This...the fetishizing of unreplicable neuroscience in order to legitimize our work is self-defeating. We don't need to know that depression is in the brain (as opposed to what???) to know it is problematic. How much money have we wasted proving something like depression is "real"?
Hey psychologists, when you're explaining some psychological phenomenon that's perfectly well captured in psychological terms, maybe you don't need to refer to some shitty neuroimaging study with ten people to make it seem more "sciencey"...