| 来源类型 | Article |
| 规范类型 | 评论 |
| Neurocentrism: Implications for psychotherapy practice and research | |
| Sally Satel; Scott O. Lilienfeld; Seth J. Schwartz; Alan Meca; Katheryn C. Sauvigné | |
| 发表日期 | 2015-10-15 |
| 出版年 | 2015 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | Introduction: In 1989, Samuel Guze, then one of the doyens of American psychiatry, laid down the gauntlet to his academic colleagues in a provocative article, entitled “Biological Psychiatry: Is There Any Other Kind?”, published in a prestigious medical journal. On the opening page, Guze answered his own question with a resounding “no”: “There can be no such thing as a psychiatry which is too biological” (Guze, 1989, p. 316). For Guze, the study of mental illness must focus squarely on the brain as the principle, if not the exclusive, level of explanation. Because all psychiatric conditions are ultimately instantiated in neural tissue, he insisted, they are all physiological disorders once one drills down to the most fundamental level of analysis–the brain. Hence, it is only at this level, Guze maintained, that research will ultimately bear fruit in understanding, treating, and preventing mental afflictions. Over a quarter of a century later, we find ourselves confronting the same question raised by Guze, but with respect to psychology. We also find ourselves in an era of creeping neurocentrism. By neurocentrism, we mean the propensity of scholars to embrace the brain and remainder of the central nervous system (CNS) as inherently the most appropriate level of analysis for conceptualizing and treating psychological phenomena, including mental disorders (Satel & Lilienfeld, 2013; Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, & Sauvigne, in press). In its most extreme form, neurocentrism regards the CNS as essentially the only adequate level of analysis for conceptualizing and treating psychological phenomena. The early 21st century is also awash in talk of psychological conditions as “brain disorders.” For example, in a 2013 Tedx talk, Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), argued that “what we need conceptually to make progress here is to rethink these disorders [ mental disorders] as brain disorders” (Insel, 2013; see also Insel & Cuthbert, 2015). But is neurocentrism helpful in clarifying our thinking about the causes and treatment of mental disorders? What are its implications for psychotherapy practice and research? Read the full article here in the Behavior Therapist (tBT): The Biomedical Model of Psychological Problems from the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. |
| 主题 | Health Care |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/articles/neurocentrism-implications-for-psychotherapy-practice-and-research/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/259480 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Sally Satel,Scott O. Lilienfeld,Seth J. Schwartz,et al. Neurocentrism: Implications for psychotherapy practice and research. 2015. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
