where did all the hysteria go?

[toby jones]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm trying to see whether anything has been written about the following and I'm struggling (probably as a function of my search terms).

Here is the thought:

We know that when clinicians are particularly interested in a particular syndrome (e.g., hysteria) that they tend to find it in their patients. More than that, we know that when clinicians are particularly interested in a particular syndrome (e.g., hysteria) they tend to (unconsciously) reinforce their patients responses thus shaping them towards what they (unconsciously) desire to find.

I've been watching a lot of neurology videos recently. You know the kind of thing. The semi-sensationalist (but disturbingly not intended to be) reports of such things as behavioral rivalry after split-brain operation or memory deficits after whatever kind of smack on the head and so on and so forth.

And I'm very disturbed indeed at the person asking the patient the questions being the same researcher who is clearly very interested in finding a certain pattern of behavioral response... And I'm very disturbed indeed at how excited they seem to be when the person says certain things and at how the person tends to repeat those things again later...

And I'm wondering if anybody else has worried about this in print.

 

[whopper]

Common issue in research. Its a reason why even the clinician are often left in the dark in placebo controlled studies. They don't know if the patient got placebo or not, and its obvious why. If they know the patient got a placebo or the real med, its going to affect their interaction with the patient.

Tony Robbins (yes the self help guru) once had an endocrinological problem. He went to various specialists & they all told him he had a different problem & reccomended a different solution. One even wanted to crack his skull open & do surgery on his pituitary. He finally went to a doctor who told him that just because its above normal, doesn't mean there's anything specifically wrong.

 

[toby jones]

Yep yep. In psychiatry / clinical psychology / treatment trial settings...

I'm worrying more in particular about non clinical scientists reliance on certain behavioral syndromes as evidence for reverse dissociation in particular. So... HM and people like that who are considered to be 'landmark' cases for our positing that declarative long term memory and working memory are two distinct activities. Though also worrying about the degree of behavioral rivalry exhibited by (some) subjects after split-brain operation (they were given heaps of attention for that, surely).

I guess I'm wondering whether anyone has called these specific findings (or findings like these) into question on the grounds that it seems fairly obvious from the videos that there is some kind of shaping / reinforcement feedback going on during the interview (and, one supposes a whole bunch more when the cameras are turned off). I'm not at all trying to say that there was intent to deceive or anything at all like that (no crank references please) but I would be interested to know whether this is a concern in the non-clinical literature and / or whether anybody has pointed out that this should be a concern outside clinical settings...

 

[toby jones]

I mean... The research scientists aren't still conducting the interviews themselves - are they? Maybe it is just that the films I'm watching are old...

(I should say that I'm not talking about having watched videos of HM or behavioral rivalry after split-brain in particular... I'm talking about other videos... But it got me thinking about confounds on the behavioral findings and as such how seriously we should be taking this kinda data...)

 

[billypilgrim37]

Maybe it is just that the films I'm watching are old.

Old, and certainly not a random sample.

 

[toby jones]

So you are saying that these days when psychologists / neurologists find a patient who appears to be a reverse dissociation (where it is very significant if they are in fact) then they ensure that another person (who doesn't have a vested interest) questions them? And that the questions are screened to ensure that they aren't leading questions etc? And that the same goes for interviewing family members and such?

Is this in response to published critique of the way things used to be done? Do you have a reference to some of the debate?

 

[toby jones]

(I should perhaps add that I'm talking about videos of patient interviews that I'm watching as part of a Cognitive Neuroscience class. And by 'old' I mean interviews that were conducted by the Canadian memory group (Toronto) within the last 10 years... and interviews that were conducted by the assoc proffs here when they were in grad school etc)

They strike me as 'pop science' type things... But what is disturbing is that... They aren't taken to be. They are supposed to provide evidence for such things as a reverse dissociation between episodic and working memory etc etc. That has significant implications for the models that we develop of cognitive / mental structure.

Since evidence for a reverse dissociation (rather than a single dissociation) is often based on one patient... You would think it would be really really really really really very important to ensure that that patient does in fact have the behavioral syndrome one is hoping to find and that it isn't mostly the result of the questioning techniques...