a. In his paper, Faulty Circuits, Insel suggested that biological malfunctions underlie psychological disorder. He used some modern biology and neuroscience findings to support his argument. Here are three pieces of evidence he used.
He first presented a study performed at the National Institute of Mental Health on a serotonin transporter gene of participants with and without depression. It was found that the participants with a short variation of the gene showed smaller brain tissue volume in area 25, which has a great amount of serotonin transporters. Area 25 plays an important role in fear, memory and self esteem. Thus, it is very possible that the “short gene” underlies the maldevelopment and disfunction of area 25, which then correlates with depression.
He next gave an example of OCD as evidence for his argument. Neuroimaging of the patients with OCD shows abnormal activity in an adjacent loop that includes the orbitalfrontal cortex, which is a vital place for decision making. Moreover, it was found in the OCD therapy that the patients’ symptom improvement goes along consistently with their decrease in orbitalfrontal cortical activity. It was clear that the biological disfunction underlies the psychological disorder.
He explained how PTSD is a failure of extinguishing fear. After that, he mentioned the studies by Greg Quirk on fear extinction. Greg Quirk’s studies shows that blocking the infralimbic region impaires the extinction ability. Thus, biological factors underlie PTSD, which was previously thought caused psychologically. Although these evidence are very solid, I see some limitations in his argument. Limitation 1: Correlation doesn’t imply causation. In the paper, Insel used the word “underlie” to describe the relationship between biological abnormality and mental disorder. It was as if there had been found a one-directional, unquestionable relationship between biology and psychology. That is, biology causes psychology. This is untrue. All of the evidences he presented mostly show correlations between biology and psychology, not causation. It could be the other way around. Even in the case of the serotonin transporter gene: Genotype doesn’t necessarily imply phenotype. There might exist some traumatic events that trigger the expression of the adverse gene. Limitation 2: If biology underlies psychology, it must underlies all. Even if we’ve already assured that most mental disorders have biological cassations, we still can not claim that we have solved the mystery of the suffered mind. As long as one mental disorder remains immune to the biological explanation, the psychological approach won’t die out. Not to mention that we’ve only figured out a very small portion them. So, it is problematic to claim that biology underlies psychology. Picking out the limitation alone is not enough. Here is an evidence: The Alzheimer 's disease has been viewed as pure biological for a long time. However, recent studies suggest that educational level can act as a protective factor against the cognitive decline, which is a typical symptom of this illness. It’s clear that education, something pure psychological, changes the development of Alzheimer 's disease, something biological. b. In this paper, Miller pointed out that the war between biology and psychology is irrational and not recommendable. He’s argument is: Psychology and biology are two distinct and central ways to work out the etiology of mental disorders. Both are equally necessary. Here are three pieces of evidence he gave. He first mentioned the relationship between relapse rate and expressed emotion in patients with schizophrenia. …show more content…
Dopamine receptors have long been recognized as the biological cause of schizophrenia. However, when comes to expressed emotion and relapse rate, dopamine theory shows its insufficiency. According to recent studies by Hooley and others, the more expressed emotion a patient experiences, the more likely he or she would have a high relapse rate. Expressed emotion is psychological, yet it is influencing the development of the disease. Thus, the psychological approach of understanding schizophrenia remains indispensable. There is a view that says: Biological measures are more objective and less affected by demand characteristics. Miller doesn’t agree, and he presented the study of heart rate biofeedback as an evidence. According to these studies, the participant’s heart rate control strategy varies when interpersonal styles of the experimenter varies. This proves the biological measurements to be prone to subjectivity too. Thus, neither of the two approach is superior to the other in
He first presented a study performed at the National Institute of Mental Health on a serotonin transporter gene of participants with and without depression. It was found that the participants with a short variation of the gene showed smaller brain tissue volume in area 25, which has a great amount of serotonin transporters. Area 25 plays an important role in fear, memory and self esteem. Thus, it is very possible that the “short gene” underlies the maldevelopment and disfunction of area 25, which then correlates with depression.
He next gave an example of OCD as evidence for his argument. Neuroimaging of the patients with OCD shows abnormal activity in an adjacent loop that includes the orbitalfrontal cortex, which is a vital place for decision making. Moreover, it was found in the OCD therapy that the patients’ symptom improvement goes along consistently with their decrease in orbitalfrontal cortical activity. It was clear that the biological disfunction underlies the psychological disorder.
He explained how PTSD is a failure of extinguishing fear. After that, he mentioned the studies by Greg Quirk on fear extinction. Greg Quirk’s studies shows that blocking the infralimbic region impaires the extinction ability. Thus, biological factors underlie PTSD, which was previously thought caused psychologically. Although these evidence are very solid, I see some limitations in his argument. Limitation 1: Correlation doesn’t imply causation. In the paper, Insel used the word “underlie” to describe the relationship between biological abnormality and mental disorder. It was as if there had been found a one-directional, unquestionable relationship between biology and psychology. That is, biology causes psychology. This is untrue. All of the evidences he presented mostly show correlations between biology and psychology, not causation. It could be the other way around. Even in the case of the serotonin transporter gene: Genotype doesn’t necessarily imply phenotype. There might exist some traumatic events that trigger the expression of the adverse gene. Limitation 2: If biology underlies psychology, it must underlies all. Even if we’ve already assured that most mental disorders have biological cassations, we still can not claim that we have solved the mystery of the suffered mind. As long as one mental disorder remains immune to the biological explanation, the psychological approach won’t die out. Not to mention that we’ve only figured out a very small portion them. So, it is problematic to claim that biology underlies psychology. Picking out the limitation alone is not enough. Here is an evidence: The Alzheimer 's disease has been viewed as pure biological for a long time. However, recent studies suggest that educational level can act as a protective factor against the cognitive decline, which is a typical symptom of this illness. It’s clear that education, something pure psychological, changes the development of Alzheimer 's disease, something biological. b. In this paper, Miller pointed out that the war between biology and psychology is irrational and not recommendable. He’s argument is: Psychology and biology are two distinct and central ways to work out the etiology of mental disorders. Both are equally necessary. Here are three pieces of evidence he gave. He first mentioned the relationship between relapse rate and expressed emotion in patients with schizophrenia. …show more content…
Dopamine receptors have long been recognized as the biological cause of schizophrenia. However, when comes to expressed emotion and relapse rate, dopamine theory shows its insufficiency. According to recent studies by Hooley and others, the more expressed emotion a patient experiences, the more likely he or she would have a high relapse rate. Expressed emotion is psychological, yet it is influencing the development of the disease. Thus, the psychological approach of understanding schizophrenia remains indispensable. There is a view that says: Biological measures are more objective and less affected by demand characteristics. Miller doesn’t agree, and he presented the study of heart rate biofeedback as an evidence. According to these studies, the participant’s heart rate control strategy varies when interpersonal styles of the experimenter varies. This proves the biological measurements to be prone to subjectivity too. Thus, neither of the two approach is superior to the other in