Avoid Psychology; Embrace Neuroscience
How normal can a normal person be, without getting himself “labelled” by professionals as psychologically challenged, or psychotic (to put it in a very blunt manner)? According to Corcoran et al (2007), families of psychotic children in their teens were interviewed. They provided several key characteristics of what constitute the premorbid stage of psychotic disorders as well as the profound but gradual changes in behaviour and mood during the teen years.
In the premorbid stage, the child is:
- Functioning normally and looks happy, but particularly sensitive to negative remarks or insults; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Exceptionally vulnerable to hurtful things; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Easily startled by loud noises;
- Shy and socially withdrawn; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Feels awkward or uneasy among people or within crowds; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Slow developer both socially and sexually; (I thought I have it in the past, only the social part)
- Social immaturity and lack of insight; (I thought I have it in the past as compared to now)
- Very insular person (a book-reader and computer-oriented person);
- Problems concentrating; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Bad spatial sense;
- Dyslexic but yet possesses good memory; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Slow to the point that he or she started reading late in the early life; (I thought I have it in the past, for me it’s English)
- Slow in school or dislike school as a result. (I thought I have it in the past, and everyone dislikes school in some sense)
It seems that I could fit into the risk of psychoticism as I attempt to relate my past with the characteristics as described by parents of psychotic children. Either I am wrong, or that I have totally bad memory of my childhood. However, I think anyone can just pick a trait or characteristic and relate to it as though he or she had once possessed it, but does this make them, or me, or almost everybody, proned to be psychotic? As far as I can predict, everyone is at risk for everything and anything! The measures of behavioural traits using what is deemed as science have yet to explain the ambiguity of the possible causes of a certain dependent variable, which is the mental illness itself. How does one distinguish between normal individuals and “normal” individuals, as well as individuals who are mentally ill?
Is being slow in school a starting point for problems later in life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is being extremely introverted a prodromal to mental illness like schizophrenia? It could possibly be one of the characteristics, yet it could possibly not be so. Is being extremely prone to anger a risk of psychotic manifestations? Or is it just the anger problem that needs some management? Is sleeping all day (hypersomnia) a symptom of laziness? Or is it just depression, or affective psychosis, or other mental illness that has hypersomnia as its comorbid symptom? Cormobidity – the co-existence of various behavioural traits and deficits that makes everything so confusing.
Furthermore, the consumption of antipsychotic drugs somehow paints the picture in my mind in a way as though the mentally ill were despised of their actual behaviour (however ways in which they attempt to be who they are). Picture this: You see a weird person on the street who talks in a different accent or uses unique words to describe a subject during a conversation. He seems to be walking well but yet, in a slow manner. He tends to speak with several pauses and appears to have quite low self-esteem as he stutters at the start of his sentences. He was a slow learner in school and dropped out while doing his sixth grade. He was disinterested in attending social events but loves to be by himself reading novels and fan-fictions alike. He goes out alone and seems to enjoy computer games alot. He has a few “game buddies” whom he plays game with but doesn’t really consider them as close friends, but rather, acquaintances. He avoids eye contact while talking to strangers as he is rather shy. He has extreme stage fright and doesn’t feel comfortable being together with a huge group of friends or people. He hates social gatherings but seems to perform better in his job as a cemetary caretaker. Of course, this character I have described is deliberately made up. But what I am trying to bring across is that anyone will tend to possess certain qualities reflected upon the descriptions of what constitutes the prelude of a psychotic disorder. Does this mean that the guy I’ve mentioned above is to be warded and treated like someone who is of higher risk, and therefore, institutionalised as a patient?
What do we do to people like this? Certainly, we drug them, give them psychotherapy, and keep them in our observation list for a life-long period. So by drugging these individuals, are we trying to tell the world that these individuals are despised by the society for having different or special traits that go against the social norm? Thus in addition, by removing these despised traits, which in turn depriving them of some other essential bodily functions, is considered just and in line with the humanistic view of basic human rights? Imagine that someone who is singing out loud with a voice that appears to be rather unique, and it does not gain the popularity (consensus) of a population (society). So what do we do? We spike his or her drink to ensure (in the hope) that the prescribed drug would take away the symptoms of singing aloud in a rather disturbing voice. In return, assuming that we do not get a singing individual with a lousy voice, but someone who appears to have difficulty standing or moving about, what does this drug seem to prove? Yes, we have successfully taken away the singing symptoms, but somehow paralysed the individual after removing what we despised as a “bad” trait.
I have no issue with the utility of drugs on patients, but I am concerned about the biological markers that are yet to be determined for quite a number of psychiatric disorders. So for those who are about to sign up for a psychology class in tertiary college, do consider the fact that understanding human behaviour is not enough for one to place immediate judgement as to who is suffering from what kind of disorders. Therefore, in conclusion, I want to make it clear to those who have interest in studying the human brain, avoid the psychology major, and go for Neuroscience. The current trend to studying and comprehending the embodiment of the human mind is nothing other than Neuroscience itself. With it, it holds the key to your future understanding of why and how disorders come about. It will, I believe, provide future answers and solutions to solve our current ethical issues of whether certain psychotic drugs are useful, or whether mental illness even exists.
p.s. I do have the journal as cited in this entry. Do email me for it if you are interested.
Attitude – The Life Giver & the Death Bringer
Today was quite a meaningful day for me. Though not entirely meaningful, but rather, a day filled with deep contemplation that drove my intuition wild.
I had a control (client) scheduled for the neurocognitive assessment this afternoon, and as usual, I gathered whatever I needed for the session before meeting the client. The client was an Indian Muslim and we went through the neuropsychological battery as per normal. He wasn’t my first Muslim participant in the very study I was researching on, but today, my curiosity overwhelmed me. At first, I was afraid I would be trampling upon some sensitive issues if I were to ask a participant about his or her cultural or religious background, as there was this one question within the battery that struck my chain of thought while I was reading it aloud to my client during the interview session. I shall not reveal the actual content of that specific test’s question over here.
“It seems that almost all Muslims who took part in this study would agree that alcohol is bad and perhaps abstain from it,” I commented, attempting to be as unoffensive as possible.
However, he smiled and replied that it was not the nature of alcohol that makes it evil or bad. Rather, it is our attitude towards the consumption and use of it that determines it’s nature.
I was quite impressed by such words coming from a Muslim, and not only that, I was surprised that the teaching of monotheistic religions such as Islam or Christianity does not necessarily breeds religiosity. The problem with religious ideals is that they give rise to some forms of rebellion against the mainstream society. But yet, on the other hand, I learned that religion has a spiritual and philosophical side of it that guides an individual towards some forms of ethical principle, which cannot be literally interpreted from the (Holy) scriptures. Indeed, my client’s reply got me thinking the entire afternoon about the responsibilities that we naturally possess (or if you are religious – God given).
Attitude, in psychology’s context holds several meaning and most importantly, it refers to the idea of intended action or the affective orientation that would explain the actions of a person. In ethics, attitude as its synonym, comprises the core essence of that very subject itself. What is the most important rule of thumb in ethics? It is the sole intention of an action from an individual. How do we measure attitudes or affective intentions? Through the person’s values and guided principles.
Our attitude towards an object’s usage determines overall productivity as the outcome. For instance, the Muslims believe that alcohol is bad or evil when one’s attitude towards it is perverted, such that one’s intention was to drink for pleasure and out of will to sin. Hence, to avoid alcohol is, according to Muslims, something right to do in order not to fall into temptation of getting oneself crazy when drunk. Furthermore, the intention behind drinking alcohol matters a great deal to them. Again, it is the discernment of certain purpose behind a particular deed that drives or repels a monotheistic person either towards or away from it.
I learned that religion is not at all irrational, but rather, an unusual manner of communicating ethics to its audience. Although more than half of any holy scriptures contains phrases or sentences of cruelty, genocides, and chauvinism, its philosophical principles do not only teach one to do good, but to also have the right intentions of doing something for a greater good. Sounds contradicting over here, but I think it is not the killings or cruelty of what was described, but one should read between the lines and get the big picture about the nature of what was written. One question to ask yourself was: What was the text trying to tell us, judging from the context of what and how it was written?
Regarding attitudes, one example: Money.
For instance, I believe that money itself is neutral, and that it takes on the personality of the very person who is holding on to it. If it is a self-centred person who spends money like water, and then gambles his money away, then money in this case, has been abused for selfish needs and wants – so I guess this is filthy money, and that person is filthy rich. If it is a generous person who shares his wealth in order to make a difference in some lives, then this person is, without doubt, a generous person – and I guess he is generously rich. P.S. People, women in fact, are attracted to generous individuals.
Another example: Guns.
Guns are banned in Singapore. However, I am not against the liberal use of the gun, even though it can be a weapon of mass murder or destruction. It is still an ethical issue regarding how guns ought to be used – it’s function and all. Guns are just guns, enough said. They are neutral, and what do some people do with it? They kill another person, which is what guns are made for – killing people. Not entirely, but, some use guns to injure another person. And what is the intention behind such deeds? Self-defense? Mutual hatred? Racism? Pleasure?
Again, it is our attitude towards guns that make them either a tool for evil or for good.
Third example: Religion.
Religion was initially a tool for moral guidance, and a refuge for those who are emotionally in need of mutual support and understanding. It is in fact, a centre for growth, development, and general knowledge. Taken to its extreme, it becomes a centre for crusades involving mass murder, genocides, and terrorism. But the sole question is still this: What is your intention behind your belief in God? So as to have power and license to kill? So as to be a person who makes a positive difference in other people’s lives? Or what? It is our responsibility to view anything on earth according to how we want it to be viewed, and that would determine our attitude, which in turn affects how we would react in some ways. Religion is not a bad concept. It is the people that screw it up.
Fourth example: Life.
Now what about your life? What do you want to do with your life? How do you want to spend your life or what do you want to do to yourself? I believe that heaven and hell are coexisting in this physical world. They are the here and now, and also, the future. Whether our lives are heaven or hell, depends largely on the decisions we make in our lifetime. It is not the pleasures or unpleasant experiences that plays the most part in our daily living, but it is our own decisive reaction towards any particular circumstance that is most essential. In other words, shit happens, but it takes a person’s attitude (core values or cognitive reasoning) that shapes his or her living experiences throughout the journey.
Life itself is meaningless, but we can give meaning and purpose to it. The cosmos may be indifferent to our very existence in this lonely planet, but we can let our attitude of love be a motivator to our own existence in this short lifetime that we all possess. In addition, by making the most out of life is to have the right attitude to make the best out of the meaning and purpose one can give to it.
In the end, it is only our attitude that matters.