Re: Dissociation and emotion

“If you can show me a biological theory that will make clear, testable predictions about how to improve the efficacy of psychological treatments for anxiety disorders, and show that these predictions are unique to biological theory....”

Shawn--Against all odds, let me give it a shot.

Essentially, I think the basic orientation of most psychological theories today is the assumption that the individual's perception and interpretation of situations shapes the emotional (fear for example) and behavioral response (Cognitive therapy’s cognitive distortions and dysfunctional beliefs, EMDR’s cognitive interweaves, etc.). However, I think current neuroscience shows, reasonably convincingly, the opposite: that fear is rarely, if ever, the result of conscious/cognitive (cortical) evaluations/ considerations. I see the subconscious primitive and faster neural systems that must be triggered for emotion and motivation to have primacy over the neural systems involved in “cognition”--and I don’t think it’s too simplistic to liken this to the primacy that systems of nerves, that detect and signal tissue damage (making us consciously/cognitively aware of tissue damage via pain), have over cognition.

I’d think that just a basic understanding of these mechanics may be somewhat empowering for most clients--understanding that their problem is NOT “cognitive distortions” or a lack of “cognitive interweaves,” but rather that their problem is overly reactive subcortical neural circuitry requiring appropriate interventions (cognitive (downward causation) or otherwise). Additionally, I think that understanding these biological realities go a long way towards eliminating a whole lot of unnecessary shame--I'm not a coward, I’m not a loser, it’s not my fault, I (like many many others) have just inherited overly sensitive amygdala. Works for me. (I even feel myself recovering from the shock of your use of psychological theories!) Lastly, I think the more we understand how emotion, motivation, and cognition actually work, the greater the odds of discovering better interventions/therapies. (LeDoux’s book, 2002, “Synaptic Self” has some great information on all this, IMO.)

On the other hand maybe none of this matters in light of Messer’s conclusions that: “Common factors and therapist variability far outweigh specific ingredients in accounting for the benefits of psychotherapy. The proportion of variance contributed by common factors such as placebo effects, working alliance, therapist allegiance and competence are much greater than the variance stemming from specific ingredients or effects.”

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.