Disproving the claim that this particular person is behaving in this way because of these brain structures is nearly impossible with the state of neuroscience as it currently is, so it isn't a something that can be viewed as anything other than an interesting hypothesis at this stage. You just wouldn't be able to achieve anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.
The standard of proof, and things you're expected to cite as evidence, is very different for "this particular person is a psychopath" vs "psychopaths in general have this characteristic".
>You just wouldn't be able to achive anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.
Therefore, no one can be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt given that it's "just one person"?
No, you are. You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic criteria. Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one person".
Yes, someone is very confused here and wasting people's time, but it's not me.
> You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic criteria.
It's not every day that I hear someone argue that scientific standards aren't applicable to an issue potentially resolvable with science.
> Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one person".
But that is true, and it's been proven over and over again. Psychologists cannot reliably diagnose mental illnesses -- this is a matter of public record and scientific evidence. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says, "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned. Read this from the sitting director of the NIMH:
Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."
> This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned.
This is like saying: "This is why biology and [insert-some-unreliable-medical-procedure] are being abandoned." (because said procedure was found unreliable). Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice, psychology has little to do with this. Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean, especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.
> Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice ...
A wise choice, since that debate took place, psychology was found wanting, and is being abandoned as a result. Which part of this are you not clear about?
> ... psychology has little to do with this.
Psychology has everything to do with this. Psychology's basic premise is that there is a normal behavior, a "good thing", and we should all aspire to it. Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity to function. Diversity stands at odds with the idea that there is a single correct model for behavior.
The important thing to understand about evolution is that it's strongly backed by scientific evidence, unlike psychology's belief system. One piece of evidence in favor of evolution, by no means the only piece, is us -- we arose by way of natural selection, and this happened by way of innumerable failed experiments. No natural selection, no humans. That's strong evidence for how badly psychology pictures reality.
> Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean, especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.
Don't tell me, tell the director of the NIMH and the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country, who is arguing for the abandonment of the DSM:
Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry. That was the point of my post. You're using these two words as if they are synonyms. They are not. In fact they have little in common. One is a science (psychology), the other mostly (not completely) pseudo-medical quackery with little to no basis in the actual science it's supposed to be grounded in.
As for the DSM, I'm afraid the highest ranking (what they have ranks in psychiatry now? ;)) psychiatrist's idea will lead to even more quackery. DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity. Abandoning the idea of having a list of (at least somewhat well) operationally defined disorders and working to improve that will again lead psychiatry to a state where a psychiatric diagnosis is no better than a random choice of an arbitrary label (it really was like that in the first half of 20th century, later things stated getting a little better).
> Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry.
Please stop confusing psychology and science. A psychiatrist is a psychologist with a medical degree. Which part of this is in any way confusing? The reason for the special category "psychiatrist" in modern times (wasn't always true) is to allow drug prescribing, which is what psychiatrists now do (psychologists do most of the talk therapy).
> DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity.
To aspire to objectivity, the DSM's editors would have had to allow evidence for causes of mental disturbances, not just effects (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed). But when given a chance to accept a cause-effect relationship, the editors rejected it, a story told in "Book of Woe" by therapist Gary Greenberg.
Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes. Modern medicine would collapse. And modern psychiatry/psychology has collapsed.
According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects. I hasten to add that neuroscience isn't ready for this burden yet, but it's not tainted in the way that psychology is.
> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).
This is false. While causes are usually not the primary focus of the DSM given its intended purposes, a number of diagnosis do include causes (particularly, those that where the presence or absence of a particular cause is relevant to diagnosis.)
There are many very legitimate criticisms possible of the processes behind the DSM in general or any particular edition of the DSM in particular, but this is not one of them.
> Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes
The DSM isn't a general manual of psychiatry, its -- first and foremost -- a diagnostic guide.
> According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects.
Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects, it differs in modelling lower-level, intermediate causes and mechanisms -- which are fundamentally very important to psychology.
OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology (rather than simply informing and refining it) for the same reason that chemistry is still around after various domains of physics did more to reveal the lower-level, intermediate processes underlying the higher-level effects studied within chemistry.
>> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).
> This is false.
Check your facts. Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it:
Quote: "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever."
Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.
> Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects ...
That is exactly, precisely how neuroscience differs from psychology. Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms, as the above quote demonstrates, and as any honest appraisal of modern psychology shows.
> OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology ...
Yes, I agree with this. Neuroscience won't replace psychology, for the same reason astronomy didn't replace astrology: stupid people who need to believe in things that have no empirical basis.
But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.
I've actually read substantial portions of the DSM-III, -IV, IV-TR, and -5. The facts are exactly as I stated them.
> Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it
None of that supports your claim about causes. Nor does it support your claim that psychiatry or psychology are somehow not science. What it does suggest is that pyschiatry is less well-developed than other fields of medicine, which is well understood.
> Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms
Repeating this doesn't make it true. Psychology in its current state doesn't have a lot of information on low-level mechanisms, to be sure, and that weakness is widely recognized; but to the extent that information is available on causes, it incorporates them. Neuroscience informs pscyhology by investigating low-level mechanisms, in much the same reason that physics informs chemistry.
> as the above quote demonstrates
The quote you are referencing doesn't mention "causes" at all, nor does it address "psychology".
What it does address, when taken in its full context (to which you provide the link) is the problem that comes when allowing the existing symptom based categories to limit research to develop a better understanding of psychiatric diagnosis to support better treatment.
> But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.
Neuroscience isn't a treatment.
And its been quite important to developing psychiatric treatments for some time, its not a future contributor.
There has never been a diagnosis called "psychopathy" in either the DSM or ICD.[contradiction] The first edition of the DSM in 1952 had a section on sociopathic personality disturbances, then a general term that included such things as homosexuality and alcoholism as well as an "antisocial reaction" and "dyssocial reaction". The latter two eventually became antisocial personality disorder in the DSM and dissocial personality disorder in the ICD
By definition there is nothing biologic about anti-social behavior. That is to say, without social context there can be no 'anti-social'. Social context is a culture specific construct.
But you say, "Culture and social context are mere extensions of biology." Bullshit, I say.
The whole of popular "neuroscience" is so corrupted and bereft of real science one would be best served to ignore it for a decade or two.
