Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "What is depression? - Helen M. Farrell" video.

@kuroru69 It is a lot more accurate than you think, pal. It's definitely a lot more accurate than psychiatrist studies. Again, there are tiers to the accuracy level. And psychiatrist studies ranked dead last, along with other make belief science. The first question you proposed is wrong. Because that definition is based on speculative judgement, not by measurable numbers. "Depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest." Inside that definition, there's the word "disorder" which is totally subjective because we don't know what is the correct order of mental state. Again, the brain is infinitely more complex than other organism. And it also contains the word "persistent". You can not tell how long it is for something to be considered persistent, and it also contain the words sadness. What categorize as sadness and what isn't. If the definition of the thing is not even clear, no studies about it can be accurate. A simple example of the stark contrast of accuracy is the definition of a meter in physics. A meter is a distance traveled by the speed of light in a vacuum over a certain x time interval. Accurate, easy to understand, easy to measure. See the difference? Psychiatrist study is not completely useless, but it's insanely inaccurate, that's why it's much easier to study, it's so vague that there can be 10 different answers to one case that varies based on opinions that are equally invalid, and that's a no no. Even with theoretical physicist, that's never the case, if something is proven correct, it's admitted to be correct, however, there maybe unknowns that nobody dare to claim understanding over.
2
That's not even real, pal. Broken arm is the study of human biology, there are foundational principles that are accurate. "Depression" is a make belief diagnosis, you can't measure it, you can't have accurate research, it's a guessing contest.
1
@kuroru69 Really? Is that why before prescribing anti-depressants, all these doctors have their fancy brain measuring device out? Just like an MRI machine to determine tissue damage? I know more about this than you, pal. Because you still think it's an accurate science what they're doing. Study real science and you'll see, it's not even close. To presume the psychiatrist studies are at the same level of accuracy as thoracic surgeries is insane. Not even close. Not all medical fields are the same, there are rankings.
1
@kuroru69 Again, the symptoms pointed towards a real underlying measurable observable error. That's not what happens in psychiatrist studies. Psychiatrist diagnoses are always, or most of the time, inconclusive diagnosis. Because they don't have an underlying understanding of the human brain, it's much, much more complex than muscle tissues. Like I said, do not confuse the accuracy level between real accurate observable science and make belief science. Not nearly the same.
1
@kuroru69 I'm a professional regarding mechanics, which is the studies of moving objects, not mechanic as in fixing vehicles. A physicist, you might say. But again, to do that, a solid background in science and physics is required. And it's a basic understanding we can't deny that a lot of proclaimed scientific are subjective guessing. Some fields have significantly larger margins of error than the others, and that insane margin of error lowers their accuracy by a lot. Not all scientific field are the same, not all medicinal field are the same.
1
@kuroru69 It's a very inaccurate field of study, that's more like it. It's a guidline of things, but it's not conclusive such as other natural sciences.
1
@kuroru69 Honestly, just because you add the word "disorder" after a word you made up trying to describe what you see is not really an understanding. Like I said, it's a gigantic guessing game. And like I said again, what "Hawking" did is theoritical physics, it's all in theory, can never be proven. You can say it's also a big guessing game with theoretical physics, maybe that's why we don't really care about their results, it's rarely used in any applications. The theories that can be proved, however, which were predicted, those are the ones that I'm talking about. For example, the the heisenberg uncertainty principle, or the planck constant, theories that were proven to be true based on experimental results. Like Dirac prediction of positron. Some say that those theories are incomplete, but you can never deny the results that they succesfully calculated for an overwhelming majority of cases. See the drastic difference in the level of accuracy?
1
@kuroru69 In short, Physics, and other natural sciences, formulate a theory and test that theory trying to explain the natural world. And the degree of accuracy is incredibly detailed. The theory must have computational consequences and can be verified, be measured. Meanwhile psychiatrist, they also try to explain human behavior, but not based on any principle, they based it on judgement make belief, the bad part about this about this is you can never tell whether they're right or not. Because there's no measurement, there's no quota, it's all fairy dust. They might have done some good, no doubt, but it's all based on their preferences, their judgement, and that might be the best way possible to treat something so complex, but their best is not good enough because the margin of error is just too big. Still just more of a guidelines than undeniable rules.
1
@kuroru69 No, pal. Medicine is a field of science, I do understand science though. Apparently you don't. One scientific field doesn't equal another, keep it real, homie.
1
@kuroru69 Yeah, that's not what it's made for, pal. Not to mock anybody, but to explain things that people failed to explain. The key is that such principle brought back tremendous results with a far higher accuracy than psychiatrist guessing. Your argument failed, why don't you just stay silent? Psychiatrist guessing does not have the same accuracy level as physics.
1
@kuroru69 I can't know something that's totally untrue. You can't just made up stuff and then claim that people don't know. Are you a troll? Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a new explanation to a new field of studies, and before that, there was previous studies that came out with certain theories used to explain things, the previous theories have some unexplainable phenomenon, so Heisenberg developed his new theory to explain those phenomenons. In either cases, on the phenomenon that they're used to explain, both theories were very accurate. Go study real science, pal, you're embarrassing yourself.
1
@kuroru69 So you are a troll. Stay from people's pets, pal. They deserve a better veterinarian. It's hard to admit but it's the truth, some scientific fields are just far lower ranked than the others.
1
It's not a mental illness, people. They're lying to you, you're just different. You have to make them see.
1
@necrosis6037 Illness is defined as there's something wrong with the normal condition. That can be applied to your bones, your organs, your muscles, even your brain tissue but not your conscious I think therefore I am. Don't erase yourself to fit their narrative.
1
@necrosis6037 Again, that's not how it works. Because no mind is exactly the same to be considered normal The level of allowable variations are purely subjective. Nobody can give you the definition of what is acceptable variation and what is unacceptable variation, they just make it up.
1
@necrosis6037 Again, that's not how it works. Normal is a subjective word, if you take the real "average" human being, nobody is the same as that person. What defines "regular"? If a person is smarter than you, of course he or she isn't the same as the "average" person. So is that person suffering from an "illness"? If that person doesn't think like me, there's something wrong with them. What kind of reasoning is that?
1