the evolving mind

When reading yesterday’s science news, I encountered a sentence that almost made me not LOL, but COL (cheer out loud). Here it is:

The authors caution that because they studied only a small number of people, further research is necessary….

Booyah! Now that’s science and good science writing.

The research in question was on the use of deep brain stimulation as a treatment for depression. What made the research unique is the brain area stimulated:

Physicians publishing a new report in Biological Psychiatry now describe findings related to the stimulation of the nucleus accumbens, a brain region the size of a hazelnut associated with reward and motivation that is implicated in processing pleasurable stimuli, sometimes referred to as the “pleasure center” of the brain….

Bewernick and colleagues administered DBS treatment in ten patients with severe long-term depression who had not responded to multiple other antidepressant treatments, including psychotherapy, drug treatments and electroconvulsive treatment. After one year of DBS, all patients showed some improvement, and half of them experienced significant improvement in their symptoms of depression, astonishing considering they had not responded to any prior antidepressant treatment. [source]

Notice the specific terminology and the use of quotes around pleasure center.

As for the nonsense, that hit my desk earlier in the week, in an article titled, Psychodynamic psychotherapy brings lasting benefits, new study finds.

The article led with this:

Psychodynamic psychotherapy is effective for a wide range of mental health symptoms, including depression, anxiety, panic and stress-related physical ailments, and the benefits of the therapy grow after treatment has ended, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

Okay. Psychodynamic therapy is another effective treatment, at least according to this analysis. But BOOM, then I hit this piece of BS -

Psychodynamic therapy focuses on the psychological roots of emotional suffering.

Why is it BS? Two reasons. First, it suggests that 1) there is one set of roots to emotional suffering, and 2) psychodynamic therapy works by focusing on it.

The first is BS in this regard: Human psychology is complex, with many areas of input and action. Each of areas influence the others. Experience, thought, feeling, behavior. So just as “bad” experiences can cause bad thoughts and feelings and behavior, bad feelings can cause bad experiences and . . . etc. Coupled with that is the fact that a person’s unique physiology — highly innate — will influence all of the above. How do you focus on that root?

The good news is that there are many avenues of treatment. For some people and/or some problems, the most effective approach might be to change their thinking, which can bring change to their feelings, experiences and behavior. For other individuals, a more effective approach might be to change their feelings (via drugs or even deep brain stimulation) which will bring change to their experiences and behavior and thoughts.

Is one better than the other? To me, whatever works best is better. Does one treat the “real issue” while others only the symptoms? That there is always a single “real issue” that trumps all the other, interconnected, psychological dynamics is naive balderdash.

As for the second bit of BS, even if it does work, we don’t know how psychodynamic therapy works. That the treatment is effective is one answer to one question. The how it works is a completely different question. We can’t assume that an explanation is true if the distinct mechanisms involved in that explanation haven’t been tested. As far as I know, there has been no research comparing the results of a form of psychodynamic psychotherapy that focused on “the psychological roots” versus a form that focused on “the psychological branches.”

But wait, the article got worse. Get a load of this nonsense-chocked paragraph by study author Jonathan Shedler:

“Pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies have a financial incentive to promote the view that mental suffering can be reduced to lists of symptoms, and that treatment means managing those symptoms and little else. For some specific psychiatric conditions, this makes sense,” he added. “But more often, emotional suffering is woven into the fabric of the person’s life and rooted in relationship patterns, inner contradictions and emotional blind spots. This is what psychodynamic therapy is designed to address.”

I’m sorry, but that first line is utterly ridiculous. It panders to narrow-minded sentiments. Ohh, those evil drug and healthcare corporations! Couldn’t it also be claimed that psychodynamic psychotherapists have a financial incentive to promote their ideology and brand of treatment, often requiring months upon months of costly sessions? Of course it could. But I guess they aren’t corporations, so that type of smear wouldn’t work so well.

And then there comes the neo-Freudian psychobabble. “Inner contradictions and emotional blind spots…” C’mon. Really? Vague terms like those may have great appeal to Oprah-grade thinkers, but they aren’t solid science. And, strange as it may be, I expect scientists to be scientific.

Technorati Links: mental health, psychotherapy

Trackback URI | Comments RSS