An operational definition of the unconscious: challenging and redefining psychoanalytic approaches

Transcript of the post by conducteam

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/an-operational-definition-of-the

THE UNCONSCIOUS IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
FREUD → “The unconscious ‘speaks’ in many ways: in dreams, in neurosis, in symptoms...” / “In the unconscious there is no contradiction whatsoever” / “Everything conscious has a preliminary unconscious stage, while the unconscious can remain at this stage and yet aspire to the full value of a psychic function” / “Receptacle of contents repressed by consciousness because they are incompatible with it”

JUNG → “The psyche presupposes a conscious-unconscious totality” / “Consciousness is knowledge about the emotional value of the ideas we form about the motives for our actions” / “Consciousness comes from an unconscious that is much older than itself” / “The unconscious is a potential reality: the thought we are going to think, the deed we are going to perform, etc.”

LACAN → “The unconscious is structured like language and is language itself” / “Signifiers of a meaning repressed by consciousness, search for meaning through signifiers” / “The signifying structure reveals to me the possibility of using language to signify ‘something else’ from what is said; this being the reason why the signifier has no interpretation except in its relation to another signifier.”

DOES “THE UNCONSCIOUS” EXIST?
Behavioral Analysis rejects the existence of the “unconscious” as a physical and real entity. However, the fact that a “behaviorist” declares themselves unconcerned with this type of term does not mean they are not concerned with operationalizing and defining them in a more accurate way, for example, as “unconscious behaviors” and “conscious behaviors.”

A behavioral psychologist can account for unconscious phenomena based on typically psychoanalytic conceptions (Freud, Jung, Lacan, etc.) of unconscious repressions and psychopathology, but translating them into precise scientific terms (laws of learning, functional analysis of behavior).

“CONSCIOUSNESS” IN SKINNER
Skinner (1974) distinguished between two classes or types of “consciousness.” The first type refers to the “knowledge” that organisms have of their environment, as when we say that “we are aware of our surroundings.” People who lose consciousness are no longer under the stimulus control of situations either “inside” or “outside” their bodies, and can “speak without being aware of their effects on the listeners.” Humans and other species would be equally conscious in this respect. “We can perceive, and perceive that we have perceived.”

The second type of consciousness is probably restricted to humans due to their socio-verbal nature. It involves observing what you are doing and putting into words the Reasons that lead you to behave in that way. The verbal community organizes verbal contingencies for “the behavior that describes our behavior,” thus allowing us to determine rules about it and its relationships with the environmental variables that control it. The verbal community provides the necessary contingencies for the self-descriptive behavior that this different kind of awareness allows.

CONTINGENCY AWARENESS
In this post, we will focus on the second type of awareness that Skinner mentioned, which is the type of awareness that largely coincides with psychoanalytic approaches. This type of awareness is academically translated in English as “insight.” Our proposal in Spanish, following Carrasco’s line of thought, is to define and operationalize it as “contingency awareness.”

In this sense, we would distinguish between “conscious behaviors” and “unconscious behaviors.” An unconscious behavior is any response for which we are unaware of the causal variables that provoke it, and we cannot verbally describe that relationship. A conscious behavior is a response whose “contingencies” can be verbally described; that is, we can describe the causal relationship between the behavior and the environmental variables that control it. “Contingency awareness” is the phenomenon in which we are able to verbally describe the contingency (causal relationship) that exists between the behavior and the environmental stimuli. And, of course, if the causes of behaviors are multifactorial, you can get an idea of ​​whether most of the behaviors we exhibit are, in this sense, conscious or unconscious.

When an “undeveloped” organism (in terms of language) responds according to a specific reinforcement schedule, it is not necessary to ask the animal why it behaves as it does (for example, a pigeon pecking for hours in an experimental box). Thus, control over their behavior can be attributed to a history of reinforcement without the possible “obfuscation” of a “present explanation” that may be “deceptive” (accounting for one set of reasons for behaving when the real reasons are different). However, when a human being performs any activity, it is possible to investigate “why you behave the way you do” and evaluate the explanation the subject themselves gives.

The question of the “unconscious” is reduced to a consideration of historical-present behavioral control and the correspondence between verbal behavior and action.

When someone supposedly “neurotic” cannot give an acceptable explanation for their present behavior, attention is directed to its historical sources (their learning history); whereas when someone supposedly “normal” gives an explanation for their present behavior, attention is directed to the supposed control factors present. In one case, behavior is thought to depend on unconscious processes, and in the other, on conscious processes.

But for some behaviorists, all activity is unconsciously controlled; behavior depends on the subject’s reinforcement history, and any verbal behavior used to justify that behavior is thus acquired through its own independent reinforcement history. Freud’s “rationalization mechanisms” and other “defenses” refer to the same thing.

Children often admit to “not knowing the reason for some of their actions,” but as they grow, they learn to explain their behavior when asked, and this is where we can try to sift through explanations that are “acceptable” or not.

“Rational” and “irrational” actions (consciously and unconsciously controlled) differ in that the former can be explained in the present, while the latter cannot. However, they do not differ if their explanations are sought in the history of the behaving organism.

Almost all activities are “irrational” in this sense, since the origins of everyday behavior can rarely be specified. Most people couldn’t say when they first learned to wash their face, brush their teeth, or eat the way they do, and yet they offer socially acceptable explanations for these behaviors. Freud was right to call some behaviors “rationalized” rather than “rational,” but the truth of his observation doesn’t require invoking an “unconscious mind.”

Because they contribute so much to human unhappiness, the origins of dysfunctional behavior have been extensively explored, but the sources of functional, everyday behavior don’t attract nearly as much interest. Consequently, explanations for the former don’t usually apply to the latter, although the division is rather arbitrary. Explaining a phobia in terms of “repressed antisocial desires” has a certain literary appeal; explaining face-washing in the same way does not. But there’s no reason to think that these two types of behavior are governed by different laws; in neither case can the origins of the behavior be verbalized. There is no need to imply an “unconscious” in one case and not in the other, and there is no need for the behaviorist to deny their interest in both cases.

THERAPEUTIC MECHANISMS OF “CONTINGENCY AWARENESS”
In a good number of studies (Aafjes-Van Doorn, 2017; Jennissen, 2018; Brien, 2018; Lovgren, 2019; Sohtorik and Halfon, 2019; Hoglend and Hangtvet, 2019; Hill, 2020; Deppermann, 2020; Front, 2021; Firmansyah, 2021; Mantilla and Traverso, 2021) moderate evidence has been obtained that “insight” (independent variable-cause) produced favorable changes in the clients in terms of their behaviors and emotions (dependent variable-effect).

The hypotheses about the “therapeutic mechanisms” that would be behind becoming aware of the contingency that controls your behavior (why what works works) are the following: (1) Knowing “why you do what you do” helps to escape the emotional discomfort caused by your own helplessness prior to not knowing how to verbalize those “whys” or “functions” of your behaviors; (2) These dysfunctional behaviors are “punished”, their frequency of emission is reduced, because the person, from now on, when they perform them, already knows that they are undesirable behaviors for them; (3) The person acquires a “sense of control” by being aware of the variables that control their behavior; they are “able” to better identify them in order to make it more likely that they will not be repeated.

“Most of the behaviors we perform are ‘unconscious,’ in the sense that we are unable to verbally describe the environmental contingencies that control them” - B. F. Skinner (1974).

“As the science of behavior advances and a more effective and precise vocabulary is developed, we will also expand this type of awareness: the average person will be able to increase their understanding of themselves” - B. F. Skinner (1957).

#madpride #madliberation
.

Are we meant to carry or regulate our emotions by ourselves?

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/heavy-difficult-emotions-are-important

Self-discipline, self-regulation, self-help, self-reliance, self-optimization, self-care — THIS is how capitalism encourages isolation & conformity

The concept of emotional self-regulation is part of hustle & grind culture. The popularized mental health & “self-help” wave has glorified independence and reliance on the self as the ultimate indicator of success, maturity & wellness. From mindfulness & manifestation podcasts to the endless garbage self-help & self-care influencers- we’re convinced that we are the problem, not the brutal system or our isolation & disconnection from community. To achieve & succeed, we have to turn our lives into an eternal self-improvement, self-optimization journey. I thought I was hurting because I was a failure who didn’t have enough self-discipline. So I tried to regulate, manage, cure, control, push, exploit, overwork myself until I collapsed. Today, I realize I was manipulated into forcing myself to conform to these violent systems. I was doing their work for them.

Self-regulation is defined as ‘the ability to modify or control your thoughts, behavior, emotions, actions, and words in pursuit of long-term goals’. We are told to individually practice & master this skill. I get that it’s important to be aware of, understand, identify & process our emotions in healthy, transformative ways. I get that it’s not cool to lash out in anger or project our jealousy & resentment onto others in unjust ways or act without thinking & reflection. But if you think about HOW we can do that— it’s through practice & co-regulation in community and THAT is the piece that is missing in the framework of individualistic, depoliticized, mainstream mental health.

I don’t think we’re meant to carry or regulate our emotions by ourselves- the self isn’t enough. It really isn’t. & even taking a walk in the park to be amongst the wildflowers, bees, birds & weeds is a form of co-regulation if you honor the integral contribution of other beings. We’re more than capable of feeling deeply & processing our emotions in a healthy manner when we know we’re supported by the soil beneath us & the people around us.

I don’t want us to dissociate & numb ourselves into detachment. I don’t want us to run from the sorrow that comes with living under oppression. We can only experience contentment, serenity & joy when we carry them together alongside sorrow, regret & despair. All of it is important. I want us to carry the boulders & the flowers together because that is always how our communities were meant to live. I want us to give each other the communal safety net that allows us to feel deeply. I want us to mourn the suffering around us… together. I want us to grieve for the land beneath us because she is hurting. I want us to ache because none of us can float in endless bliss while the rest of us are suffering. These so-called “negative” emotions are a sign that our soul is intact & affected by our environment. I don’t want us to escape our sadness because that means we’re not fully alive at all. Creating room for our sadness expands our ability to experience happiness.

Growing up, most of us aren’t taught how to navigate emotions. Emotional maturity & vulnerability takes intentional practice in relationships.

The pursuit of happiness is glorified in our society. But we’re not given specific details or guidance on how we can get there or are misled and misdirected. We’re told that achieving certain milestones (degrees, career, power, wealth, the nuclear family) is the recipe to happiness. So it’s not just sadness, we’re not taught how to truly be happy either. & all of it can feel terrifying. We conflate familiarity with safety and even some amount of liberation (like feeling our feelings in community, even the messy ones) can feel unsafe, merely because it is unfamiliar, not because it is truly dangerous.

#madpride #madliberation
.

The Lies of Psychoanalysis

Transcript of the post by conducteam

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/the-lies-of-psychoanalysis

FREUD NEVER “CURED” HIS FIRST PATIENT
Whether we like it or not, Freud was a notorious liar who meticulously crafted his own legend and destroyed much of his correspondence.

Interestingly, in one of these letters to his close collaborator Fliess, he reveals that on the very day he presented the “complete cure” of his first patient, Anna O. (Bertha), as a great success and proof of the validity of his theory before a conference, he wrote to Fliess that he was desperate because Anna O.’s condition was steadily deteriorating (understandable, since Bertha had tuberculous meningitis, not “hysteria” as Freud claimed).

This correspondence revealed a Freud who was an adept (and addicted) to completely extravagant theories, from numerology to occultism, including telepathy, and who was always careful to eliminate such incriminating evidence.

FREUD BECAME A MILLIONAIRE WITH PSYCHOANALYTIC THERAPY
Without a doubt, Freud discovered psychoanalytic therapy for the wealthy, especially wealthy women. His patients were members of the Viennese bourgeoisie, drawn by the “fashionable therapy everyone’s talking about.” Adjusting the session fees to today’s standards, and converted to 2010 euros,

Freud charged approximately 415 euros per session.

Freud himself confessed that he saw between eight and ten patients daily. A simple calculation reveals that, at the end of the day, he was taking home around €3,300 in cash (tax-free, of course).

There is evidence that Freud only rested on Sundays. Multiplying this amount by six, we arrive at €19,800 per week, or €79,200 per month, which represents almost one million euros per year. Thus, before the First World War, he had already amassed a personal fortune of around... eight million euros!

Freud acknowledged in several private correspondence that he was an ambitious man who pursued only two typically linked goals: fame and wealth. His goal of making a fortune was largely achieved, and, evidently, this data debunks the legend of a stubbornly selfless Freud, who only sought the truth and the well-being of his patients.

WHAT A STORY YOU’VE CREATED!
Freud even referred to his patients as “golden fish,” or simply, his “infinite source of income.” Everything suggests that “curing his patients” was never his objective. His concern was not the patient’s recovery, but rather to delve deeper into his theory, as he himself wrote on several occasions.

Quoted from a letter Freud sent to Fliess:

“Very few patients are worthy of the efforts we devote to them; so our position should not be therapeutic, but rather we should consider ourselves satisfied to have learned something new in each case.”

THE CENSORSHIP OF FREUD’S UNDESTRUCTED ARCHIVES
It is curious how the Library of Congress in the U.S. holds containers with Freud’s likely rewritten, manipulated, and falsified files (those he himself did not manage to destroy) that cannot be opened until 2057 (it seems unbelievable, but it’s true).

They cannot be opened until that date because the International Psychoanalytical Association pays the Library of Congress for the rental of those containers, even though we know that Freud blatantly falsified the results of his treatments, invented patients who never existed to inflate his statistics, claimed to base his demonstrations on clinical cases for which no trace has been found, and subsequently tried to destroy the evidence.

These archives could demonstrate that the famous “five foundational psychoanalyses” of his Freudian doctrine, always presented as archetypal cases, did not improve the patients in question at all, and even worsened the condition of some of them.

One of the five cases, the infamous “Wolf Man” (Sergei Pankejeff), was identified and located before his death in a psychiatric hospital outside Vienna. He recounted the long ordeal he had endured during 70 years of psychoanalysis performed by a total of ten different psychoanalysts, which had only intensified his suffering.

This information was manipulated through his close friend Ernest Jones, whom he asked to write his official biography, the “Bible” that would disseminate the Freudian legend. Jones was tasked with ensuring that no document existed that could contradict his fabrications and with investigating whether such a witness was still alive or had already died, to avoid any complications.

FREUD PREVENTED ANYONE FROM KILLING PSYCHOANALYSIS
Freud protected himself with a vast institutional apparatus. By 1902, Freud had already gathered around him a circle of followers who met regularly to discuss and reinforce his ideas and will, since he only admitted those who accepted his opinions. He refused to allow “dangerous” doctors and psychiatrists to attend his congresses and created the famous “didactic analysis” to train psychoanalysts in succession.

The triumph of psychoanalysis was not due to any supposed therapeutic or theoretical superiority. Not at all. It was due to the particular mode of institutional organization it adopted. Without this system, the Freudian legend would have been ineffective. It was the effectiveness of psychoanalysis’s institutional structures that gave it such notoriety that, since then, most cultural debates in psychology have been formulated in psychoanalytic language.

No one could compete with Freud in the realm of storytelling. The founder of psychoanalysis was a true literary figure who knew how to construct a plot, animate his characters, and bring his concepts to life.

First, the fact that Freud brought sexuality into Western thought, for the first time, through the front door. Second, the fact that psychoanalysis takes on all the characteristics of a religion, providing a comprehensive worldview and offering answers for everything, thus transforming itself into a new religion in an era post-traditional religions. This, coupled with the fact that psychoanalysis became a revolutionary ideology of replacement after the disappointment of the French May ‘68 and the birth of Freudo-Marxism, meant that at that time psychoanalysis became an immortal social movement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
• Borch-Jacobsen, M. & Shamdasaní, S. S. (2011). The Freud Files: An Inquiry into the History of Psychoanalysis.

• Freixa i Baqué, E. (2023). La impostura del psicoanálisis y la leyenda freudiana.

• Meyer, C., et al. (2005). El libro negro del psicoanálisis; vivir, pensar y sentirse mejor sin Freud.

#madpride #madliberation
.

Spicy Mango Matcha Latte ist schon ziemlich geil.

Genau diesen Vibe brauche ich gerade, denn ich habe beschlossen, es bis Anfang Mai etwas ruhiger angehen zu lassen.⬇️

#CripTime #Ableism #Selfcare #MadPride #Widerstand #Intersektionalität #Leistungsdruck #SpoonieLife #CommunityCare #SlowLife #Drinks

What happens in your brain is not the cause of your problems.

Transcript of the post by conducteam

To put things in context, during the 1970s in the US, psychiatry had virtually no social validation (it was the profession practiced by "failed doctors"). The proposed solution to avoid disappearing was to medicalize psychiatry, that is, to begin promoting the unproven idea that "the origin of any behavioral problem lies in a medical condition."

With the arrival of medicalization, the Freudian repression and neuroses of the DSM-II were sidelined, giving way to the novel neuroscience of the DSM-III (1980), whose medical foundations, unfortunately, have persisted to the most recent editions of the DSM.

Thus, during the 15 years leading up to the publication of the DSM-IV in 1994, there was a tremendous need to add some "impressive theory" to the arguments for medicalization, ensuring that this viewpoint would not die out over time. This is where the unjustifiable argument of "neurochemical imbalance" originated.

In short, "neurochemical imbalance" posits that certain biochemical alterations in our brain's neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, serotonin, or norepinephrine (among others), cause "mental problems."

Psychiatry's new marketing strategy essentially focused on finding neurological and cerebral correlates and causes for any behavior, especially those we perform privately, such as perceiving, thinking, or feeling.

NEUROCHEMICAL IMBALANCE DOES NOT CAUSE YOUR PROBLEMS
Contrary to popular belief, Psychiatry has not always been associated with neuroscience. Furthermore, its close relationship stems from necessity and the need to survive as a discipline. Simply put, the generation of psychiatrists who made those decisions preferred to embrace mechanistic biological causality rather than lose their jobs.

So, firstly, it's necessary to mention that neuroscience isn't so simple, since those biomarkers that are sought with such faith remain just that, a "matter of faith," because they haven't been found anywhere after so many years.

Secondly, scientific research hasn't yet been able to firmly demonstrate the idea of ​​"mental disorder" as a chemical imbalance. High or low levels of any neurotransmitter can be found in the brain, but it's not clear whether this is a cause, a result, or a correlation.

We would need more experiments that could yield more alternative results and rule out one or more possible alternative hypotheses. We need a "clean result," something indisputable in all people labeled with a particular "mental disorder," and not an absurd accumulation of many studies (if we had one definitive study, there would be no need for such a build-up of research). "Everything we do has consequences in the brain, since the fact that there are differences between human brains does not mean that we have found a definitive and scientific explanation for the differences in behavior between people.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DOPAMINERGIC HYPOTHESIS
The dopaminergic hypothesis, among other proposals that also refer to chemical imbalances of dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, or a mixture of all of them, has been the main argument used to try to "scientifically" support the importance of the medical model in Psychology.

However, the origin of the dopaminergic hypothesis is not what everyone thinks. The key experiment behind its popularity was carried out by Carlson and Lindqvist in 1963, and although they found that certain neuroleptic drugs increased the production and degradation of dopamine, it did not demonstrate the existence of "schizophrenia," much less a relationship between it and an excess of dopamine in the brain."

Despite this, by the end of the 1970s, the dopamine hypothesis was the leading biological theory for "schizophrenia," although most efforts to validate it empirically have failed.

It didn't matter that, from its inception, the dopamine hypothesis was highly abstract and nonspecific, as it has managed to persist over time because it is a very difficult proposition to falsify.

As Popper would say, this hypothesis has a low degree of falsifiability, since if one biological prediction was not confirmed, another easily took its place.

On the other hand, Kuhn might well have said that this hypothesis persists because a sufficiently prominent and more successful alternative theory was never developed.

It is a degenerative research program that can only describe the individual anomaly but does not account for new facts, as Lakatos would say. In addition to the above, the dopamine hypothesis argument is logically flawed, since medicine can provide many examples where the mechanism of action of a therapeutic drug is far removed from the cause of the disease. For example, anti-inflammatory drugs reduce symptoms of a wide variety of pathologies, but they act on conditions far removed from the direct causes of the pathology.

What is clear is that the "one neurotransmitter for one disease" hypothesis has become a perfect marketing concept for pharmaceutical companies. However, regardless of any conflicts of interest, no one has found anything conclusively abnormal about dopamine, or any neurotransmitter, in the brains of those labeled with a "mental disorder."

MAIN REASONS TO SUPPORT THE CHEMICAL IMBALANCE ARGUMENT
1. Obtain the social benefits of associating your work and opinions with medicine.

1. When others associate your view of psychology with medicine, it allows many "professionals" to be described as disciplined, scientific, and rigorous in their work.

2. Evading responsibility. There is no need to analyze or explain anyone's individual behavior, because the DSM diagnostic label already takes care of that.

3. Justifying the "chronicity of mental disorders." If you have chronic patients who "can never be cured," you have patients you can charge for life.

REFERENCES:
– Moncrieff, J., et al. (2022). The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.
– Probst, B. (2015). Critical Thinking in Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis.
– Schildkraut, J. (2015). The Catecholamine Hypothesis of Affective Disorders: A Review of Supporting Evidence.
– El-Mallakh, R., & Jeannie Roberts, Y. (2011). Tardive dysphoria: The role of long term antidepressant use in-inducing chronic depression
– Whitaker, R. (2010). Anatomía de una epidemia.
– Deacon, B., & Baird, G. (2009). The Chemical Imbalance Explanation of Depression: Reducing Blame at What Cost?
– Kendler, K., & Schaffner, K. (2011). The Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia: An Historical and Philosophical Analysis

"As I began to see the structural and systemic roots of our distress, I increasingly moved away from “born this way” thinking. The more I prioritized intentional community building and reconnecting to my cultural roots, the more impossible it became to see my pain as separate from other people’s struggles. It’s all interconnected and psychiatric labels simply failed to capture these nuances that collectivist communities are built on.

Decolonizing also means letting go of bioessentialism

Maybe we shouldn’t assume anything of people who do or don’t carry a neurodivergent label. Maybe someone identifying as neurodivergent or NOT won’t help you understand much about them or circumvent the process of getting to know them with care, over time. Maybe we should let people open our world to new worlds. Maybe we shouldn’t covertly or overtly force people to turn to a colonial tool like the DSMV to figure out “what they have” or “who they are”. Maybe we don’t need to push people into categories excessively to make them comprehensible.

If terms under the umbrella of neurodivergence are important to you, then know that I’m not asking you to abandon them, nor am I framing them unilaterally as “bad”. I’m asking you to look beyond them, to be aware of how they can be leveraged for harm and to recognize that there are other ways for communities to make sense of their distress without these labels. I’m asking you to embrace complexity and create space for it. The rest of the world should not have to speak this precise language. The language of colonial psychiatry should never have been forced upon the global south and it shouldn’t be today, including any reclaimed version within the neurodiversity framework."

Psychiatric diagnoses & bioessentialism will not liberate us, Ayesha Khan, Ph.D.

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/psychiatric-diagnoses-and-bioessentialism

#madpride #madliberation
.

How positive psychology deceives us

Strategies and scams used by the happiness industry to take our money

Transcript of the post by conducteam

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/how-positive-psychology-deceives

CLAIMING THAT POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY HAS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
1) Self-help books endorsed by positive psychology are not scientifically proven, and most of the terms used, which come from neuroscience, are imprecise and lack rigor.

2) Self-help books only offer very specific solutions, under very specific circumstances, providing at most slight, momentary relief.

3) It is a cheap product to produce, easy to distribute, and generates enormous economic benefits for everyone who offers it.

Don’t be fooled by arguments from authority!

PRESENTING HAPPINESS AS AN UNREACHABLE GOAL
1) Happiness is presented as an insatiable quality, since we can always be happier than we are. If we are asked, “When are we happy enough?”, the answer would be: never.

2) Happiness is sold as “something we need to exercise continuously.” If happiness becomes a “muscle” we must train, we need specific happiness coaches and supplements in the form of books or other products.

Your goal is to feel good, not to be happy. They are not the same thing!

CONVINCING YOU THAT YOU POSSESS A VERY POWERFUL STRENGTH, THE “POWER TO BE HAPPY”
1) Positive psychology deceives us by offering simple, individual solutions that require very little effort to solve complex problems. It is very tempting to claim that “the secret to solving a problem lies within us,” because of the enormous sense of control and power it generates.

2) If happiness is solely our own doing, then being well will be our own merit, but being unwell will be our own fault. There are more negative than positive consequences to this.

CREATING A TRAINING SYSTEM FOR “PROFESSIONALS” WHO TEACH HAPPINESS
1) They not only deceive us by claiming that “happiness is learned,” but they also confirm that “happiness is also taught.”

2) It would hinder their scam if this weren’t the case, since, if happiness isn’t learned, it would be difficult to link it to constant training, and if it isn’t taught, they couldn’t justify the profession of “wellness expert,” nor the existence of products that give their clients “guides and steps to be happier.”

CONVINCING YOU THAT PURSUING YOUR HAPPINESS DOESN’T HARM ANYONE
1) The happiness business is not without paradoxical and harmful effects. The individualism they sell ignores the fact that there are people with dreams that are dangerous for others.

2) Regarding ourselves, the more we strive to be happy, the more we suffer when we don’t achieve it. Regarding others, studies support the idea that cultures that place great value on happiness are associated with dissatisfaction, anxiety, and suffering.

PERSUADE YOURSELF WITH “THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU’RE NOT HAPPY, NOT YOUR ENVIRONMENT”
1) Focusing on your “happiness” is very useful for shifting the focus away from other issues such as inequality, economic uncertainty, or job insecurity, among other detrimental variables for the reader of positive psychology.

2) Solutions like mindfulness or contact with nature have a weak scientific basis. The solution is to improve the world, not to find useless ways to endure it.

"happiness CANNOT exist without sadness. Joy cannot exist without grief just like sunlight cannot exist without dark nights only illuminated by moonlight.
Yet, overwhelming sadness can crush our will to live so if sadness is actually good for us, then why are we decimated by it? Emotions are fundamentally relational, not individual experiences that emerge from within in a vacuum. We cannot truly FEEL anything in isolation. Feelings are the threads that connect us to our ecosystems (other people, beings, the land)- so how can we possibly carry them alone?

Sadness when solely felt in isolation is crushing & hopeless. Grief when carried alone without communal support is paralyzing & unbearably agonizing. The moments when I don’t want to be alive are the moments when I’m most alone. It isn’t the sadness. It’s the loneliness that is crushing. When I truly try to discern what the problem is, I see that grief is not a problem to be solved or a hurdle to be avoided. The problem is the isolation that capitalism inflicts on us. Grief on the other hand is life-giving… if it is processed, navigated & moved through in community. Our emotions are sources of information, critical feedback & pathways of connection that helps us grow, evolve & adapt in community."

Heavy, difficult emotions are important to face & only overwhelming when carried alone, Ayesha Khan

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/heavy-difficult-emotions-are-important

#madpride #madliberation
.

Debunking "attachment theory." Your childhood matters, but it doesn't define you.

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/debunking-attachment-theory-your

“ATTACHMENT” FROM A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
1) From a behavioral analysis perspective, we could define “attachment” as: “A label that encompasses a set of repertoires and types of behavior (Pavlovian and operant) shaped by relationships maintained (contingencies of survival and reinforcement) throughout a lifetime of interaction between an individual and their caregivers.”

2) A behavioral perspective on attachment focuses on the development of the person within the context of their learning history (among other variables). In contrast, traditional “attachment theory” focuses on internal mechanisms as causal agents (”representational systems” and “operational models” of the Operant Model of Attachment, “IWM”).

Although there are few texts on the subject, behavioral analysis does possess explanatory potential for operationalizing attachment.

“ATTACHMENT THEORY” COULD HAVE BEEN RIGOROUS AND RESPECTABLE
1) Although most behavior analysts think otherwise, the much-criticized John Bowlby, the first to coin the term “attachment,” was a psychoanalyst who rejected many of the classic psychoanalytic theories, such as primarily “drive reduction theory.”

2) Furthermore, he strongly argued that any “attachment relationship” possesses survival value in phylogenetic terms, to explain infant protection through the search for attachment.

3) Had he fully embraced this position, “attachment” might not have taken the psychodynamic turn that now characterizes it.

Bowlby did not want “attachment theory” to be associated with behaviorism due to his psychoanalytic training, and therefore reduced the importance of consciously learned and premeditated behavior.

NEGATIVE CRITICISMS OF “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
1) Bowlby’s main hypothesis was that:

“The quality of the bond between mother and child influences all subsequent intimate relationships in life. Basically, that the quality of motherhood generalizes to other relationships throughout life” (Bowlby, 1988).

However, currently there are no studies that demonstrate a direct relationship between maternal absence and later behavioral problems (Rutter, 1995).

2) Based on the above, “attachment” is not a predictor of anything. A “secure attachment” does not predict success in life, nor does an “insecure attachment” in childhood predict suffering and failure.

Even if Bowlby disagreed, your “attachment style” in childhood does not define you in adulthood, nor does it define your future intimate and romantic relationships.

3) Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth considered that “attachment” arises from the attention and care provided by the mother, completely ignoring that “attachment” is an interpersonal relationship (interaction), and not an individual trait.

“If everything depended on the mother, all children should have the same type of attachment in the vast majority of cases, but this is almost never the case.”

4) Another major error lies in considering “attachment styles” almost as a “personality classification,” attributing immutable traits to the manifestations of these styles, traits that remain constant throughout life. Behavior is dynamic and adaptable to the context, not eternal and unchanging throughout a lifetime.

No one behaves in a vacuum. Everything we do always depends on another variable.

5) Attachment Theory focuses on the role of the mother and excludes other figures in the child’s life. Although in other cultures we observe that children have had multiple caregivers because mothers have had to be attentive to their own survival,

“That mothers raise children exclusively is a modern invention of the industrial age, and it is highly doubtful that children genetically inherit a bond with a single caregiver.”

6) The most common mistake made by “psychodynamic professionals” is expecting a literal reproduction of “attachment styles” without taking into account the context in which Ainsworth developed this typology (differences between children in Uganda and the USA in 1954-1955).

If you are a clinical professional, avoid copying examples verbatim from manuals, “attachment styles,” metaphors from contextual therapies, or any other technology.

POSITIVE CRITICISMS OF “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
1) Despite the aforementioned negative criticisms, it can be stated that “Attachment Theory,” with varying degrees of success, was the first serious attempt to create a “scientific psychoanalytic theory” that could be tested and refuted.

2) The evolutionary inspiration of “attachment theory” is completely undervalued. “Evolution promotes mother-child attachment bonds as a biological goal for the child’s survival.”

3) Despite the enormous rejection of Behavior Analysis, in “Attachment Theory,” adult “attachment styles” are considered learned and changing behavioral patterns, developed throughout a lifetime, based on early experiences with caregivers.

Let there be no misunderstanding: although “attachment theory” has great potential, we do not recommend its diagnostic use in clinical contexts.

A GOOD EXPLANATION OF “ATTACHMENT”
1) Reiterating the operationalization of “attachment” in terms of survival, mother-child relationships are probably simply based on the security, comfort, and relief from the fear of “being alone and helpless” that a mother provides to her child.

“If you don’t help me survive, I won’t become attached to you; that is, your behavior isn’t relevant (disregarded) in how I learn to behave in the world.”

2) This set of mother-child associations is formed through three main learning mechanisms, not through how you “represent” your mother: single-stimulus learning, classical conditioning, and operant conditioning.

Everything we do is for a reason, and coincidentally, that reason is always related to wanting to survive.

REFERENCES:
– Bosmans, G., et al. (2022). A Learning Theory Approach to Attachment Theory: Exploring Clinical Applications.

– Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.

– Mansfield, A., & Cordova, J. A. (2004). Behavioral Perspective on Adult Attachment Style, Intimacy, and Relationship Health.

– Rutter, M. (1995). Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect.

#madpride #madliberation
.

EMDR therapy is a pseudo-science

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/emdr-therapy-is-a-pseudoscience

WHAT IS EMDR THERAPY?
The EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) technique, developed by Shapiro in the late 1980s, is a very popular therapy that attempts to “reduce the intensity of disturbing thoughts and emotions by evoking ‘traumatic’ memories, while guiding specific eye movements (visual stimulation) or other types of bilateral stimulation (auditory or tactile).”

Although EMDR therapy follows the standard method of clinical research, has “proven” efficacy, and has a systematic application procedure, it is still not known exactly how or why it works.

THE ROLE OF EYE MOVEMENTS
Bilateral stimulation (the therapist’s index finger tracing from side to side, alternating sounds in each ear, or tapping on the client’s shoulders or hands) is supposed to allow us to disregard traumatic memories by distracting ourselves with the stimulation, thus facilitating a new processing (reprocessing) of these negative traumatic thoughts.

To be frank, the effect or help provided by bilateral stimulation is probably due more to the ritual and the complete eight-step, ceremony-like procedure than to the supposed reprocessing of a traumatic memory.

The role of eye movements is not directed toward the supposed neuronal reprocessing that is advocated; rather, their role is simply to give the therapy a name and substance, in addition to playing a fundamental part within the ceremony, as they provide meaning and structure to the ritual. On the other hand, it gives prominence to the therapist as someone capable of performing extraordinary actions (bilateral stimulation) that represent a decisive or miraculous moment in the therapy. Patients even readily accept the suggestion that the therapist is “accessing their brain directly,” insofar as the eyes seem to be their most direct connection.

The fact that the participants (therapist and client) do not perceive themselves as performing a ceremony does not invalidate this view; rather, it validates it, since the native people participating in healing ceremonies also do not see themselves as performing a ritual, but rather as doing what they have to do.

WHY DOES EMDR THERAPY WORK?
EMDR therapy works, and it is a grave mistake to claim otherwise. However, how and why it works is unknown, and the reasons given for its effectiveness are likely flawed (eye movements, bilateral stimulation, and reprocessing) and still completely unknown.

To try to unravel the “mystery” of its workings, we must assume that EMDR has behavioral components, reminiscent of systematic desensitization, which other therapies might recognize as their own (EMDR’s initial name was Eye Movement Desensitization/EMD). The results could be due more to these components than to the eye movements and bilateral stimulation that define it.

For this reason, behavior analysts attribute EMDR’s effectiveness to the exposure it involves, although it can hardly be reduced to exposure alone, since this exposure is neither systematic nor prolonged, as is typical of exposure techniques.

Precisely because of this lack of plausible or potentially justifiable hypotheses for its effectiveness, EMDR is attempting to evolve, albeit not in the right direction, through speculative and as yet unproven neural models, and through approaches that integrate other perspectives (such as Beck’s Unified Model of Depression).

Unfortunately, it will continue to be included on the map of “effective therapies,” even though the therapeutic procedure that gives it its name remains unexplained or is even clarified as not being linked to any of the processes it postulates.

THE PLACEBO EFFECT IN EMDR THERAPY
If therapists and clients were to discover that bilateral stimulation has no active effect on their results, nothing would be the same, since the placebo effect of EMDR affects not only the client but also the therapist.

The EMDR placebo lies in the credibility and enthusiasm or faith with which the therapist applies the therapy, while in the client it lies in the need to please the clinician.

The mention of the placebo effect in EMDR should not be seen as a devaluation, but rather as an effort to understand its efficacy. There is a growing interest in reevaluating the placebo as a phenomenon in its own right, and to be honest, no clinical practice is immune to the placebo effect.

FINAL CONCLUSION
The classification of EMDR therapy as a pseudoscience does not stem from the scientific method, nor from its efficacy, but rather from the explanatory theory it attributes to the mechanism supposedly responsible for its functioning and usefulness.

EMDR therapy is a victim of the mechanistic approach it advocates; that is, its efficacy depends on a mechanism that, while being its raison d’être and function, and directly giving the therapy its name, also possesses an inexplicable and implausible character.

“It is easier to label a practice as pseudoscience than to analyze how it works if it is not scientific. Rather than labeling or disqualifying, it is about analyzing how and why pseudoscientific practices work.”

REFERENCES:
▪️ García-Morilla, S. (2017). EMDR: ¿Una pseudoterapia avalada por la APA?

▪️ Pérez-Álvarez, M. (2021). Ciencia y Pseudociencia en Psicología y Psiquiatría.

#madpride #madliberation
.

Why your dopamine, cortisol, or brain isn't causing your suffering or what you do in your daily life.

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/why-your-dopamine-cortisol-or-brain

To claim that all our behavior depends on our brain, neurotransmitters, or any other brain variable is an error known in psychology as “biological reductionism” or “brain-centrism.”

When we say that the brain is the cause of everything we do, we commit a conceptual error that undermines a century of scientific research in psychology, given the limited importance and rigor our science holds in today’s society.

Eliminating the brain as a direct cause of our suffering does not diminish the importance of neuropsychology as a well-established science. Most serious neuroscientists do not reduce the causes of behavior to physicochemical brain processes.

Even though the brain does not directly cause behavior, it is a mistake to deny the influence it does, in fact, exert on behavior.

The problem lies in generating simplistic brain-based explanations for complex problems, exceeding the limits of neuroscience, and underestimating its explanatory power. The argument that dopamine is the cause of our happiness is supported by the social benefits of associating your opinions with medicine, evading responsibility, justifying the “chronicity of mental disorders,” and taking advantage of a system that makes the individual responsible for their own suffering.

What happens in the brain is not the direct cause, but rather the “effect” of both our behavior and the current political, economic, cultural, and social system that governs the world we live in.

Human activities are no more dependent on the brain than the brain itself is on the contexts with which people interact. The brain is more a consequence of our evolution as a species than the cause of that evolution.

Eliminating brain-centric reductionism restores the individual to their rightful central role. The functions assigned to the brain are, in reality, activities inherent to the individual, occurring within a specific society and culture.

We do not behave as independent parts of our organism, such as the brain or the nervous system. Behavior can only be understood as that of the entire organism. The organism behaves as a whole, not as isolated parts.

If the brain is damaged, a person’s activity may be interrupted or limited.

However, this doesn’t mean that the activity was generated, caused, or produced by the brain, and is therefore limited to its cells and neural circuits. Things are always happening in the brain, no matter what we do. It’s a mistake to diagnose biological problems, such as “depression,” by asking questions about our behavior.

The accumulation of studies on the brain-related causes of our behavior is not evidence of sound research or progress, but rather that there is still no definitive study to justify such investigation. Neuroscience is not ready for “grand unitary theories” that allow us to reduce the cause of everything we do to a single part of our brain. People’s suffering cannot be reduced to neurochemical imbalances and faulty circuits. The origin of any behavioral problem does not lie in a medical condition.

The greatest condemnation in the history of mental health will always be the medicalization of behavior. Everything we do has consequences in the brain, since the fact that differences exist between human brains does not mean that we have found a definitive and scientific explanation for behavioral differences between people. All efforts dedicated to validating the “serotonin, dopamine, or norepinephrine hypothesis” as the cause of our problems have failed. The “one psychotropic drug for one disease” hypothesis is a perfect marketing concept for pharmaceutical companies. Psychotropic drugs are an alternative and additional treatment used in very specific circumstances, not a complete and definitive treatment. It should be used in every case, massively and irresponsibly.

When we ingest a psychotropic drug, the “improvement” we observe is merely the temporary effect of the drug, not a change in the real psychological root of the problem.

Psychotropic drugs don’t solve your problems; they only put them on pause.

The politicization of distress is necessary not only to reject the individualistic approach but also to provide an example of how emotions are collectivized. Ayesha Khan does tremendous work and serves as an example; here she analyzes suicide from a political and harm reduction perspective:

“Suicide rates have been increasing under late-stage capitalism as ecological destruction escalates & working class people have fewer guarantees of any stability or security. Marginalized communities have the worst health outcomes & lower life expectancies independent of cause. Oppressive systems are the most dominant form of systemic trauma that impacts people’s overall health causing mental distress and physical illnesses. Black folks in the U.S. for example have higher rates of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes due to intergenerational oppression. Similarly, oppressive systems facilitate & cause suicide. Oppressive systems are literally designed to abuse, exploit and brutalize people so this is right up in their alley.

There is no single, homogenous, “sociopolitical model” but what they get right is focus on the systemic roots of suicide & take a collectivist approach by wanting to prevent deaths by building life-affirming community-based systems of care. I believe we have to fight to abolish capitalism by any means necessary, be unified in our political struggle to build a world where life is truly valued, preserved & sustained and apply those values in our daily life to show up in our communities today as best we can. However, these approaches still never question the base assumption shaped by social norms- that someone’s decision to die is unequivocally “bad” in all scenarios.

Leftist harm reduction approaches to drug use, for example, aim to provide people with safer access to drugs without labeling people’s choice to use them as innately “wrong”. They also simultaneously work to meet people’s basic survival needs in order to improve our quality of life in the short-term (mutual aid) & long-term (abolition of capitalism & all oppressive hierarchical systems). This revolutionary, non-judgmental, compassionate approach see’s drug use as an inevitable coping mechanism for many in an oppressive society without judgment & acknowledges its complexities. The same framework is not applied to suicide, however, where regardless of the context, choosing to die a dignified death is never an acceptable option.

Abolition as a political strategy is not about ending oppression thinking there will be no harm or conflict that can occur in some future utopia. Abolition involves us acknowledging the complexities of communal dynamics itself including addressing the social conditions that lead to interpersonal violence (poverty/ inequity/ intergenerational trauma) & creating transformative systems that can address harm without punishment or exile. I believe that the same framework can be applied to us building systems that affirm life in the fullest, most complex sense which includes fighting like hell for people to have guaranteed access to survival resources & community care which we need to stay alive while also honoring the agency & autonomy in select situations when one might choose to die without forcing them to live against their will. (…)

Despite decades of billions spent on “suicide prevention” campaigns with slogans about “breaking the silence”, suicide rates continue to increase as suicidal people continue to be silenced. Majority of testimonial perspectives on suicide come from “experts” working on it through a colonial, capitalist lens, the loved ones, or ex-suicidal people who can be portrayed as a “good story” of “overcoming” adversity that validates the mainstream narrative. There is no complexity. This is also a byproduct of a neoliberal society defined by toxic positivity & respectability politics where anything arbitrary designated “negative” is dismissed with more attention paid to superficial optics rather than substance. People who have died by ending their own life are mostly scapegoated as pitiful, inferior tragedies and used as “cautionary tales” which always demonizes their choice as irrational, incomprehensible, illogical, weak, and just plain “wrong” reducing the problem of suicide to “bad individuals”. It also reinforces the fact that living is always the “right” choice (without making anyone too uncomfortable about your reality)- even with crushing pain & suffering that is not alleviated despite you & your community’s best efforts. Suicide is ultimately framed in dominant culture as a sign of someone too weak to “fight their battles” & never a legitimate choice one should consider in response to their suffering. (…)

Survival is a collective responsibility. Sustaining life requires us to address the oppressive systems that are killing us. It’s on us all to build communities that value & truly support life. To that end, “suicide prevention” isn’t helplines, cops & prisons- its systems that guarantee food, water, shelter, healthcare, community support for everyone when they enter this world. In the short-term, this looks like mutual aid efforts & solidarity building. “Suicide prevention” is an end to capitalism, the state, all oppressive systems & hierarchies. Preventing suicide requires at baseline there to be systems that honor, value & sustain ecological diversity as we facilitate people’s reconnection to their ecosystems.” Destigmatize Suicide: An abolitionist, harm reduction approach to the right to live & die

https://wokescientist.substack.com/p/destigmatize-suicide-an-abolitionist

#madpride #madliberation