Posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 10, 2000, at 12:53:06
In reply to Re: BIOLOGY or PSYCHOLOGY ?, posted by KarenB on April 9, 2000, at 16:25:59
> Scott,
>
> I would theorize that some individuals are born with a predisposition to certin diseases or disorders - but not the full blown disorder from birth. Then, by and by, I think faulty thinking and/or behavior actually causes physical damage. For example, in the Bible, we are instructed not to "let the sun go down on our anger...," etc. etc. I believe we are instructed in such things because unforgiveness, and so on cause real psychological AND physical damage, not to mention spiritual.
>
> The problem is, even though I may talk it out, forgive, ask forgiveness, let go and all that, I am now stuck with the neurochemical damage caused by my actions (and the actions of others, as in dysfunctional families). Since to date, no one knows how to REVERSE or fix the damage, we have meds.
>
> So there you have it. Biology and Psychology are both responsible. Not to mention spiritual illness we are all born with. That's my $.02
>
> Was that the question?
>
> Karen
-------------------------------------
Hi Karen.
This sounds pretty good to me. The details of my current thoughts regarding some of this stuff may be a bit different than yours, but I find your approach toward understanding the relationships between the biological and the psychological to be quite similar to mine.=> The following is not directed at anyone, not even Bob ("bob" as opposed to "boB"), whose posts I always take great delight in reading and learning from - previous post included. :-) No heated arguments are being solicited. However, goal-oriented discussion is important, productive, and often delightful. Of course, anyone may argue if they would like to. I know I often do. Anger feels good. I just don't want to right now.
Perhaps my first post is more ambiguous than I hoped it would be. I thought I was pretty clear in describing my thoughts regarding the relationship between mind (psychology) and body (brain). I did try to keep it simple, though. I just brushed the tip of the iceberg. I don't think this was a titanic mistake. A more complete treatise on this topic would be prohibitively long and unnecessary.
When reviewing some of the replies to my initial post, I can't help but to wonder if the posters spent enough time reading it. I did focus quite a bit more on those mental illnesses for which I deem biology to play a major role, for it seems they are the ones more often encountered on this board. I am certain that I tried to establish a basis for a model of the dynamics between the biology of the brain and the psychology of the mind as they relate to mental illness. It is, of course, just one model. I think it is a pretty good one, though. It might even work in real-life.
I did neglect a HUGE point. Just because abnormal biological function may be responsible for sustaining a mental illness, this does not mean that an exclusively psychological approach will not effectively treat it. I believe that "depressive pressure" can trigger major depression. Remove the negative pressure. Apply positive pressure. Why not? There are plenty of scientific studies that demonstrate the efficacy of psychotherapy for treating major depression. I believe such negative pressures can cause medication break-through or perhaps even prevent a response to medication in the first place. This would argue in favor of combining both biological and psychological treatments.
I think it is obvious that some mental illnesses are biologically very "hard". They have at their root an abnormality of structure and/or function, and seem to respond only to somatic therapies. Schizophrenia displays a degenerative process. Ventricles grow in size, and brain tissue is lost. There is often a strong pattern of heritability in these illnesses - genetics. Bipolar I disorder easily fits into this category. This becomes particularly apparent in closed populations.
This is serious stuff.
Although I love talking philosophy, I find it to be a nearly worthless tool in this case, only serving to confuse things. It confounds attempts to figure out what is really going on here. I often worry that philosophies and schools of thought sometimes present dangerous obstacles in the pursuit of medical understanding and effective treatments to ease suffering and save lives. They limit perspective. For instance, I adore chiropractic for its understanding and effective treatment of many spinal maladies and their neurological consequences. However, I would not want to allow Palmer chiropractic PHILOSOPHY to persuade a physician to treat a case of syphilis with vertebral adjustments, and give it six months to work. (I don't think the majority of chiropractors any longer work this way).
I do see the importance of developing different approaches (philosophies?) as frameworks within which to investigate and understand things. I just feel a bit uncomfortable when philosophy determines the way results of experiments are interpreted, let alone determine experimental design in the first place.
Man, I know I started something with this one. I can here it now. "Is not the scientific method a philosophy?" (an attempt to preempt a "Bobber") :-)
The brain is real. The psyche is just as real. I am partial to treating them both as real objects. It seems to work for me.
Let's get to the bottom of all of this, and not waste time in the pursuit of creating philosophical or ethereal constructs for the sake of playing tennis.
Please give me time to catch my breath before flaming me. Thanks.
"The brain determines the mind as the mind changes the brain."- Me (from a previous post - shameless)
- Scott
poster:Scott L. Schofield
thread:29296
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/29519.html