As I brought up earlier in a casual way, psychology is heavily implicated and has great impact and influence on the advertising industry, and it is no mistake. — unenlightened

1) This is correct.

The Joe Camel and Joe Chemo campaigns provide good examples of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion proposed by Petty & Cacioppo (Social Psychologists) in 1986. (Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John Terrence. 1986. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19: 123–181.)

2) However, it is also irrelevant (i.e., off-topic).

The OP is concerned with Psychiatry, not Psychology. Psychiatry is a regulated profession in most western jurisdictions, which requires a medical qualification. And the title "Psychiatrist" is legally protected.

Whereas, Psychology is an extensive field, and its clinical practitioners generally do not have a medical qualification, hence; they cannot legally prescribe medications.

It is my understanding that with regard to practise, Clinical Psychology is the only branch of Psychology associated with Psychiatry (although other branches may contribute to Psychiatric research).

That said, the OP raises a very good point concerning treatment scope and method which is conducive to philosophical discussion (i.e., that the treatment of neuro-behavioural atypicality should be a multi-discipline enterprise).

That's the kind of consistent elaboration I was expecting.
So, you have developed the Mathematical Theory of Knowledge.
I'll probably stick with the Communication Theory of Metaphysics.
Cheers!

Well, you're right. I didn't read the article. My sincere apologies. — TheMadFool

No worries.
Hopefully, you understood my post to be ironic for emphatic effect.

What is the alternative to pscyhopharmacology? Do you have any ideas? — TheMadFool

Read the quote in this post carefully.

I'm sympathetic to the notion that mental states can be reduced, at least to the extent where we may modify them, to neurochemical states. — TheMadFool

Then you must be psychologically damaged, because you obviously didn't read the article linked in the OP (or subsequent posts), and that kind of thing isn't done here without incurring the disapproval of others. Take your medication, please!

Could there be other explanations for that kind of behaviour?

Cheers!

Seems like this is the rant of someone who had a bad experience — Anaxagoras

When it comes to internet forums, I find personal accounts of mental struggles to be more credible (because the writer usually only has sympathy to gain) than:
1) Medical pronouncements lacking citation(s) to relevant research. And,
2) Claims like:
a) "As a person that professionally works in the psychiatric field..." Or,
b) "My background is in neuroscience."

Because the latter are usually only a prelude to Argument from Authority fallacies.
2a could be a janitor at a pharmaceutical institution, and 2b could be a popular science writer.

There is also a fair amount of quackery here. Those kind of birds be called ducks.

Thanks for your elaboration.
So you are a clinician, but not a professional? What is the difference?
And, since you've been participating on this forum, approximately what percentage of other members do you think have psychological problems (not necessarily limited to the type you cite in the OP)?

Usually this is merely a byproduct of something psychological going on. — Anaxagoras

I agree.
What is the prognosis for having an interest in, or just being, unfocused?
Are such people already "really disturbed", or inevitably "really disturbed"?

So, I say all that to say is am I wrong for thinking this way meaning, are there some really disturbed individuals that tend to gravitate these types of discussion boards? — Anaxagoras

Without a doubt.
But be careful how far you take that, because it is said that birds of a feather flock together.

For that reason I am very selective about whose posts I read. There are probably no more than a dozen forum members whose writings/thoughts I value (and that, depending on the subject). The rest I pretty much just ignore.

And the only reason I post anything is to see if someone has something of value to contribute to, or challenge, my own thinking. Most of the time, not.

But I do occasionally find great insights in the discussions of others which connect to my own interests.

At what point do interests become personality traits?

Of course, knowledge is informative, limiting the possibility of contrary states, but hopes, believes and desires are not informative, as they assume noting about extramental reality. — Dfpolis

Hopes, beliefs, and desires are propositional attitudes. They have direction of fit (the relation between a proposition and the world, or existence).

If:
1) Information (a decoded message) is the result of communication (data encoding, transmission, conveyance, reception, and decoding). And,
2) I communicate my hopes, beliefs, and desires to others.
Then:
My hopes, beliefs, and desires are information possessed by those recipients who have decoded my message(s).

A definition of information in terms of possibility can only be a definition of mathematical information. It is unsuitable for use as a general definition which also pertains to physical and semantic information.

The repetition of the same message from the same source yields no information when defined mathematically (in terms of possibility), because there is no uncertainty to reduce. Yet, physical and/or semantic information is produced every time the message is decoded.

For example:
The ringing of a doorbell produces the same physical and semantic information whenever it occurs.
1) Physical information is produced by a sound wave stimulus (data), encoded by sensory transduction, conveyed by means of action potentials in excitable cells, received by various parts of the brain responsible for sensory processing, and decoded as perception.
2) Semantic information is then produced by the perception message, decoded as an associated mental representation having meaning (i.e., doorbell ringing means someone is at the door).

Is the computer "doing meaning"? In other words, does "tree" mean something to the computer? — Terrapin Station

Your computer scenario is an example of identification, which involves remembering knowledge (semantic information), but it's not an example of predication (meaning production) per se.

It could also be an example of human (programmer) predication under supervised machine learning conditions, or of artificial (computer) predication under unsupervised machine learning conditions.

Cheers!

It is relevant to political philosophy because here we have people doing a very wrong thing, and nobody is challenging them about it. — Ilya B Shambat

That would make it relevant to Ethics.

Something similar needs to happen...
People need to say...
People need to say...
People need to say...
The people of the West need to say...
I would recommend that people... — Ilya B Shambat

How is any of this relevant to political philosophy? I would recommend that you save it for your next poem.

You've named some different kinds of meaning. Would you elaborate a bit upon universal and unknown meaning? — creativesoul

Since meaning is possessed by a mind (or minds), being knowledge (semantic information), it may be:

1) Universal (innate or inherent) if all neurotypical organisms of a particular type possess it. Human examples would include expressions of basic emotion (Plutchik, 1980) and morality (Brown, 1991). So, universal meaning is shared among a species by means of genetic predisposition (nature) rather than communication.

2) Unknown if not possessed by a mind (or minds). For example: Egyptian hieroglyphs prior to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and their subsequent decoding.

In general, sharing has more to do with communication than with meaning.

Meaning is explanation (clarification) by attribution, reference, or relation. So, it is a product of categorisation (predication), hence; associated with a particular (physical and/or mental).

It is stored in memory as a mental representation (cognitive symbol).

Minds which possess similar mental representations (sets of intersubjective meaning) can be said to share meaning.

So, what is it that is being shared between language users? — creativesoul

With regard to shared (intersubjective) meaning, whether communicated verbally, or non-verbally:

1) Communication requires message vocabulary and syntax which is understood by both message source and destination.

2) Semantic message encoding and decoding requires knowledge of the code used, corresponding mental representations, and the communication context.

3) A semantic message may be encoded differently and have the same (or similar) meaning in each code.

In addition to intersubjective (social group) meaning, there is also: universal (innate or inherent), subjective (personal), and unknown meaning.

If mind can be most generally and comprehensively described as awareness (a condition) and intention (an action), and actuality (existence) consists of objects and events (events being: condition and/or action), then mind exists.

My only question at this point is: if objects correspond to space, and events correspond to time, does mind have only temporal, and not spatial, extension?

The only people qualified to help you with your problem(s) are those who keep you locked in your room.
I know, I know: you are the Doctor, not the one who needs a Doctor.
Just be grateful for the computer and internet connection.

I disagree that everything that is expressed is first ‘thought’. We are more than capable of expressing ‘feeling’ that has not first been translated into thought. I see this every day in emails and posts fired off in haste. — Possibility

"Feeling" is an awful word because it is used in so many different ways. I have been working on an informal domain ontology of the human mind for the past seven years, and decided to completely avoid using "feeling" for just that reason (preferring to use less equivocal words instead).

However, even emotion (passion) requires cognisance of the circumstances of an object of concern (cf., Theory of Constructed Emotion, Barrett, 2016).

The word "feeling" is used five times in the OP (not including the title) as a synonym of "intuition", or as an antonym of "thinking". Intuition and cogitation (thinking) being types of mental processing, as opposed to types of mental condition (e.g., consciousness, affect, mood, emotion, temperament, motivation, etc.).

By the way, nice point in your first paragraph about communication.

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

I think that anything which is expressed, is first thought, which says nothing of the ease or difficulty of expression (either verbal or non-verbal).

Dostoyevsky, who was an epileptic, was able to express amazing insight and wisdom. One thing that may have helped is that in epilepsy there is heightened contact between the left brain and the right brain, allowing what is accessible through intuition to become expressed in reason and in speech...

Rationalism sees reason and scientific inquiry as path to wisdom, and romanticism sees feeling and intuition as path to wisdom...

Combining the rational and the intuitive creates a fuller, more integrated, picture, and it does so faster than either modality acting alone... — Ilya B Shambat

By juxtaposing reason and intuition, you are implicitly (perhaps unknowingly) referring to dual process theories of mind.

Cognisance (Smith & Kirby, 2000), learning (Sun, 2002), mental coding (Paivio, 2007), problem-solving (Evans, 1984), and creative thinking (Christoff, et al., 2009) involve combined (automatic and controlled) processing, being interactive automatic/parallel and controlled/serial tacit and declarative knowledge processing.

However, I don't understand how dual processing relates to insight and wisdom. Perhaps if you provided a definition of insight and wisdom?

Thank you Galuchat, I hope I have not offended? — Necuno

Not at all.
I look forward to reading more from you, as my current interests also lie in the Social Sciences.

Thanks for your clarifications.

1) By 1924, intellectuals and scientists understood that astronomy, chemistry and physics were all part of the same continuum. — Necuno

So, Sociology reduces to Psychology, then Biology, then Chemistry, then Physics?

Part of the issue is that interpretations have not been accepted as equally factual, instead they have been dismissed as non-objective, illusion, human fallacy. — Necuno

This conflates interpretation and fact, whereas; interpretation is an attempt to explain fact(s).

The fallacy has been to try to treat them as facts within the first order, whereas they are actually facts within the fourth order. — Necuno

So, the orders (or levels of abstraction) are incommensurable?

The same fallacy occurs in reverse when you try to deny that first order facts are facts within the fourth order - i.e. treating physical facts as cultural/linguistic constructs - again, the Sokal Hoax. — Necuno

So, learning how to play the violin, or dealing with culture shock can be explained in terms of quantum mechanical interactions between elementary particles?

There is not exactly a symmetry in this arrangement, facts of lower orders cannot be denied by higher orders, but facts of higher orders are not facts in lower orders. — Necuno

I think it would be silly to deny facts at any order (level of abstraction). But, this suggests that I cannot describe quantum mechanical interactions between elementary particles in terms of learning how to play the violin, or dealing with culture shock; which I agree with.

There are many ways to slice the pie, it just depends on what you want at the end, I have had many times to decide how to slice the pie in my project. — Necuno

Are there natural kinds, or are classifications merely cultural and/or linguistic conventions?
And if there are natural kinds, does that imply artificial kinds?

Cheers!

How would you modify my classification to accommodate macrosociology (assuming that it already accommodates microsociology)?

Is this the Professor Elwell you are referring to:
Elwell, Frank W. 2013. Sociocultural Systems. AU Press, Athabasca University. Edmonton, AB.

Probably down to user error (yours and/or mine).
How is a classification of phenomena useful to your project?

I read it, and then it disappeared.

The classification of phenomena affected the development (scope) of the Social Sciences in general, and Sociology in particular, during Case's career.

My own classification is similar, but uses terms suitable to Cognitive Psychology, then Social Psychology, and finally Sociology, as follows:

1) Physical
a) Inorganic
i) Natural
ii) Artificial
b) Organic
i) Human Body
ii) Human Social Group

2) Mental
a) Human Mind
b) Human Culture

Does anyone know the source of the four orders of natural phenomenon structure? — Necuno

Common observation would be my guess.

But in sociological terms, Auguste Comte's five great groups of phenomena (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology) was a likely influence on subsequent sociologists.

Penchef, Esther H. 1947. The Sociological Thought Of Clarence Marsh Case; Its Origins, Development, Significance, And Its Relation To The Contributions Of Other Sociologists. Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). 64ff.

I don't think that we really disagree here, but I think that what you say could be better worded. It's better put that in cases where one doesn't understand the information, the information has been exchanged, but not... well... understood. — S

We very much disagree. You say there is information exchange; I say, there is not. My wording is consistent with Shannon & Weaver's Mathematical Theory of Communication.

Your unplayable video scenario is an example of physical, not semantic, data encoding and messaging (transmission, conveyance, and reception). It would only be relevant to this discussion if there were some physical (e.g., sensory) cause for a person's inability to understand your posts.

What if you inform someone, but they don't understand? That way, is it not possible that they could still be trying? Or, with your second premise, do you mean to suggest that they'd understand by virtue of being informed? I wouldn't use the term that way. I think it makes sense to say that I informed him that such-and-such, but he didn't understand. — S

I equate understanding with decoding a message, which entails information. In either case (whether one understands and rejects, or doesn't understand, a message) the result is the same: information exchange has ended.

Please explain. To be clear, in response to my first question, I would like a reason why not. (I don't doubt what you say is possible). — S

In my opinion, if someone has been:
1) Unreasonable (illogical),
2) Informed of this, and
3) Persistently unreasonable (illogical),

Then, they are not trying to be reasonable (logical).

And in response to my second question, I'd like an elaboration. — S

Sure.
If someone persists in being unreasonable (illogical), they have abandoned reason (logic) in favour of expressing a belief (as I mentioned), another propositional attitude, an emotion, or the application of a heuristic (as others have mentioned), etc., whereupon; further communication (information exchange) using human language argument (informal logic) cannot occur.

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S

No, but it is possible that generally reasonable people may adhere to a belief.

How should one treat such people? — S

Argument is a waste of time when confronted with belief.

But such forces aren't typically explained in such a way in modern physics, or perhaps named differently Like how we don't use Aristotelian concepts such as "potency, act, formal-final causes" or, if we feel to use the more Greek terms, words like "entelechy". We might instead use words like "telenomy" (though rarely). However, these concepts do seem to represent something fundamental in nature when we observe biological phenomenon. — Marty

I find Aristotle's concepts of actuality (objects and events) and potentiality (possibility and capability) provide a suitable foundation for constructing a model of the human mind, and that his concept of causality provides a suitable foundation for constructing a model of actualisation.

Also, I think these concepts can be modernised by substituting the following terms: data for matter, code for form, message for substance, action for motion, and information for actuality. In effect, substituting empirical communication for actualisation.

Actualities are space-time extensions. Space is related to objects, and time is related to events. This is a part-whole hierarchy. Also, causality requires both contiguity and antecedence. (Born, Max. 1949. Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance. Oxford University Press. London, p.9.)

A system is a dynamic composite object, and a process consists of sequential and/or simultaneous events. In ordinary language, nouns denote objects, and verbs denote events.

Whether or not there are physical and/or mental actualities (having part-whole hierarchies) is an empirical question. As is whether or not all actualities have physical and mental properties, as opposed to physical and/or mental properties.

From observation, some actualities (e.g., certain organisms) have both physical and mental properties. This fact suggests a neutral (neither only physical, nor only mental; so call it: organism) substance which entails property dualism.

What, if anything, these properties have in common beyond comprising organism essence is a philosophical question. As is what set of mental properties comprise mind.

Also from observation, some actualities (e.g., rocks) have physical, but not living, or mental, properties. This fact suggests a particular type of inorganic (call it: rock) substance which entails property monism.

Obviously, objects (e.g., organisms and rocks) change over time, and substance (essence, nature, or code+matter) explains object persistence through change.

Take a 'scene' in some city or region or era. Beat culture or grunge or fin-de-siecle modernist literature or vaporwave or cyberpunk. It's extremely difficult to reduce these to either material 'stuff' or consciousness or both. — csalisbury

Not at all difficult.
These are products of culture, which is the collective mindset of a social group; products which may be physical (e.g., spoken or written language, music, books, cuisine, fashion, etc.) and/or mental (e.g., social relationships, norms, roles, statuses, institutions, etc.). No verbal gymnastics required; just observation.