- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,505
- Reaction score
- 37
The Stahl books are indeed often lacking references. A large portion of the information, however, consists of what is to be considered "common medical knowledge." This means that it is perceived by many that rather than bogging down an already information-intensive text with endless references, the basic information (how muscarinic receptors operate; functioning of a pituitary lactotroph) is simply stated, and one can reference the basic science elsewhere. I noticed this too in medical school. Throughout physiology, molecular bio, anatomy, biochem, cell bio, etc, no references were given. We were just to accept all the professor's information as "the truth." The given here, of course, was that to bog down students with endless references that are unmemorizable is counterproductive. The latter is more indicitive of psychology journals and texts, where you can barely get through one paragraph without being distracted by 50 names of researchers. I noticed also that in general, medical texts and journals have superscript numbers referring to references which can be seen in the reference section. One could easily make an argument as to why PhDs insist on having their names in the paragraph text, even though it bogs down text to the point of unreadable-ness.
The Stahl book is a great, concise more digestable companion to a more traditional psychopharm text, such as: The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology, Third Edition. There, you'll get all the references you'll want. A decent portion of it, however, is similar science you'll see in Stahl.
The Stahl book is a great, concise more digestable companion to a more traditional psychopharm text, such as: The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology, Third Edition. There, you'll get all the references you'll want. A decent portion of it, however, is similar science you'll see in Stahl.
