Mark Moran
Prof. Norma Graham
Psychology W3001
April 29, 1999
Three False Assumptions
One of the most common mistakes that people make, especially psychologists historically, is to treat the mind and body too much as separate entities. For thousands of years, people have assumed that the cognitive processes, or conscious, or soul of a person is separate from their body. Religious beliefs, as well as the daunting philosophical task of trying to comprehend the human mind in physical terms, led scientists to believe in a form of dualism, which separates the brain from the rest of the body. This thinking not only influenced Descartes, but it continued to mislead psychologists and psychiatrists throughout the 20th century. (Gray 4-5, Graham)
The brain is, of course, as much a part of the body as any other organ. More so, it directly or indirectly regulates the functions of every part of the body. Therefore, it should not be surprising that emotions in the brain, such as anger, depression, or fear, can affect parts of the body. After all, the evolutionary purpose of brain only makes sense to the extent that the brain has an effect on other parts of the body. Thus, the same link that causes your heart-rate to increase when you are frightened also can cause a stomach ulcer if you are stressed. Since corporal ailments can be brought about by mental processes, a doctor should consider treating ulcers and other possibly psychosomatic problems with psychological therapy. Of course, drugs and surgeries are also probably often appropriate. The flip of this is true as well. Since the brain is a physical entity, a doctor should be open to treating mental disorders with physical cures, such as drugs like Prozac or even surgery. Again, psychological therapy may also be appropriate. The problem is that doctors and other people have tended to view mental problems as only being treatable with mental cures (therapy) and physical problems as only being treatable with physical cures (drugs, surgery, etc.). (Graham)
Another mistake that has historically plagued scientists and the media alike is the separation of genetic factors versus environmental factors, the so called nature vs. nurture debate. While a few things are entirely the product of one’s environment (such as a broken arm), most aspects of a person’s physical and mental self are strongly influenced by both genes and upbringing. A person’s genetic code is essentially a big molecule that indirectly builds proteins. At a cellular level, all life is really just proteins reacting with their environment – the energy and other chemicals that filter into their cells. For that reason, DNA does not even exist or do anything outside the context of an environment. (Graham, Gray 91-92)
Historically, people have nevertheless assumed that some things are only genetically determined and others are only environmentally determined. More and more evidence suggests that in all things both factors play a role. For example, people might assume that Asian people are genetically determined to be shorter than Europeans, yet second generation Asian-Americans who grow up drinking milk and other western food often grow 6-12” taller than their parents. Likewise, personality traits like religious beliefs and what-not were believed to be only the product of upbringing. However, studies of identical twins separated at birth have revealed that a surprising number of human attributes also have a very high heritability component. Since human thought is at one level just chemical and electrical reactions in the brain, it should not be too astonishing that even the most complex thoughts are also genetically influenced. (Graham, Gray 91-92)
This nature vs. nurture mistake is closely related to a similar biological error which is to assume that something that is heritable now will be heritable it the future. This is an error because it does not make sense to think of a disease or attribute in terms of just the person’s genetics without considering the environment. Almost no diseases are strictly inherited; rather, a person inherits a high or low susceptibility to a virus, bacteria, or cancer-producing agent. However, if the disease causing agent ceases to be a factor, far fewer people will get sick, even if their genes are susceptible. Likewise, if a virus or bacteria increases substantially, more people will get sick even if there was no history in their family of the disease. This is of course true with new diseases coming into existence, such as AIDS, as well as older diseases being eradicated or vaccinated, such as tuberculosis or smallpox. (Graham)
There are several dangers in all of these false reasoning. At one level, doctors and psychiatrists may fail to consider an appropriate cure or course or action. By ignoring the importance of the environment on development, or even on heritable diseases, people can inadvertently expose themselves to unnecessary risks. Finally, but not understanding how interrelated mind and body and genes and environment are, people sometimes blame characteristics they don’t approve of (such as homosexuality or religious beliefs) solely on environment. At worst, this can lead them to make dangerously uninformed decisions at the ballot box.
Gray, Peter. Psychology, Third Edition. New York: Worth Publishers, 1999.