Friston et al; The Disconnection Hypothesis (2016)

doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2016.07.014  SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH 2016 Karl Friston, Harriet R. Brown, Jakob Siemerkus, Klaas E. Stephan Twenty years have passed since the dysconnection hypothesis was first proposed (Friston and Frith, 1995; Weinberger, 1993). In that time, neuroscience has witnessed tremendous advances: we now live in a world of non-invasive neuroanatomy, computational neuroimaging and the Bayesian brain. …

Read more

No “Aha” Moments Here…

No “Aha” Moments Here… Last week, the following research headline ran in EurekAlert!, a science news outlet produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “Parents of children with complex medical conditions more likely to have mental health issues” You don’t say. Unfortunately, obvious research headers like this one are not uncommon. They …

Read more

Conceptual Competence in Psychiatry: Recommendations for Education and Training (Awais Aftab & Scott Waterman, 2020)

Conceptual Competence in Psychiatry: Recommendations for Education and Training  

Who are You? Who am I? And the Problem of Identity Optics

We desperately act in ways that are less and less driven by our real values, and that are increasingly driven by our need to be valued. Maybe that anxious, phrenetic energy undermines our ability to stop, reflect, and think. Maybe the best way that we can do to functionally manage is to seek refuge in the comfort of categorical simplicity and binaries: of dramatic hero-villain narratives. 

“Schizophrenia as a Paradigm Case for Understanding Fundamental Human Processes” (J. Jenkins, 2003)

Schizophrenia as a Paradigm Case for Understanding Fundamental Human Processes Reconceptualizing “schizophrenia” as experiencing being/becoming and nothingness… Analysis, Synthesis, and Discussion Questions Reference [irp]  

Zotero Library: Democratizing Research and Medicine

Overview

The advent of advanced digital technologies is a feature of our global landscape that could facilitate the democratic distribution of scientific exploration, production, and consumption in ways that were once thought to be impossible. However, the universal human right to participate in science, knowledge production, and knowledge application, has been largely sidelined: we typically think or believe that only institutional entities possess the unique intellectual capacities and practical resources that are required to produce epistemic and technological goods. However, buying into this notion–the notion that the means of the production of knowledge is held by an intellectually “elite” few is–firstly, just theoretically flawed–and secondly, in practice, it serves to disproportionately place decision making power and access into the hands of those entities who are more likely to prioritize their own social or economic comfort (which is honestly most people in a hard capitalist society), and therefore are more likely to use their accrual of “knowledge credits” to invest first in their own growth, rather than their cooperative engagement with others and novel propositional ideas. This ultimately undermines the entire scientific enterprise in the sense that the system just perpetuates the inequities and harms that “science” and “technology” are supposed to mitigate. We’re all part of this problem–

(whether we’re the ones fearing we’re not ‘worthy’ of ‘doing science’, or whether we’re the ones agnostically and uncritically consuming whatever knowledge is produced, or whether we’re the ones doing science and thinking that this qualifies us as intellectually unique/superior);

–therefore, we’re all part of minimizing the senseless inequity and harm here.

So what can we structurally alter (at all levels spanning the “individual psychological” to the “sociopolitical” in order to bring about functional change?)

 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
error: Content is protected !!