psych disorders

khadeja
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:42 am

psych disorders

Postby khadeja » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:52 pm

Is one month the minimum amount of time the symptoms of a psychological disorder need to be observable in order for a diagnosis to be made?
NS_Tutor_Andrew
Site Admin
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 1:47 pm

Re: psych disorders

Postby NS_Tutor_Andrew » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:45 pm

Hi khadeja,

AFAIK it varies depending on the disorder -- major depressive disorder is based on a 2-week cutoff for episodes. Dysthymia must be present for 2 years in adults and 1 year in children/adolescents, and seasonal affective disorder requires a long enough history for a seasonal pattern to be identified, for instance. Is there a source that you found this one-month rule in?
Andrew D.
Content Manager, Next Step Test Prep.
khadeja
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:42 am

Re: psych disorders

Postby khadeja » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:54 pm

It was in some NS FL but I have no idea which one. They're all a blur now.
khadeja
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:42 am

Re: psych disorders

Postby khadeja » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:22 am

I think it was in context to some PTSD diagnosis
khadeja
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:42 am

Re: psych disorders

Postby khadeja » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:01 am

Antipositivism 
is the belief within social science that the social realm may not be subject to the same methods of investigation as the natural world; the social realm requires a different epistemology in which academics work beyond empiricism and the scientific method.

could you clarify this? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me
NS_Tutor_Andrew
Site Admin
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 1:47 pm

Re: psych disorders

Postby NS_Tutor_Andrew » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:09 pm

In a nutshell, the idea is that people (and organizations thereof, like societies) can't be studied in the same way that inanimate objects can -- either because human beings are cognitively/emotionally/behaviorally complex in a way that we can't model accurately using the scientific method (from a more secular perspective) or because humans have a unique spiritual quality that distinguishes them from inanimate objects (from a more religious perspective). This argument is rooted in a reaction against a strong version of positivism that not all (or even most? or many?) scientists nowadays agree with, namely the idea that scientifically verifiable/observable knowledge is the only kind of valid knowledge. So a more restrained version of antipositivism would not deny that the scientific method can be applied to humans at all, and instead just say that there are some things about humans that go beyond that, while an aggressive version might question the overall utility of the scientific method as applied to humans/social phenomena. Hope this helps clarify the concept!
Andrew D.
Content Manager, Next Step Test Prep.

Return to “General Discussion & FAQ”