Science of Mind Thread

[Crayola227]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I thought this might be a fun place to drop these sorts of pop science articles based on the latest papers, stuff that definitely interesting but maybe is kinda not directly applicable to psychiatry, but that students of the mind might find interesting.

Consciousness Might Hide in Our Brain’s Electric Fields

A mysterious electromagnetic mechanism may be more important than the firing of neurons in our brain to explain our awareness

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Crayola227]

I’m a neuroscientist who taught rats to drive − their joy suggests how anticipating fun can enrich human life

Equipped with a rodent version of a Cybertruck, these driving rats reveal that positive experiences may sculpt the brain just as powerfully as stressful ones

theconversation.com

 

[ridethecliche]

This is cool. Looking forward to following it and adding to it if I find something worth adding!

 

[PsyDr]

Solms has some other theories. I don't know if I find them plausible.

Frontiers | The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle

This article applies the free energy principle to the hard problem of consciousness. After clarifying some philosophical issues concerning functionalism, it ...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[clausewitz2]

Solms has some other theories. I don't know if I find them plausible.

Frontiers | The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle

This article applies the free energy principle to the hard problem of consciousness. After clarifying some philosophical issues concerning functionalism, it ...

www.frontiersin.org

You have to at least appreciate the attempts to couch grand hypotheses in some kind of formalism, at least makes the possibility of falsification conceivable.

 

[Crayola227]

Meditation And Mindfulness Can Have a Dark Side That We Don't Talk About

Since mindfulness is something you can practice at home for free, it often sounds like the perfect tonic for stress and mental health issues.

www.sciencealert.com

I apologize I mostly consume these kinds of articles. They have interest and refer to more than one source, I see them as food for thought merely. Any downsides or harms to meditation/mindfulness had never occurred to me. Which is silly because every intervention has potential for unintended effects.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Meditation And Mindfulness Can Have a Dark Side That We Don't Talk About

Since mindfulness is something you can practice at home for free, it often sounds like the perfect tonic for stress and mental health issues.

www.sciencealert.com

ventions

I apologize I mostly consume these kinds of articles. They have interest and refer to more than one source, I see them as food for thought merely. Any downsides or harms to meditation/mindfulness had never occurred to me. Which is silly because every intervention has potential for unintended effects.

One thing we don’t think about enough in our field very much is what happens to the non-responders. Much of my career has been geared toward working with the people who don’t respond to treatment and what typically happens is they get worse and usually get treated very poorly by the people providing the treatment. Glad you saw this error in your thinking as it is very human and we have to guard against it as mental health professionals.

An example of this that I fell prey to was seeing lots of people benefit from substance abuse treatment that uses a lot of social interaction and then thinking that should work for everyone. This led to me focusing on or even blaming the patient when they were not improving. During my dissertation research, I found that some people, especially very socially anxious people, this intervention could potentially make them worse. I try to keep this attribution error at the front of my mind when questioning interventions and outcomes and I think it has been of great benefit.

 

[Crayola227]

One thing we don’t think about enough in our field very much is what happens to the non-responders. Much of my career has been geared toward working with the people who don’t respond to treatment and what typically happens is they get worse and usually get treated very poorly by the people providing the treatment. Glad you saw this error in your thinking as it is very human and we have to guard against it as mental health professionals.

An example of this that I fell prey to was seeing lots of people benefit from substance abuse treatment that uses a lot of social interaction and then thinking that should work for everyone. This led to me focusing on or even blaming the patient when they were not improving. During my dissertation research, I found that some people, especially very socially anxious people, this intervention could potentially make them worse. I try to keep this attribution error at the front of my mind when questioning interventions and outcomes and I think it has been of great benefit.

So true! And it kinda could fall into "it's not a medication/procedure" or "it's "natural"" the latter we like to really think as professionals we don't fall into that trap, but in any case is can be particularly difficult for people, including physicians etc, not to take some of these interventions for granted as fully safe. Like you said, and even beyond non-response, worsening.

Which is even more complex, because some conditions get worse before they get better, with some interventions. So trying to figure out which group then patient is in when they do respond negatively. Or not at all - some interventions like meditation for example suggest it takes time.

Are they really a non-responder, or do we give it time? Is that a greater indicator that they may ultimately experience harm, that they don't respond well in the beginning? How long for negative effects to occur? What risk factors? Can someone have benefit initially, and then get harmed?

What was interesting to me was that they suggested the negative effects might not just be subjective, but even as serious as bringing about psychosis, etc.

Like many interventions, not sure how much research we'll see on this.

 

[smalltownpsych]

So true! And it kinda could fall into "it's not a medication/procedure" or "it's "natural"" the latter we like to really think as professionals we don't fall into that trap, but in any case is can be particularly difficult for people, including physicians etc, not to take some of these interventions for granted as fully safe. Like you said, and even beyond non-response, worsening.

Which is even more complex, because some conditions get worse before they get better, with some interventions. So trying to figure out which group then patient is in when they do respond negatively. Or not at all - some interventions like meditation for example suggest it takes time.

Are they really a non-responder, or do we give it time? Is that a greater indicator that they may ultimately experience harm, that they don't respond well in the beginning? How long for negative effects to occur? What risk factors? Can someone have benefit initially, and then get harmed?

What was interesting to me was that they suggested the negative effects might not just be subjective, but even as serious as bringing about psychosis, etc.

Like many interventions, not sure how much research we'll see on this.

The part about causing serious symptoms and even psychosis is consistent with my experience working in residential treatment settings. What makes some folks better makes others worse and sometimes dramatically. Group therapy, which is often a big component of any milieu, is one place where this can show up. Have seen it less with mindfulness stuff, but have mainly worked with a population that is highly resistant to it anyway so have always done less of that and I have always thought it was a bad idea to have individuals with vulnerabilities to psychotic processes to spend a lot of time in their head so I wouldn’t allow therapists to do much of that.