Robert Cloninger, the person who has described personality in terms of temperament and character has written on a topic which will interest all of us.
On Well Being; Current research trends and future direction
In Mens Sana Monographs.
The article can be accessed at the URL below.
http://www.msmonographs.org/article.asp?issn=0973-1229;year=2008;volume=6;issue=1;spage=3;epage=9;aulast=Cloninger
Dr. Robert C Cloninger had earlier described personality as composed of Temperament (the emotional core of personality based on neurobiology) and Character (the conceptual core developed from our life experiences). The emotional core depends on the brain's patterns of wiring. The conceptual core develops based on our experiences. But as the brains development is influenced by our experiences, his theory integrates the role of both nature and nurture.
ഇന്ത്യ
2 weeks ago
9 comments:
I finished reading Cloninger's article.
-----
Studies show that actual firing in neurons happen before we make decision to do something. This finding raised some questions on free will. Let's leave the question of free will and look at another thing. So we may be able to say that the compulsions in OCD are coming directly from the neurons, not from the conscious mind. What do we train in CBT, the neurons or the conscious mind? What is the role of ERP (CBT) in this new finding?
Share us your knowledge.
The question 'Are we treating the neurons or the conscious mind ?' does not arise. We cannot think of the mind without its biological basis , that is the neurons. Just like we cannot talk of the house, forgetting that it is made up of bricks, concrete etc. The psychiatrist Eric Kandel and colleages were awarded Nobel Peize for showing that learning (defined as any change brought about in knowledgs or behavior as a result of prior experience) produces detectable change in the microscopic structure of the neurons. Changes in the receptors and various ion channels present on the cell membrane of the neurons after the snail (snails were used in their experiments) 'learned' certain behaviors were demonstrated by them. Neurons are the final common pathway for any event - psychological or social etc - to impact on the brain/mind. I hope I have made myself clear. The issue of the exact time sequence of neuronal firing etc shall be discussed later. Thanks.
I know that the conscious mind is a product of the neurons. I asked about something different. I will try to make it clear. Suppose a person with OCD feels a compulsion to check again if the door is locked. Firing in the neurons happens before he actually feels the urge or moves his hand to check the lock. In CBT, a person learns to block (Exposure and Response Prevention) this urge to check the lock again. But the firing in the neurons is still there. So if a person gets the urge to check the lock for 7 times, will neurons fire 7 times for the concerned action? Are we able to change these neuron-firing patterns permanently?
Findings of Eric Kandel are very interesting. Can it produce clinically significant results in psychotherapy?
Thank you.
hi ajeesh the neurons that fire up to cause a thought are different from the neurons that execute the action the thought initiates. So it is probable for the thought neurons to fire up 7 times, as you say, and the impulse stopped from spreading to the neurons that convey the action to the effector organs. So the net effect is as if the netrons have not fired at all. Even though it has fired 7 times, technically rpeaking. Thank you.
Thank you Sashi.
Mental faculties are not the products of the firing individual neurones. It has to be understood as an output of neural networks. There are several such networks based on the same plan - that is from cortex to striatum to pallidum to thalamus and back to cortex. Information flows in both directions in this circuit. The cortical events are mosly at conscious level. But from striatum downwards it is mostly at unconscious level. In Exposre and response prevention paradigm (ERP) we are increasing the cortex's (or conscius mind's) ability to keep the overshooting striatal neurons under some check. In OCD there is overactivity of striatal neurons. Obsessive ruminations become more under conscious control as a result of ERP. Freud expressed the same idea using analogies from literature / philosophy / mechanics in the absence of exact knowledga about neurobiology. He said that psychoanalysis ends when ego assumes the driving seat from the control if id. That is there is nothing hidden from the ego by the id."The ego shall be, where the id was". In neural terms we amy now say that when cortex starts exerting apppropriate control over erring subcortical neurons the person is freed of his inner conflicts. I hope I have been able to shed some more light, although at the risk of oversimplification. This why I still admire the master psychoanalyst Freud. His major contribution is the discovery of unconscious forces working within our minds. Now neurobiology is explaining the same process using hard scientific evidence. Thank you. Please feel free to ask for more clarifications.
Dear Sashi, we have some problems here. Which happens first, thoughts or actions? There are two process when we a move a hand. One is our decision to move and second is the action itself. Both of these things need their relative actions in the brain, different types of actions in the neurons. What I am trying to say is if you watch my brain or neurons through a scanner you can know when I am going to move my hand or leg even before me. The thought of moving a hand comes only after neurons have fired for the movement, i.e. will or thought comes after the actions. You like to move your body only after brain has already moved it, I mean the necessary actions or firing in the brain. As you say in your comment, if there are two different neuron firings for each thought and action, the firing for ‘thought’ comes only after the firing for ‘action’. It is difficult to think this way but we do things first and then decide to do those things.
I really tried to link this idea with an OCD patient’s compulsions. The patient only becomes aware of his compulsions only after the compulsions have happened, at least in the brain. The patient tries to think away compulsions after everything has happened.
I have some problems discussing these things because my knowledge of anatomy, neurocircuitry and a lot of other physiological processes are very limited. I will think about Dr.Harish said in his comment, it may take a little time for me digest all these things.
I thank you all who have tried to explain things here.
Ajeesh is trying his best to understand compglex neurophysiology without having much idea about basic anatomy physiology etc. Even for a doctor it is difficult as one forgets most of the basic sciences after MBBS. I heartily congratulate Ajeesh and appreciate his efforts in this venture. I shall try to clarify a bit more adding to what Sashi has slready said. There are neural correlates both for thought or impulse or urge as well as for the action. Hut since events in the subcortical neurons like striatum (implicated in OCD) occur outside conscious aareness, Ajeesh is right in saying that We are aware of the ation after it has occured. The awareness appears to lag behind as it has to travel a wee bit longer in terms of actual physical distance and more number of synapses (junction between celss where transmission is by chemical and therefore slow). Unconscious events may need 3 to 5 synapses, but conscious events need 5 to 7 synapses. This may be causing time lag. Thanks. I wait eagerly for Ajeesh's new doubts. Thanks.
Published in Frontline, April 07, 2006. An interview of V S Ramachandran.
_____
In your Reith lecture, again, you seem to suggest that the conscious experience of willing something like, say, bending your finger, occurs after the brain actually begins performing the function - sending signals to bend the finger. It's as if our conscious living is a result of bending the finger, rather than the other way around
Even though we...?
Even though we assume it's the opposite. Don't you think this has implications for... free will, for instance, or responsibility of the individual?
Well, this observation was made by Benjamin Libet and others. It turns out that if I tell somebody to wiggle his fingers whenever he wants to in the next finve minutes, the amazing thing is, when he wiggles his finger, you can measure when he wants to on the second hand of a clock and you can check where was the second hand at the time he sent the command to wiggle the finger-and usually he send the command just before the clock was at the twelve. But you have picked up the brain signal a full second before!
So you can tell the guy, ahead of time, that you are going to will it now, in principle-we haven't actually succeeded in doing that yet because of technical problems. Now, if it's his will, how can you tell him ahead of time when he's going to will it?
This raises the whole conundrum about whether free will is an illusion. And so it obviously has all kinds of implications for philosopy. Now, whether it means free will is real, or it is completely illusory and we are all puppets on some sort of cosmic string, is something we can talk about for hours. But it's a clear example of how neuroscience has a direct relevance to philosophical questions.
_______________
I am afraid, if free will is an illusion it is not only a problem for philosophy but also going to make some problems for psychology also.
I think I remember Chris Frith also discuss this problem in his book "Making Up The Mind".
Post a Comment