No, it absolutely is.

I am one of those real people being treated.

They're guessing what drugs to give you and it's all based on your "feelings". What real science puts feelings as a centerpiece of a diagnosis?

Be warned, most antidepressants take approximately two weeks to start working, around the length of time it takes a newborn neuron to mature.

Feelings are real things, emergent phenomena of a complex brain, and can be studied.

Neuroscience, for example, is mapping out reward circuits in the brain as we speak.

Nah, fam, they're INTERPRETATIONS and, as such, SUBJECTIVE and subjective stuff can't be part of any real science.

You are not only ignorant of neurology, but science in general too. There are subjective models even in Chemistry, such as the hard-soft acid base theory.

(Which none the less does an excellent job of predicting metal-ligand interactions.)

I trust that, one day, neuroscience will reach a point where it can actually cure people and basically just be another regular part of medicine. Right now? It's closer to homeopathy than to anything actually effective.

lol

Homeopathy is literally nothing, and cannot, according to basic physics, actually work.

Well, the use of literally no dose of a substance.

Well, neuroscience is so underdeveloped it's closer to that than to anything that should be considered "science".

lol

Another demonstration of your ignorance.

Neuroscience has already helped wheelchair bound people get movement again, already produced effective treatments for neurological disorders.

And even if it were as "underdeveloped" as you claim, it STILL would be science, because whether or not something is science does not simply depend on how "advanced" it is deemed to be. You can do science with a pen, paper and your eyes.

Physiotherapy? Fuck'em, I just gave him some pills and now he can walk!

Usually, neuroscientists tend to be rather "humble" and "realistic" and they know that their field is still in its infancy.

Ah, LM22B-10, LM11A-31. I wonder how they'll go.

lol

I am aware that the field is in it's infancy. However, this was not what you claimed earlier.

Don't just try and change what you said in an attempt to not be wrong, I can scroll back.

It's underdeveloped and, as a result, rather useless.

Not at all.

I would likely be dead without it.

I get it, it's your job (or you want it to be your job), but that doesn't mean you should be like "NEUROSCIENCE IS SAVING MANKIND AS WE SPEAK". The good ones in your field always tend to be open about how little they actually know.

It might even help you a lot to, if you didn't trust your own ignorance so much over the flawed but still useful training of psychiatrists.

lol

The idea that you are equipped to judge the "good" ones is laughable, to put it charitably.

I went to like 4 different psychologists during 7 years. During that time I tried to kill myself twice, none saw it coming.

It's all bullshit.

lol

I stopped going when I became an adult, probably the best decision I've ever made.

Oh, psychology is second only to sociology in paucity of rigour.

Everything related to mental health is based on thin air.

(Sociology makes psychology look like chemistry, because it's just that bad.)

They only know about 1 thing: GIMME MONEY. 💰

I will say though, ironically, one of the few things social psychologists have produced that is rigorous is the most hated by the left, who like to use their stodgy research.

That thing is IQ tests.