you...Sad? Have trouble getting things done? Don't find joy in the things that used to make you happy? Thinking about death? Feel any emotions at all? Afraid that something terrible is about to happen? Thinking about killing yourself? Planning to kill yourself? Etc. It's not an exact science the way physics is, but we are only in the dark ages of mental illness in the sense that a lot of uninformed people don't have any idea how these illnesses are treated by professionals.

jtchang 14y ago
Why isn't it an exact science? Science teaches us that things should be repeatable and reproducible. Running through a form of questions and ticking off boxes doesn't seem very "advanced" to me. In fact it seems like the very definition of backwards. Why aren't we aiming for a physics level of understanding in psychology?
- kanzure 14y ago
  > Why aren't we aiming for a physics level of understanding in psychology? We call that neuroscience. On a related note, Henry Markram just got $1.3 billion EUR for whole brain emulation. So there's that.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  We're not talking about clock work machinery, we're talking about the human brain. Asking why issues of the brain aren't an exact science is like asking why we haven't solved the halting problem yet. Cognition and sentience are still far from solved problems. Moreover, the way that different minds react to different physical problems of the brain is inevitably going to be hugely complex. Some people will brood alone in their room and write poetry like Emily Dickinson, some people will throw themselves off a bridge.
  - baddox 14y ago
    > Asking why issues of the brain aren't an exact science is like asking why we haven't solved the halting problem yet. I disagree. We know everything we need to know about the halting problem: the halting decision procedure cannot and will not ever exist. There's certainly a lot more we can and will discover about the workings of the brain.
- marvin 14y ago
  I see where you're coming from, and I don't disagree that there is plenty of research to be done here: differentiating different types of depression and anxiety, detailed fMRI studies, getting more knowledge about chemical imbalances and how the drugs operate etc. But mood disorders aren't in the same ballpark as physical ailments. I mean, even a common infection can be impossible to diagnose unambiguously from a simple blood test, and mood disorders usually interact with who you are as a person. You can't just make a machine that solves this. I doubt you're the kind of person to be convinced by an anecdote, but I suffered recurring depression and anxiety for a period of five years and was almost completely cured by a combination of SSRIs and CBT. What seemed to make me get these recurring depressive episodes was a combination of unhealthy thought patterns and behaviors. Holding myself to impossibly high standards, having a habit of disregarding my accomplishments, working very hard with no long breaks, being overly critical in social settings and a lot of other small things that were very much part of my personality (and incidentally, very common in the tech community). No one would have classified these behaviors as excessively weird or pathological, but they turned out manifest in long-lasting and serious depressive symptoms. The question is, how are you going to measure behaviors and thought patterns like this with a machine or a physical measurement? Maybe you could just say that "okay, so the depression or anxiety isn't a symptom of something that's wrong, it's a problem in itself, which we could somehow fix physically or chemically". But then you're moving into some pretty dodgy philosophical territory. Mood disorders simply can't be a hard science with the degree of understanding we can hope to get in the near future. And although there's plenty of research to be done, the methods we use are pretty good.

by marvin 14y ago

jtchang 14y ago

Why isn't it an exact science? Science teaches us that things should be repeatable and reproducible. Running through a form of questions and ticking off boxes doesn't seem very "advanced" to me. In fact it seems like the very definition of backwards. Why aren't we aiming for a physics level of understanding in psychology?

kanzure 14y ago
> Why aren't we aiming for a physics level of understanding in psychology? We call that neuroscience. On a related note, Henry Markram just got $1.3 billion EUR for whole brain emulation. So there's that.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
We're not talking about clock work machinery, we're talking about the human brain. Asking why issues of the brain aren't an exact science is like asking why we haven't solved the halting problem yet. Cognition and sentience are still far from solved problems. Moreover, the way that different minds react to different physical problems of the brain is inevitably going to be hugely complex. Some people will brood alone in their room and write poetry like Emily Dickinson, some people will throw themselves off a bridge.
- baddox 14y ago
  > Asking why issues of the brain aren't an exact science is like asking why we haven't solved the halting problem yet. I disagree. We know everything we need to know about the halting problem: the halting decision procedure cannot and will not ever exist. There's certainly a lot more we can and will discover about the workings of the brain.
marvin 14y ago
I see where you're coming from, and I don't disagree that there is plenty of research to be done here: differentiating different types of depression and anxiety, detailed fMRI studies, getting more knowledge about chemical imbalances and how the drugs operate etc. But mood disorders aren't in the same ballpark as physical ailments. I mean, even a common infection can be impossible to diagnose unambiguously from a simple blood test, and mood disorders usually interact with who you are as a person. You can't just make a machine that solves this. I doubt you're the kind of person to be convinced by an anecdote, but I suffered recurring depression and anxiety for a period of five years and was almost completely cured by a combination of SSRIs and CBT. What seemed to make me get these recurring depressive episodes was a combination of unhealthy thought patterns and behaviors. Holding myself to impossibly high standards, having a habit of disregarding my accomplishments, working very hard with no long breaks, being overly critical in social settings and a lot of other small things that were very much part of my personality (and incidentally, very common in the tech community). No one would have classified these behaviors as excessively weird or pathological, but they turned out manifest in long-lasting and serious depressive symptoms. The question is, how are you going to measure behaviors and thought patterns like this with a machine or a physical measurement? Maybe you could just say that "okay, so the depression or anxiety isn't a symptom of something that's wrong, it's a problem in itself, which we could somehow fix physically or chemically". But then you're moving into some pretty dodgy philosophical territory. Mood disorders simply can't be a hard science with the degree of understanding we can hope to get in the near future. And although there's plenty of research to be done, the methods we use are pretty good.