The biological underpinnings of behavior

[brightness]

I am a psychology undergrad student and I've seen a psychologist since I was about 17. If it hadn't been for my psychologist, I'd never have been diagnosed bipolar and never gotten medication. I'd still be running on that treadmill and getting nowhere in life. I for one am thankful for psychology, but I am also concerned about the future of the field.
In a recent (2006) U.S. News and World Report article psychologist was described as a "fair career for 2006":http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060105/5careers_fair.htm

Psychologist. It wasn't long ago that the "experts" thought that problems such as schizophrenia and depression were caused by bad parenting. So countless patients and their families were subjected to years of psychotherapy. Now, it's clear that these and other psychological problems have largely physiological roots. I believe that in the coming decade or two, an ever larger proportion of emotional problems will be attributed to physiological causes. That may increase the need for physicians trained in psychology but reduce the need for psychologists focused on the psyche alone.

How would you respond to this? I, for one, found it to be discouraging regarding a career in this field. I do believe that the more we discover about the biological basis for behavior the more clinicians will need to understand the biology of the brain. Many psychology majors get no training in biology and certainly fewer yet in the "hard sciences". My psychology undergrad degree only required one class on neurobiology, although I have taken several more and a few biology classes as well.
My core question is: How will the field of psychology adjust to scientific changes? I am not concerned with prescribing, necessarily, but I am interested in how psychologists can use therapy to help biologically rooted psychopathology/developmental disabilities.

What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There seems to be a convergence of biological and psychological factors as it relates to psychology. I'm a big believer in increasing the hard science courses in clinical programs, however it is a hard balance because we already have too many courses required. We are based in research, and I don't want to sacrifice that portion of the education, yet the clinical courses really do need more of a biological/health slant. It is far different than psychiatry, so the 'solution' isn't more psychiatrists, because then we'd be severely lacking in psychology-centric areas: assessment, research, etc.

I chose to pursue an additional MS to my clinical training to help fill in the hard science gaps, and it has been invaluable to my clinical experience, but this really isn't a great solution for most clinicians.

-t

 

[nobleheart]

I will second what T4C said.

If you examine the Diathesis Stress model, you will find that the bio aspect is certainly the foundation for the person. But, the stressors can shape and ultimately make/break the individual. In that, we are the master manipulators of stress.

 

[Ollie123]

I think it will only be a problem for people who refuse to adapt. Its true for just about any profession though, the only reason I think it might pose a problem is because the profession as a whole is notorious for being slow to adapt. Heck, a doctor would lose their license if they adopt new research as slow as psychologists seem to! Its like a surgeon using leeches with the therapies/assessments some of the folks out in the field are using.

I really wouldn't worry much. If you are worried, do what I'm doing and take a strong biological focus with your research. I'm doing psychophysiology, genetics and health psych. I'm expecting there to be plenty of demand for someone with my background🙂

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ollie loves him some projective testing!! 😀

I too chose to focus in a sub-set of health psych, and I think it will serve me well in the future. Though incoming students, don't do that....I don't like competition. 😉

-t

 

[psychanon]

In a recent (2006) U.S. News and World Report article psychologist was described as a "fair career for 2006":http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060105/5careers_fair.htm

Psychologist. It wasn't long ago that the "experts" thought that problems such as schizophrenia and depression were caused by bad parenting. So countless patients and their families were subjected to years of psychotherapy. Now, it's clear that these and other psychological problems have largely physiological roots. I believe that in the coming decade or two, an ever larger proportion of emotional problems will be attributed to physiological causes. That may increase the need for physicians trained in psychology but reduce the need for psychologists focused on the psyche alone.

I think this is a pretty inaccurate statement. It's certainly not clear that the etiology of depression are "largely" physiological. Psychology is not to the point where we can say that we clearly understand the etiology of any disorder. It's clear that depression has neurological correlates, but we can't infer causation from that-- it is also possible that psychosocial processes activated the physiological change. Everything we do has physiological roots, because we are physiological creatures-- as I type, neurons are firing in my brain. It doesn't mean that physiological treatments are always the best approach. There may be psychosocial factors that are maintaining the symptoms-- stressful life circumstances, poor coping skills, dysfunctional interpersonal processes, distorted thinking, etc. Psychotherapy can often specifically target the root of the person's problems, rather than simply numbing symptoms. Even disorders with very clear physiological underpinnings, such as schizophrenia, are linked to psychosocial factors-- just look at all the research on EE. This is probably why most research comparing outcomes for meds to meds + therapy find better results for meds + therapy (in fact, for some anxiety disorders, therapy alone does best!). So I think that there will always be a need for psychologists, both independently and in conjunction with physicians.

 

[toby jones]

Yeah. Even if we accept that neurology causes behavior it doesn't follow from that that psychosurgery / medication / gene therapy is going to be the best way to change the neurology. If you want to teach someone to cook then you will have more luck with teaching them how (social intervention) than you will with psychosurgery and / or medications! Social and environmental and therapy interventions work precisely because they alter neurology.

Some people don't like this analogy...

But you can think of the mind as being like a computer program. Microsoft Word or something like that. Then you can think of the brain as being like the hardware on which the program is run. It is possible to have a software disorder (where Word crashes everytime you try and save) even though there isn't anything wrong with the hardware. Another way this can happen is when the input is outside the designed range so it causes (or could cause) the program to crash. The Y2K bug was like that. The software wasn't designed to handle the input '00' and interpret it properly. Similarly people aren't designed to handle the input 'you stupid lazy sack of ****' over and over and over...

And this is (part of the reason) why people shouldn't worry about neurology encroaching on psychiatry / psychology. I don't imagine we will develop medications that teach people how to cook a good curry... And I don't really expect that we will develop medications that cure the majority of mental disorders either...

 

[brightness]

I guess what I really think about it is that if psychologists are not ready to adapt to the changes in science, the field will not fair well. I am interested in learning about the brain and how the brain determines behavior, including psychopathology.
Mainly, I think that the symptoms of mental illness are reinforced by life events, which can effect brain chemistry. So there's an obvious connection there, between what happens in a person life and what their brain does. I just don't want to see psychologists get left in the dust by new biological discoveries. I also thought it was just an interesting thing to read.

 

[Pia Getty]

"My experience earning a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Berkeley, and then teaching at four different graduate schools, has convinced me that psychologist training programs have been padded into doctorate-length marathons mainly for financial reasons: It's not because there's so much of value that universities can teach aspiring psychologists but because universities make more money the longer students are in school. And grad students are free or low-cost research slaves for professors. If you're considering a career as a psychologist, ask yourself whether you want to endure that. Then consider whether a career as a personal coach (see above) might be less demanding and more fulfilling".

This was the second paragraph of the article posted. Granted this is was most likely written from the perspective of a non clinician, do you think there is some truth to it? Are psychology graduate students paying slaves training to be life coaches? Do you think 6+ years of training is a bit excessive?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Are psychology graduate students paying slaves training to be life coaches? Do you think 6+ years of training is a bit excessive?

First off, I think their 'life coach' dig shows an ignorance of what clinician psychologists do as a profession. Some choose to do things similar to 'life coaching', but I think most work in areas that aren't as accessible to non-doctorally trained therapists. (Professor, primary researcher, niche work like neuropsychology, etc)

If they just want to be a generalist and do therapy, without assessment, research, etc...then I think they took the wrong educational path. The advantage of a clinical doctorate is that you *do* receive additional training in research, assessment, and a greater depth of clinical training. Do people go through doctoral programs just to do private practice.....yes, but they have to do an awful lot of other things to make that happen.

I think the overall training a clinical psychology receives better prepares them to be a generalist (compared to an MA/MS generalist), but with the way our healthcare system is currently setup, generalist work has become a commodity, and has gone to the lowest bidder. I think the prime area for clinical psychology is in specialization.

I'd challenge the author to look at a typical clinical program and hack off classes they thought weren't important. Unfortunately I think we are MISSING courses that will be necessary for the next wave of clinicians (many of which are in the hard sciences and pharma side). So you can't really cut clinical classes. You can't cut assessment classes because that is a major area that differentiates clinicians from MA/MS level therapists, and you can't cut the research piece because it informs our work as clinicians, and it is a major part of a doctoral degree. I *do* think there should be an overhaul of practicum/internship/post-doc hours...which I think could help the 'slave' thing a bit.

-t

 

[Ollie123]

I guess what I really think about it is that if psychologists are not ready to adapt to the changes in science, the field will not fair well. I am interested in learning about the brain and how the brain determines behavior, including psychopathology.
Mainly, I think that the symptoms of mental illness are reinforced by life events, which can effect brain chemistry. So there's an obvious connection there, between what happens in a person life and what their brain does. I just don't want to see psychologists get left in the dust by new biological discoveries. I also thought it was just an interesting thing to read.

Psychology will never be left in the dust by those changes, though some psychologists certainly will. Namely those who are lazy/unwilling to learn new information, or who lack any ability/desire to work with technology or hard science.

All professions change over time, ours is in the midst of a big one, but as long as someone is proactive about it I really don't think there's any cause for concern.

 

[brightness]

I guess the concern I'mtaking away from this discussion is deciding how to prepare for the changes that are occuring in the field of psychology. I know its important to take classes in neurobiology. I am taking a survey course in chemistry and my minor is biology, so I think that does make me well suited for a health psychology program.
For the record, I'm still considering clinical, school psych, and also education. I want to work with kids but not just in assessment. So I'm not sure if the opportunities in psychology will allow me to be as hands on with the children as I am looking to me. Just saying, even though its off topic.

 

[chaos]

The problem now is that we collectively know more than we can ever know individually. Our knowledge of psychology and neuroscience (not even considering more fundamental fields like chemistry or physics) is increasing exponentially, way past any small generational increases in our individual cognitive capabilities. As a result, psychologists will have to become increasingly narrow and reductionistic in their fields of study in order to understand one particular area well, at cost of a more holistic understanding. A century ago, medical doctors were true intellectuals; they studied philosophy and literature and history as well as medicine, but now that is almost impossible because they are stretched to the limit just trying to stay on top of the latest developments in their area of medicine...and it's probably the same in most scientific fields.