{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0259009009009009, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0045045045045045045, 'mean_word_length': 5.089041095890411, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Biological child and adolescent psychiatry and social psychiatry: controversies and comments].

There is an ongoing debate in the child and adolescent psychiatry on the question of 'nature or nurture', as it was pointed out many years ago by Michael Rutter (1986). Newer studies anchored in both areas support hypotheses of mutual interferences and give biological explanations for social behavior. To date, it is no question anymore, whether biological child and adolescent psychiatry and social psychiatry are contradictory or in line. They are in a steady process, look at the same development, the same symptom from different points of view. They describe it with concepts, which are not understood from the other position, because of different contexts and possible because of ideologic influences. The goal must be to find a common language--especially with respect to the patient.