What does this reflect about our society? Do we simply have better knowledge to identify these mental disorders and treat them? Is our society become a psychological burden on others? Perhaps, we could even be in a government and corporate-bonding bureaucratic mess that is driven by greed, and plays on the minor psychological inadequacies that are inherit in all of humanity?

Or maybe even all of the above. American society and culture is largely hedonist. It could be said that we cover up our psychological inadequacies through our pursuit of pleasure, material things, entertainment, social status, and money. This is especially true in industrialized nations. For those of us that can’t fulfill our craving strictly through indulgence in the pleasant life (not many can, but some are good at hiding or believing they can), than we are subject to the emergence of psychological distress and suffering. Throughout the century, western psychology has rapidly grown and evolved in response to this growing demand to alleviate these distresses.

The DSM-IV-TR is the latest edition of the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders. It is divided into five different categories depending on the nature of the illness. Some biologists, evolutionary psychologists, and philosophers like Leda Cosmides, Stephen Stich, and John Tooby, have argued that there is a “symptomatological bias”, to the DSM because it does not distinguish between genuine cognitive malfunctions (in the brain) and those induced by psychological adaptations (learned behaviors).

There has also been argued to be a reductionist bias in the DSM diagnostic approach towards mental illness, in the sense that diagnosis of mental illnesses sometimes fail to take into consideration the phenomenological, environmental and cultural factors that go into one’s mental health. In response to this, the 2008 American Psychological Association President Stephen Sharfstein released a statement saying psychiatrists had “allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model.”

There is nothing wrong with trying to discover if some mental illnesses have neurological correlates, or even if the mental illness is caused by a biochemical imbalance or abnormality. This kind of knowledge can serve to be incredibly useful in the treatment of mental illnesses. As I understand it, modern day neuroscience is making great progress in the biological underpinnings of mental disorders like schizophrenia, autism, and bipolar disorder. The importance of this research cannot be overstated enough, as the potential findings of these projects can lead to the alleviation of much suffering.

However, with that all being said, psychology cannot succumb to the guise of a strictly materialistic and biochemical approach toward mental disorders. What begins to happen, and is already happening as described in Charles Barber’s book “Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation,” is that we begin to believe that mental illnesses are only treatable through pharmaceutical drugs. But what about the mental shortcomings that arise out of strictly psychosocial and non-biological factors? We know a lot about how the mind learns, how come we so often ignore to consider that many mental issues that arise (such as phobias, anxieties, bad habits, low self-esteem) are learned behaviors, not causes of a biological disturbance.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), an estimated 26.2% of Americans 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Over the last few years NIMH Director Thomas Insel, MD, has been reported as saying misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder has been a problem in children as well as adults. In this article I will discuss the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual For Mental Disorders (DSM) and its disadvantages when it comes to distinguishing between mental disorders (poor habits of living) from neurological disorders (brain diseases and abnormalities).

THE ANTI-PSYCHIATRY MOVEMENT OF THE 1960s-TODAY

The idea that psychiatrists over diagnose for mental disorders is not such a new idea. An Anti-psychiatry movement emerged in the 1960s, lead by psychiatrists such as R. D. Laing, Thomas Szasz who both denied association with the term but were strong proponents of its theories. The movement began with British Psychiatrist David Cooper who believed that madness and psychosis were a product of dysfunctional societies.

Main tenets of the Anti-psychiatry movement include:

1. The specific definitions of, or criteria for, hundreds of current psychiatric diagnoses or disorders are vague and arbitrary, leaving too much room for opinions and interpretations to meet basic scientific standards.

2. Prevailing psychiatric treatments are ultimately far more damaging than helpful to patients.

Other key criticisms of psychiatric claims to authority include the:

1. Inappropriate and overuse of medical concepts and tools to understand the mind and society, including the miscategorization of normal reactions to extreme situations as psychiatric disorders;

2. Scientifically and/or clinically ill-founded system of categorical diagnoses (e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM), which stigmatizes patients;

3. Inappropriate (i.e. unvalidated) exclusion of other approaches to mental distress/disorder;

4. Unexamined abuse or misuse of power over patients who are too often treated against their will;

5. Relation of power between patients and psychiatrists, as well as the institutional environment, is too often experienced by patients as demeaning and controlling; and

6. Compromise to medical and ethical integrity because of financial and professional links with pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies in countries where these companies are a force.

The theories of anti-psychiatry can be traced all the way to the Scientology doctrine of today, famously brought into the public eye by American actor and Scientology activist Tom Cruise, and his assertion that there is no such thing as “chemical imbalance” and that psychiatry was a form of pseudoscience. Tom Cruise was of course wrong. Chemical imbalances do exist, just like people are sometimes born naturally with missing limbs and other physical abnormalities. Scientology’s relations to the Anti-psychiatry movement are irrational in the face of science, and a distortion to the actual beliefs held by so-called “Anti-psychiatry” psychiatrists.

Psychiatry is a legitimate medicinal practice. But it is only effective when the physiological pathology of the disease has been clearly demonstrated, and only when the prescribed treatment has been tested under scientific rigor (with placebo and double-blind controls). Otherwise, it is not science. And prescribing medicine based on loose biochemical correlations between brain states and mental states (with no clear pathology demonstrated) is careless and hazardous. At worse, it ignores the psychosocial roots of other mental illnesses.

HOW DOES CULTURE PLAY A FACTOR IN ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION

I think those with even a basic understanding of psychology can look around their world and see how we are constantly being conditioned towards suffering. It is evident in the way we perceive the world through our TVs: the fear mongering we hear in the mass media to the commercialism on every channel and every show. Very few mediums in our American culture exist solely on their mastery of art or meaning. Instead, we have, to some extent, sacrificed the meaningful life for the life of pleasure, luxury and convenience. We are a society that has largely dulled our senses through the overstimulation of mindless pleasure and entertainment. We are motivated by what makes us feel good, in the most hedonistic sense of the word. Many, driven by these desires, live a life of mediocrity and passivity. And if were not motivated by pleasure in one moment, we are motivated by fear in the next. These are the kinds of emotions (or mental defilements) that have us at a never-ending tug of war. It is hard to find inner peace in the industrialized world. It is loud, noisy, and busy, no wonder that so many of us feel so anxious, cold and empty.

Our intelligence as a civilized nation is insurmountable. It has led us to tremendous breakthroughs in material well-being, the treatment of biological illnesses, technology, and entertainment. But then why are so many people not happy with it all? Even those with nice houses and nice families feel overwhelmed by it all. There is no space and time for just peace and me. We find ourselves trapped in a meaningless and destructive worldview driven only by more and more consumption. Many have a false, simple unrealistic and unattainable view on what is true happiness.

HOW DO WE FIND SATISFACTION THAT LASTS

It is easy enough to see that modern society is continuing to grow more and more unsatisfied with life despite the wonderful economic growth we have experienced since our birth as a country (I am speaking for the U.S. here). Many of these individuals who suffer have been born into unfortunate circumstances such as with biological and neurological illnesses that have handicapped these individuals’ capacity to live life fully. But also many of these individuals are unsatisfied due to psychosocial factors. The scientific field of psychology, and especially clinical psychology which is intended to help others who are suffering, cannot ignore the relevance of psychosocial factors in replace of a more “hard science” biological approach. If it did, it would be neglecting others in need of psychological fulfillment.

We simple cannot blame life solely on predetermined biological make-up. The experience of life impacts us too. Acknowledging one’s creative role in life empowers the individual. By find the desire to achieve better habits of living, and not simply be a victim of circumstances, we better equip ourselves to cultivate healthy habits of both mind and body (action/behavior). This means finding a solid and useful value system, finding a sense of morality and meaning in one’s life, and to be guided by these values and beliefs. This does not mean simply valuing the life of pleasure, self-serving, quick fixes and convenience (which do have their rightful place in our life), but to also value the life of engagement, friends and family, meaning and compassion toward others.

Mental health is more than just having the right chemicals in the right parts of the brain. It is about a strong, guiding value system that serves one’s interests and creative potential. It’s about good action, altruistic deeds, provoking reality, being of positive value to one’s society, and pursuing the arts. To this extent, we must all have what I call a “spiritual” aspect to our beings if we want to experience real and lasting happiness.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I would like to see psychology pay greater attention to the life of engagement and meaning. The so called “spirit” of man. We need to also accept that first and foremost psychology is a social science; we need to study humans in the context of their whole environment and being, not just inside their brains. I am hardly the only person advocating a more holistic, even ecological, approach to psychology. By this I am referring to a psychology that recognizes the importance of a meaningful relationship between Self and World, not simply Self with Self, and especially not simply the biological Self with Self – that is what doctors and psychiatrists are for. But for the people who aren’t broken, perhaps we just need a more enlightening worldview, one that is centered around meaning, purpose, creativity, intelligence, good morality, love and compassion.

It first began through the theories and practices of humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow, who is famous for his theory on the hierarchy of needs (1943), Carl Rogers, and Erich Fromm. But Positive Psychology really first got started in 1998 when Martin Seligman chose it as the theme of his presidential term at the American Psychological Association. Seligman has been previously known for his work on the theory of “learned helplessness”, and is now the current director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania (which offers a compact one-year Masters in Applied Positive Psychology for professionals in the domain of psychology, education, business, health, life-coaching, and research).

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Positive psychologists research interests include:

1. Research into the Pleasant Life, or the “life of enjoyment”, examines how people optimally experience, forecast, and savor the positive feelings and emotions that are part of normal and healthy living (e.g. relationships, hobbies, interests, entertainment, etc.).

2. The study of the Good Life, or the “life of engagement”, investigates the beneficial affects of immersion, absorption, and flow that individuals feel when optimally engaged with their primary activities. These states are experienced when there is a positive match between a person’s strength and the task they are doing, i.e. when they feel confident that they can accomplish the tasks they face.

3. Inquiry into the Meaningful Life, or “life of affiliation”, questions how individuals derive a positive sense of well-being, belonging, meaning, and purpose from being part of and contributing back to something larger and more permanent than themselves (e.g. nature, social groups, organizations, movements, traditions, belief systems).

THEORIES OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Positive psychologists have theorized three main components to building positive experiences: mindfulness, flow, and spirituality.

Positive psychologists characterize mindfulness using terms such as non-judging, non-striving, accepting, patient, trusting, open, letting go, gentle, generous, empathetic, grateful, and kind. Researchers believe mindfulness can lead to physical and mental health benefits including reduction of stress, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain. It is a skill that can be developed to some degree in all individuals.

Flow is referred to as state of absorption, and can be characterized as intense focus, concentration, and being in the moment. Flow is considered a rewarding experience to have and has also been shown to optimize skillful performance in achieving one’s goals. The concept of “flow” was first formulated by Hungarian psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (who now teaches at Claremonte University in California, which also offers graduate degrees in applied Positive Psychology). Colloquial terms for flow include: “in the zone,” “on the ball,” and “in the groove.” The concept is comparable to the Buddhist notion of jhāna meaning “states of absorption”, or samadhi, a technical term for a high level of concentration where the subject “becomes one” with the object of attention (leading to the loss of self-awareness).

Csíkszentmihályi identifies the following nine factors as accompanying an experience of flow:

1. Clear goals (expectations and rules are discernible and goals are attainable and align appropriately with one’s skill set and abilities). Moreover, the challenge level and skill level should both be high.

2. Concentrating and focusing, a high degree of concentration on a limited field of attention (a person engaged in the activity will have the opportunity to focus and to delve deeply into it).

3. A loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, the merging of action and awareness.

4. Distorted sense of time, one’s subjective experience of time is altered.

5. Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).

6. Balance between ability level and challenge (the activity is neither too easy nor too difficult).

7. A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.

8. The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.

9. People become absorbed in their activity, and focus of awareness is narrowed down to the activity itself, action awareness merging.

Lastly, the research into the benefits of spirituality in positive psychology has shown that more spiritually adept individuals are more likely to find purpose and meaning in their life. Positive psychologists use the concepts of spirituality to evoke ecological well-being, to get individuals to consider there important relationship with the world and universe as a whole.

Positive psychologists have also suggested integrating theories of self-efficacy, learned optimism, and hope.

APPLICATIONS OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Despite the growing amount of empirical research done in the name of positive psychology, the field is largely an applied science, especially in forms of education, counseling, business, and health.

Much like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in clinical psychology, positive psychologist developed something known as the Character Strength and Virtues (CSM) manual. Positive psychologists challenge moral relativism, and instead promote the idea that man has an intrinsic and biological disposition toward certain moral virtues.

Positive psychologist have identified six main virtues in the cultivation of happiness:

1. Wisdom and Knowledge: curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective, creativity
2. Courage: bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality
3. Humanity: love, kindness, social intelligence
4. Justice: citizenship, fairness, leadership
5. Temperance: forgiveness and mercy, humility, prudence, self control
6. Transcendence: appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality

These principles of positive psychology have been applied to numerous settings: mental health, efficiency in the workplace, personal development, education and learning, skill-building, achieving goals, and finding meaning and purpose in one’s life.

FUTURE OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Positive psychology at first focused on achieving excellence and happiness in the individual. It is still very much about the individual, but it is also now slowly taking an ecological approach. Positive psychologists are now asking questions on how this research can affect economic and governmental policy.

Dr. Ed Deiner at Claremont University says instead of just using GDP to measure economic growth, why don’t we measure the actual happiness and well-being of individuals? All this emphasis on material economic growth seems to have clouded the picture on how we should use our knowledge to benefit the psychological well-being of humanity.

Dr. Deiner gives one example of how recent research has showed that increasing “green space” in a town (public space dedicated to flowers, plants and nature) has shown to increase the level of happiness in a community. What other implications does this research have on improving society as a whole? Perhaps the lessons of positive psychology could raise the awareness of individuals to take better care of the environment and each other. Positive psychology, in a way, is slowly becoming an interdisciplinary science between psychology, morality, economics and spirituality.

LEARN MORE ABOUT POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

The first time I heard about positive psychology was when I saw Martin Seligman’s talk at the February 2004 TED Conference. After viewing this I was immediately inspired by the fresh direction positive psychology was going in relation to other fields of psychology. In the words of Abraham Maslow (who preferred studying those in the ranks of Albert Einstein, Jane Addams and Eleanor Roosevelt): “the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy.” Thus, like Maslow, I prefer the psychological study of humans who are already excellent, and how we can model their attitudes and behaviors to improve ourselves and others.

A good database of publications and videos on positive psychology can be found at the website for the University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center.

Also, a Youtube search for “Positive Psychology” yields some good results, including interviews with some of the leading researchers in the field.

Stay happy.

I recently saw a wonderful debate between philosopher John Searle, who is a professor at UC Berkeley, and Buddhist practitioner and scholar B. Alan Wallace, who is the founder of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies. Both of this men have dedicated much of their careers towards the study of consciousness and the mind. The debate centered around what is the proper methodology for understanding the origin and nature of consciousness.

John Searle’s most famous argument on consciousness is the Chinese room argument (1980) which attempts to show that a symbol-processing machine like a computer can never be properly described as having a “mind” or “understanding”, regardless of how intelligently it may behave. This argument was specifically geared towards proponent of Strong A.I., who propose that as long as a computer is programmed with the right inputs (sensory information) and outputs (behavior) that this machine would have a mind in the same sense as a human has a mind. John Searle argues that this view of functionalism, and specifically the computational theory of mind (which is the current running philosophy in the cognitive sciences), will never explain consciousness – for it completely ignores qualia, the inner experiences as a result of one being conscious.

Searle, a self-proclaimed biological naturalist, believes that consciousness can be solely explained through an understanding of the processes of the brain, but he gives leeway towards a “whatever works”-attitude towards the further understanding of human consciousness. Despite Searle making it clear that the answers to consciousness will come from the researchers of neuroscience (specifically, he believes the answers will be found in the understanding of a higher systematic pattern of neural firing and not in the structure of the brain itself), he never gives an account on how the subjective will be incorporated into this field of study.

Alan Wallace is quick to point out the limitations of neuroscience, claiming that fMRI scans and other similar methods of observing the brain only reveal neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) and say little regarding its causes. Wallace, instead, proposes the methodology of introspection, as it was first introduced in Western psychology by William James in the late 1800s, in understanding the nature and origins of consciousness. Wallace, in a nutshell, claims it would be absurd to pursue a study of consciousness and ignore the potential knowledge that can come from direct observation of the subject being studied.

During Wallace’s opening statements he reveals to the audience why introspection had been wrongfully thrown to the waste bin during the early years of psychology. Due to the previous success of the scientific method in explaining astronomy, physics, biology, and chemistry, early researchers of psychology, such as John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, began to ditch introspection and move towards behaviorism in an attempt to justify psychology as a more scientific field of study.

Despite the West’s early reluctance towards introspection, Wallace gives a primary example of where introspection has had much success – which is in Buddhist psychology. Well-trained Buddhist monks have focused on direct study of the mind for centuries before the West ever developed an objective study of mental phenomena. Wallace emphasizes that introspection, which he has refurbished as the more scientifically-accepted term “metacognition,” can be used as a legitimate methodology of studying the mind. He goes on to suggest that the acceptance of metacognition as a useful tool of observing the mind could be as revolutionary as the telescope was towards the development of astronomy.

Searle accepts that metacognition could offer some insights into consciousness, but if so, why have Buddhists not revealed anything true about the causes of consciousness since the Buddha’s death in roughly 400 BCE? Searle goes on to say that perhaps Wallace’s insistence on meditation and metacognition as a means of studying consciousness is perhaps a “hidden agenda” to prove the existence of something metaphysical, such as a soul.

But, Searle, how can a suggested methodology have a “hidden agenda?” Shouldn’t the technique of metacognition prove its worth in whatever knowledge it reveals or fails to reveal about the mind? Searle also claims that Buddhism has not yielded anything useful about the origins of consciousness, and then later in the debate admits his ignorance towards Buddhism as a whole.

Even so, the methods of Buddhists actually compare quite well to the rigors of the scientific method – and perhaps science is even in a desperate need for an alternative tool of observing the mind. The Buddha laid out a very disciplined and precise method for diving into a direct study of consciousness. And any initial faults or misunderstandings of the Buddha’s methods have been corrected in various traditions and interpretations – over two thousand years of improvement. Further, the Buddha’s methods of introspection yield results that are perfectly capable of replication (just like any good scientific finding). The only thing is it requires a lot of work and a lot of meditation. But Wallace says: what tool of knowledge does not take some work to perfect? Before one can do science, one needs to spend the time to understand math and statistics – how is this any different from learning the methods and language of the Buddha?

But the real question would be: why should we deny metacognition or neuroscience? This is one thing Wallace and Searle are both in agreement about: let us just do whatever works! Wallace thinks, “Yes! We should study brains! Do that! Why shouldn’t we?” Perhaps we need further study of both brain science and meditation, which is already beginning to become a mainstream trend in the cognitive sciences.