Neuroscience-Based Anthropological Psychiatry (NBAP): Ten Introductory Concepts

M. Vargas
{"title":"Neuroscience-Based Anthropological Psychiatry (NBAP): Ten Introductory Concepts","authors":"M. Vargas","doi":"10.5772/intechopen.89573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medicine can be done at very different levels. So, physical, biochemical, biological, and social medicine are disciplines that count with a large theoretical background. This multilevel approach is applicable to psychiatry too. The 1990s of the twentieth century was “The Decade of the Brain.” It helped to conceive psychiatry as “biological psychiatry” in a mechanistic reductionist epistemology that has become the canonical paradigm for the speciality. But this perspective came across a problem. Psychiatric facts were defined in subjective terms, while the proposed models for this type of pathology were expressed attending to biological mechanisms without clear interlevel constructs for establishing associations between biology and subjective experiences or behavioral patterns. Although symptoms are subjective in a radical manner, associations do not appear in this way. Some kind of “incommensurability” appears between what we want to explain and the arguments we propose to. The price paid for the “hard objective” approximation of biological psychiatry is to replace subjective pathological experiences with mere objective indicators of them. In this chapter, we propose an alternative epistemological strategy by relying on “philosophically-oriented phenomenological psychopathology” (POPP) for the rigorous study of pathological subjectivity. A neuroscience-based anthropological psychiatry (NBAP) built on ten concepts is introduced.","PeriodicalId":448279,"journal":{"name":"Psychopathology - An International and Interdisciplinary Perspective","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopathology - An International and Interdisciplinary Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Medicine can be done at very different levels. So, physical, biochemical, biological, and social medicine are disciplines that count with a large theoretical background. This multilevel approach is applicable to psychiatry too. The 1990s of the twentieth century was “The Decade of the Brain.” It helped to conceive psychiatry as “biological psychiatry” in a mechanistic reductionist epistemology that has become the canonical paradigm for the speciality. But this perspective came across a problem. Psychiatric facts were defined in subjective terms, while the proposed models for this type of pathology were expressed attending to biological mechanisms without clear interlevel constructs for establishing associations between biology and subjective experiences or behavioral patterns. Although symptoms are subjective in a radical manner, associations do not appear in this way. Some kind of “incommensurability” appears between what we want to explain and the arguments we propose to. The price paid for the “hard objective” approximation of biological psychiatry is to replace subjective pathological experiences with mere objective indicators of them. In this chapter, we propose an alternative epistemological strategy by relying on “philosophically-oriented phenomenological psychopathology” (POPP) for the rigorous study of pathological subjectivity. A neuroscience-based anthropological psychiatry (NBAP) built on ten concepts is introduced.
基于神经科学的人类学精神病学(NBAP):十个入门概念
医学可以在不同的层次上进行。因此,物理、生化、生物和社会医学都是具有广泛理论背景的学科。这种多层次的方法也适用于精神病学。20世纪90年代是“大脑的十年”。它有助于在机械还原论认识论中将精神病学视为“生物精神病学”,这已成为该专业的规范范式。但这种观点遇到了一个问题。精神病学事实是用主观术语来定义的,而这类病理的拟议模型是根据生物学机制来表达的,没有明确的层次间结构来建立生物学与主观经验或行为模式之间的联系。虽然症状是主观的,以激进的方式,关联不会以这种方式出现。某种“不可通约性”出现在我们想要解释的东西和我们提出的论点之间。对生物精神病学的“硬客观”近似所付出的代价是,主观的病理经验被纯粹的客观指标所取代。在本章中,我们提出了另一种认识论策略,即依靠“哲学导向的现象学精神病理学”(POPP)来严格研究病理主体性。介绍了一种基于神经科学的人类学精神病学(NBAP)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信