What are we for?

What are we for?

I recently read this article article by Jeffrey Tucker, if you don’t know who Jeffrey is he’s a libertarian intellectual and one of the founders of the new social network liberty.me. This article addressed a simple issue; the libertarian movement has a large contingent of individuals who are firmly against X. Where X means any particular issue that is corrosive to the general ideas of Libertarianism. Jeffrey Tucker likens this attitude to the Brutalist Movement in architecture that reared it’s ugly head in the 1950’s. In other words, he is pointing out that Libertarianism is quite firmly against anything that encroaches on freedom, and takes a certain glee in defending the supposedly undefendable (link).

My point here is not to talk about Libertarianism as such but to abstract out from the article the general principle that to be against something is simply not enough, you have to be for something.

As Jeffrey points out Libertarianism is actually pro- a lot of things, things like freedom, prosperity, love, etc... and that the overall message we should be transmitting to people is that we are for something wonderful, not just against something bad. So too do we have a similar problem in mainstream psychology. A number of wonderful charities operate in the mental health world, for example, they do amazing work bringing awareness to the public and to the government about mental health issues, reducing stigma, improving care and community access and generally doing their best to counteract the mainstream message that mental illness is an overwhelmingly bad experience for the individual and society. Indeed one only has to look back 50 years or so to see the shocking treatment perpetrated against people with mental illness; they were shunned, degraded, abused, locked away and generally excluded from a society that considered them sub-normal and beyond remediation.

As we now know, thanks in part to the work of these charities, people with mental illness are perfectly capable of interacting with society, sometimes with help, sometimes on their own, and that to have a mental illness is not a personal failing or a sign of weakness but something to be understood, in some cases treated and in others managed.

A similar example in a somewhat different vein is the recent explosion of behavioural economics literature. Books such as Nudge, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational and others all carry the same message. We aren’t as smart as we thought we were. In some cases the literature is valid, in others it’s hyperbole, but the overarching message is “hold up sunshine, you might need a hand with those pesky thoughts of yours”. By highlighting our lack of omniscience and faulty logic these books are referenced gleefully by the brutalist intellectuals in the economic and psychological world as proof - a fait accompli - that we are a dangerously irrational group of people and can’t be trusted even with the little freedom we are permitted.

Both of these examples provide a hint at the brutalist movement (as per Jeffrey Tucker’s analysis) that operates in the psychological and economics movement. The mental health issue highlights a focus on something that is generally considered a negative issue and tries to make it a positive (or at least normalise it), whereas the behavioural economics issue highlights the sometimes disturbingly gleeful attitude present in people happy to be vindicated in their less-than-rosy view of humankind.

Indeed, in both cases we know what we are against. We are against abuse of the mentally ill, and we are against the freedom typically afforded to people in western society (since we are so incapable of functioning rationally). But what are we for?

Broadly speaking both the above examples do offer things we should be for; the equal treatment of the mentally ill and a tighter restriction on the choices we can make respectively. One offers bringing people to the average level of acceptance, the other offers tearing people down a peg or two to make sure we don’t do something foolish. Whilst the first is a laudable goal (the second less so...) neither are particularly inspiring to me. To be sure some people derive a great deal of inspiration from both and good for them, but to me it doesn't suggest a grand goal, or a shining light on the horizon. I repeat my earlier question; what are we for?

The psychology movement lacks a defining goal, we aren’t working towards a common goal as such, excluding the broad remit to better understand human psychology. I don’t think we are ready, as a science, for some sort of grand end for which to work toward. Personally, however, I believe that there is a definite reason for psychology, and it’s the reason I put up with the rigors of academic life. I believe that Psychology should be for helping people achieve their utmost best. Not just broadly, as in society, but individually. I want each person to have the tools and the knowledge to be better. Better in the way they think, act, remember, love, pursue their dreams, approach their relationships, tackle their jobs and so on. What we should be for is the advancement of a persons ultimate potential.

We are a long way off a bright future of optimal humans. Society is awash in poor thinking (myself included) and we simply don’t know enough to make people better, yet. One day, though, perhaps in my lifetime, perhaps not, I hope that people are able to access psychology as a necessity, as a way of increasing their ability to pursue their own goals and improve their life in a way that would be impossible to imagine today.

That is what I am for. That is the goal I pursue. I try not to be against the things I see that are wrong in the world, I try and be for the things I want to see in the world. I suggest that you do the same and maybe tomorrow the world will be a better place for it.

Privatizing Science: The way forward?

I recently read a wonderful article on the increasing privatisation of science in America. Here in the UK Science is still seen as a public good, something to be handled properly by the government. To suggest privatisation is to suggest the spectre of Thatcherism. It conjures image of shady businessmen funding science that supports their blood-thirsty desire for ever increasing profits and to hell with the noble vision of disinterested science.

It is no secret, however, that even the most viable sciences are seeing their funding slashed. The government is having to deal with huge debt and torn between the idea of raising taxes significantly or cutting spending they chose to cut spending. We can debate the merits of austerity vs. public spending another time but either way funding has to come from somewhere.

This article points out that wealthy individuals, keen to shake off their miserly image and re-establish their image as philanthropists and agents of the public good, are starting to fund science in their own image.

Psychology has not seen this influx of private funding yet, seen as less marketable and still socially viable by the government, it has remained relatively immune - but it too has seen it’s funding slashed. So here is the question? would privately funded psychology be viable? (by that I mean both in the public good AND profitable for the donors?)

You would be mistaken for thinking that psychology is a relatively pure and abstract science. Just peruse the latest journals and you’ll see articles like: “Curtailing Chimpanzee Exploitation”, “Charting the Islands of Memory”, and “CREB3L1 Regulates Arginine Vasopressin Expression”. Fascinating, yes. Interesting (to a psychologist), yes. Useful to the man on the street? errmmm not so much.

You could argue that science isn’t supposed to be useful to the man on the street. It’s an esoteric subject, something to be preserved for it’s own sake. Again we could argue what the proper role of science is to society, but we still have a huge problem; society isn’t listening. People want more bang for their buck. They want to know that their taxes are going to something worthwhile and, as has been shown in the Western world recently, will pull that funding (by voting for austerity), if they feel it isn’t measuring up. So what’s to be done?

Well first of all, lets remember that psychology, despite the best efforts of pundits, isn’t ALL about neuroscience. It has it’s place, to be sure, but Neuroscience is but one aspect of human psychology. My own work at the Wales Centre for Behaviour Change (check out our new website!) involves taking psychology from the academy in it’s raw, esoteric form and making it work for the people. We help with all sorts of issues from safety in the workplace, to improving staff well-being and everything in between. We work with businesses to help them solve the problems they are facing.

This is a real, social benefit. We do research, but we also apply. We are attempting to bridge the gap between ivory tower and office, it’s not an easy task and fraught with dangers, but the point is we are doing it. Psychology, especially behavioural psychology, is a relatively untapped resource for the business owner.

There is, however, resistance. Seen as selling out, or profiteering, psychologists who do overly sell themselves can come under fire for doing so. I am incredibly lucky to work with people both in my team and in my department who understand the necessity of this fact and who willingly engage with the external world to enrich both our research and their business.

The problem is that our funding is hard to come by. Research councils are concerned with a certain type of science and more often than not that science isn’t about helping a business increase their profit margin. This is where privately-funded research can come to the fore. By funding the sort of research that has real world applicability we can both preserve the pure-research side of our work and still maintain viability and connection with the outside world.

I wager there will always be a desire and need for government funded research, but a 21st century approach to science will, in my opinion, involve the marrying of both private interests for the sort of work that applies directly to real world problems, and government funding for the blue sky thinking.

The medico-centric mentality

The medico-centric mentality is a term I use for the commonly held belief that the central pillar of good health is to be found in the pharmacological medical tradition - in other words; doctors.

I am sure it has another name, but I prefer medico-centric mentality because it best sums it up. In this view medicine stands as the pinnacle of health-giving practices. Surrounding it in various orbits are the "complimentary" practices, starting from the most like medicine (Psychiatry) to the far reaches of crazy like crystal healing and sun-worshiping. Everything else falls somewhere on a continuum in-between.

Good health is reduced to biological perfection. Within the confines of the body this is quite effective. Something goes wrong and we correct it. As the science of medicine progresses we get better and better at fixing the things that go wrong. As it goes this is wonderful, but here's the problem; we aren't JUST bodies.

Passed off as one of the orbital "compliments" to good health is psychology. Begrudgingly doctors refer patients to psychologists because medical science hasn't figured out a way to drug away depression or unhappiness. Psychiatry is not exactly an example of successful integration; the mystical psychoanalysis was replaced merely with pharmaco-reductionism stating that all psychological problems are merely problems of neuro-chemistry (for a great discussion of this problem see Doctoring the Mind by Prof. Richard Bentall).

Non-medical psychology such as Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy and Behaviour Analytic interventions are seen as useful to a limited population but only until such a time as medical science becomes the cure-all.

Why is this a problem? Well as I mentioned earlier we are not just bodies. I am not here making the case for a "mind" as a separate, non-physical entity, rather as a distinct, natural thing that is real and physical but none-the-less irreducible to merely biology. A major problem in modern philosophy is that of the mind/body dichotomy. We are told there are two alternatives; either we have a mind which is none-physical, non-natural and that is, for all intents and purposes non-real. The converse is the idea that the mind is reducible to a stimulus-response function of electrical activity in nerves that gives us the illusion of awareness.

Personally I reject this dichotomy; I view consciousness as the aggregate summation of sensory experience condensed into conceptual knowledge and concretised through verbal behaviour. In other words it's a fully integrated faculty, both natural and yet distinct from the body as such. A proper treatise on this subject is beyond a blog post and frankly beyond my skills to articulate, however I'd refer to the works of Ayn Rand, particularly her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and the fantastic new book How We Know by the philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger who's book I will be reviewing in the next month or so (time depending).

Why the segue into philosophy? Because the idea that the mind is actually merely electrical impulses is the dominant view in medicine and in our broader culture. Here's the rub; we are an unhappy society. We all complain of psychological problems. We are stressed, unhappy, tired, bitter and angry. We treat our mind as a passive thing, something we are just "born with" that remains immutable and intractable. A mysterious force whose ways are shrouded in darkness to be controlled only by the proper application of the newest, shiniest drug.

The benefits of proper psychological health are clear to see. Pioneering work in mindfulness-based stress reduction, for example, show the positive impact of training our cognitive faculty. The benefits of a superior education, a frequent reading habit, even the practice of gratitude and awareness all result in positive, real benefits. I am not talking here of mystical, other-worldly experiences. I am talking about real, practical benefits like more adaptive stress management. A positive approach to work and relationships. Better sleeping patterns. Greater economic earning power. And so on and so on.

The novel Dune by Frank Herbert offers an insight into this idea; in a far-future world thinking machines (computers) are outlawed, and instead humans, highly training to compute at astronomical rates (called Mentats) are used as human computers to work things out. Now that's an unrealistic example, but it perfectly characterises the issue at hand. Our consciousness is trainable. We know this from experimental evidence, our faculty of learning, for example, shows that we can affect change in our minds through deliberate action.

Unfortunately the science of cognitive training is in it's infancy. We know very little about how to consistently improve human cognition. Behaviour Analysis provides a clue to this area; Verbal Behaviour is a little understood branch of behaviour analysis that deals with cognition and language. It shows us that our language (and by extension our cognition) is malleable and capable of improvement. How? Well that's something we haven't fully figured it out.

A good starting point, however, is the much ballyhooed 3rd and 4th wave of therapies such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT, or Training, in a workplace setting) and Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) both of which seek to effect behaviour change through managing language and private-events (thoughts).

I propose, therefore, a new model. For want of a better term I will call it the Objective Health Model (OHM) that, at it's core, rejects the reductionist model of S-R neuropsychology and at the same time rejects the mystical, Platonic notion of a "mind without reality". Instead it maintains that consciousness is both distinct (and irreducible) and yet also naturalistic and understandable. In this model physical health is put alongside (not above) psychological health with a bi-directional arrow between the two (signifying the idea that one entails, and is linked to, the other.