I was originally an internist, then studied applied psychology during graduate school, and then, later, went to the largest mental health specialty hospital in the north and became a psychiatrist (at least the practice registration changed to psychiatrist). In the beginning, I was always doing what I thought a doctor should do, always checking in naturally, asking questions, considering the use of medications, communicating with patients, and communicating with patients’ families. I never thought that I was doing the work of an internist, a psychiatrist, or a psychologist at some point, but then I found that many people thought of me as a “psychiatrist” and they called themselves “psychiatrists. I once asked them what the criteria for judging “psychological” and “spiritual” were, and they were at a loss for words, not knowing how to answer me, but later, when I pressed them, they said, “Maybe this is the way to understand it. “Psychiatric” is mainly drug treatment, more proficient in psychopharmacology, more in place for the study of psychiatric symptoms, while “psychological” is mainly psychotherapy, more proficient in clinical psychology, more in place for the study of personality characteristics. Hearing this, it’s my turn to be speechless. Do we psychiatrists need to classify ourselves into which faction in a mental health specialty hospital, in the face of a complex individual? What a ridiculous and horrible division. Does a “psychiatrist” only know how to use medication, and is familiar with its efficacy and side effects, while ignoring the complexity and potential of an individual? Does a “psychiatrist” only know how to empathize with the patient, how to understand the structure and development of the personality, while ignoring the organic or functional changes in the brain that may already exist in the individual? Shouldn’t a psychiatrist be the carrier of both functions? If we are to find the cause of the “split” state of psychiatrists’ practice, we may have to trace it to the model of psychiatrist training in China. The training of psychiatrists has been inherently “fractured” rather than “continuously integrated. The medical training of psychiatrists is almost entirely biologically indoctrinated, with only theoretical lectures on psychology found in the curriculum, and no practical and applied courses in psychology, whereas in foreign countries, to become a psychiatrist, one must take enough credits of psychology courses and complete a specified number of hours of supervised and self-experienced cases before becoming a psychiatrist. So before they become a psychiatrist, they are already marked with professional psychological interaction with people. And we are just constantly burning symptomatology and pharmacology entries into our minds through repetitive memorization. Having completed stereotypical, lifeless exams, we later face patients with this same stereotypical, unenthusiastic attitude toward a symptom complex. Instead of an understanding, empathetic attitude toward a complex person with a mind of his or her own, with his or her own pursuits. So, I think a good psychiatrist should be in an integrated state, and a mastery of psychopharmacology and insight into personality issues are both critical to a psychiatrist’s ability to practice clinical work more effectively and powerfully!