Evolutionary Psychiatry?

[Bleurberry]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Are there any programs or fellowships that take seriously the study of memetics, or psycho-history, or any such thing? I've been hitting upon some interesting reading as of late, but I haven't found any program which embraces it in my casual perusing, so I'm wondering if it's lauded as pseudo-science. The evolutionary aspect of thought construct and deliverance, and how that could be pertinant to positive outcomes/treatment in psychotherapy and drug therapy. Seems to me to be an interesting point of departure, and a potentially unifying factor between genetics and psycho-social factors. What is everyone's take on memetics, evolutionary psychology, and whether or not these ideas have peaked and are on the decline in terms of residency and fellowship integration, or whether they're beginning to surface and be taken seriously again in the mainstream... if it indeed they ever were. Thanks for sharing your input.

Forgive my laziness for not taking the time to define a lot of the above if you weren't previously familiar with the concepts, and I encourage you to use the Google, or the Yahoo.

 

[strangeglove]

I don't know about evolutionary psychiatry, since psychiatry is strictly the treatment of mental illness, which only occurs in humans. There is a field of evolutionary psychology, which deals with things like how have psychological phenomena in humans, such as sexual attraction, evolved from similar processes in non-human primates. There is also the field of medical anthropology, which deals with a historical or ethnographic study of psychiatry as a way of understanding the human condition. Often, it involves critique of psychiatry as a source of problems related to modernity, etc. The study of memes is probably more the province of evolutionary psychology, though it is merely one theoretical perspective in this field. I doubt there is a program that teaches memetics per se.

 

[Bleurberry]

Richard Dawkins, the selfish gene, memetics, no discussions in mainstream psychiatric circles as far as you know relating to research and treatment?

 

[masterofmonkeys]

There is tremendous potential for the exploration of evolution as it relates to psychiatry and indeed all of medicine.

I'm hoping to make a research career of it.

By far the biggest limiting factor is that medicine focuses on the basic sciences that have been incorporated into medicine. I.e. classical (descriptive) anatomy, steady-state physiology, biochemistry, histology. An education in evolutionary biology is neither required nor encouraged. We're thus left with no 'intellectual infrastructure' so to speak.

While many doctors can appreciate how evolution might inform the science and practice of medicine, they're unequipped with the tools to incorporate it into mainstream medicine. You can see your dream house in your head, but if you don't know how to use tools, it ain't going to get built.

The second problem kind of relates back to the first. Early investigators into evolutionary psychology and medicine have had no training in evolutionary biology themselves. It is laughable the kind of hypotheses that have been bandied about (such as murder being 'adaptive'--only in very very limited consequences), which are uninformed by a nuanced and concrete view of evolution. Newton once remarked that he stood on the shoulders of giants. The problem with much of the research in evolutionary psychology/medicine, is that they seem to have failed to seek out these giants before embarking on their ambitious theorizing.

A third issue is that the modern medical/scientific world is ill equipped to undergo the kind of epistemological change that is needed to incorporate evolutionary thought into the biomedical model. The career of the scientist these days has essentially two stages: A) Learning facts by rote. and B) performing empirical--and largely correlational--experimentation. Science proceeds by incorporation of facts into theory. Experimentation and facts are the substrate, or fertilizer. The jumps in understanding come from synthesis and discussion. Providing context to the content distilled from the experiments if you will. Unfortunately, the modern scientific world is dominated by content over context. And this problem is far worse in medicine, where the promotion of learning scientific method and philosophy is in even worse condition than it is in other areas of science.

Sorry to harsh your buzz there, but until there's a ground-up shift in the priorities of science education and practice, and in medical education and theory formulation, there's not a whole lot of scope for meaningful change in biomedical theory, especially with regard to evolutionary medicine.

That said, if its what floats your boat, go for it. I am. But I'd recommend taking the time to get a formal education in evolutionary biology and acquaint yourself with the principles of the scientific method and scientific epistemology. It can probably be learned on the fly, but evolutionary bio is a very complex subject and more like theoretical physics than the type of bio you've been exposed to in school. I know that I personally wouldn't feel competent to do evolutionary medicine research if I hadn't studied the philosophy of biology (undergrad) or evolutionary biology (both undergrad and graduate school) formally. On the other hand, unless you're very unlucky, a reviewer of any paper you submit is EXTREMELY unlikely to have a detailed understanding of evolution, and so won't even realize when you make very off-base claims, so you can almost definitely fake it.

 

[Regnvejr]

Note the history of "sociobiology" as partly covering this and coming under massive criticism. Tread gently and verily.

 

[Bleurberry]

Interesting. So your gentle warning toward the end of your post regarding the resistance and infancy of EP in mainstream science, let me just another bone- Why doesn't the biopsychosocial model of psychotherapy lend itself toward integrating an evolutionary perspective?
I've seen many programs proclaim that they stress this model in their psychotherapy training for residents. And, as we've both shown an interest in this as well, psychoneuroimmunology- I assumed that if there's a place in this world for PNI in fellowships and even residency training, that there would also be a place for EP and memetics, and I guess I was hoping that some progress had been made in translating the hypothesis into experimental treatment therapies. It's all good, I'm just trying to see what's being worked on.

There is tremendous potential for the exploration of evolution as it relates to psychiatry and indeed all of medicine.

I'm hoping to make a research career of it.

By far the biggest limiting factor is that medicine focuses on the basic sciences that have been incorporated into medicine. I.e. classical (descriptive) anatomy, steady-state physiology, biochemistry, histology. An education in evolutionary biology is neither required nor encouraged. We're thus left with no 'intellectual infrastructure' so to speak.

While many doctors can appreciate how evolution might inform the science and practice of medicine, they're unequipped with the tools to incorporate it into mainstream medicine. You can see your dream house in your head, but if you don't know how to use tools, it ain't going to get built.

The second problem kind of relates back to the first. Early investigators into evolutionary psychology and medicine have had no training in evolutionary biology themselves. It is laughable the kind of hypotheses that have been bandied about (such as murder being 'adaptive'--only in very very limited consequences), which are uninformed by a nuanced and concrete view of evolution. Newton once remarked that he stood on the shoulders of giants. The problem with much of the research in evolutionary psychology/medicine, is that they seem to have failed to seek out these giants before embarking on their ambitious theorizing.

A third issue is that the modern medical/scientific world is ill equipped to undergo the kind of epistemological change that is needed to incorporate evolutionary thought into the biomedical model. The career of the scientist these days has essentially two stages: A) Learning facts by rote. and B) performing empirical--and largely correlational--experimentation. Science proceeds by incorporation of facts into theory. Experimentation and facts are the substrate, or fertilizer. The jumps in understanding come from synthesis and discussion. Providing context to the content distilled from the experiments if you will. Unfortunately, the modern scientific world is dominated by content over context. And this problem is far worse in medicine, where the promotion of learning scientific method and philosophy is in even worse condition than it is in other areas of science.

Sorry to harsh your buzz there, but until there's a ground-up shift in the priorities of science education and practice, and in medical education and theory formulation, there's not a whole lot of scope for meaningful change in biomedical theory, especially with regard to evolutionary medicine.

That said, if its what floats your boat, go for it. I am. But I'd recommend taking the time to get a formal education in evolutionary biology and acquaint yourself with the principles of the scientific method and scientific epistemology. It can probably be learned on the fly, but evolutionary bio is a very complex subject and more like theoretical physics than the type of bio you've been exposed to in school. I know that I personally wouldn't feel competent to do evolutionary medicine research if I hadn't studied the philosophy of biology (undergrad) or evolutionary biology (both undergrad and graduate school) formally. On the other hand, unless you're very unlucky, a reviewer of any paper you submit is EXTREMELY unlikely to have a detailed understanding of evolution, and so won't even realize when you make very off-base claims, so you can almost definitely fake it.

 

[Bleurberry]

Note the history of "sociobiology" as partly covering this and coming under massive criticism. Tread gently and verily.

Yes, just glancing at that piece on sociobiology on wiki, it seems they initially were so interested in the genetic component to behavior, they didn't stress other conditions that are affective. Hey, it happens 🙂
Epigenetics is interesting in this regard, though.

 

[whopper]

Psychology, not Psychiatry has the advantage here.

My suggestion to anyone wanting to incorporate Evoluationary Psychology is to be well connected with a Evolutionary Psychologist. Work together. You could also start reading some of the wealth of material already published on the subject from authors such as Stephen Jay Gould.

However the 2 fields don't marry too well in clinical practice. If you got a psychotic patient, he could give you various theories as to why such genetic traits have survived (e.g. shamanism), but it might not help you get that person better.

As for research, the 2 may blend better.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

I've seen many programs proclaim that they stress this model in their psychotherapy training for residents. And, as we've both shown an interest in this as well, psychoneuroimmunology- I assumed that if there's a place in this world for PNI in fellowships and even residency training, that there would also be a place for EP and memetics, and I guess I was hoping that some progress had been made in translating the hypothesis into experimental treatment therapies. It's all good, I'm just trying to see what's being worked on.

PNI lends itself to empirical (and biochemical) experimentation and study a lot more easily than do EP/memetics. Memetics is also more of a 'cool idea' than it is really a well-established theory (in a scientific sense).

Interesting. So your gentle warning toward the end of your post regarding the resistance and infancy of EP in mainstream science, let me just another bone- Why doesn't the biopsychosocial model of psychotherapy lend itself toward integrating an evolutionary perspective?

It does. The problem is the biomedical perspective. It is very narrow and overly reductionistic. And doctors who are educated in it, don't learn enough biology to learn how flawed the perspective is.

We don't know the limits of our knowledge and so we don't seek to push them back. Again, as I talked about in my first post, lacking a solid grounding in scientific epistemology or a working knowledge of evolutionary concepts, physicians are ill-equipped to try to integrate the evolutionary perspective into their thinking. You mentioned PNI, and even though it is a really cool new area, it still fits well with the biomedical model. It deals with biochemicals and areas of biology we've been taught in medical school.

In my not-so-humble opinion, there is a huge need for incorporating the evolutionary perspective into medicine as a whole and especially into psychiatry. From the interview trail, I found that most of the people I interviewed with were very excited by my ideas and how I wanted to incorporate an evolutionary sensibility into psychiatry. But there wasn't exactly a surfeit of evolution-educated psychiatrists hanging around.

The central problem is that the biomedical model and the evolutionary model are at odds with each other. The biomedical model LARGELY looks inside of the individual. The evolutionary model looks at the interaction between the individual and the environment. Context versus content.

Take depression for instance, we know all about psychoneuroendocrine abnormalities in depression. But have we studied how they come about? And what role activity and nutrition play in pathogenesis and prevention? Not so much. To the evolutionary biologist, these are important questions. Because the evolutionary biologist recognizes that a normal HPA axis and brain function isn't maintained by an individual in vacuum, but by the individual and its interaction with the environment. What role do reduced sleep, reduced activity, impaired sociality, changed reward structures, and diminished EFA and EAA nutritional content play in the modern epidemic of depression? Good. freaking. question.

Or anxiety. A careful study of anxiety reveals that it isn't strictly a brain problem, but a combination of increased autonomic activity and brain dysregulation feeding back on each other. The evolutionary biologist recognizes that the sympathetic response isn't complete in and of itself. Remember, it results in catecholamine release and vasoconstriction of ALL blood vessels. Vasodilation of the relevant areas (muscles) is accomplished by the actual activity of responding to the stimulus that resulted in SNS release. The sympathetic response to be complete thus requires a) SNS and b) physical activity. What role does the lack of physical activity in response to SNS stimulation play in the pathogenesis of anxiety?

Another good question.

I have no idea where I was going with that rant.

 

[pseudoknot]

I've always had a big problem with evolutionary psychology because it seems to trade in untestable hypotheses and just-so stories. Is there a more rigorous section within the field? And how on earth would this alter practice?

I do agree that factors outside the individual need to be considered, but this doesn't strictly have anything to do with evolution and is perfectly compatible with current scientific paradigms. It's just hard to study properly, so we don't do it much.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

Your criticisms of EP are very valid. Basically sociobiology came along a few decades ago and brought to the forefront a synthesis of evolution and animal behavior. Not just the attempt to study why animals behave the way they do in current context, but why they evolved to do so. The development of sociobiology led to two splinter groups; the behavioral ecologists and the evolutionary psychologists. Behavioral ecology is an immanently testable and scientific discipline, whereas EP is exactly what you said, a largely speculative field. Early on, behavioral ecologists mostly concerned themselves with non-human animals, while evolutionary psychologists focused on humans. Behavioral ecologists trained in evolutionary biology and ecology, whereas evolutionary psychologists didn't train; they just decided they wanted to talk about the evolutionary roots of human behavior. BEs were firmly rooted in darwinian principles and scientific methodology. EPs were not. In recent years, the field of Human Behavioral Ecology has developed, as an offshoot of behavioral ecology. It too is a testable and scientific field, although limited in the same way that all behavioral ecologists are limited (we can't go back in time and see how H. ergaster behaved).

So to answer your question, no I wouldn't necessarily say that there is a rigorous section within EP, but there is a rigorous section of behavioral ecologists devoted to the study of the evolution of human behavior.

I do agree that factors outside the individual need to be considered, but this doesn't strictly have anything to do with evolution and is perfectly compatible with current scientific paradigms. It's just hard to study properly, so we don't do it much.

We can quibble over it but I'd have to disagree. Evolutionary biology and ecology are the de facto fields in which the individual is the unit of study, not internal processes within the individual. The biomedical paradigm does not have much room for understanding individual-environment interaction and it is shown in the language we use and the way we approach models of disease, endocrine systems, and genetics.

These factors ARE hard to study and it's harder to get grant money to do so. But that isn't an excuse to dismiss them out of hand and not incorporate them into the models we use for understanding health and disease. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the biomedical model does. Every time I hear about the 'genetic predisposition' my race has for HTN, CHD, and DM2 I start screaming at the TV. It's interesting that this 'genetic predisposition' is twice as big for those of us in this country than it is for those of us in India, and that our 'genetic predisposition' even in India is 5-10x as much as it was even two generations ago. Either the selective advantage of being 'predisposed' to all those horrible diseases leads to a 2-5x selective advantage, or its not really a 'genetic predisposition' at all.

We are still studying the genetics and pathophys of metabolic syndrome and using absurd amounts of money to do so, even though the most basic analysis with the simplest evolutionary genetic formulas show that this can't possibly be an issue of internal genetic and hormonal processes gone awry, but a mismatch between the human body and current environment.

The biomedical model holds cholesterol as the reason behind CAD and stroke, but even moderate exercise has far more effect on primary and secondary prevention than the most potent statin, despite only modest effects on LDL. So what exactly is exercise doing? WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW!!!

The biomedical mindset seems perfectly happy with this. Sure it's harder to study. Sure it's more difficult to integrate and understand. Does that excuse our seeming ability to ignore it altogether?

Behavioral ecology and evolution are built around understanding these relationships. The biomedical model is not. If the biomedical world used an ecolate frame of mind, this wouldn't be the case.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I've always had a big problem with evolutionary psychology because it seems to trade in untestable hypotheses and just-so stories. ....

Oh--you mean, like psychoanalysis?

 

[pseudoknot]

Oh--you mean, like psychoanalysis?

I'm not yet well informed enough about psychoanalysis to have a strong opinion. My sense is that as a model for the functioning of the mind, it may be subject to the limitations I mentioned. As a treatment modality, on the other hand, I only know that it is difficult to test its efficacy, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Bleurberry]

I appreciate the time you take. And I'm getting the jist of your point. But I'm going to persist here a second and ask again, what about epigenetics? Don't the surface of gene's interact with the environment the organism finds itself in through methylation, and then passes these changes on down the line of progeny? If that doesn't just blow the door open ..

And so my new digression is; do evolutionary psychologists exist in a clinical setting, or solely in a philosophical sense?
If the former, is their therapeutic approach "branded" by the EP paradigm in a distinct way, do they lend themselves to a particular school of therapeutics?

The problem is the biomedical perspective. It is very narrow and overly reductionistic. And doctors who are educated in it, don't learn enough biology to learn how flawed the perspective is.

We don't know the limits of our knowledge and so we don't seek to push them back. Again, as I talked about in my first post, lacking a solid grounding in scientific epistemology or a working knowledge of evolutionary concepts, physicians are ill-equipped to try to integrate the evolutionary perspective into their thinking. You mentioned PNI, and even though it is a really cool new area, it still fits well with the biomedical model. It deals with biochemicals and areas of biology we've been taught in medical school.

 

[pseudoknot]

The biomedical model holds cholesterol as the reason behind CAD and stroke, but even moderate exercise has far more effect on primary and secondary prevention than the most potent statin, despite only modest effects on LDL. So what exactly is exercise doing? WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW!!!

The biomedical mindset seems perfectly happy with this. Sure it's harder to study. Sure it's more difficult to integrate and understand. Does that excuse our seeming ability to ignore it altogether?

Behavioral ecology and evolution are built around understanding these relationships. The biomedical model is not. If the biomedical world used an ecolate frame of mind, this wouldn't be the case.

The fact that we don't understand the molecular basis of the benefits of exercise does not mean that there are none, or that no one cares about them, or that the "biomedical mindset" does not recognize them. Again, it is much easier to do good experimental work in bacteria, yeast, and other model organisms than in humans or even mice, and this is the root of the problem.

And you may be right about ecology, but no matter what the discipline, it's hard to perform experiments involving the interactions of humans with their environments, both for ethical and logistical reasons. So, most of our data is observational and unable to establish causation...and so not very useful.

I think these problems explain most of the lack of progress in understanding complex diseases with environmental components, and evolution doesn't bring much to the table here.

 

[toby jones]

There are some evolutionary biologists who work on mental disorder. Evolutionary models of psychopathy (modeled as cheating and defecting) and so on. Dominic Murphy has a chapter on evolutionary psychiatry in his book 'Psychiatry in the Scientific Image'. While I think there is a research program here I don't see what it would have to offer clinical practice directly.

Memetics is something that is very controversial from within evolutionary biology. Part of the whole 'units of selection' debate. Kim Sterelny does some good work on sociobiology (there is indeed a lot of crap out there). In particular the idea that some behavior might start out being beneficial (a costly signal) then become a fitness trap.

Ian Hacking might be thought to have a kind of memetic account of the evolution of splitting, dissociative fugue, doubling, multiple personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder etc.

There is research out there... But the meme gene analogy is kinda problematic...

 

[toby jones]

One thing that I'm interested in is how in biology adaptative values on traits are only adaptive relative to other individuals and relative to the environment.

This is a nice antidote to the reductionist, within-the-individual thinking that pervades areas of medicine that are very focused on intervening on the biology of the individual fairly directly.

Social change is something that certain theorists have been advocating for a long time. Evolutionary biology and ecology might have the resources to help that seem scientifically respectable.