I expect to watch neuroscience nibble away at the territory now held by psychology, until (as Lewis Carroll wrote about the Cheshire Cat) there's nothing left but the smile.
Endless therapy is not recommended for anything, and certainly not for schizophrenia. There are recommended lifestyle interventions, but these are aimed to reduce or stop smoking, to control weight gain, to keep people out of hospital, or to help people gain and keep employment.
A therapy might be involved if a person is hearing voices, but isn't particularly bothered by them. In that situation it doesn't make much sense to medicate away those voices (because the medication has severe side effects) so the person might get a "therapy" that helps them cope with voices, and learn when and how to seek help if the voices become too much.
And yes, young scientific fields quickly disprove themselves, that's kinda the point of science. Hard sciences like physics and chemistry also had some very very flawed theories in their youth, like aethers, alchemy, etc. but have had a few hundred years to get past that.
I agree, but imagine this:
You have a children with a bad illness. Then some moron comes and accuses you of being the cause of the illness. Let's hope he is right, otherwise he deserves to burn in hell for the eternity. (Or whatever infinite penalty is compatible with your beliefs.)
It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business. It appears that biological systems, although heirachical and modular are, unlike human engineering, highly interconnected across all the levels. Particularly: The health of the mind effects the health of the body and the health of the body effects the health of the mind. If you do not believe this you have not learnt enough, or like many, you have ideoligical issues with this reality.
For a good summary of the contemporary positions of the biological and environmental camps when it comes to the causes of schizophrenia I can't recommend this lecture highly enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVY2Vptfwg&feature=youtu.be
Long story short; both camps have valuable insights and a lot to learn from each other.
Schizophrenia is a classic case of a mental illness that isn't one, a condition that doesn't appear in people who don't have a specific genetic predisposition.
> It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business.
Yes, that's true, but according to the new finding this thread is about, biology is now able to (a) detect schizophrenia in people who lack symptoms, and (b) dismiss the possibility in those who show symptoms (for example by an actor trained to imitate the symptoms). The reason? Schizophrenia isn't a mental illness, it's a physical illness with mental symptoms.
Dustin Hoffman nailed autism in "Rain Man". If Mr. Hoffman appeared at a mental health clinic and performed his character, do you suppose he would be turned away by the psychiatrists as a fake? Now consider this alternative -- if there was a genetic test for autism (there isn't at the moment), do you suppose he would be turned away by the biologists?
> ... you have ideoligical [sic] issues with this reality.
Science isn't about ideology, it's about evidence.
Yes, that's true, but in the name of accuracy, the Asperger's fiasco wasn't 70 years ago, it played out seven years ago, when the condition was finally abandoned after an epidemic of phony diagnoses (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html).
The Recovered Memory Therapy fiasco wasn't 70 years ago, it played out in the 1990s -- you remember, when virgins could claim to have been raped and be believed (http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology)?
The homosexual fiasco wasn't 70 years ago, it played out in the 1970s, when homosexuality was finally abandoned as a diagnosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology).
But in all these cases, the abandoned diagnoses can still be offered by mental health professionals, and some still are, simply because there isn't any science sufficiently persuasive to say "no" to anything psychiatrists and psychologists care to do.
> It's frustrating that you only make these comments about psychiatry - you don't pop up in geography threads to say "Wait, what? Does this mean geographers don't still believe in fixed immovable continents?".
Geologists don't have clinics. Geologists don't issue press releases telling us how sick we all are, and how desperately in need of talk therapy.
> A therapy might be involved if a person is hearing voices, but isn't particularly bothered by them.
My point is very simple -- the health resources directed toward psychiatry and psychology, for what are fact either nonexistent or biological ailments, are wasted, and would be better spent on real science. Thomas Insel's (director of the NIMH) proposed abandonment of the DSM was a good first step (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h), but more needs to be done.
Behavioral genetics is very real, but our irrational fear of ( studying genes == hitler ) is stunting the potential of social science across the board.
And secondly, whether therapy does any good is a completely different question from what is causing schizophrenia - although here we are talking about triggering it rather than causing it.
I have a friend who came up with schizophrenia just when graduating from university, and it was indeed devastating. But the endless therapy helps him a bit.
Did he stereotype a entire profession--yes. If any profession has a lot of explaining, and hands on knees apologizing--it's Psychiatry, and Psychology.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Hacker news should be that place where the truth is exposed?
I'll stop, but if you don't question Psychiatry/Psychlogy after being fooled by the SSRI's, the addictive drugs, the endless office visits, and the horrid rates of therapy cures; you haven't been in the system, or you are very prone to placebo.
The latest research on schizophrenia is this; patients whom are not on long term medications have a better quality of life. Yes, it's a judgement call on the doctor, but why do I have a feeling, since the residency doesn't attract the best, and brightest anymore--little nuggets like this latest research is not passed along to these vunerable patients?
As Ricky would say to Lucy, "Psychiatry has a lot of explainin to doo?" As to Psychology, well at least they least can't prescribe.
Therapy is horribly difficult and can fall short for all sorts of reasons, ones out of anyone's control. It's helped me tremendously day-to-day, but my ultimate problems are pretty intractable.
> patients whom are not on long term medications have a better quality of life
Perhaps that their quality of life isn't so impaired is why they're not on medication? Such a short anecdote can be interpreted as suggesting anything.
Do you have some weird grudge against psychologists?
Of course, genetic testing and gene therapy may obviate the need for psychotherapy in some circumstances, but that's many years away.