#scientific view

[strangeloops]

A Venture into the Valley of the Mind: Psychology and Psychiatry.

Let me start by saying that I am a firm believing in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. They aren't perfect- oh, they are very far from perfect, but they are the closest we as humans have ever come to using the scientific method to understand the mind and how to adjust or fix problems that occur on the level of cognition and emotion. And they have saved my life, if you prefer personal anecdotes to books and books of studies and charts.

But, psychology and psychiatry are science on the edge of a valley it has never really explored before. It has made informal voyages into this valley - in the forms of anthropology, sociology, other "soft" sciences. But these two brain sciences are trying to to go beyond that, stick closer to the rules of science - and that makes it hard in this valley of the mind.

I have previously written about how inside the mind, the objective and subjective aren't quite as clear cut as they are elsewhere. And these intrepid scientist are trying very hard to apply tools designed to separate the subjective and the objective to a realm where you can't always do that. But I still think they are doing the right thing in trying. Because in science, the only way to make new models, to gain new understanding, is to try and fail. We will never understand the mind if we through our instruments in the trash and charge ahead blindly. We won't learn anything unless we have tools to report on what we find. And we certainly won't learn anything if we proclaim in a mystery beyond the reaches of science.

But in the valley of the mind, there are new problems. See, science is about models, rules, theories - frameworks that apply every time, productive structures. And it's worked in all the hard sciences. But when in the valley of the mind, these tried and true styles of science become as soft and fuzzy as the world around them. Now, some people claim that this means the tools won't work at all. That we should throw them away. Clearly, trying to use them inside this valley won't work. Minds don't follow rules like that. Other people take the opposite approach. It is merely an illusion - the valley is playing tricks, obscuring the clear, objective models with notions of subjectivity. And they stick to them, make categories and insist that people if into them regardless of the fuzziness.

And I would argue that both are wrong. And that the softness is alright and we need to through out this duality because it is hurting everyone. The models are guidelines. Helpful ones. The patterns our scientific wanders in the valley see? Those are real. The mind is not devoid of any objective structure or rules. But they also need to recognize the unique properties of this valley. New patterns can come out of nothing here, and they are just as real as if they had been there since the beginning. Edges can blur and pool and join - and the scientists need to stop trying to look past that and blink it away like an illusion. Because as long as they are in the world of the mind, those are the reality.

And I think that psychiatry and psychology are moving, albeit slowly, towards that realization. See psychology and psychiatry only exist so far as there are psychologists and psychiatrists. And the reality is that those people are not perfect. And when their science was new, they wanted so badly for it to be taken seriously by the big, established hard sciences. They wanted to show that these new sciences were different than the "soft" sciences of sociology and anthropology and archeology etc. And so they tried really hard to ignore all the aspects of the mind that were "soft" and "fuzzy."

But I think that we are moving away from that, like I said, slowly. I think that ultimately, these sciences will learn to embrace the fuzziness, at least in practice. Consciousness and thought and emotion may in fact be governed by, at their essence, laws, but the complexity of their reality makes trying to deal with them on that level, frankly ridiculous.

It is chaos theory for the mind, in a sense. For those who don't know, chaos theory is a field of mathematics that deals with how very small changes in initial conditions and variables can make for huge changes down the line. And this doesn't even get into quantum. The mind is frighteningly complex. Psychology and Psychiatry are one facet of a choice people have in all aspects of understanding. Face the strange and complex and adjust to it, admit you may have been wrong, that you may never fully understand, that you may never be able to fully grasp it all but try anyway? Or give up. See it all, in all it's wondrous scary complexity and say right then and there that we will never be able to model it, and therefore, why go in at all. If none of the models will ever fit perfectly, why make them? If none of the laws will ever hold for all cases, why try to find them?

And that is the choice. As a scientific minded person, I suspect my answer is obvious to you. And the rest of us, we have a choice as to what we do and think when it comes to psychology and psychiatry. We can reject it because it is somewhat flawed in practice. We can reject it because it doesn't fit into the dichotomies we have constructed for science, fact, and objectivity. We can reject it based on stories or on worse can scenarios. Or we can support it's trip into the valley of the mind -- do our best to correct the flaws were we see it - question the flawed assumptions - refuse false generalization, regardless of whether they come from inside the psychiatric community or from their opponents. We can support the trek into the unknown and lend our strange minds to the quest.

I think the choice is clear.

As always - feel free to respond in the ASK. Apparently, if something is really long, Tumblr gets angry and doesn't send it through the ASK. So if your answer is on the longer side, try the submit. I can see those too and respond. I can even find a way to do that privately if you want.

-Phi (with help from Writer, Zexion, and Erena)

[strangeloops]

Just making it up: Subjective vs. Objective reality in the Mind

This topic is huge and I wasn't going to get to it for a while, but with the recent trolls and/or misguided questions on Living Plural:, I'm going to give it a whirl now. Like I said, it's a big topic, so bare with me. First, some background and terminology. Objective truth means there is one, real, irrefutable reality. I'm going to call this Truth, with a capital "T". There's a lot of heavy philosophical work on this which I am not going to get into here, but suffice it to say, there are schools of though that question the existence of any Truth. I do not fall into that camp. I'm an atheist, or anti-theist or whatever term you like, I think of myself and a logic based thinker and a scientific mind, no matter how bad I am at science. I am a skeptic. Yes, a skeptic with a blog about multiplicity. All of these things tell me that there are objective Truths out there.  We encounter them every day. Generally speaking, the hard sciences cover objective Truth or the search for it. But there is also subjective truth, or truth with a lower case "t". I went through a phase in my life where I couldn't see the value of subjective truth, where I thought that eventually, objective Truth should be the be all and end all. If that eventually does arrive, we are so far from it, it isn't even worth considering in this post.  Because as it turns out, a lot of how every single person in the world, single, plural or whatever gets through the day is subjective truth. Now for the point of this post. There is a realm where the objective and the subjective get blurry. This is the realm of thought, or the mind and the brain. There are objective Truths when dealing with the brain. My best friend of 6 years in in a vegetative state he will never wake up from because over 2/3rds of his brain died. This is objective Truth (it is also the reality I am faced with with every day). More general objective Truths of the brain are found in neuroscience - which structures control what. But it kind of ends there. In the realm of thoughts and feelings, subject and objective get really blurry. Are emotions objective or subjective truth? Now, there are objective ways to measure emotion - chemical levels and what not, but those only measure so far and they are relative within a person. Also, it should be noted that if fMRI's and EEG's and chemical tests are your baselines for objective truth, multiplicity, healthy and otherwise has passed with flying colors many times. But that isn't enough for people. Because the brain controls itself. That's how people who want to disprove multiplicity explain away different fMRI patterns. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Emotions. One way objective and subjective blend in the brain is how smoothly one seems to become the other. We can change our emotions just by thinking about changing them. Some people are better than others at this, but it is doable. Changing our bodies can change our emotions because our brains use a physical feedback system. Smiling actually makes you feel happier. But how does this relate to the objections to multiplicity?

Let's say, theoretically, that everyone with multiplicity was making it up. No one actually had other people in their head, it was just wishful thinking, or loneliness, or a defense mechanism (you will note that this is very similar to the psychiatric model, though it only allows the defense mechanism). All right. So lets say Alice is a lonely 7 year old girl. She makes up Bob because she's imaginative like that. Bob is now a character in Alice's head. Alice gives Bob a family, an appearance, a backstory, whatever. Alice talks to Bob. Alice spends a lot of time thinking about Bob. And then also Charlie and Danielle and whoever else. Alice eventually convinces herself (because remember, Alice is making this all up) that Bob and Charlie and Danielle and separate people living inside her. She lets take over her body, etc. Now, some amount of time later, if you asked Alice, she would tell you that she, Bob, Charlie, and Danielle are all full people living in the same body. But remember, Alice is just fooling herself - that's the supposition we started with. Well here's the interesting part - objectively, Alice is wrong, right? BUT, if we hooked her up for an fMRI and an EEG and tested Alice and Bob and Charlie separately, we very well might find 3 very different patterns. If Alice didn't share a perfect memory between all four of her system mates, we actually might find that confirmed by testing as well. The fact of the matter is that Alice could do such a good job of fooling herself that her objectively wrong reality becomes testable and verifiable. Her subjective truth has all but become the objective Truth. Now, my fellow skeptic, you might be saying "but the multiples I've read about claim their headmates are extra-dimensional  travelers or have bodies in other worlds!" Well, haven't you just changed the subject? Or do you concede the fact that there are several different people in their heads? Because that's a great first step. If you want my answer to that question, I'll give it, but know it is my answer only. They are no more wrong and "deluded" as anyone who thinks that their personality is contained in an immortal souls - who thinks their true home is some kingdom of God. If you have an issue with that, I hope you also go around trolling religious people, too. There are tons of things that the brain can make real - phantom limbs, for instance and the very real phantom pain that can go with them. The brain can physically change to adapt to conditions. So can, and does personality and self perception. We are learning more and more that things like psychosomatic conditions have real testable existence in the brain. In fact the intertwining on the mental and physical is now used to treat what were once considered purely physical issues. Stress has physical effects on the body, for instance. Better imaging is showing that chronic pain and conversion disorders can rewire the brain (so can internet use…) I could go into so much more. Several of the most prominent theories of consciousness fully allow for multiple consciousness in one mind, either separate, intertwined, or partly one and partly the other. The Strange Loop idea is the name of this blog. The Narrative self perhaps is even easier to explain. The point is - next time you want to ask "how do you know you aren't making it up?" Remember my answer - I did make it up. I made is all up. And now it is my reality, and it is a healthy reality that would be traumatic to break down. Those people I "made up" years ago are fully formed and have their own set of thoughts and feelings and goals and desires. It is a helpful reality that I have spent a good part of my peak development with - and changing it would force me to relearn things that I need not relearn (that would be hard to relearn now). The fact that I made it up does not make it less real than your own sense of self, your own idea of who you are and how you relate to your past and your thoughts. That is my answer. It isn't everyone's. But think about it next time you ask that question.

[strangeloops]

This article is really brief, but it is basically some info into recent research into the imaginary friend phenomenon - some of the findings include a kind of revolving door style in some cases, the possibility of adapted or inherited imaginary friends, a much higher number than previously thought per child and - here's an interesting one - a much longer presence. While it was previously believed that most children "outgrow" the phenomenon by 4, the researches found children 12 and up with active imaginary friends. It went on to connect this to writer and their characters. Is this some kind of multiplicity? It sounds like it to us.

[strangeloops]

This is another great article, this one from the Atlantic (for those who don't know, it's up there with the New Yorker). It kind of goes off on a different track (self-binding or self limiting as a way of motivation) on the last page, but the first and second page do a really good job of discussing the different identities inside people. The second page does go into DID and there is mention of the psychological model, but it affirms the reality of the condition and even goes on to suggest a continuum of natural, healthy multiplicity!  Definitely worth the read, at least to the bottom of page 2. It's also a good introduction to the idea of what it means to be a median or a multiple.

[strangeloops]

More on the books

I had to leave the library so I checked out a few books and I'll get to them later. I ended up not taking most of the disassociation and MPD ones. Most of them were too wrapped up in debating the existence of a very specific disordered model of multiplicity that is Trauma based and "healed" by psychiatric integration.

One of them did have a short bit I will mention. It was a psychological publication and the chapter was on the clinical presentations of MPD. Here's a test. If you read about multiplicity from any source that doesn't acknowledge how incredibly diverse it's presentation is, that source doesn't know it's facts. This chapter spent about 5 pages listing different "categories." Remember, this is a point of view that takes MPD as a dissociative disorder caused by spits in the self due to trauma. Some of the categories are rather interesting. It included versions were many "personalities," to use their word, came and went frequently; where people showed up only rarely and in emergencies; where people never showed up and influenced the fronter from behind the scenes; where people would appear once, stay in front for a long time, vanish, and never return; systems where the group of fronters all worked together to act similar in public; systems with co-fronting; systems that had memory sharing, which officially disqualifies it from the DSM diagnosis; Systems where the headmates act as helpful friends or companions and rarely front; High-functioning systems that are undetectable; Systems where others only come out in private; and a whole slew of others.

This, but the way, is from the people who officially diagnose DID (formally MPD). I want to note that very clearly for those people on tumblr and elsewhere who claim that the healthier, less "disordered" forms of multiplicity are somehow less valid or mockeries. All of those were listed in the book. While the book didn't talk directly about the idea of fictives, it did talk about systems where "personalities" played an assigned role, often from the cliches of the pop-culture depiction of DID. Again, I didn't check that book out, but I can go back and get the name if there is interest. For the most part, that was the only bit worth looking at, and much of it was rather narrow minded, but I felt that part should be shared

[strangeloops]

Quotations from the books part I

Feel free to reblog all or part. Be warned, these are words from the medical community operating and writing from it's specific point of view. It is interesting, for sure, but be prepared for that view.

------

"...many philosophers and psychologists have come to view the self as a narrative construction (Bruner 1990; Howard 1991; Kirby 1991; McAdams 1989; Ricouer 1992; Sarbin 1986). From this perspective, the self is a coherent story we construct about our actions, and the I is the narrative center of gravity in our story (Dennett 1991). When multiple stories are created, with multiple narrative centers, we may have multiple selves (Humphery and Dennett 1989). This perspective suggests the importance for conceptions of dissociation of understanding the relationship of narrative construction to emotion, memory, and the sense of self."

(Note: Dan Dennett is one of my favorite people. One day, I will read all of his work. -Phi)

"In many other cultures, alternate persons or changes in personality commonly appear in the context of spirit possession..."

"Far from pathological, the experience and expression of multiple voices within the person most often have postive religious health and esthetic value) Boddy 1988; Crapanzano and Garrison 1977; Leavitt 1993). Some form of overarching integration is provided  by the social system that assigns culturally appropriate and intelligible roles and identities to the inhabiting spirits. The plural voices of the self are then contained by a larger social order."

(Not that framing multiplicity as a possession is the best way to go, but it is a different cultural take. Interestingly, in some cultures, framing it as another spirit, either divine, demonic, or ancestral, not only can allow the person acceptance, but in some cases elevates there status. In other cases, of course, it endangers them horribly.)

"the fact that in the former case the alters are demons and gods to either be exorcised or domesticate, whereas in the latter they are fragments of the self to be reintergrated leads to fundementally different natural histories of dissociation"

(The only reason the histories are different is based on how the "alters" as the book calls them, are viewed. one society evaluates whether they are helpful or harmful, casts OUT the harmful ones, and, based on this passage, seems to accept the helpful ones place in the body of the person. Meanwhile we view "alters" as fragments which all need to be reintegrated. Just from reading this, it sounds more like I difference in how society treats multiplicity rather than the actual "pathology," for lack of a better word. Again, I don't know anything about spirit possession of the Umbandista in Brazil)

".W.e are different people in different situations and many other cultures readily acknowledge this by subordinating the concept of the person as self-directed individual to his or her social role, context, or current circumstance... In contrast,the Western univocal person must constantly strive to reconcile or rationalize inconsistencies and lacunae in his or her behavior across situations.... If multivocality is intrinsic to the human condition, then the Western person is engaged in a constant process of minimizing or subduing alternative voices."

"In the absense of communal or religious rituals to embody and give voice to this plurality, North Amricans who have had their inner voices violently suppressed must resort to the private suffering of dissociative disorders or the public exculpation of the new psychotherapies of dissociation"

~Above quotes taken from "Pacing the Void: Social and Cultural Dimensions of Dissociation" by Laurence J. Kirmayer, M.D., F.R.C.P.C. In the book: Spiegel, David. Dissociation: Culture, Mind, and Body. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric, 1994. 107-14. Print.

[strangeloops]

I've hit the books!

Campus is boring in the summer when no one is around, so I thought I might avail myself of the campus library. Certainly perked a certain headmate (or two) up who pretty much suggests it every time I have nothing to do. Anywho, we've hit the stacks and pulled several books on self and consciousness and all the books on dissociation and MPD (probably all old) to see if we can find anything of interest. Everything's taken with a grain of salt, and, other than a possible sodium overdose by the end of the next two hours, I think we'll pull out alright. Well, back to the pages before Erena and Zex yell at me for wasting time. Oh bibliophiles.

I'll probably be posting some quotes/observations up, as notes to self or ideas to get back to.