<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- name="generator" content="blosxom/2.0" -->
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN" "http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">

<rss version="0.91">
  <channel>
    <title>Notebooks   </title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks</link>
    <description>Cosma's Notebooks</description>
    <language>en</language>

  <item>
    <title>Neuropsychiatry</title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks/1995/03/25#neuropsychiatry</link>
    <description>
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;Talk to your analyst&lt;br&gt;
	Isn't that what he's paid for?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Evidence bearing on the charge that it is gaining ground in medical schools
because it leads to more perscriptions for medications, hence more money for
pharmaceutical firms.  (Read in &lt;cite&gt;Z&lt;/cite&gt; magazine, but they're a bunch of
ideologues anyhow.)

&lt;P&gt;Drugs are more effective cures of depression, schizophrenia, etc. than
psychoanalysis and similar talking-cures.  (Assume this as a hypothesis if not
a fact.)  This doesn't show that psychoanalysis is wrong about the
&lt;em&gt;causes&lt;/em&gt; of these conditions, precisely because the brain and the mind
are so tied up with each other (if not identical).  The shrink says (e.g.) that
you are depressed because of some unmentionable thoughts about Mother or
diapers.  The neurologist says it's because something incomprhensible has
happened to a chemical you can't pronounce.  But, as William James used to say,
&quot;every psychosis [=mind state] is a neurosis [=brain state],&quot; so mightn't
such unmentionable thoughts --- or the corresponding neural processes --- under
the right conditions &lt;em&gt;cause&lt;/em&gt; that kind of chemical screw-up, which then
becomes self-perpetuating?  Conversely, a (modern sense) neurosis might have
its origin in a (former sense) neurosis, yet be terminated words from the
shrink --- even if the story the shrink tells has no basis in fact whatsoever.

&lt;P&gt;Are suggestions more effective if people are more confident in their
sources?  &lt;em&gt;It seems a natural supposition.&lt;/em&gt; Are people in (say) the US
more confident in pills and NMR and proding the brain than in shrinks and words
an unmentionables?  &lt;em&gt;I wouldn't be surprised.&lt;/em&gt; Is neuropsychiatry really
so much more effective than psychoanalysis that the difference in cure rates
cannot be explained be such an effect?  &lt;em&gt;I have no idea.  How big would the
difference have to be?&lt;/em&gt;

&lt;P&gt;My bias is for neuropsychiatry; when I go mad, act accordingly.

&lt;ul&gt;See:
	&lt;li&gt;Nancy C. Andreasen, &lt;cite&gt;The Broken Brain: The Biological
Revolution in Psychiatry&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Antonio Damasio &lt;cite&gt;Descartes' Error&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Cornelius Gross and Rene Hen, &quot;The Developmental Origins of
Anxiety&quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn1429&quot;&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Nature Reviews
Neuroscience&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; (2004): 545--552&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Kay Redfield Jamison, &lt;cite&gt;An Unquiet Mind&lt;/cite&gt; [Book about
manic-depressive illness by a clinical researcher who is herself
manic-depressive.]
	&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;To read:
	&lt;li&gt;Robert Burton, &lt;cite&gt;The Anatomy of Melancholy, What It Is, with
All the Kinds, Causes, Symptoms, Prognostics, and Several Cures of It: In Three
Partitions, with Their Several Sections, Members and Subsections,
Philosophically, Medicinally, Historically Opened and Cut Up: with a Satyrical
Preface Conducing to the Following Discourse.  By Democritus Junior&lt;/cite&gt;
[1621]
	&lt;li&gt;Cooper, &lt;cite&gt;The Victim is Always the Same&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;David Gollaher, &lt;cite&gt;Voice for the Mad: The Life of Dorothea
Dix&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Donald Mender, &lt;cite&gt;The Myth of Neuropsychiatry: A Look at
Paradoxes, Physics and the Human Brain&lt;/cite&gt; [&quot;An intellectual journey in
search of the mind and brain, from Descartes' and Spinoza's speculations, he
expands outward to propound a radical new theory of mental processes that
allows for more meaningful treatements of those with mental infirmities.&quot;
Probably horrid.]
	&lt;li&gt;Janet Oppenheim, &lt;cite&gt;&quot;Shattered Nerves&quot;: Doctors, Patients and
Depression in Victorian England&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Roy Porter, &lt;cite&gt;Mind-Forg'd Manacles&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Peter Sedgwick, &lt;cite&gt;Psycho Politics&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Ben Shephard, &lt;cite&gt;A War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists in
the Twentieth Century&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Frederick Toates, &lt;cite&gt;Biological Psychiatry: An Integrative
Approach&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;/ul&gt;
</description>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>