|
Edward Pollak wrote: =Am I the only one who thinks that the "psychological vs. physiological" distinction reeks of the kind of dualistic thinking of which I try so hard to dissuade my =students? I tell me students in this context that "physiological" refers to the fairly obvious effects of the drug (and withdrawal) such as cholinergic effects =(nicotine), endorphinergic effects (opiates), etc. While saying that something is "psychological" is a classic example of the nominal fallacy. The effects are just =as physiological but the systems involved are more complex & subtle (probably involving dopaminergic pathways at some point) and less well understood. To =simply say the effect is "psychological" gives the false impression that we understand it and that there are no physiological underpinnings to the phenomenon. =And just because this aspect might be more tightly under the control of learned cues is still no reason to assert dualism unless you're ready to assert that l=earning is not a physiological phenomenon!
Edward- You weren’t the only one who noted it. As Skinner pointed out, we all tend to talk that way (I think the word he often used is lazy) J. But you are correct that it is probably not a good thing to do (way to talk) when explaining anything to our students. I must admit that at times I do err but I always try to point out the problem and remind in my explanation that it is “as if” it were one or the other. I also try very hard with my students to get them to DROP that “psychological dependency” type of language even to the point of penalizing it in Neuropsychology or psychopharmacology but have had about as much success as you report (I succeed rarely- more often with majors). There is dependency and there is addiction and they are two different things but they are two different physiologically based things (manifesting two different psychological symptomologies). As someone who is oriented toward the classroom and research (primarily) I’m often left wondering how I’d deal with this on an ongoing basis were my main contact with patients. To be frank, I don’t think they care about the language so much (if at all). When “teaching” through the counseling interview I suspect that there are different sets of contingencies- It interests me enough that hearing how some of our clinical members deal with this would be interesting and probably helpful- close as that may be to selling a soul at reduced cost. J Tim
_________________________________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Albertson College of Idaho 2112 Cleveland Blvd. Caldwell, ID 83605
[EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: History and systems; Intro to Neuropsychology; Child Development; Physiological Psychology; Psychology and Cinema
-----Original Message-----
Carol wrote "Dependency vs. addiction is another matter. I tend not
to use the word =
This is a point my students rarely "get" but I keep trying! Ed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Title: Message
- Withdrawal from antidepressants Drnanjo
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants DeVolder Carol L
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants David Epstein
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants DeVolder Carol L
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants Shearon, Tim
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants David Epstein
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants Shearon, Tim
- Withdrawal from antidepressants Pollak, Edward
- Re: Withdrawal from antidepressants David Epstein
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants Shearon, Tim
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants DeVolder Carol L
- Re: Withdrawal from antidepressants Christopher D. Green
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants Paul Smith
- Withdrawal from antidepressants Pollak, Edward
- Re: Withdrawal from antidepressants Christopher D. Green
- RE: Withdrawal from antidepressants Shearon, Tim
- Re: Withdrawal from antidepressants Dr . Bob Wildblood
