Probably, but I also think the transition from neurology to psychology as far as 'conceptualizing' these findings is going to be a big break factor.
A book I've already mentioned before (Ian Parker's Revolution in Psychology) notes how psychologists have a tendency to take the still relatively vague correlational theories posited by neurobiologists and trying to solidify them as 'hard facts,' and how it transforms aspects of what we call biopsychology or neuropsychology into, basically, a pseudoscience.
Granted, Parker's something of a political firebrand, so grain of salt, etc etc.
Though granted, following the development of neuroscience is fascinating, it's just that I don't have a lot of faith that the profession and science of psychology is going to adopt it with the necessary caveats for it to be 'good science.'
Edited by math792d on Nov 16th 2018 at 1:29:58 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
There's a reason replication is a new found fashion in all social sciences (well, except one school of Economics and the mess that is Political Science/Philosophy), you know.
The crisis in psychology is basically a whole bunch of psychologists admitting they done fucked up and hanging their heads in shame in front of portraits of Hume.
The issue when it comes to how theory >> treatment, however... That's as much politics as it is anything else. <_<
There are a lot of institutions built on the back of what can only be called outdated models for a host of reasons. And, Western society has done little to smash those foundations up to build anew. Because, frankly, 1) it'll cost a bomb and 2) would need all of society in on the rebuild.
The problem? Kicking "reasonable man" out of Law on the grounds that there are several kinds of reason (including logical unreason) belonging to man and woman would undermine the whole current function of it. And, law plays a massive part in who gets treated for what and how.
And, extracting the eugenics approach of Galton out of established selection and assessment procedures the world over is getting a lot of blast back from the people they've been benefiting for well over a century.
See how well the Heritage Foundation takes to being dragged into this century, for an idea of it.
The problem is: all of us need to continually update our picture of what we are. And, by the time one update takes, science has marched on some more.
Nil desperandum, though: the days when a district nurse could get away with deliberately neglecting a spastic child as a form of 'euthanasia' "to reduce the suffering on the rest of the family" with the tacit support of the whole infrastructure are disappearing into the long grass.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Nov 16th 2018 at 1:19:04 PM
The change will take the best part of a generation to complete, but it is coming. Right now certain traditionally held theoretical frameworks are being brought into question (the biggest of which is the information processing model of cognition). We arent at the point where such theoretical reconsiderations can directly impact practice, but the direction things are headed in is obvious. For example, I give it another 10 years before they can take a sample of someone's blood and predict ahead of time which psychoactive medications will work best in treating a mental illness (the way we do it now is much more craft than science).
Color me cynical about that, especially since the evidence for some of the psychiatric medication we have is already pretty thin - look at some of the articles in the book recommendations I posted for some expansion on that.
I don't think we'll see any meaningful breakthrough in psychiatric medicine until we get an overhaul of the culture of pharmaceutical companies, because they're just as much a part of this equation as psychiatry is.
Edited by math792d on Nov 17th 2018 at 4:16:49 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
That's got nothing to do with the science. I dont understand your position-what aspect of the scientific approach do you think leads to abuses and mis-diagnosis? To me, the whole point is that our institutional approaches to treatment arent very good precisely because the science, up to now, has been very thin. That's what's changing.
That, generally speaking, pharmaceutical companies will happily take any new result, no matter how tentative or in need of further exploration, and will quite happily pawn off a new drug to 'adjust' that perceived neurological problem.
Advances in neurology are a good thing, and being able to identify and map our brain anatomy much more closely is great. I'm not disparaging the people doing that. I'm saying that the translation from theory to practice is going to be inevitably tainted by financial interests and people with very real problems are going to suffer for it.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Oh, bother.
This describes...pretty much everything ever. Ever since we came up with the concept of "economy".
Disgusted, but not surprised
Newsflash: plague doctors worked for merchants and nobles, often spearheaded slum clearances as they noted areas of devastation, and this was on top of selling what amounted to snake oil and contamination. But, they risked their lives to make their salary and honestly thought they were doing their best as the muddled along starting from Galen and bugger all else.
See also Bedlam.
Funny how this social change thing works in all areas of human endevour. 
Edited by Euodiachloris on Nov 18th 2018 at 3:26:35 PM
The fact that it's common doesn't change the fact that when it comes to peoples' physical and mental health, there should at least be higher standards than are currently being enforced for treatments in future. Especially with something as complex as brain chemistry.
Edited by math792d on Nov 18th 2018 at 5:09:11 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
It's changing. Slowly, but it beats where we were.
These days, doctors can't labtomise a 12-year-old girl for hysteria upon the diagnosis of a local quack paid for by her stepmother who "just" wanted the girl more biddable and easier to take care of (by being made virtually bed bound). Or, go to an orphanage or laundry house and openly recruit "participants" in experiments with no concerned wardens aka their victims.
Look, you're talking to somebody who was impacted by unethical medical practice surrounding the prescription of anti-malarial medication in the '80s. It's haunted me for almost 33 years, this December.
Shit's gonna happen; sometimes other people know and will poison you, anyway — toughies: good luck proving that and the likely epigenetic effects you might be carrying that could impact potential grandkids. Arsenic dyes and medication to horrible food production practices.
Correct as you find and carry on. Pay it forward. Even if your family suffers from the effects of great-grandad's horrible working conditions to this day.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Nov 18th 2018 at 3:45:01 PM
I doubt anyone in this thread is a fan of the pharmaceutical companies, least of all myself, but what you are describing is a fault of government regulation more than it is of psychological science itself. The more we know, the less scope there is for someone to exploit the masses. That doesnt eliminate the risk of greed-driven corruption, but it gives us more ammunition to use against it.
Formerly G.G.
There are many posts on that topic challenging or at the very least questioning this notion of "You are not special" line. How much truth there is to this statement? And how much of it is just reductionist?
"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."
Oh, bother.
It is wrong in the sense that your problems do not matter. It is right in the sense that your problems are not unique and that life does not owe you anything.
Disgusted, but not surprised
Everyone is special, and everyone deserves sympathy, support and encouragement in solving their problems. Personally, I suspect that people who say things like that are mostly projecting-they have problems they need help with, but are too insecure to ask, and therefore want to rationalize thier own misery by suppressing anyone else who complains about their lot in life.
In the realm between psychology and politics:
APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys
The opening excerpt:
At first blush, this may seem unnecessary. For decades, psychology focused on men (particularly white men), to the exclusion of all others. And men still dominate professionally and politically: As of 2018, 95.2 percent of chief operating officers at Fortune 500 companies were men. According to a 2017 analysis by Fortune, in 16 of the top companies, 80 percent of all high-ranking executives were male. Meanwhile, the 115th Congress, which began in 2017, was 81 percent male.
But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.
APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
APA’s Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Girls and Women were issued in 2007 and, like the guidelines for men and boys, aim to help practitioners assist their patients despite social forces that can harm mental health. Many researchers who study femininity also work on masculinity: Several contributors to the guidelines for girls and women have also contributed to the new guidelines for boys and men.
The APA making a useful contribution to the science. I never thought I'd see the day.
Edited by math792d on Jan 9th 2019 at 5:49:58 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Don't worry. <pat-pat> They'll fall short with something else to balance the books. Say, the suggested courses of action regarding long-term treatment of the psychosocial consequences of chronic autoimmune issues, I'd bet. 
You can trust the APA to commit foot-in-mouth about something, even if they produce surprise sensical suggestions.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 9th 2019 at 5:03:47 PM
The 2007 guidelines for Girls and Women included encouragement for psychotherapists to become more aware of the cultural and social pressures that girls and women face, and cited some research on the effectiveness of certain theraputic approaches with regard to the kinds of behavioral and mental health issues that they experience. At the end of the day, they are just guidelines, and it is left to the judgement of the individual therapist or clinical institution to decide whether and how to modify their treatment practices. I havent read the new guidelines for Men and Boys yet, but I imagine that they are very similar.
Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 9th 2019 at 1:19:47 PM
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
Oh wow.
So basically, a possible threat of murder (a long story) + stress of graduate school = instant insomnia!
I mean, at least I had it better in that I can sleep...but even though I want to sleep for longer, like five or six hours, I keep getting up after three hours. Even if I try to get back, I would end up waking up in thirty minutes or an hour.
Heh.
I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.
If this continues for a week, seek medical attention, mate.
There are clinical ways to help balance your neurotransmitters towards more normal levels which don't include zombie-ing you out for the whole day.
It depends on which are primarily out of whack and causing feedback.
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
Most of my anxiety arises from exams amd I am done with them now. So I might be able to get some exercise done and get a good night of sleep tonight.
If not? Well, to a doctor it is.
Don't forget to eat well, stay hydrated and to keep your electrolytes up as you do! <cluck-cluck-cluck>
Every little helps. 
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
Way ahead of ya (cluck-cluck-cluck)
That's such a perfect onomatopoeia. ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
Edited by dRoy on Apr 23rd 2019 at 8:07:58 PM
I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.
Formerly G.G.
I heard this sentiment many times in the shows that I watch:
No one "forced" do be a part of this group or do to do this task. You "chose" do it even we "forced" or "coerced" you to do this task for us. You could "leave" but then they will drag you back to this task we ant you to leave, you are committed to the this task and you cannot leave.
I will admit that this might be vague but what does mean when they say no one forced you to stay yet you cannot leave until it is completed.
"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."
Are you referring to what they call the "Milgram Obedience Study"? The one where they have a subject sitting in front of a shock device that is supposedly hooked up to someone in another room, and there is a guy in a lab coat telling them that they "must go on"?
I trust you Euo, I really do.