I
don't consider it dualistic at all. My students look for ways of organizing
their notes, and so I try to categorize things as much as possible. I happen to
be of the opinion that anything psychological is in reality physiological. In
other words, that psychology is physiology, that physiology is biology, that
biology is chemistry, that chemistry is physics, that physics is math; thus, the
universe IS math. Nothing dualistic there, but it would sure make it hard for my
students to grasp concepts sometimes. So, I simplify when perhaps I shouldn't.
I suppose I need to spend more time on the philosophical elements inherent
in my lectures.
Carol
--------Original Message-----
From: Pollak, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:20 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Withdrawal from antidepressantsCarol wrote"Dependency vs. addiction is another matter. I tend not to use the word =
addiction because of the implications and associations that go with it. =
But, dependency may be physiological or psychological, or both. Physical =
dependency occurs when the body experiences withdrawal symptoms (not =
limited to those accompanying regulation of dendrites) and can involve =
metabolic changes or induction changes--in other words, changes in how =
the body metabolizes the drug or changes in how quickly the liver reacts =
to the presence of the drug. On the other hand, psychological dependency =
has more to do with the person's belief that he or she needs the =
drug--and can also produce very real reactions."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 learning is not a physiological phenomenon!This is a point my students rarely "get" but I keep trying!Ed~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology,
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Co-founder & Editor www.adcham.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/epollak/home.htm---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
