On objective perspectives-- Julian Jaynes (1976) wrote–
“Indeed, theories of schizophrenia–and they are legion-- because they have too often been the hobbyhorses of competing perspectives, have largely defeated themselves. Each discipline construes the findings of others as secondary to the factors in its own area. The socio-environmental researcher sees the schizophrenic as the product of a stressful environment. The biochemist insists that the stressful environment has its effect only because of an abnormal biochemistry in the patient. Those who speak in terms of information processing say that a deficit in this area leads directly to stress and counterstress defenses. The defense-mechanism psychologist views the impaired information processing as a self-motivated withdrawal from contact with reality. The geneticist makes hereditary interpretations from family history data. While others might develop interpretations about the role of schizophrenic parental influence from the same data. And so on.”
Jaynes wrote this bit of frustration prior to the 90’s flourishing of neuroscience, before the “decade of the brain”. What has been discovered since the 90s to soften Jayne’s criticism? Has neuroscience found, even theoretically, what interactions between brain/mind and environment distinguish fact from fantasy? What sort of “mind” conceives Hydra and Medusa? What sort of “mind” describes the laws of gravity? In what senses do these sorts of “minds” oppose?
I’m not really up on the latest findings in neuroscience, but neuroscience is, as I’ve said, most interested and involved with how the brain works, physically, rather than how it works that results in mental dysfunction–mental dysfunction is a by-product of neuroscience, so to speak.
I know I have electrodes implanted in my cerebellum connected to pulse generators in my chest. They are there because the cerebellum is known to regulate muscle reaction to stimuli. When those reactions don’t function properly, people jerk, shake, are tremulous, whatever. The pulse generators have taken over the part of my cerebellum that was giving improper physical messages to my receptors. No one really knows why my cerebellum gave mixed signals, but the fact that it did has nothing to do with mental ‘illness.’
Which part of the brain controls emotions? There’s no one isolated part. How we view the world involves interrelated systems within our brains and those interrelated systems have yet to be perfectly understood, which is why PS and BPD aren’t fully understood. They can involve memory–both immediate and instinctive (the amygdala and the limbic system)–the sensory receptors–and so on. I don’t believe neuroscience has yet discovered the totality of brain systems and how they work.
Brain systems are individual–brain functions can only be generalized.
As for what kind of mind conceives the Medusa or the Hydra? Could it be a creative mind giving ‘life’ to ‘terrible things’ the ancient folklore ‘hero’ had to overcome in order for life to go on?
The “Law of Gravity” is also the product of a creative, inventive and analytical mind. But it isn’t really a Law. It’s an accepted theory, supported by observation and mathematics, that we’ve assumed to be true because no one has yet refuted it. We don’t know if it will remain true outside our sphere of knowledge–in another galaxy, perhaps. In the meantime, gravity is accepted as physical “law.”
But I say again, there’s no such ‘law’ for brain systems, because they’re individual. Everything now is the end result of everything before now, most especially in you and me.
I don’t know what my friend’s (I’ll refer to her as J.) “official” diagnosis is because I have not yet gained access to her family and case workers, I do know that a case worker visits here and administers shots when she skips her meds and that her daughter takes her shopping. My idea that she suffers PS is based on what she says. Most of that makes little sense to me or to others. She sometimes speaks of herself as if she is another person. Often she addresses me by names of men she has known. I worry when she tells me J. is about to do something bad or when she, with angry or hurt facial expressions, tells me I said something bad about her. Back to “Me Tarzan; you Jane.”
Yet she listens to songs and can sing the right words, dances well and is concerned with her appearance. She has no problem cooking or cleaning her apartment.
I just found in the local library E. Fuller Torrey’s “Surviving Schizophrenia: A Manual for Families, Patients and Providers”, 5th ed., 2006. Torrey approches the matter with authority and sensitivity. He admits at the onset that many of the symptoms I describe may not indicate schizophrenia. He admits that “All symptoms and signs can be found in other diseases of the brain, such as brain tumors and temperoral lobe epilepsy.” He lists over a hundred prescribed medications that can cause hallucinations and delusions.
Reading here statements made by schizophrenics, I find them to be of the same type as J. makes. While my wife and I shared some of the symptoms Torrey describes, we never talked of ourselves in the third person, addressed others as someone who they were not or claimed personal relationships with famous people. J. does.
Liz,
Your post is insightful and, IMHO, accurate.
I’m aware of current scans of brains of persons who suffer from schizophrenia and the ideas about where in the brain these dysfunctions occur. I’m also aware of the problem of distinguishing diagnostically bipolar disorder from schizophrenia. Torrey makes these distinctions well, but concludes that bipolarism might be one of the phases of the overall malady.
I’m discouraged here because we have examined many facets of this illness and few care to talk about them:
- social and personal bias as noted in public ignorance and judmentalism and the sufferer’s problems with self-image
- problems with diagnosis because many medications and some brain diseases cause the symptoms accepted as indicators of schizophrenia
- personal and impersonal approaches to how one can help a sufferer
- neurological and statistical data used in diagnoses
- what constitutes a “normal” sense of reality
etc., etc.,etc.
On topic 1.
From NAMI–
“Abraham Lincoln, Virginia Woolf, Lionel Aldridge, Eugene O’Neill, Beethoven, Gaetano Donizetti, Robert Schumann, Leo Tolstoy, Vaslov Nijinski, John Keats, Tennessee Williams,
Vincent Van Gogh, Isaac Newton, Ernest Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, Michelangelo, Winston Churchill, Vivien Leigh, Emperor Norton I, Jimmy Piersall, Patty Duke, Charles Dickens–
People with mental illnesses enrich our lives.”
This is a far cry from the mass media take on MI. Typical of that take is an episode of “Criminal Minds”. The criminal was a frustrated taxidermist who killed to obtain eyes to make his work appear more realistic. And, yes, he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.
“Most persons with schizophrenia are not dangerous at all, and I would far rather walk the halls of any mental hospital than walk the streets of any inner city.” (Torrey 2006)
May I came back to this tomorrow, Ier?–actually it’ll be more like later on today, since it’s 2am here, where I am. I really need to go to bed. Thanks for everything.–Liz
Get rest, lady!!! And thanks for caring to stick with this scattered approach to MI.
Sorry I didn’t make it yesterday–I slept late and what was left of my day was squandered on trying to convince LT he was being foolish in another thread.
Yes, there is a ‘scattered approach’ to MI and it isn’t just in this thread. No matter how many advances have been make by neuroscience, they can only be generalized theories. Despite what the computer generation feels, the human mind is not–I repeat–not a computer; it never has been, and it’s silly to think of it that way. The human mind is unique and individual. Neuroscience cannot be.
I read about a woman in Oregon who had oral surgery consisting of removing all of her upper teeth and half of her lower teeth due to gingivitis. They were replaced with dentures, either implants or the take out kind. When she woke from the anesthetic, her accent had changed. The oral surgeon told her she just needed to get used to her new teeth, but the accent change persisted. She finally went on line and learned there was a condition–a very rare one–called, I think, Accent Change Syndrome–that usually occurs after some kind of brain injury. And who’s to say whether or not either the anesthetic or the procedure altered her brain, in some way.
Anyway, the last I heard, she hadn’t had a brain scan because her insurance doesn’t cover it. Is she an example of the individual brain’s uniqueness? I don’t know.
J. must have lucid moments when she’s on her meds, even Alzheimer’s patients have lucid moments and are able to function normally. Why don’t you ask her some of the questions yourself? If you want to, tell her you’re asking the questions because you’re concerned about her welfare and would really like to help her any way you can, but that you’re not a doctor and don’t really know how to help her unless you can get to know her better. If she doesn’t know what a brain scan is, describe the procedure to her.
Television has done a lot to propagate the myths surrounding MI which only adds to misunderstanding by the general public. If you were to mention a fear of heights or PTSD, the public would probably have a better understanding because the first is a very mild phobia and the latter has been given an excuse. People need to label and they need to give the labels reasons. PTSD in a combat vet is ‘understandable,’ but there are other causes of PTSD.
I have two nephews, one is an Afghan war vet who was sitting behind a buddy when their vehicle hit an ied. The buddy was killed; C. was wounded. That’s the understandable PTSD. My other nephew responded to his sister being attacked and stabbed in her bedroom by a former boyfriend who’d gained access into the house and assaulted her after she was asleep. M. responded rationally by calling 911 and then directing the police to the proper house. He, too, has PTSD, but that’s the kind of PTSD that isn’t understood and accepted under the label–and usually goes untreated.
Once again, we’ve gone far afield from your op.
To anyone reading this thread, please remember–the human brain is individual and unique. Any ‘modeling’ of the brain can only be generalized modeling, because it isn’t a computer.
Your insights are much appreciated. About J. On Sunday she decided to get drunk (self-medication). When I was able to get to her she was well on her descent into the maelstrom.
She did not know me. She talked of suicide. I stayed with her until she could sleep. On Monday she knew my name and was apologetic for Sunday’s confusions. I am able on her lucid days to hear her descriptions of her illness.
Abour the brain/computer analogy–this is commonly used by AI advocates who forget that brains are organic, dynamic and complex. Brains invented computers. There are more neuronal connections in a brain than there are memory units in a computer. One author noted that if a computer could be built that had all the capacities of the human brain, it would be ten stories high and the size of Texas!
Digging deeper in hopes that personal experience and objective opinion will yield ideas better than each alone, I’d like to present first the case for and against cultural or societal causes of schizophrenia. It will be in two parts. First, the idea; then its refutations. All quotes are from Torrey.
- “Christopher Lash. . . in his 1979 “The Culture of Narcissism”, claimed that psychoses are in some sense the characteristic of a given culture. He also quoted Jules Henry who wrote ‘psychosis is the final outcome of all that is wrong with culture.’”
- R. C. Lewontin, et. al., “. . .in the 1984 book 'Not in our Genes”. . .write “An adequate theory of schizophrenia must understand what it is about the social and cultural environment that pushes some categories of people toward manifesting schizophrenic symptoms.'”
- Dr Szasz–“According to Szasz, schizophrena and other mental diseases are simply semantic artifacts and do not really exist. . . . People with schizophrenia, says Szasz, have a “false disease”, which is the sacred symbol of psychiatry.” To be a true disease, Szasz claims, it must be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in a scientific fasion."
- R. Laing–“He promoted the idea that schizophrenia was a sane response to an insane world and may even be a growth experience. . .”
One of the problems with books on any dynamic subject is that they’re often obsolete before they’re even published. Another ‘problem’ with what you’ve quoted is that 1, 2, and 4 all involve a ‘cultural’ basis for psychoses. #3 implies that psychoses aren’t ‘real’ diseases because they can’t be shown to be real in a ‘scientific’ fashion.
Let’s take ‘culture’ on, shall we? According to Lash, by his title, he seems to feel that ‘narcissism’ is a predominate within a culture that causes psychoses. Lewontin, according to your quote, feels we have to understand the “social and cultural environment” that leads some people into schizophrenic symptoms. So what is that environment? Is it a narcissistic society or is the psychotic narcissistic? You haven’t given us enough on which to base a decision.
Is Szasz correct in calling psychoses false diseases? He could be, but I don’t think so. It depends, doesn’t it, on how one -defines the environment in which psychoses develop and present?
In the meantime, have you asked J, what her docs have told her? What drugs she’s taking? Whether or not she’s ever had a brain scan? What she feels about what the Docs have said. What her family thinks? What her life was like before she became ill? Aren’t her answers more relevant than what books say?
Liz,
I’ve made a list of antipsychotic meds and will see if J. recognizes any of them. I’m going slowly with her so as not to be invasive or appear meddling. Perhaps the following will address some of the good questions you raise.
Part 2.
“If the brain was so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.”–Colin McGinn
Dr. Torrey cites several 19th century physicians who recognized MI as brain diseases, not as some “semantic artifact”. In the past three decades EEGs, describing brain waves, and PET and MRI brain imaging techniques have detected radical differences in brains of schizophrenics as compared with brains of persons who do not have schizophrenia. Differences of electrical potential in neurons, of functions of known neurotransmitters and even of the physical structures of the brains are clearly evident. Scientific study of MI is well underway and has been for decades.
According to Torrey, after Laing’s daughter contracted scizophrenia and Laing’s Kingsley Hall experiment “in which people with schizophrenia were allowed to experience their psychosis amidst friends and family who were loving” and meds were given only to those patients who asked for them failed, "Laing became increasingly disillusioned and alcoholic. . . .In 1982 he commented to an interviewer: “I was looked on as one who had the answers but I never had them.'”
continued–
I still have met persons in 12 step programs who claim all this “chemical imbalance” stuff is BS. And I have family who still believe MI is demon posession.
I’m familiar with Dr. Szasz from reading his famous statement: “Mind is a verb!” and Lewontin"s valuable work on genetics and environment in “The Triple Helix”. I’ve heard about Laing, but am not familiar with Henry or Lash. The brevity of their takes on social or cultural causes of MI is Torrey’s lumping them all under “obsolete theories”.
I’d like to see someone describe how an “insane” society or culture produces “insane indiviuals” backed by research into which societies do this and which do not. Reinforcing such a description would be studies of how cultures can cause radical alterations in brain structure and function. All else seems to me to be anthropological or philosophical wishful thinking. What is a sane society?
One of the things I worry about with regards to any intake-chemicals, is if we continue to take them, that is in effect an alteration of our habitat, is it not possible that as time passes as we evolve that we will come to relly on the various chemicals we have been takeing in order to function “normally”?
Dear Friend, If you have family who believe in ‘demon possession’, that’s a pretty insane culture, imm. Are there 12 step programs for people other than alcoholics? I suppose there are–like for people ‘addicted’ to gambling, shopping, and so on. I don’t think there’s any way for AA to treat people who are ‘true’ alcoholics. My younger brother (adopted as an infant), was a true alcoholic–he had a mental illness that ultimately, but indirectly, killed him two years ago, five months before his 48th birthday. Alcoholism is as much an MI as is PS, but it’s not treated as such.
Anyway,people don’t ‘contract’ an MI the way people contract a cold or the flu. That’s, to me, a gross fallacy. If a peer group considers Laing–and I include him because of what you’ve said about him,-- Henry and Lash to be positing ‘obsolete theories,’ I’d go along with that. I’ll try to do some on-line research into Szasz and Lewontin, and their work later tonight and tomorrow.
I don’t believe society and/or culture–insane or not–can alter brain structure or function. The world and it’s various cultures could, however, play ping-pong with brain chemistry and thought–I just think that would take a long time–like generations. But we see generations of tribal culture and thought influencing the ideologies of nation-states within the ME and Africa, don’t we? Does that lead to PS as an MI within our culture, however? uhmm–interesting… is that how an “insane” society or culture produces “insane indiviuals”. Are radicals ‘insane?’–or are those cultures and societies only ‘insane’ because they’re ‘different?’
I know you have to tread cautiously with J.–she’s fragile–but sometimes direct questions get better results.
Take all the time you feel you need and do your research wisely. Again, have you found a support group for you?
No, Valley, taking an aspirin for a head-ache isn’t going to alter our ‘habitat’ in any way, shape or form. Your use of the word ‘habitat’ isn’t correct–look it up. I’d also recommend googling evolution.
“is it not possible that as time passes as we evolve that we will come to relly on the various chemicals we have been takeing in order to function “normally”?”
Again, no. There’s a tremendous difference between drug ‘users’ and people who take drugs for psychiatric or physical equilibrium. You can learn those differences by researching them. Do that and make your own decision. Then we can debate the subject.
In the meantime, remember–spell check is your friend–just don’t rely on it too much. If you learn the spelling ‘rules,’ you’ll save yourself a lot of time.
Isn’t aspirin influencing our physical body which is a part of our environment? one can’t simply assert that the environment is simply outside of the body. The body is a part of the environment of our brain, and if you believe in something more fundamental then our brain then the brain is an environment for that. It seems perfectly plausible, i mean for example Chimps and apes mostly eat fruit, so at some point we had to begin to eat meats, and now our bodies require certain chemicals that are in meats, although there are now other ways of getting those chemicals. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that if we take aspirin for headaches long enough our headaches might become consistant to the point that in order to function normally we have to take aspirin constantly…
No, you understood what I meant, why put in extra effort to make things look nice just to avoid having someone comment on one’s lack of asthetics. Its the message that counts not how the message is recieved… Most of the time…
Check this out: anvari.org/log/20030916.1803 … earch.html
Again, thanks Liz for understanding. After reading Torrey I found that many of my preconceptions were open to revision or deletion. First, about J.'s family “dumping her here”, I’ve learned much about what families are up against in trying to help their loved members who suffer these diseases. The greatest obstacle to efficient and timely help for schizophrenics is the cost of treatment. Government assistance through medicaid is severely restricted and sometimes entails inhumane conditions for assistance. In the 1980s I worked in a city that had a state mental hospital. When medicaid officials decided to help defray costs of therapy only for persons who went to hospitals that were not state supported, many state institutions closed their doors or forced the majority of their patients onto street or family. I saw this happen in the city where I worked. Some of these dislocated people made it in the outside world; some didn’t.
J. does not know what her diagnosis is. She claims it is “postpartum blues” that have persisted for nearly three decades. She did recognize some meds on a list I showed her as drugs she takes. These included a couple of antipsychotics and a couple of drugs for depression and anxiety.
Here in these apartments some tenants see J. as an easy take. Her family gives her spending money. Once she gets it she will give it away to alcoholics who spend time with her in order to buy their fix and to anyone who offers her a hard luck story. She often does this at the expense of taking care of her own needs. This is the situation I find problematic. I cannot tell J. how to spend her money or what friends to have. Neither can I persuade the sots and freeloaders that J. cannot afford being their bank or source of revenue or that alcohol intake renders her meds ineffective They see J. as the goose who lays the golden egg. I’m happy that recently she has asked me to hold money for her. That’s trust beginning; and, with her trusting in me, I can help her more.
Other 12-step programs than AA include Emotions Anonymous, Codependency Anonymous, Fundamentalism Anonymous, etc., etc., etc.,