We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Kendler’s chapter provides a compelling account of how little evolved important premises of twentieth- and twenty-first-century psychopathology concepts represented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSMs) are from frameworks developed in earlier centuries that came to the fore in the nineteenth century, emphasizing a categorical distinction between cognition and emotion in characterizing broad classes of disorders. He then poses questions about how the recent NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative relates to that heritage. The present commentary similarly places RDoC in that tradition yet differentiates RDoC from the DSMs. By design, RDoC is nonreductionistic and initially much less comprehensive and much more research based, largely confining its substantive elements to intersections of well-developed psychological constructs (important in but not confined to) psychopathology with well-developed psychological and biological data. As such, RDoC is much better positioned to support and drive recently growing interest in computational psychiatry.
This chapter addresses three questions posed for the 2018 Copenhagen conference. We argue that reduction in the widely assumed sense of eliminating psychological constructs is not a feasible option in psychopathology research. We argue that the popular “levels of analysis” metaphor is more problematic than helpful. We argue that a recent movement in philosophy of science, known as the new mechanists, offers a promising alternative to the naïve biological reductionism that has driven much thinking and research on psychopathology in the Decades of the Brain. Finally, we evaluate the NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative in the context of these three questions, citing key features that facilitate moving clinical research forward more quickly and more effectively than what has characterized the field for decades. RDoC avoids reductionism, fosters integration of psychological and biological constructs, methods, and data, and is well suited to the emerging research agenda in the psychopathology literature.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.