Treating it as a chemical error in the brain rather than "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", I'm tempted to say something about chemical errors in the researcher's brains.
"a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through"
Isn't our brain made of chemicals of all kinds, and how we 'feel' is based on many chemical interactions, and so the "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", is the brains natural 'reasonable way to feel' as a reaction given some environment it is in.
So this is just measuring that reaction.
Maybe think of it more as analyzing why things are, and not as fixing an error. Like science does. Measure it.
What you’re describing is emergence, but it doesn’t mean that an emergent system doesn’t have mechanistic underpinnings. Your body gives rise to consciousness, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t treat blood pressure with medication.
It does mean that not all of the body's behavior can be explained by blood pressure. Emergent properties are not necessarily addressable (or describable, in the case of the OP) at the underlying level.
People used to think an Atom was the smallest particle, then they found Protons/Electrons etc.., then they found quarks.
The brain is complicated, that doesn't mean we can't measure it and try and understand it. Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
> Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
I haven't argued that at all and I'm not saying we can't measure it and understand it. I'm saying reducing it to "just chemicals" is missing the forest for the trees and goes against understanding it better. Might as well reduce it to just atoms, or just protons/electrons, or just quarks... Do you see what I mean? Why are chemicals where you draw the line?
You are right. I was just trying to come up with a generic term for 'the physical world'. Neurons are made up of molecules, Neurotransmitters are molecules, a 'chemical'. Even the spark of the brain, isn't it just calcium ions carrying the charge.
Guess I was just off-hand thinking that 'chemicals' was 'reasonable' cutoff point from going too small, but small enough. It was off the cuff scaling, I have no real evidence where we would stop on the sliding scale from larger emergent properties.
People that go smaller, to quarks, and throw in Quantum Mechanics are usually not super serious. It gets woo-woo.
Alternatively, the opposing view is a "fallacy" in that sense, unless you believe the brain is magical and doesn't obey the laws of physics and chemistry.
"Emergent" properties of the brain aren't magic, they're just multiple chemical and other physical processes working together. Processes which can be measured and altered by chemical and physical means.
The whole water is wet is an 'emergent' property. This is true, linking emergent properties to the underlying smaller scale can be very difficult. Just not impossible. There is recent work on how water molecules interact that can explain 'wetness'. It is difficult, not impossible.
Psychiatry is the gift that keeps on giving. The strangest part of some of these mental diseases is how they're defined in terms of other people. You're ill because you fail to adapt to society.
They diagnose a person with attention defict because he can't tolerate the government's mass education system. Can't sit still and that disrupts class and gets the guy sent to the principal who calls their parents and refers them to a doctor who prescribes medications to make it stop. Before being medicated, that exact same person used to go home and write computer code nonstop. Ten hours straight, he is a machine.
There are organic causes for this, neurodevelopmental causes. There are treatments. But the truth is what everyone truly wants is to make the guy fit into society's mold. It's easier for them that way.
The therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist cannot make society conform to the patient. They may, however, be able to convince the patient that conforming to society is not so bad. In my experience therapists are genuinely attempting to alleviate the suffering of their patients, and reducing the conflict between the patient's expectations and society's may very well be a route to that.
They are not there to teach you how to live a successful life, or find your purpose, or be your own amazing snowflake self, or code more. They have been trained to diagnose specific disorders and treat those disorders with a particular set of tools, which mainly boil down to drugs and a couple of talk therapies. If you experience remission of your symptoms they were successful at their job. Considering how time and expertise intensive the existing non-drug forms of therapy are, there is no realistic version of this discipline where they can personalize the therapy in the manner you seem to be suggesting. In many cases the only realistic option is to drug the patient because they have a high case load, this will reliably make the patient suffer 20% less and that may be enough to prevent suicide.
The therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist cannot make society conform to the patient
but in the last few decades we have made quite some progress in better understanding people who are not conforming, and we are adapting society to integrate them. the thing is that this adaption and integration takes decades while convincing the patient that conforming to society is not so bad takes a fraction of that time.
They are not there to teach you how to live a successful life
in my opinion actually they are. being able to lead your life is the whole point of the therapy. otherwise, why even bother?
the only realistic option is to drug the patient because they have a high case load
that is a cop-out. not in your argumentation, but in the responsibility of our healthcare system.
I recognize that there is a lot of nuance in this topic.
However I don't think that what I am about to say will be very controversial: Psychologists and psychiatrists are professionals who obtain a PhD in a specific field. Their field, education and training relate specifically to understanding the scientific evidence that exists around diseases of the mind, and treating those diseases. The diseases and the treatments are documented in the DSM. So they are at their core, implementers of what is in the DSM, and their approach is fundamentally grounded in the way that orthodox Western medicine is practiced.
Now mental health is a very broad field and you can pursue better mental health in a lot of ways, there are also are a lot of counselors out there who have different backgrounds. But I think the distinction is both significant and valuable - there is the hard science of attempting to treat disease, and that is different from being a life coach. (Well, psychology sometimes struggles to be a hard science and has issues with things like the replicability of studies, but at least the effort is there.)
You might see one or the other based on your individual needs. If you are e.g. severely bipolar and have a high immediate risk for suicide, this is the type of case which may be more likely to end up in the hands of a psychiatrist and very quickly and correctly prescribed a drug intervention. If you have mild PTSD or just want to work on your marriage, perhaps you have the luxury of time and can go talk about life for a few years with a counselor.
Should "the system" include both? To me it is not that black and white. I absolutely think the system should support the former, medical intervention for people suffering serious disease. As afflictions become milder and more about quality of life, support from the system is certainly nice to have but it would be wrong to prioritize resources toward the latter case at the expense of the former.
"Alleviate the suffering of their patients". Yeah, I know.
I'm still not a fan of telling patients that their world view is all wrong, that their brains don't think right and that they need to be fixed. That invalidates their lives and their experiences.
These aren't Alzheimer's patients whose brains are slowly degenerating. Many of these neurodivergents are very capable people when the conditions are right. Society's conditions just aren't right for them.
You simply cannot tell a hyperactive person to sit down and listen to lectures on subjects he couldn't care less about for 5 hours. It's done because things just are that way. Because the government has decreed that children shall be sent to the mass education system we call schools. How do you educate a whole nation? One to many broadcast. One teacher broadcasting knowledge to an infinite number of students. Giving people standardized tests. It's a machine designed to produce educated human beings. Keeps the kids safe and occupied while the adults are working their jobs too, isn't it convenient? It's a system.
Well these patients just aren't compatible with the machine. They get chewed up by it all the same. Then they get treated for ADHD and depression and anxiety.
Maybe, just maybe, it's the ones who need these patients fixed who are in need of some serious fixing of their own. Once I get that out of the way and I make sure they understand this, then I may offer them treatments and medicine. Not before.
You're right, there isn't much freedom to personalize the care we give these people. Truth is health care is yet another machine. A machine that wants to help as many people as humanly possible with the limited resources at its disposal as efficiently as possible. That means standardization. It also means doctors don't have time for this because of "high case load". There must be about a dozen billion humans on this earth by now, you cannot hope to help them all even if you were superman himself.
There's always something that they like. That's always been my experience with these patients. There's always a signal. Always something that just engages their brain like nothing else ever does. One of my patients is on the spectrum and has ADHD. She likes music and plays multiple instruments. Last week her mother was telling me how impressed she was because she just kinda taught herself to play piano out of nowhere. She's nine.
Could we find the right conditions for these people to develop if we used 100% of our will power? I have no doubt in my mind. Whole books could be written about why it is not done.
The Nash equilibrium of "treating 'everyone' 'fairly'" so we ignore the ones that we will depend on to continue to have the "privilege" to do continue to do so is an existential irony that will be referred to the "Filter of Nerfed Excellence" by the next sentient sap.
