http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/11...blem.html?_r=0

By GEORGE MAKARI
November 11, 2015

Recently, a psychiatric study on first episodes of psychosis made front-page news. People seemed quite surprised by the finding: that lower doses of psychotropic drugs, when combined with individual psychotherapy, family education and a focus on social adaptation, resulted in decreased symptoms and increased wellness.

But the real surprise — and disappointment — was that this was considered so surprising. The study, by Dr. John M. Kane of Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine and his colleagues, simply gave empirical support to the longstanding “biopsychosocial” model of illness, which acknowledges that, in ways not fully understood, biology, psychology and social forces can all affect mental health. This model has long been the basis of treatment for experienced, pragmatically minded clinicians.

Unfortunately, such clinical pragmatism has seriously declined in the United States, as psychiatry has veered toward pharmacology. After the emergence of Prozac and the newer antipsychotic drugs like Risperidone some two decades ago, there was a sustained effort by academic research leaders in American psychiatry to promote these successes, and to fight the stigmatization of the mentally ill by forgoing the complexities of the biopsychosocial model for a simpler, more authoritative claim: Mental illness is a brain disease.

Inherent to this proposition is the implication that psychological and social events somehow are not also brain events. Acknowledgment of any nonexplicitly neural factors is seen as opening the door to those who dismiss mental illness as metaphysical, fake or the result of a moral failing. By these lights, meaningful interventions for those struggling with mental illness must be biochemical or anatomical.

[Rest in Link]

[lowinmood]

Published on 24 Sep 2015
A lecture explaining the causes of schizophrenia and why it's not an actual organic disease. This lecture was delivered on April 6th 2014 in Seattle Washington at the Socratic Forum for Thought. To purchase a copy of John Modrow's book: How to Become a Schizophrenic. The official site of author John Modrow

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/11...blem.html?_r=0

By GEORGE MAKARI
November 11, 2015

Recently, a psychiatric study on first episodes of psychosis made front-page news. People seemed quite surprised by the finding: that lower doses of psychotropic drugs, when combined with individual psychotherapy, family education and a focus on social adaptation, resulted in decreased symptoms and increased wellness.

But the real surprise — and disappointment — was that this was considered so surprising. The study, by Dr. John M. Kane of Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine and his colleagues, simply gave empirical support to the longstanding “biopsychosocial” model of illness, which acknowledges that, in ways not fully understood, biology, psychology and social forces can all affect mental health. This model has long been the basis of treatment for experienced, pragmatically minded clinicians.

Unfortunately, such clinical pragmatism has seriously declined in the United States, as psychiatry has veered toward pharmacology. After the emergence of Prozac and the newer antipsychotic drugs like Risperidone some two decades ago, there was a sustained effort by academic research leaders in American psychiatry to promote these successes, and to fight the stigmatization of the mentally ill by forgoing the complexities of the biopsychosocial model for a simpler, more authoritative claim: Mental illness is a brain disease.

Inherent to this proposition is the implication that psychological and social events somehow are not also brain events. Acknowledgment of any nonexplicitly neural factors is seen as opening the door to those who dismiss mental illness as metaphysical, fake or the result of a moral failing. By these lights, meaningful interventions for those struggling with mental illness must be biochemical or anatomical.

[Rest in Link]

Yes. I read this and in fact printed it out to share with psy doctor.

Inherent to this proposition is the implication that psychological and social events somehow are not also brain events.

Yes! Maybe it's because people who study neurology and people who study psychology and sociology prefer to concentrate on their own areas, but this makes the "story" of mental health/mental illness and how to treat it/improve it confusing to everyone.

Originally Posted by jo_thorne

this makes the "story" of mental health/mental illness and how to treat it/improve it confusing to everyone.

Yea. i think it makes sense to take an integral/holistic view - How can everything that effects mental health be rationally seperated? How can physiology, sociology, psychology & i'd add the transpersonal/spiritual - Be rationally/logically separated? It's the compartmentalisation/specialisation that is the problem imo.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

Yea. i think it makes sense to take an integral/holistic view - How can everything that effects mental health be rationally seperated? How can physiology, sociology, psychology & i'd add the transpersonal/spiritual - Be rationally/logically separated? It's the compartmentalisation/specialisation that is the problem imo.

Exactly!

Disease Theory of ‘Mental Illness’ Tied To Pessimism About Recovery -

Disease Theory of Mental Illness Decreases Belief in Recovery

Researchers recently completed a first of its kind, large-scale international survey of attitudes about mental health and they were surprised by the results. According to their analysis published in this month’s issue of the Journal of Affective Disorders, people in developed countries, like the United States, are more likely to assume that ‘mental illnesses’ are similar to physical illnesses and biological or genetic in origin, but they are also much less likely to think that individuals can overcome these challenges and make a full recovery.

“Perhaps surprisingly, where illnesses were believed to be ‘not like physical illness,’ they were also considered more amenable to prevention and recovery,” wrote the researchers, led by Neil Seeman from the University of Toronto.

“Respondents from developed countries, despite believing that mental illness was similar to physical illness (and, as a consequence, one would think, treatable and curable) had less hope for a person being able to overcome mental illness than did respondents from developing countries.”

Seeman and his team used a new survey method to gather opinion data on stigma and conceptions of mental health from all countries in the world simultaneously. The online method allowed the researchers to survey over one million people in 229 countries and protectorates around the world for each question. The researchers asked respondents about their experiences interacting with people diagnosed with mental disorders, the likelihood of violence among those diagnosed, whether ‘mental illnesses’ were similar to physical illnesses, and whether people could ever overcome such a condition.

In the developed countries, like the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, 45% to 51% of those surveyed reported believing that mental illness was similar to physical illness while only 12% to 15% of respondents from developing countries agreed with this statement. However, those in developing countries were much more likely to think that patients are capable of recovery.

“A surprisingly low proportion (7%) of respondents from developed countries endorsed the statement that persons suffering from mental illness can overcome their illness.”

The results of this survey buttress previous research conducted by Pescolido et al. in 2010, which found that neurobiological conceptions of mental illnesses, rather than lessening stigma, actually increased the likelihood of social distance and community rejection.

The Revolution in Psychotherapy

The Revolution in Psychotherapy

By David Elkins, PhD
Op-Ed November 12, 2015

"Techniques are fine. The only problem is that they leave out the client, the therapist, and the relationship."

Evidence converging from numerous fields is showing that humans have evolved to give and receive emotional healing through social networks. Psychotherapy, then, can be seen from this perspective as a manifestation of our capacity - endowed by evolution - to heal each other. As my new book, The Human Elements of Psychotherapy: A Nonmedical Model of Emotional Healing,(1) explores the mounting evidence that points toward a revolution taking place in contemporary psychotherapy, I believe it will be of interest to MIA’s “community for those interested in rethinking psychiatric care.”(2)

[Rest in Link]

RAISE-ing Some Questions

RAISE-ing Some Questions - Mad In America

All the media hubbub surrounding the recent publication of the RAISE study has been somewhat confusing. A sampler of headlines includes; Game Changer? (HuffPo); New Approach Advised to Treat Schizophrenia (New York Times); New York Times Issues Correction on RAISE Study Report; Landmark Study Recommends More Therapy, etc…

What is one to make of all the fanfare and conflicting commentary? One of the central conclusions from the study is that providing personalized medication management, family education, recovery-oriented talk therapy and supported employment and education produced modestly better outcomes than treatment as usual (TAU) in a two-year period. This is not exactly a hold the phone!, stop the presses! kind of revelation. The deflated response from many providers in psychiatric rehabilitation and Recovery model programs has been; “now we know what we already knew." Connecting with people experiencing psychosis, helping them to find hope and meaningful roles at work, school, and the community is what we’ve been doing for the past 25 years. It’s nice to be validated and to have research dollars focused on non-medical interventions. The Recovery model has long recognized that symptom-reduction and meds alone seldom result in recovery.

You Are Not Just Your Brain

You Are Not Just Your Brain : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

For some time now, I've been skeptical about the neuroscience of consciousness. Not so much because I doubt that consciousness is affected by neural states and processes, but because of the persistent tendency on the part of some neuroscientists to think of consciousness itself as a neural phenomenon.

Nothing epitomizes this tendency better than Francis Crick's famous claim — he called it his "astonishing hypothesis" — that you are your brain. At an interdisciplinary conference at Brown not so long ago, I heard a prominent neuroscientist blandly assert, as if voicing well-established scientific fact, that thoughts, feelings and beliefs are specific constellations of matter that are located (as it happens) inside the head. My own view — I laid this out in a book I wrote a few years back called Out of Our Heads — is that the brain is only part of the story, and that we can only begin to understand how the brain makes us consciousness by realizing that brain functions only in the setting of our bodies and our broader environmental (including our social and cultural) situation. The skull is not a magical membrane, my late collaborator, friend and teacher Susan Hurley used to say. And there is no reason to think the processes supporting consciousness are confined to what happens only on one side (the inside) of that boundary.

A Brief Guide to Embodied Cognition: Why You Are Not Your Brain - Guest Blog - Scientific American Blog Network
____________________________________________

IS CONSCIOUSNESS FUNDAMENTAL?

ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS ? ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Consciousness is that inner awareness each of us has. It is the witness to our thoughts, and ultimately, who we really are. In this book, the term ‘consciousness’ will be used to describe any form of awareness, regardless of complexity or degree. But what is consciousness? Are thoughts things? How does the felt world of experience arise from the soft, wet tissue of our brains? Are we no more than our brains? And if so, what is it about brains that permit this experiencing center in the physical universe? Consciousness is the vehicle of all value and meaning. It is the ontological fountainhead, not just of the means to attribute significance, but of significance itself. Without it, there could be no meaning or value in the universe. It is then, in a certain sense, all that really matters. Such centrality sits uneasily with our competing suspicions of the insignificance of life in the cosmos.

[Rest in Links]

[kennyc]

You are no more your brain than a computer program is a computer, but you certainly are the processes that take place in your brain.

Is Consciousness More than the Brain? | Interview with Dr. Gary Schwartz

[kennyc]

There is no Hard problem of Consciousness. It just a made-up philosophical claim equivalent to Descartes mind brain duality. Mostly being pushed by Chalmers.

Originally Posted by kennyc

There is no Hard problem of Consciousness. It just a made-up philosophical claim equivalent to Descartes mind brain duality. Mostly being pushed by Chalmers.

How is it answered other than to say consciousness is fundamental?

[kennyc]

Consciousness is a process in the brain that evolved from simple awareness. It's really that simple. That is my conclusion from studying it for many many years. I've written a few essays on it. Some on my Bleeding Edge blog.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Consciousness is a process in the brain that evolved from simple awareness. It's really that simple. That is my conclusion from studying it for many many years. I've written a few essays on it. Some on my Bleeding Edge blog.

i don't agree - But fair enough.

[kennyc]

If you can explain it otherwise, using science, be my guest. But as you say we apparently disagree.

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you can explain it otherwise, using science, be my guest. But as you say we apparently disagree.

Explain how consciousness is created by the brain using science?

[kennyc]

In the same way memories, sensations, movement, dreams and everything else the brain does is created, through elector-chemical patterns in the brain's neurons.

There's nothing mystical, magical about it. Do we know all the details? No, but everything we do know supports the fact that consciousness, like memory, sensation, etc are what the brain does.

It's really very simple if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Originally Posted by kennyc

In the same way memories, sensations, movement, dreams and everything else the brain does.

There's nothing mystical, magical about it. Do we know all the details? No, but everything we do know supports the fact that consciousness, like memory, sensation, etc are what the brain does.

It's really very simple if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

With respect science can't explain/prove that. There are myriad holes in the theory of evolution as well - extensively covered by certain academics. But we're Not going to change each others minds. Best agree to disagree.

[kennyc]

Science DOES explain and demonstrate those things. And no there are no 'holes' in the theory of evolution. You are simply wrong on both of these and I will drop it with that because I've been through both of those topics with those of your ilk way too many times.

What I will reserve though is to continue to point out errors when/if you post additional topics such as this.

I'll just say once again there is no mind/body problem.

The problem brought up in the first post of this thread has to do with treating psychiatric patients by using a combination of both drugs and psychotherapy which is often a problem for patients and something I am totally behind - using both meds and psychotherapy to address the needs of the patient.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Science DOES explain and demonstrate those things.

Prove it then - it doesn't.

And no there are no 'holes' in the theory of evolution.

It's full of holes.

Like i say, best agree to disagree.

[kennyc]

Well you're welcome to disagree all you like, but make sure that you understand that it's not me you are disagreeing with, but the full body of science. Bye now.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well you're welcome to disagree all you like, but make sure that you understand that it's not me you are disagreeing with, but the full body of science. Bye now.

In your opinion. i disagree, so does a lot of science.

Am happy to agree to disagree - i could provide plenty of academic links. If you have the evidence then please provide it.