samfellowes.bsky.social
Philosophy of psychiatry, history of autism, psychiatric diagnoses, EBE research, self-diagnosis. samfellowes.com https://www.youtube.com/@sfhps
155 posts
4,220 followers
3,309 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I don't think most studies say self-diagnosis is wrong. Most say it is less accurate than official diagnosis, but people who self-diagnoses still fit the diagnostic criteria much more than typical people, they just don't meet the clinical cut off.
comment in response to
post
Having tried to read everything published on self-diagnosis, a significant majority of studies do suggest self-diagnosis is typically inaccurate. But I'm trying to work out if those studies are any good.
comment in response to
post
Psychiatric diagnoses are often misused. By trying to portray them as idealised models which do not reflect actual people, I hopefully highlight that many of the unhelpful connotations of psychiatric diagnoses like sexism and classism are not applicable to actual people.
comment in response to
post
If it is of any use, I have an entire chapter arguing that people are massively more than their psychiatric diagnosis. Psychiatric diagnoses do not resemble real people. I say psychological formulations are just as important as psychiatric diagnoses.
comment in response to
post
I discuss difficulties of getting diagnoses to match up with causes due to multi-finality and equi-finality. Current diagnoses do not match up well but matching up is going to be difficult, as trans-diagnostic research shows. I endorse RDoC, but suggest categorical diagnoses could still play a role.
comment in response to
post
Thanks, much appreciated.
comment in response to
post
Pessimistic Meta Induction. A reason to think science is probably getting most the details of the world wrong is pretty striking and probably will get students engaged.
Also, it is a pretty easy argument to break down, to compare and contrast with other arguments, and to support with examples.
comment in response to
post
Sounds a bit like a character in a children's novel, for better or worse.
comment in response to
post
The line is "This is an argument that autism is not simply heterogeneous but that it consists in measures of statistical commonality...". I believe the words 'heterogeneous' and 'in' are in italics.
comment in response to
post
Also, Spectrum10K says that "there are now other very large health and genetic databases in the UK and internationally that have become available as a resource for autism health research". If this is true then it seems that other people than Spectrum10K has gathered the data. 3/3
comment in response to
post
Yes, I think the level of funding on genetic research is much too high compared to other areas but here was an extremely rare case of a genetic study on autism which actually tried to track the role of environmental factors impacting the lives of autistic people. 2/3
comment in response to
post
Not coming to the seminar, although I might be around tomorrow reguardless.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for mentioning this. I would be interested in getting sources upon this, or even talking about, if we are in the department at the same time in the future.
comment in response to
post
Ask you shall receive:
comment in response to
post
Don't necessarily disagree. I like Solomon's stuff.
comment in response to
post
To be clear, I think most people who accept science also have low self-understanding, and they sometimes might also be exercising when they believe in science, but not always. Less self-understanding can sometimes, despite it holding us back, is not incompatible with the truth.
comment in response to
post
That most people lack self-understanding has some consequences for EBE research, self-diagnosis and epistemic injustice. It does not invalidate them, far from it, but does suggest that we need be cautious about their potential.
* (to namely only one of my concerns) 3/3
comment in response to
post
Lack of education or lack of understanding of science could explain it, but given how easily and widely accessible scientific findings about the environment are I think the best explanation is low self-understanding leading to rejecting scientific knowledge that does not fit other held beliefs. 2/3
comment in response to
post
used TikTok before, I have not spoken to an adolescent since I was an adolescent, and when I was an adolescent most my interactions with them largely consisted of trying to avoid them persecuting me, so I have no idea what is typical for adolescents either back then or today). 2/2
comment in response to
post
The quote is from Chirimuuta's The Brain Abstracted, which I have to say I am thoroughly enjoying.
comment in response to
post
The presentation is kind of extracted from a couple of papers I have which are not yet published, I could send you a copy if desired.
comment in response to
post
I think it depends upon the status of Kuhn's criteria of theory choice. He does not outline where they come from, and some interpretations of them make him fit a neo-Kantian position (i.e. movable a priori principles governed by higher regulative principles).