Psychiatry vs neuroscience, what's the difference?

Bill Wilkerson explains the differences between psychiatry and neuroscience, the tension between the two and the hopeful resolution of the two branches to better understand and treat mental illness.

[matthew_cramer]

Undegrad I was neuroscience/biology and in residency I’m studying psychiatry. Putting the two together is the best thing you can do, IMO.

[nabils]

Ofc Neuroscience is important and biochemicals in the brain and body is what influences our thoughts and feelings. But is also the fact that social and environmental factors influence our feelings and, that counselling and psychotherapy have been effective for many people whom not all of them had before and after brain scans and tests. If someone has a depression, it can be purely due to neurological disease/disorder but, isn't it often the case that it is a combination of environmental and psycho-social history? I believe that's why medication or invasive therapies should be the last means of therapy where there is a higher degree of certainty that it is purely a neurological disorder and not from a psycho-social influence. I agree that the DSM seems a bit sketchy but, like I said how would a doctor or psychotherapist otherwise account for psycho-social and environmental factors? It seems to me, that unless one day neuroscience reaches a level where it can determine not just the disorder in the brain and neurons but, the specific social problems from testing the brain, then both fields of neuroscience and psychology (as well as neurology and psychiatry) are needed. Obviously, if the patient is complaining from losing their balance, then seeing a neurologist should be the first in line. But, if they're complaining from depression or PTSD, then a psychotherapist or psychologist should be first in line then a neurologist if needed.

[swedishdissident]

In order to diagnose with scans there has to be a library of prediagonsed examples that are statistically reliable.

[katieb]

I love this i looked up neuroscience vs psychiatry because I was reading the DSM5 and laughing

[davidsmith]

I agree with the value of neuroscience and an emphasis on identifying objective measures etc., but I am not sure that criticism of the DSM as a consensus-based tool is warranted. Psychiatry has to first define what is "normal" vs "abnormal" and then find biomarkers, not the other way around as seems to be implied as the proper approach in the video.

[grubbymanz]

Bashing psychiatry is so pointless, as soon as more objective measures that are useful are shown, psychiatry will instantly adopt them. It;s the branch of medicine that deals with the most diffuse and global processes, it's not cardiology, it's life and consciousness. Nobody else can do what they do, period, and if they could, they'd be out of business instead of being the most consulted of all the medical specialties in pretty much every hospital on earth.

[forho]

So what the hell happened to Neuropsychiatry ?!?

[theoveractivebrain]

He seems to boo-boo psychology a little bit but one day he’ll realise that psychologists provide long term solutions to depression and psychiatrists, short terms ones. Psychiatrists treat the symptoms, not the cause.

[briellehunter]

The world needs Neuroscientist’s to replace the crazy DSM-5 creators, Psychologists and Psychiatrists who are diagnosing everyone.

[squamish]

Neuroscience works, for one thing. Or neuropsychiatry.

[kenkenshiro]

neuroscience is more of an actual science than Psychiatry is.

[pyromanul]

You cant have "objective sciences" declare and dominate a field where almost every disorder is characterized and brought upon by the individuals experience and not an objective, physical object. Imagine you have depression becouse nobody loves you and a neurologist sais: "no, you are fine, i can't detect any irregularities in your brain" and you live with depression or commit suicide. What is he talking about?

[whitesimurgh]

Of course, a scientist would never prefer psychology!