In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I discuss my personal struggle to embrace a professional identity as a “counselor,” given my unconventional views on certain mental health issues.
Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
Here are the quotes from the white paper that I cited throughout this podcast:
The brain-based initiatives for clinical research rely on a disease model that is based on erroneous logic, a faulty reductionistic view of human nature, and a contradiction of the most robust research findings within the mental health field. The brain research conducted thus far actually appears to indicate that most of the conditions referred to as “mental illnesses” are likely otherwise healthy adaptive processes in response to extreme environmental experiences. So while it appears that such adaptive processes often do correlate with changes within the brain, and that they may lead to certain long-term problems for the individual, these changes do not necessarily signify biological disease. Furthermore, brain research has ironically reinforced the benefits of certain psychosocial interventions, such as yoga, meditation, and psychotherapy, thereby negating the assumption that the resolution of such distressing conditions requires psychopharmological or other related biological interventions.
But, is it really necessary to have “evidence” from brain scans to know that mediation, exercise, and eating healthily have beneficial effects on one’s wellbeing? The only thing this research really seems to show is how much the brain is constantly adapting to its environment. In fact, one could even interpret the findings of many of the brain differences in traumatized and distressed individuals as signs of adaptive functioning— the complete opposite of disease!
Three prominent negative consequences of focusing on biological, brain-based etiologies of “mental illness” are that it results in skewed research funding, biased treatment preferences, and clinically harmful impacts.
Many of the biological anomalies that one finds with chronic sufferers of “mental illness” are directly caused by the very biological interventions thought necessary to decrease distress.
So not only are brain-based etiologies of psychological distress unsupported by the evidence and related to the excessive use of dangerous medications, they also have powerful psychological impacts that can adversely influence treatment.
The resources available for mental health research and care are limited, and that every dollar and person-hour spent pursuing brain-based solutions to psychological distress comes at a direct cost to those resources available for psychosocial research and support.
When we consider the vast disparity between the predominant research and interventions within the mental health field on one hand, and the actual needs of distressed human beings on the other hand, we recognize that our mental health field is in dire need of a radical paradigm shift—from trying to make sense of psychological distress from a biologically reductionistic framework to one that is more humanistic and needs-based. This essentially involves shifting the general stance within the mental health field from “diagnosis and treatment” to one of “assessing needs and offering support.” This would mean focusing our resources on providing psychosocial support for individuals, families, and communities and working towards a social system in which meaningful and rewarding activity, education, and work is accessible to everyone.
Even in those cases in which the specific needs or other causal factors are unable to be identified, the evidence suggests that when a person’s basic needs are addressed, such conditions of psychological distress still naturally recede over time. And in those rare cases where such factors are unable to be identified and addressed, and in which the condition does not naturally recede over time, some psychoactive drug support may be beneficial, as long as it is used in minimal dosage for minimal duration and only with the individual’s fully informed consent.
In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I discuss the limits of psychological science and the role creativity can play in living the good life. Topics include:
An interesting discussion between Sam Harris and Paul Bloom on the drawbacks of empathy
The appropriate weight of scientific research in guiding personal behavior and professional practice
The role of creativity in the pursuit of happiness
Summary:
Most of us give little (if any) weight to scientific research findings when it comes to how we relate to our loved ones (e.g., in the realm of parenting and/or intimate relationships), instead relying on intuitions derived from general life experience. Yet, mental health professionals (e.g., counselors) are implored to rely primarily on scientific research findings when it comes to how we relate to our clients. Perhaps counseling is not fundamentally different from any other type of relating, and thus intuitions from general life experience contribute far more to effective practice than do data derived from scientific studies.
Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I describe and explore the potential benefits, issues, and challenges involved in implementing mindfulness-based interventions with students in K-12 schools. Topics include:
Clinical applications of mindfulness
The use of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) with both adults and children
A review of the research on MBIs, with a focus on the use of MBIs with K-12 students
ia resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
The most commonly held views of addiction in American society (e.g., the 12-step model and the NIMH’s “chronic relapsing brain disease” model) do not stand up to critical scrutiny, scientific evidence, or common sense, yet they continue to hold sway. Alternative (and, in my opinion, superior) perspectives have been put forth and deserve careful consideration.
Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I rant about Paxil, bulging discs, and having one’s head lodged in an elephant’s bum. Topics include:
The “chemical imbalance” model of psychopathology
The biopsychosocial or “integral” approach to health
Tigers on porches
Elephant butts
Summary:
Anything less than an integral, bio-psycho-social-cultural way of understanding mental health problems will lead to needlessly limited and ineffective intervention strategies.
Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
“Resisting what is happening is a major cause of suffering” – Pema Chodron
Engaging with electronic media in a healthy manner
Summary:
Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron recently said the following: “Resisting what is happening is a major cause of suffering”. This realization has helped me to sleep better at night, to be more at ease in my body and mind, and to engage in a less compulsive way with electronic media. Partly based on this realization, I have developed a body-oriented practice that I refer to as “unwinding.” I try my best to describe this idiosyncratic practice and discuss some of its benefits.
Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
In this –the inaugural episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast– I flounder about trying to figure out what on earth I’m doing. Topics include:
“Precision psychiatry”
NIMH Director Thomas Insel
Integral/Biopsychosocial models of health
Summary:
In the May issue of Science, Dr. Thomas Insel (Director of the National Institute of Mental Health) makes his case that so-called “mental disorders” should be re-conceived as “brain circuit disorders,” and that by focusing ever more on neuroscience we will finally get to a place where the practice of psychiatry makes a lick of sense. I agree with Allen Frances (who was chair of the DSM-IV task force) that Insel’s conclusions here are “ridiculously premature,” but, more than that, I think that his “precision medicine for psychiatry” project is a step “precisely” in the wrong direction.
I blogged about Insel’s new agenda for psychiatry a couple of years ago, HERE.
Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:
In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I discuss my personal struggle to embrace a professional identity as a “counselor,” given my unconventional views on certain mental health issues.
