DSM question

[Chimed]

---

Members don't see this ad.

.......

 

[solumanculver]

That doesn't follow. Supervenience is an asymmetric relation. No change in psychology without a change in neurology but neurology can change without alterations to psychology.

Hey Toby,
That's true, but irrelevant. All that means to say is that not all neural change will entail a psychological change. We already know that. What I'm saying is that since all psychological change is entailed by some neurological change, then a disorder in behavior can be treated through neurological means.

If psychopharmacology can treat mental disorder, then it stands to reason that mental disorder can be equated with neural disorder. This doesn't necessarily mean that all mental disorder is genetic or anything, but all mental disorder is treatable, in theory, through psychopharmacology.

Some disorders will be more effectively treated through other means, but this is not relevant to the overall ontological status of mental disease.

If you want to make points about the meaning of "disease" in different cultural contexts, though, then that is an argument about semantics... Well I don't think many people around here care much about that type of argument. I know that I don't... I'm more interested in the science of mental disorders and their treatment... not what counts as a mental disorder in stipulated counterfactual scenarios.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I thought of this thread when I saw this article in the current Psychiatric News. FWIW.... Interesting. though.

 

[Anasazi23]

This makes a lot more sense to me. The larger and more broad the studies, the worse they seem to become. There is a tremendous amount of political handedness in the outcome of such studies...some of which not may not all be bad (report good outcomes so that psychiatric hospital abuse is reduced).