My opinion is the field needs a lot of funding to develop objective measurement tools, verses heavily relying on subjective measurements. I would be bad, really bad, for these researchers trying to assist the psychiatric field, who may or may not be correct. Like Astronomy went big data, what that means is they highly advanced data collection through machines to achieve such.

An example, would be say caffeine caused brain swelling in a test subject, but subjective reasoning lead the psychiatrist to coach responses, and a misdiagnosis came out of that. And now this researcher might not have had accurate labels for the sample space. If one proves the errors in the subjective reasoning of psychiatrist, all these research dollars might have to be thrown out the window. Which would have been better spent getting psychiatric professionals tools to assist in diagnosis. Like how they can spot Parkinson's disease at a high rate over the phone, though using big data of their communication.

matrixupgrade, you are so right. Psychology is more a study of the slightly new with infantile tools. Neuropsychology is more promising, yet even here we have to have humility before substrate Independence, multiple instantiate, and that mind moves.

No stable diagnosis will be based on histone packing. The very idea of using a second order function that changes with circadian rhythm throughout the day to categorize behaviors and people is absurd. Even if we could measure these quantities with absolute granularity we would still have to have to admit some ignorance before epiphenomenal critical periods and the fact that people are not distributions.

No matter the objective or medical content, theses methods need to used in conjuncture with therapy. Independence takes faith. We have to go with one another. Pragmatic utilitarianism would have us focus on nurture.