Psychology is on the verge of a rebirth. The Psychology built upon suppositions (“It’s as if ”) is dying, and a Psychology based upon actual knowledge of the brain is being born.
From Freud, Jung, Adler, et al. on down, we've been essentially reaching blindfolded into a gunny sack in a dark room with thick socks over our hands and trying to describe whatever our grope encounters. All of the images, entities, and nomenclature we've come up with while trying to identify and “explain” the phenomena we've encountered have been “as-ifs” and “what-ifs.” Id, ego, libido, complexes, repression, introversion, extroversion, persona, anima/animus, the inner child, etc., all are made-up theories attempting to explain observed phenomena by saying, “It's as if.”
Consider Dr. Carl G. Jung’s concept of “complexes.” It arose from word-association tests during which Jung would speak a word to a patient, and the patient would respond with the first word that came to mind. Jung observed that for some words there was a noticeable delay before the patient responded and that the patient was unable to explain the delay and was often unaware of it. To investigate, Jung began including psychologically related words in the tests and carefully timing the intervals between test words and responses. Based on the results, he hypothesized that it was “as if” there were associated clusters (complexes) of feelings, thoughts, and memories in the unconscious, and that any word touching upon the complex would cause a delayed response. Eventually he came to see the complexes as if they were autonomous fiefdoms within the personality, capable of influencing thoughts and behavior.
Knowing what is now known about the brain, we can reinterpret Jung’s data to describe not “complexes,” but rather complex, time-absorbing parallel processing going on to resolve the competing, sometimes conflicting ideas evoked by the words. Extensive research on how the brain processes visual data has established beyond doubt that the brain can and does use modular parallel processing, and can and does meld the output of many modules to achieve a unified result. Thus it is not unreasonable to view Dr. Jung’s data as demonstrating similar unconscious processing of ideas.
The classical theories and therapies and their myriad modern offshoots have served us well, and will continue to do so; but, nonetheless, the time has clearly come to begin reevaluating both classical and modern observations in terms of what has been learned about our brain’s functioning. Thanks to the ongoing research with split-brain patients, and the tsunami of fMRI based studies, incredible advances have been made over the last decades.
The ability of fMRI scans to detect which modules of the brain are active during cognitive processes provides a crude, but nonetheless incredibly revealing window into how we “think”: it allows testing whether some of our gross assumptions are true or not.
For example, a Michael Shermer’s “Skeptic” column (Scientific American, July 2006) proclaimed: “A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias.” The column related that shortly before the 2004 presidential election fifteen subjects who described themselves as “strong Republicans” and fifteen who described themselves as “strong Democrats” underwent fMRI brain scans while being asked to assess statements by George W. Bush and John F. Kerry in which the candidates appeared to contradict themselves. In all cases the subjects were critical of the candidate they opposed, and spun explanations excusing the candidate they supported. … What was surprising, however, was what the fMRI scans revealed: parts of the brain associated with processing emotions, resolving conflict, and making moral judgments were activated, but the part of the brain associated with reasoning was not. When the subjects finally arrived at a conclusion that satisfied them, the part of the brain associated with reward and pleasure was activated.
It would seem these results are compatible with the theory (hinted at above) that our brain processes ideas subconsciously, comparing them with existing beliefs and biasing our conscious reaction accordingly.
These examples are merely an introduction to what soon will become a race to reevaluate observed behaviors and existing theories in terms of the new knowledge about the brain. … I invite and encourage you to join the race.
No comments:
Post a Comment