From the outset, people have had high expectations of functional neuroimaging. Many will have been disappointed. After roughly a decade of widespread use, even an enthusiastic advocate must be diffident about the impact of the two most frequently used techniques – positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) – upon clinical psychiatry. Perhaps this disappointment arises from an unrealistic expectation of what these techniques are able to tell us about the workings of the normal and the disordered brain. Anyone who hoped for intricate and unambiguous region-to-function mapping was always going to be disappointed. This expectation presupposes, among other things, a thorough understanding of the cognitive functions that are to be mapped onto the brain regions. This understanding, however, while developing, is still rudimentary. Mapping disorder along comparable lines is even more complex since it demands two levels of understanding. The first is of the healthy region-to-function mapping, the second of the disordered region-to-function mapping, which immediately demands a consideration of the nature of the function in the disordered state. After all, someone with schizophrenia, when confronted with a psychological task, might tackle it in a very different way, in terms of the cognitive strategies used, from a healthy person confronted with the same task. The observation that brain activity differs across the two individuals would only be interpretable insofar as one thoroughly understood the processes that each individual invoked in response to the task demands.