The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology - Konrad Lorenz Institute

Affective Neuroscience, Psychiatry, and SociophysiologyMost psychiatrists have lived either on the BMElevel or the OCM. But the two levels should be juxtaposed,at least as an ideal. However, selective allegiancesat one or the other conceptual level tell thetumultuous 20 th century story of the medical specialty,which I will summarize briefly before movingon to how a group of psychiatrists and other scholarsthat I here represent have worked to remedy the situation.To preview these developments, the Across-Species Comparisons and Psychopathology (ASCAP)Society brainstormed for a decade, attempting appropriateconceptual docking between the BME andOCM levels. How can we rationally formulate psychiatricconditions and social distresses using theother medical specialties and their functional relationsto their basic sciences as models? That is, apathological condition is best diagnosed and treatedwhen understood as a variant of the normal conditionlike a stroke from a damaged blood vessel canbe diagnosed and treated best with knowledge ofnormal brain circulation. Sociophysiology representsthe brain physiology of social and communicativeprocesses—especially among conspecifics.The organ of interest surely cannot be limited to thecerebral cortex but involves all parts concerned withdetection, analysis and actions of other people,though the cortex of course can hardly be ignored.The sociophysiological approach to such mattersboth compares (examines similarities between) humansand other animals and also contrasts them.The large cortex, we presume, results from its storyusingcapacity (DONALD 1991), which provides greatresourcefulness for therapy, whether this primarilyrepresents pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, both,or group and family variants.20 th Century PsychiatryFreud, a sophisticated 19 th century neurologistwhen he founded psychoanalysis, felt too little wasknown of the nervous system so he focused only onBME with the expectation that his work wouldeventually link fruitfully with the OCM (SULLOWAY1992). He relied in his mind-models on machineimageryof the 19 th century (RABINBACH 1990). Hismost important therapeutic tactic, however,involved transference, the idea that the patientbehaves with the doctor in ways that reflect previousrelationships. After the World War II exodusfrom Europe of distinguished psychoanalysts, thisarena of thought and clinical activity became theU.S. mid-century academic standard although, notbeing evidentially based in the body, the approachdid not exhibit parallelism with other medical specialties.But in recent decades, the pendulum swung to theother extreme. A major shift in psychiatry stemmedin part from the anti-analytic movement led by biochemist–psychiatristEli ROBINS after he experienceddamage from his too-authoritarian psychoanalyst.ROBINS and his articulate prolific followers fosteredan increasingly data-based form of clinical activitywith curious de-emphasis of pathogenesis. Psychoanalysishad featured pathogenesis with metaphorsindependent of brain-data; perhaps in response, theROBINS-led psychiatrists eschewed pathogenesis aspremature and to be done eventually by biochemists(an OCM level of analysis). They propounded thataccurate description of disorders and their correlatesand treatments should come first, including a freshemphasis on the major disorders such as bipolar andschizophrenic conditions. They demanded that anyclinical treatment should possess research validation.The movement omitted relevancy of normalbehavior, focusing only on the pathological.However, the American Psychiatric Association’sDiagnostic and Statistical Manual newly emerged in1980 with codified diagnoses featuring operationaldefinitions. This potentially helped BME–OCM integrationbecause it fostered naturalistic descriptions.Moreover, psychopharmacology has helped manypatients with serious maladies, and, as well, providesformulations of how the brain works with referenceto anxious and affective states as well as clarifyingbehaviorally and thought-disordered states. TheOCM level of analysis greatly benefited patients. Butpsychiatry struggles.From outside the field, distinguished physiologist–anthropologist,Jared DIAMOND, commented recentlyon academic psychiatry in a “think tank” columnof the New York Times (DIAMOND 2001).Echoing my own impressions and those of manypsychiatrist colleagues, DIAMOND states, “[A] toonarrowfocus on biological psychiatry … hurts patients.I fully accept the importance of biologicalpsychiatry, having devoted some of my own researchto problems in that area … But now the problemhas swung to the opposite extreme: psychiatrydepartments have become bastions of molecularpsychiatry, at which more time is devoted to studyingand teaching psychopharmacology than to whatare called talk therapies”. DIAMOND goes on to concludeabout transference that “Understanding [thepatient–doctor] unique relationship was one ofthe… insights that put Freud right up there withDARWIN”.Evolution and Cognition ❘ 27 ❘ 2001, Vol. 7, No. 1