精神病学中隐喻性大脑对话的历史

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Kenneth S. Kendler
{"title":"精神病学中隐喻性大脑对话的历史","authors":"Kenneth S. Kendler","doi":"10.1038/s41380-025-03053-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>From the very beginnings of our field in the late 18th century, psychiatrists have engaged, often extensively, in “metaphorical brain talk” – rephrasing descriptions of mental processes in unconfirmed brain metaphors (e.g., “diseased working of the brain convolutions”). In the late 19th century, Kraepelin criticized the later developments of such approaches, termed “brain mythology” by the philosopher/psychiatrist Jaspers in 1913. In this essay, I review the history, meaning, and significance of this phenomenon and reach four conclusions. First, this trend has continued to the present day in metaphors such as the “broken brain” and the use of simplistic and empirically poorly supported explanations of psychiatric illness, such as depression being “due to an imbalance of serotonin in the brain.” Second, our language stems from the tension in our profession that seeks to be a part of medicine yet declares our main focus as treatment of the mental. We feel more comfortable with the reductionist approach of brain metaphors, which, even though at times self-deceptive, reinforce our commitment to and membership in a brain-based medical specialty. Third, metaphorical brain talk can also be seen as the “promissory note” of our profession, a pledge that the day will come when we can indeed explain accurately to ourselves and to our patients the brain basis of the psychiatric disorders from which they suffer. Finally, moving away from metaphorical brain talk would reflect an increasing maturity of both the research and clinical aspects of our profession.</p>","PeriodicalId":19008,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Psychiatry","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A history of metaphorical brain talk in psychiatry\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth S. Kendler\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41380-025-03053-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>From the very beginnings of our field in the late 18th century, psychiatrists have engaged, often extensively, in “metaphorical brain talk” – rephrasing descriptions of mental processes in unconfirmed brain metaphors (e.g., “diseased working of the brain convolutions”). In the late 19th century, Kraepelin criticized the later developments of such approaches, termed “brain mythology” by the philosopher/psychiatrist Jaspers in 1913. In this essay, I review the history, meaning, and significance of this phenomenon and reach four conclusions. First, this trend has continued to the present day in metaphors such as the “broken brain” and the use of simplistic and empirically poorly supported explanations of psychiatric illness, such as depression being “due to an imbalance of serotonin in the brain.” Second, our language stems from the tension in our profession that seeks to be a part of medicine yet declares our main focus as treatment of the mental. We feel more comfortable with the reductionist approach of brain metaphors, which, even though at times self-deceptive, reinforce our commitment to and membership in a brain-based medical specialty. Third, metaphorical brain talk can also be seen as the “promissory note” of our profession, a pledge that the day will come when we can indeed explain accurately to ourselves and to our patients the brain basis of the psychiatric disorders from which they suffer. Finally, moving away from metaphorical brain talk would reflect an increasing maturity of both the research and clinical aspects of our profession.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"114 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03053-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03053-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从18世纪晚期我们的领域开始,精神科医生就经常广泛地参与“隐喻性大脑谈话”——用未经证实的大脑隐喻重新描述心理过程(例如,“大脑卷积的病态工作”)。在19世纪后期,Kraepelin批评了这种方法的后期发展,哲学家/精神病学家Jaspers在1913年将其称为“大脑神话”。在本文中,我回顾了这一现象的历史、意义和意义,并得出了四个结论。首先,这一趋势一直持续到今天,比如“大脑破碎”的隐喻,以及对精神疾病的简单化和缺乏经验支持的解释,比如抑郁症是“由于大脑中血清素的不平衡”。其次,我们的语言源于我们职业的紧张,这种紧张寻求成为医学的一部分,但却宣称我们的主要重点是治疗精神疾病。我们对大脑隐喻的简化方法感到更舒服,尽管有时是自欺欺人的,但它加强了我们对大脑医学专业的承诺和成员资格。第三,隐喻性的大脑对话也可以被看作是我们这个行业的“期票”,它承诺,总有一天,我们确实可以向自己和病人准确地解释他们所遭受的精神疾病的大脑基础。最后,远离隐喻性的大脑对话将反映出我们这一职业在研究和临床方面的日益成熟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A history of metaphorical brain talk in psychiatry

From the very beginnings of our field in the late 18th century, psychiatrists have engaged, often extensively, in “metaphorical brain talk” – rephrasing descriptions of mental processes in unconfirmed brain metaphors (e.g., “diseased working of the brain convolutions”). In the late 19th century, Kraepelin criticized the later developments of such approaches, termed “brain mythology” by the philosopher/psychiatrist Jaspers in 1913. In this essay, I review the history, meaning, and significance of this phenomenon and reach four conclusions. First, this trend has continued to the present day in metaphors such as the “broken brain” and the use of simplistic and empirically poorly supported explanations of psychiatric illness, such as depression being “due to an imbalance of serotonin in the brain.” Second, our language stems from the tension in our profession that seeks to be a part of medicine yet declares our main focus as treatment of the mental. We feel more comfortable with the reductionist approach of brain metaphors, which, even though at times self-deceptive, reinforce our commitment to and membership in a brain-based medical specialty. Third, metaphorical brain talk can also be seen as the “promissory note” of our profession, a pledge that the day will come when we can indeed explain accurately to ourselves and to our patients the brain basis of the psychiatric disorders from which they suffer. Finally, moving away from metaphorical brain talk would reflect an increasing maturity of both the research and clinical aspects of our profession.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Molecular Psychiatry
Molecular Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
20.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
459
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Molecular Psychiatry focuses on publishing research that aims to uncover the biological mechanisms behind psychiatric disorders and their treatment. The journal emphasizes studies that bridge pre-clinical and clinical research, covering cellular, molecular, integrative, clinical, imaging, and psychopharmacology levels.
×
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