This is a very important point imo, it took quite a while for me to understand (accept) the incredible complexity of biology and especially that everything is interconnected and any change could cause a myriad of downstream effects up to the point where we are at that system again where the change began, and so on ... I once labelled this as 'thinking in 3D' vs the simplified '2D' textbook explainations- the real, living system would then be '4D' somewhat. (And, of course, that with every 5% I learn more, there will always be 15% of what I begin to know not to know, and even much more of what I don't know not to know ......)
I know it's easy to complain as a layman, but I really feel that we have real problems here in everyday psych doc settings. There are these imaginations of over-simplified neurons, receptors etc. printed on SSRI advertisments that get handed out, and while simplification is required, it appears to me that quite some professionals begin to forget what they once studied (and, with all respect, having studied something doesn't always mean also to understand it) and use these oversimplifications too (what is completely understandable imo, we're all humans, but it's contraproductive). Ask your psychiatrist about the interactions of dopamine and glutamate, or DeltaFosB, whatever - you get it. It's not their matter, yes, but it should be because fuck they are the only ones who decide about what one gets prescribed and what not.. it shouldn't be up to me as a patient to inform myself about the science, double check all the things and argue with doctors, only to be thrown out of their office (what is understandable too, to some extent, as it's not the fault of a single person but of the system / structures, too less time, whatever).
Recently looked through some exam books for psychiatry at the book store, so recent edition of what one needs to know to become a doc - and well, I was a bit shocked..okay, more than a bit. Can it be for real that practicing doctors out there would have to read up to understand the discussions here? (Yes, it is. Or?)
--
This brings me again to the idea of a 3D interactive neuroscience visualization. Would still be a heavy simplification, but current technology is powerful enough by far to do some nice simulation of the current knowledge, where you could somehow enter exact these questions - e.g. add a dopamine antagonist, and then look at DeltaFosB to see what happens. Increase/decrease dosage, speed/time, and so on.. (Sorry if this isn't understandable, have to find better words.. I'd love to start such a project but I'm years behind with IT and was never good with 3D programming..)