• rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Makes sense, staff has relatively limited contact with patients compared to the other patients, and outside of research, what healthy person would get themselves admitted to a psychiatric hospital on purpose?

    It does point to how difficult psychiatric diagnosis is, though. Though other medical fields tend to have the opposite problem, they tend to treat patients with real medical, non-psychological issues as pretenders or people with psychosomatic issues if it’s not immediately obvious that they have a real medical issue.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Patients lying about symptoms have been a medical issue for centuries. It is the main topic of Baudrillard’s philosophical analysis on simulacra and simulation. Think about it, a soldier who doesnt want to be deployed starts simulating symptoms of a disease to be discharged. How would you catch him, can you? The answer seems straight forward, until you scrutinize it in detail. Neither military or medical knowledge actually have an answer. The kid who doesn’t want to go to school says he has a headache and a tummy ache. How do you validate another’s conscious and sensory experience? Hypochondriacs affirm to develop every disease they hear about. People under stress feel and have somatic symptoms akin to physical diseases, even when functionally nothing is wrong with them. Etcetera. Disease and diagnosis are not so simple and straight forward, not even when talking about bodily functions.

  • cadekat@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Huh, how accurate/precise (I always mix them up) were the real patients? Did they just identify every other patient as an imposter?

        • rainwall@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Accuracy is about the abilty to hit a specific target, Precision is about being able to repeat it.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Precision is about how fine a scale you can use to describe the position; what you described is repeatability

            A clock with a sweep arm is more precise than one without

            A digital clock showing fractions of a second is more precise

            An atomic clock is even more precise

            My nice precise long case chiming clock is precise to about the half minute, but it gains time when the weather becomes colder and loses time when weather becomes warmer, so it has poor repeatability. Its accuracy is good enough as I correct and tune it weekly when I wind it

            My wife’s cuckoo clock is low precision with only 12 marks on it’s face and each of those being blunt and a few minutes wide, it also only sounds half hourly, tweeting the hour or once on the half hour

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The high accuracy, low precision regime seems so strange to me! I think not many would call that situation “high accuracy” with most of the shots missing the bullseye!

        Plus it seems like if you just keep increasing accuracy, you necessarily force all the shots to converge on the bullseye, don’t you? Then you get precision “for free” which is strange!