RDoC and Network Theory

 RDoC: 

The video we watched last week in class initially made me very skeptical of the RDoC model. If we found a way to make it work, it would be revolutionary, but finding a way to make it work is a giant task. I found it funny that toward the end, the authors wrote that even though we should implement all these ideas they just wrote about, we don't really know how to do it yet. I do think it is a very attractive model because it focuses on the range from normal to abnormal instead of seeing those as distinct factors. Most of my experience during undergrad was in neuropsychology, so a brain-behavior relationship makes sense to me because I've seen it done well. I think it has a lot of usage in research but is too complex for clinical work. However, I agree with the authors that it holds a lot of potential for new treatments and interventions because of its take on lifespan development. Treating disorders and symptoms based on the stage they are in instead of a stagnant approach would greatly benefit the people involved. The emphasis on the constructs overlapping too reminds me of the chart we have been doing in V Team. It is a clear picture of how the constructs are overlapping and can help a clinician get down to some central issues. Perhaps prolonged use could start to reduce stigma and lead more people to get help before everything comes crashing down. It can promote getting treatment at the first signs rather than waiting until someone's life is in shambles.  I am a bit confused about the environment's role. Would this model argue that the environment plays a role in the disorder but it cannot be the sole cause of it? I am also wondering what the RDoC framework would look like in cases that aren't as clear-cut? I found an article that used the RDoC framework with schizophrenia that was interesting- 

I really like the network approach and getting away from our medical roots a little bit. We have been treating the disease and not the symptoms, but the diseases are constructs that we have created. So is it more important to treat something we have deemed important or treated the symptoms that are undeniable? I think this mindset would also help in the treatment process. As the authors mentioned, this approach focuses on tracking progress based on goals rather than just a decrease in symptoms. I think this is good but is it always the best approach? In cases where there is suicidal ideation or significant psychosis, might it be more important to decrease symptoms than to help a client focus on meditation? No matter which model is on trend, it is important for me to remember to treat a diagnosis as a piece of the puzzle and not the end all be all. As the article mentioned, the goal isn't to get rid of diagnoses because they provide important information, but do not stop there. I like this chart because it helps me to visualize it. We, humans, are intricate, complex beings, so I do not think we should be looking for one answer.