Sometimes, the phrase "the worried well" is used to describe people with problems which are felt to be minor or which would resolve easily on their own.
In one recent lecture, the expert was extremely articulate, intelligent, and inspiring, discussing the importance of educating people about mental illness, as part of a public health campaign. But then, while using terminology such as "the worried well," he finished his sentence in dramatic hushed tones, saying that people who requested, or demanded, more care for what he felt were minor problems were demonstrating "...narcissistic entitlement." To be a member of the "worried well," I guess the view is that seeking external help would be wasteful, unnecessary, and inefficient for the health care system. This speaker was very persuasive, for many reasons. He obviously had a kind heart, a very altruistic disposition, a commanding intelligence, and excellent rhetorical skills.
I agree that people with extreme, incapacitating symptoms and having extreme, harsh living conditions (such as experiencing severe psychosis while living in severe poverty) require very urgent help. The health care system must attend to this type of situation with a very high priority. Mind you, a big part of the health care would be addressing the poverty and other environmental dangers with similar urgency as treating any psychiatric or medical symptoms.
But people who might be described as the "worried well" are not necessarily exhibiting "narcissistic entitlement" to ask for help. Even if there are narcissistic issues, work with an experienced therapist could be difficult and long-term, but of great potential benefit to the person and to the person's community. In some cases, a person with mild or short-term symptoms may not desire or need very much help, but even a little bit of professional attention can make a big difference. Sometimes the help might prevent a failed relationship, a failed term in university, a slide into more severe mental illness, or a disastrous life choice.
In some cases of extreme severity, a long-term complex care regime is often needed (such as a community team involving physicians, social workers, occupational therapists, etc.).
But in other cases of extreme severity, sometimes brief, focused help is adequate, and is all that the person desires or needs.
In cases of "mild" severity (such as a person with relationship stresses and generalized anxiety), sometimes minimal help is really needed...the issues may settle down on their own. Other times, just a few visits with a professional may be sufficient to help the person pass through the situation more comfortably.
But in other so-called "mild" cases, people may benefit greatly from having more ongoing help, such as a course of psychotherapy. Symptoms, as measured on symptom scales, may not lead to alarm bells ringing, and may not even change very much, but timely or ongoing therapy may make a difference between the person succeeding, flourishing, or failing in their schooling, career development, or relationship life. The most common symptom scales do not tend to measure these things directly.
Nowadays, it is hard to discuss such matters philosophically, without dealing with a question such as "but where is the evidence?" or "Are your ideas evidence-based?" The best evidence base for any health care claim would have to involve a prospective, randomized controlled study with very clear outcome criteria. It is expensive and difficult to assemble such studies. Much of what I am talking about above is not based on some specific "diagnosis" (though nowadays it is quite easy to form a list of DSM-V diagnoses) but on a person's subjective wish to have help. Treatment studies, due to technical difficulties and expense, tend to be brief, single diagnosis-based, and based on fairly simple quantitative measurements (such as symptom scale data). For this reason, a strict requirement for evidence-based treatments in mental health care will tend to favour brief techniques which have very clear evidence of reducing acute symptoms quickly as measured by questionnaires. This favouring is not because the evidence is invalid (in fact, the evidence from these studies is informative and excellent), but because most studies will necessarily be short-term in this way. Longer-term studies with more qualitative measures are much more difficult to do, and therefore there is much less published data.
But in many situations, the benefit from mental health treatments is longer-term, and may be more qualitative than a symptom questionnaire could pick up.
I do not at all mean to disparage the focus on effective, cost-efficient, brief treatment of mental health problems. I also think it is valuable to challenge wasteful or unnecessary expensive practices, especially those which lack any good evidence at all.
But mental health care sometimes requires a steady, longer-term commitment to really take care of people, to make the effort to know people very well for a long period of time, to understand a person deeply, not just in terms of symptom scores. A therapist or psychiatrist need not be simply a "provider" or technician to relieve symptoms. Sometimes this is all a person wants, and that would be fine. But if this the only thing the profession focuses on, then we risk having a health care system which becomes more impersonal, disconnected, and mechanical. For psychiatrists, a very short-term focus will naturally favour simple prescriptive approaches such as medication trials (I am not "anti-medication" but I strongly discourage the practice of prescribing medications without knowing people well, and without addressing other holistic strategies for health care). A more disconnected or impersonal health care system is harmful for patients, and is harmful for the community of therapists and other professionals.
Let's not use phrases such as "the worried well." Let's not diagnose people who are asking for help, with "narcissistic entitlement." While it is important to prioritize urgent needs, let's spend the time trying to understand and care for all people, without judgment.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Medical Education
Medicine is a very strenuous professional program, but potentially full of incredible intellectual stimulation and personal challenge.
Having gone through medical school myself, and having gotten to know numerous medical students over the years, I have a few ideas about the medical education system:
The academic portion of medicine consists of an enormous amount of material crammed into a short period of time. It requires students to prioritize study time with great care, to get the "big picture" of things. Students with a very strong memory would have a huge advantage. As a result, few students really get to savour the academic learning, to really think deeply about these important subjects. For most, it is a stressful but superficial rush through vast areas of subject matter. Students who are good with test-taking gamesmanship would have an advantage here.
Here are some ideas for change:
How about have a course system in medicine which allows people to gradually complete the academic section at their own pace? This could allow people to take their time, master the material, and to enjoy it.
Some subjects in medicine, such as anatomy, are crammed into the first year, but then rarely touched upon after that, unless the student ends up doing a surgery residency, etc. What about having some very basic subjects such as anatomy be reviewed regularly and immersively, with practical applications, so that students would deepen their knowledge and practical skill over time?
Practical skills in medicine, including interviewing, physical examination, and basic procedures, could be gradually introduced much earlier. It is not necessary to understand biochemical pathways or histology, etc., to practice most clinical skills. Many such practical skills improve, and become "second-nature," with years of practice, so why not start sooner? This would make the work more interesting and relevant for the students, and ultimately would be very good for patients, because they would be dealing with medical students with better practical skills.
Having gone through medical school myself, and having gotten to know numerous medical students over the years, I have a few ideas about the medical education system:
The academic portion of medicine consists of an enormous amount of material crammed into a short period of time. It requires students to prioritize study time with great care, to get the "big picture" of things. Students with a very strong memory would have a huge advantage. As a result, few students really get to savour the academic learning, to really think deeply about these important subjects. For most, it is a stressful but superficial rush through vast areas of subject matter. Students who are good with test-taking gamesmanship would have an advantage here.
Here are some ideas for change:
How about have a course system in medicine which allows people to gradually complete the academic section at their own pace? This could allow people to take their time, master the material, and to enjoy it.
Some subjects in medicine, such as anatomy, are crammed into the first year, but then rarely touched upon after that, unless the student ends up doing a surgery residency, etc. What about having some very basic subjects such as anatomy be reviewed regularly and immersively, with practical applications, so that students would deepen their knowledge and practical skill over time?
Practical skills in medicine, including interviewing, physical examination, and basic procedures, could be gradually introduced much earlier. It is not necessary to understand biochemical pathways or histology, etc., to practice most clinical skills. Many such practical skills improve, and become "second-nature," with years of practice, so why not start sooner? This would make the work more interesting and relevant for the students, and ultimately would be very good for patients, because they would be dealing with medical students with better practical skills.
Review: "The Case against Education"
Bryan Caplan, an economist from George Mason University, has written a book called The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money.
It's quite a title, and quite a thesis, which touches a few nerves for those of us who have spent much of our lives studying and working in the education system.
Summary of the book
Here's my summary of his most important points as I saw them:
1) Degree programs at a university lead to less skill acquisition than what most people think...instead, grades and degrees and attendance at famous schools have mostly a "signaling value." That is, a person with a diploma, a degree, or high grades is thought of more highly, and is therefore more likely to be given a better job or higher esteem in society, even though their actual skills may be no different from a person lacking such credentials. If they did have more skills, it may not have been due to the degree, but rather they had more skills in the first place, and that's why they did the degree. Having a degree could also be an indirect signal of being compliant and obedient, which might be considered attractive by some employers.
2) The social machinery of education therefore causes people to use enormous amounts of time and money for obtaining academic credentials that have mostly "signaling value" but have little use to them or to society otherwise. Employers assess people based on these educational credentials; this inflates their value. Therefore, people who would be otherwise capable employees even without any such credentials must spend years of time, and tens of thousands of dollars, delaying their lives and careers in order to attend classes.
3) It is true that people who are more skilled or apt for some kind of career in the first place, are more likely to obtain these credentials. But Caplan's point is that these same people would or could have been very similarly capable even if they had not spent years of time and money in the academic system.
3) He recommends at the very least that education not be publicly funded.
Caplan does have some good data to support his positions, which he shows in his book.
Areas where I agree:
Here are some areas where I do agree with him:
1) I find it tragic to see students who are bored with their education. Sometimes people have to sit through and struggle through years of classes, competing for grades, trying to complete their degrees, all the while not enjoying the process, not excelling, and not valuing the subject matter. When the course or the degree is over, the experience is relief. Sometimes the subject matter of the degree is never looked at again. The entire experience is aversive or sometimes even traumatic, a repetitive blow to self-esteem with little redeeming value except for the certificate at the end. People do this because it is considered a social norm and a family expectation to obtain a degree or to go to university. And people do this because employers require more and more academic credentials just to be considered for a job.
2) I agree that trades and technical training programs should be valued more highly. Such training opportunities could start earlier in life, such as in high school.
Areas where I disagree:
But here are areas in which I disagree with Caplan:
Caplan points out that people show evidence of having forgotten much of what they learned in university, not long after they finish. But such tests of memory do not prove an absence of permanent learning. Almost certainly, in most cases, people would re-learn the material much faster if exposed to it again. For example, if you took a calculus or Spanish course 5 years ago, but had not used these subjects since then, you would probably score poorly on a test today. But you would probably be able to re-learn the calculus or Spanish much more quickly than someone who had never taken the course at all. Knowledge can sometimes go into a sort of "zip file" in the brain, which can't be used immediately, but can be re-awakened if needed.
Caplan himself shows that while there is a very high amount of signaling vs. skill acquisition in university education, it is not 100% signaling...that is, some true valuable learning has taken place, on average (in some subjects, such as engineering, more than others). In many areas of life, we have such inefficiency, but that does not negate the importance or value of the activity. For example, an exercise regime may only lead to a statistically small improvement in health variables, but such a small effect is still positive and desirable.
I find Caplan's comments about certain areas of study, such as within the arts, inappropriate and offensive. All subjects, all human wisdom, has value...this is part of being human. We should cultivate respect for all forms of knowledge...however I do agree that we need not "force" people to study these things just for the sake of acquiring some signaling item such as a diploma.
Conclusion and personal reflections:
In conclusion, I have always felt that a broad education is valuable for individual lives and for society.
But I believe that educational pursuits should have a stronger focus on joy and meaning, with efforts made to reduce the predominance of signaling effects.
I agree that we should reduce social or economic penalties for people who do not have formal educational credentials, as long as they can show and develop skill or expertise in other ways.
While I agree that we should value trade schools or other technical programs, I think broad education is important for technical students as well, to allow people to be well-informed and to have a greater esthetic appreciation for the arts, fine arts, and other subjects. Of course, going to school is not necessary for esthetic appreciation, but school at its best can introduce people to beautiful areas of life that would not be discovered otherwise.
I would like to see less polarization between arts and sciences programs...I would love to see more overlap.
I think it would be healthy for the activities of students in different faculties, including in the arts, to have immediate relevance and interaction with the community. It would be interesting, for example, to have more outreach programs. And maybe the encouragement for students to have their undergraduate essays published, so that all those hours of work writing would not just lead to a product that would be read one time by a professor or grad student, and then never looked at again.
People who are truly bored and struggling through material should at least have broader choices for their educational development, to favour subjects that truly interest them, so that people's youth need not be wasted in a drudgery of unsatisfying and demoralizing work.
My own experience of education through my life has been very positive and meaningful. There are many esoteric subjects I studied long ago that I may not make much use of, but I consider them to be part of acquiring wisdom, and broad knowledge of the world. In my daily work, a broad education allows me to have better connection with students from many different faculties.
Most of us need some kind of formal structure to motivate us, and maybe some sort of prize at the end, such as a diploma. Free access to education through the internet is a great thing, but this modality does not have such motivational factors. I love learning but I am much more likely to get something out of a learning process if there is a more formal structure to it.
In the arts, Caplan seems to suggest that many subjects are wasteful. Perhaps an example would be the study of Shakespeare. But I can't help but note the local theatre company which produces Shakespeare plays all summer...all of the performances are packed, with people of all ages! I think if we were to reduce exposure to literature in schools and universities, we would see a decline in these types of cultural activities, which would be a loss for us all.
But I do think that Shakespeare, if taught in school, should be made engaging, dynamic, and fun, just like a good theatre production.
I strongly disagree with Caplan's opinion that we should reduce public funding for education. Reduced funding would penalize those with lower income. He suggests some kind of meritocratic system as well, which I favour too, but it seems to me that access to a high-quality, enjoyable public education should be a basic privilege granted to all citizens. I do agree that there could be more educational options though, aside from the conventional, orthodox degree system which has prevailed during this century.
Relevance to mental health:
I bring up this issue in a mental health blog because one of the common environmental factors contributing to unhappiness, anxiety, and depression in young people is frustration with education. Classes may be boring, excessively difficult, lacking in obvious meaning or purpose, or lacking in application to future life goals. Classes are also expensive, causing students to be in a compromised financial state for years, relying upon loans or family support, or upon strenuous after-hours jobs. Grades, if low, can cause demoralization. Even if grades are high, they can drive a perfectionistic or obsessional quest at the cost of other healthy or enjoyable life activities (ironically, including learning). Once a degree program is over, many students still have a hard time finding employment, even after a graduate degree. Sometimes the jobs that are available have only an oblique relationship to the subject matter studied during the degree.
So I think it is good to examine the process of education itself, and to question some of the foundations, as part of helping young people to have good mental health.
It's quite a title, and quite a thesis, which touches a few nerves for those of us who have spent much of our lives studying and working in the education system.
Summary of the book
Here's my summary of his most important points as I saw them:
1) Degree programs at a university lead to less skill acquisition than what most people think...instead, grades and degrees and attendance at famous schools have mostly a "signaling value." That is, a person with a diploma, a degree, or high grades is thought of more highly, and is therefore more likely to be given a better job or higher esteem in society, even though their actual skills may be no different from a person lacking such credentials. If they did have more skills, it may not have been due to the degree, but rather they had more skills in the first place, and that's why they did the degree. Having a degree could also be an indirect signal of being compliant and obedient, which might be considered attractive by some employers.
2) The social machinery of education therefore causes people to use enormous amounts of time and money for obtaining academic credentials that have mostly "signaling value" but have little use to them or to society otherwise. Employers assess people based on these educational credentials; this inflates their value. Therefore, people who would be otherwise capable employees even without any such credentials must spend years of time, and tens of thousands of dollars, delaying their lives and careers in order to attend classes.
3) It is true that people who are more skilled or apt for some kind of career in the first place, are more likely to obtain these credentials. But Caplan's point is that these same people would or could have been very similarly capable even if they had not spent years of time and money in the academic system.
3) He recommends at the very least that education not be publicly funded.
Caplan does have some good data to support his positions, which he shows in his book.
Areas where I agree:
Here are some areas where I do agree with him:
1) I find it tragic to see students who are bored with their education. Sometimes people have to sit through and struggle through years of classes, competing for grades, trying to complete their degrees, all the while not enjoying the process, not excelling, and not valuing the subject matter. When the course or the degree is over, the experience is relief. Sometimes the subject matter of the degree is never looked at again. The entire experience is aversive or sometimes even traumatic, a repetitive blow to self-esteem with little redeeming value except for the certificate at the end. People do this because it is considered a social norm and a family expectation to obtain a degree or to go to university. And people do this because employers require more and more academic credentials just to be considered for a job.
2) I agree that trades and technical training programs should be valued more highly. Such training opportunities could start earlier in life, such as in high school.
Areas where I disagree:
But here are areas in which I disagree with Caplan:
Caplan points out that people show evidence of having forgotten much of what they learned in university, not long after they finish. But such tests of memory do not prove an absence of permanent learning. Almost certainly, in most cases, people would re-learn the material much faster if exposed to it again. For example, if you took a calculus or Spanish course 5 years ago, but had not used these subjects since then, you would probably score poorly on a test today. But you would probably be able to re-learn the calculus or Spanish much more quickly than someone who had never taken the course at all. Knowledge can sometimes go into a sort of "zip file" in the brain, which can't be used immediately, but can be re-awakened if needed.
Caplan himself shows that while there is a very high amount of signaling vs. skill acquisition in university education, it is not 100% signaling...that is, some true valuable learning has taken place, on average (in some subjects, such as engineering, more than others). In many areas of life, we have such inefficiency, but that does not negate the importance or value of the activity. For example, an exercise regime may only lead to a statistically small improvement in health variables, but such a small effect is still positive and desirable.
I find Caplan's comments about certain areas of study, such as within the arts, inappropriate and offensive. All subjects, all human wisdom, has value...this is part of being human. We should cultivate respect for all forms of knowledge...however I do agree that we need not "force" people to study these things just for the sake of acquiring some signaling item such as a diploma.
Conclusion and personal reflections:
In conclusion, I have always felt that a broad education is valuable for individual lives and for society.
But I believe that educational pursuits should have a stronger focus on joy and meaning, with efforts made to reduce the predominance of signaling effects.
I agree that we should reduce social or economic penalties for people who do not have formal educational credentials, as long as they can show and develop skill or expertise in other ways.
While I agree that we should value trade schools or other technical programs, I think broad education is important for technical students as well, to allow people to be well-informed and to have a greater esthetic appreciation for the arts, fine arts, and other subjects. Of course, going to school is not necessary for esthetic appreciation, but school at its best can introduce people to beautiful areas of life that would not be discovered otherwise.
I would like to see less polarization between arts and sciences programs...I would love to see more overlap.
I think it would be healthy for the activities of students in different faculties, including in the arts, to have immediate relevance and interaction with the community. It would be interesting, for example, to have more outreach programs. And maybe the encouragement for students to have their undergraduate essays published, so that all those hours of work writing would not just lead to a product that would be read one time by a professor or grad student, and then never looked at again.
People who are truly bored and struggling through material should at least have broader choices for their educational development, to favour subjects that truly interest them, so that people's youth need not be wasted in a drudgery of unsatisfying and demoralizing work.
My own experience of education through my life has been very positive and meaningful. There are many esoteric subjects I studied long ago that I may not make much use of, but I consider them to be part of acquiring wisdom, and broad knowledge of the world. In my daily work, a broad education allows me to have better connection with students from many different faculties.
Most of us need some kind of formal structure to motivate us, and maybe some sort of prize at the end, such as a diploma. Free access to education through the internet is a great thing, but this modality does not have such motivational factors. I love learning but I am much more likely to get something out of a learning process if there is a more formal structure to it.
In the arts, Caplan seems to suggest that many subjects are wasteful. Perhaps an example would be the study of Shakespeare. But I can't help but note the local theatre company which produces Shakespeare plays all summer...all of the performances are packed, with people of all ages! I think if we were to reduce exposure to literature in schools and universities, we would see a decline in these types of cultural activities, which would be a loss for us all.
But I do think that Shakespeare, if taught in school, should be made engaging, dynamic, and fun, just like a good theatre production.
I strongly disagree with Caplan's opinion that we should reduce public funding for education. Reduced funding would penalize those with lower income. He suggests some kind of meritocratic system as well, which I favour too, but it seems to me that access to a high-quality, enjoyable public education should be a basic privilege granted to all citizens. I do agree that there could be more educational options though, aside from the conventional, orthodox degree system which has prevailed during this century.
Relevance to mental health:
I bring up this issue in a mental health blog because one of the common environmental factors contributing to unhappiness, anxiety, and depression in young people is frustration with education. Classes may be boring, excessively difficult, lacking in obvious meaning or purpose, or lacking in application to future life goals. Classes are also expensive, causing students to be in a compromised financial state for years, relying upon loans or family support, or upon strenuous after-hours jobs. Grades, if low, can cause demoralization. Even if grades are high, they can drive a perfectionistic or obsessional quest at the cost of other healthy or enjoyable life activities (ironically, including learning). Once a degree program is over, many students still have a hard time finding employment, even after a graduate degree. Sometimes the jobs that are available have only an oblique relationship to the subject matter studied during the degree.
So I think it is good to examine the process of education itself, and to question some of the foundations, as part of helping young people to have good mental health.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Helicopter Parenting vs. Free-Range Parenting
There are many items in the news these days, encouraging "free-range parenting" instead of "helicopter parenting."
A "helicopter parent" is one who is overprotective, excessively anxious, perhaps enmeshed, and who does not allow children to cultivate appropriate independence or autonomy.
A "free-range parent," by contrast, is okay with children going off to play by themselves, with the understanding that enjoyment and learning in childhood requires free time, some risk-taking, and figuring out solutions to problems without parental intervention.
But as with so many issues of this type, we have unnecessary polarization. These parenting styles exist on a spectrum. And individual children may differ in how much they might appreciate or need one or the other style. These needs may also change for these individual children over time.
Some children may greatly appreciate a more involved parent, at least at certain points during their lifetime. Other children may greatly appreciate more autonomy and distance from parents. Let's not impose a generalized parenting philosophy while forgetting to take the individual situation of the child into account.
Another angle on this has to do with the enjoyment of parenting. It is one of the great joys of life to play with one's child. And I think it is a great memory for a child to see their parent enjoying time with them. I have seen so many examples of unhappy children playing alone in the park, while their detached, seemingly uninterested parents are sitting on a bench looking at their phones, or are not present at all. Sometimes, to me, it appears like neglect, rather than being wholesome "free-range."
There are surely many examples of excessive "helicopter" parenting. But there are also many examples of parents who are detached, uninvolved, and missing out on enjoying their children's daily lives. Let's aim for a moderate and flexible approach, somewhere between these two extremes, with a willingness to adjust the style according to the individual child's personality and development.
A "helicopter parent" is one who is overprotective, excessively anxious, perhaps enmeshed, and who does not allow children to cultivate appropriate independence or autonomy.
A "free-range parent," by contrast, is okay with children going off to play by themselves, with the understanding that enjoyment and learning in childhood requires free time, some risk-taking, and figuring out solutions to problems without parental intervention.
But as with so many issues of this type, we have unnecessary polarization. These parenting styles exist on a spectrum. And individual children may differ in how much they might appreciate or need one or the other style. These needs may also change for these individual children over time.
Some children may greatly appreciate a more involved parent, at least at certain points during their lifetime. Other children may greatly appreciate more autonomy and distance from parents. Let's not impose a generalized parenting philosophy while forgetting to take the individual situation of the child into account.
Another angle on this has to do with the enjoyment of parenting. It is one of the great joys of life to play with one's child. And I think it is a great memory for a child to see their parent enjoying time with them. I have seen so many examples of unhappy children playing alone in the park, while their detached, seemingly uninterested parents are sitting on a bench looking at their phones, or are not present at all. Sometimes, to me, it appears like neglect, rather than being wholesome "free-range."
There are surely many examples of excessive "helicopter" parenting. But there are also many examples of parents who are detached, uninvolved, and missing out on enjoying their children's daily lives. Let's aim for a moderate and flexible approach, somewhere between these two extremes, with a willingness to adjust the style according to the individual child's personality and development.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Book Recommendation: "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky
Behave is over 700 pages long. Its size may lead to some potential readers being intimidated, but I found it an engaging, often entertaining review of neuroscience, from the lens of someone who has good experience and understanding not just of brain chemistry, but of social, historical, and psychological influences upon behaviour.
One of Sapolsky's big messages, in a nutshell, is that very few single factors (such as hormone or neurotransmitter effects, genes, or environmental incidents) have a simple, obvious, consistent impact. These factors have different effects depending on the circumstances. For example, androgens may only exacerbate aggressive behaviour in someone who is already having difficulties containing aggression in the first place. This immediately makes me question the generic finding (recently published) that violent video games have no negative impact...perhaps there is a negative impact, but only in those who have violent behavioural tendencies in the first place.
On the one hand, this is a refreshing antidote to the simplistic reductionism that is often presented in discussions of neuroscience or psychiatry. On the other hand, it does not negate the importance of studying these factors with good scientific depth, so as to work with them therapeutically, on a neurobiologic or societal level.
A criticism I do have about the book is his references to areas of the psychological literature (such as about priming, for example) which are now being questioned: a lot of findings about priming seem to have failed replication tests, and so I'm not sure what to think about this whole area anymore. I suspect influences such as priming do exist, but may be more transient or erratic than what the original literature suggested.
I appreciate his balanced analysis of the work of other thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, and other historical figures in psychology such as Zimbardo.
I most appreciate his message of hope, about the things we can all work on to live more peacefully, in light of the influences (positive and negative) upon our behaviour that we are born into, through our genes, family, and culture.
This is another type of book that I wish students could be exposed to as part of their university education about psychology, medicine, or other areas of the humanities.
One of Sapolsky's big messages, in a nutshell, is that very few single factors (such as hormone or neurotransmitter effects, genes, or environmental incidents) have a simple, obvious, consistent impact. These factors have different effects depending on the circumstances. For example, androgens may only exacerbate aggressive behaviour in someone who is already having difficulties containing aggression in the first place. This immediately makes me question the generic finding (recently published) that violent video games have no negative impact...perhaps there is a negative impact, but only in those who have violent behavioural tendencies in the first place.
On the one hand, this is a refreshing antidote to the simplistic reductionism that is often presented in discussions of neuroscience or psychiatry. On the other hand, it does not negate the importance of studying these factors with good scientific depth, so as to work with them therapeutically, on a neurobiologic or societal level.
A criticism I do have about the book is his references to areas of the psychological literature (such as about priming, for example) which are now being questioned: a lot of findings about priming seem to have failed replication tests, and so I'm not sure what to think about this whole area anymore. I suspect influences such as priming do exist, but may be more transient or erratic than what the original literature suggested.
I appreciate his balanced analysis of the work of other thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, and other historical figures in psychology such as Zimbardo.
I most appreciate his message of hope, about the things we can all work on to live more peacefully, in light of the influences (positive and negative) upon our behaviour that we are born into, through our genes, family, and culture.
This is another type of book that I wish students could be exposed to as part of their university education about psychology, medicine, or other areas of the humanities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)