Writing at Nature, Michael Marshall lets us in on a secret: “[The] fundamental question that has bothered researchers for more than a century [is], What are the roots of mental illness?” If it seems discouraging that such a “fundamental question” remains unanswered, don’t despair; great minds are working on the problem! As Marshall says:
“Researchers are drastically rethinking theories of how our brains go wrong. The idea that mental illness can be classified into distinct, discrete categories such as ‘anxiety’ or ‘psychosis’ has been disproved to a large extent. Instead, disorders shade into each other, and there are no hard dividing lines… researchers are trying to understand the biology that underlies this spectrum of psychopathology.”
An even better bit of news is this: “They [researchers] have a few theories.” Don’t they always! One thing researchers can dependably produce is theories; that, after all, is what they are paid to do. For instance:
“Perhaps there are several dimensions of mental illness — so, depending on how a person scores on each dimension, they might be more prone to some disorders than to others. An alternative, more radical idea is that there is a single factor that makes people prone to mental illness in general: which disorder they develop is then determined by other factors. Both ideas are being taken seriously, although the concept of multiple dimensions is more widely accepted by researchers.”
Several dimensions! Dimensions on which a person has to “score” (or, more accurately, “be scored”). More and better diagnostics! Next thing you know, they’ll be trotting out a “string theory” of mental illness.
Forgive my impatience with the entire field of “mental illness theories” and “brain research,” but I honestly think the money would be better spent providing struggling individuals with shelter, food, clothing, employment, as well as opportunities and guidance (via counseling, peer support, or what have you) to make sense of their lives.
Alas, that is no doubt a pipe dream. Right now, some researchers somewhere are coming up with a Multi-Dimensional Personality Inventory for Assessing Non-Neurotypical Individuals—coming soon to a Psycho-Social Structured Partial Hospitalization Program near you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00922-8
At Public Square Magazine, “Truth” is such a contested, and contestable, concept that it takes three authors—Arthur Pena, Jacob Hess, and Charles Randall Paul—to do it justice. They begin with this “Big Idea”:
However common it is to hear talk of “my truth, “your truth,” “her truth,” and even “no truth,” it’s worth asking: Is any of this actually true? We’re going to try and persuade you that it is not—making the case that a shared pursuit of truth (shaped by our unique perceptions, yes—but not completely constrained by them) is the only thing that makes conversation truly meaningful. If we enter into a conversation assuming that the truth itself is common to us both, yet recognizing that we don’t see it the same way, then we can at least begin to compare and contrast our perceptions of reality in order to sift out the truthful wheat from the troublesome chaff (exaggerations, omissions, mistakes, errors, lies, fake news, etc.).
Is truth true, and sez who? The reader is invited to reflect:
“Truth.” How do you react when you hear someone use that word? What thoughts come to mind? How do you feel? Is “truth” (however you define it) something you long for? Despair of? Fear? Dismiss? Prefer to ignore? See as irrelevant? An obstacle to peace? Consider to be unattainable or even non-existent? (Please take a moment—now—to reflect.)
The tripartite authors then spell out their agenda:
However fallible our instinct for truth (or falsehood) may be, and however deeply it may be critiqued from a philosophical perspective, we want to persuade you that seeking the truth is an indispensable guide and aim in conversations with others. In fact, we ultimately want to persuade you that seeking not just the truth but the whole truth together is the only foundation upon which meaningful conversation on important topics can proceed and is the only framework within which the chances for lasting peaceful co-existence can be pursued.
Against this backdrop, we want to convince you in what follows that it is wisest to meet each opinion we encounter in the world with one overriding and central question: “Is it true?” We want to persuade you to consider all other questions asked of an opinion (“is it loving?” “is it ‘scientific?” “is it orthodox?” “is it politically correct?”) to be secondary to the primary question of its truth.
And on they go, until they arrive—much, much later—at this nugget of wisdom:
Next time you find yourself in a conversation that is floundering, or “getting out of hand,” just take a deep breath and turn your attention to seeking the whole truth, together, and see what happens.
If Messrs. Pena, Hess, and Paul had ever stood before Pontius “What is truth?” Pilate, I guarantee you his patience with them would have run out long before the three had reached their conclusion. I know mine did. I’m not saying they should be crucified, but a little light scourging seems justified.
https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/truth-relativism-epistemology/
I think there is benefit to medical/scientific research on mental illness. Diagnostics, not so much. If they want to do research, how about effective, results-based interventions? I do agree about allocating more for assistance of all kinds. As far as truth goes - will anybody who needs help with ascertaining truth really going to read this?
Posted by: Ann Markle | 05/13/2020 at 11:28 AM