{"id":54365,"date":"2015-02-16T12:49:06","date_gmt":"2015-02-16T17:49:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=54365"},"modified":"2015-02-16T12:59:26","modified_gmt":"2015-02-16T17:59:26","slug":"didnt-get-very-far","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/02\/16\/didnt-get-very-far\/","title":{"rendered":"didn’t get very far\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
“If one is given a puzzle to solve one will usually, if it proves to be difficult, ask the owner whether it can be done. Such a question should have a quite definite answer, yes or no, at any rate provided the rules describing what you are allowed to do are perfectly clear. Of course the owner of the puzzle may not know the answer. One might equally ask, ‘How can one tell whether a puzzle is solvable?’, but this cannot be answered so straightforwardly. The fact of the matter is that there is no systematic method of testing puzzles to see whether they are solvable or not. If by this one meant merely that nobody had ever yet found a test which could be applied to any puzzle, there would be nothing at all remarkable in this statement. It would have been a great achievement to have invented such a test, so we can hardly be surprised that it has never be done. But it is not merely that the test has never been found. It has been proved that no such test ever can be found." [referring to Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems<\/font><\/a>, 1931]<\/em><\/div>\n
SOLVABLE AND UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS<\/font><\/a>: Alan Turing, 1946<\/em><\/div>\n

Last week, I was on a road trip and did some pleasure reading along the way in Seeing Further The Story of Science<\/em>, Discovery, and the Genius of the Royal Society<\/em><\/span><\/a> about the scientists and the science that rates the term ‘genius.’ I also saw the Academy Award nominated The Imitation Game<\/a> about Alan Turing [speaking of British genius]. Back at home, I watched the older UK Channel 4 movie, Codebreaker<\/a> [on Netflix], also about Alan Turing – a docudrama that covered his life as seen through the eyes of his psychiatrist. It was as riveting as the recent movie. I even read some of Turing’s papers [at least I saw the words with occasional glimpses of understanding]. The quote above is almost a random sample, just something to let me say, "Who thinks about things like that?<\/em>" Then I left the geniuses behind and settled back in to my home life. I had obviously wanted to say something about the iSPOT paper [a cul de sac I<\/a>, II<\/a>, III<\/a>, IV…<\/a>], so I didn’t get around to looking over my usual sites to see what I’d missed last week until this morning. I didn’t get very far…<\/p>\n

\n
Join Your Colleagues for the Psychiatric Event of the Year<\/a><\/div>\n
Psychiatric<\/font>News<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
by Philip R. Muskin, M.D. and Paul Summergrad, M.D.<\/div>\n
Feb 12, 2015<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

APA’s 2015 annual meeting in the cosmopolitan city of Toronto promises to be an unforgettable educational experience. The breadth of the scientific program is impossible to capture in a brief article. The highlights contained here and throughout this issue of Psychiatric<\/font>News<\/font><\/strong> are but a small sample of what you can expect as we bring together some of the best minds in psychiatry to present compelling clinical, research, and practice-related sessions in one dynamic meeting. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Making the meeting even more timely, Dr. Summergrad has planned a series of presidential symposia to address topics that are particularly relevant. For example, one is ’21st-Century Psychiatry at the Interface of Genetics, Neurobiology, and Clinical Science’ with Charles Nemeroff, M.D., Ph.D.<\/font><\/strong><\/em>, Daniel Weinberger, M.D., Karl Deisseroth, M.D., Ph.D., and David Rubinow, M.D.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
One of the meeting’s most popular formats is the interactive sessions, in which meeting attendees can engage directly with experts. This year’s meeting will have 14 interactive sessions, and among their leaders are Dr. Summergrad, Dr. Mayberg, Dr. Nemeroff<\/font><\/strong><\/em>, Melissa Arbuckle, M.D., Barbara Coffey, M.D., Glen Gabbard, M.D., Otto Kernberg, M.D., Russell Lim, M.D., John Oldham, M.D., Alan Schatzberg, M.D.<\/font><\/strong><\/em>, Nora Volkow, M.D., and Stuart Yudofsky, M.D. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I’ll have to say that after a week of reading about some of the scientific high points in history and the Royal Society, this article felt like a splash of ice water. I’m not in the APA and it’s hardly for me to say how the organization presents itself, but headlining Drs. Nemeroff and Schatzberg<\/font><\/strong> seems kind of bizarre. Were I to list entrepreneurial psychiatrists<\/font><\/strong><\/em>, they’d occupy the top two positions. Both stepped down prematurely from chairmanships [Emory and Stanford] in the wake of Senator Grassley’s Congressional Investigation of undisclosed PHARMA payments [with Dr. Nemeroff moving on to chair in Miami]. Both have been guest authors for a ghost written book and numerous articles – Schatzberg as recently as December [the recommendation?…<\/a>] and both are part of the Brain Resources iSPOT enterprise [a cul de sac I<\/a>, II<\/a>, III<\/a>, IV…<\/a>]. They’ve lead the league in industry connections by any measurable dimension, and everybody knows that. So why they’re showcased in this article about this May’s APA meeting is beyond my faculties. Maybe my choice of Turing’s SOLVABLE AND UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS<\/font><\/strong> <\/em>paper wasn’t so random after all, because I sure don’t have a solution to explain this…<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“If one is given a puzzle to solve one will usually, if it proves to be difficult, ask the owner whether it can be done. Such a question should have a quite definite answer, yes or no, at any rate provided the rules describing what you are allowed to do are perfectly clear. Of course […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54365"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54398,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54365\/revisions\/54398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}