a usable evolutionary classification system for mental disorders gary galambos mb bs franzcp...
Post on 01-Apr-2015
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A Usable Evolutionary Classification
System for Mental Disorders
Gary Galambos MB BS FRANZCP
Consultant Psychiatrist
St John of God Hospital, Burwood
APS Evolutionary Psychology Interest Group
10th March 2010
Overview The paradigmatic failure of psychiatry
Benefits of an evolutionary approach
Does evolutionary psychology or psychiatryhave any answers?
Unveiling an evolved classification system…
Test-driving 2 DSM disorders using the model
The Paradigmatic Failure of Psychiatry
Failed Schools Perspectives Objective-descriptive
(Kraeplin, Janet, Bleuler, Maudsley, Beck)
Psychoanalytic (Charcot, Breuer, Freud)
Existential (Jaspers, Minkowski,
Binswanger) Interpersonal/Social
(Meyer, Sullivan)
Eclecticism– DSM– The Biopsychosocial Model
(Engel 1980)
Disease
Behavioural
Life-story
Dimensional
Disease
DSM a failure? Achieves its aims of:
– Accurate descriptions (language free of theoretical biases)
– Reliability among multiple users (high cross-clinician agreement)
– Empirical (Akiskal 1989)
allowing researchers to study comparable groups
BUT….
Criticisms– not guided by any theory about the
structure and function of normal minds– encourages simplistic thinking of
psychiatric syndromes as discrete diseases (Kendell 1984)
– Splits psychiatry from general medical disorders, giving the false impression that the mechanisms are different for both
(Waterman 2001)
– Neglects maladaptive psychological processes
BOTTOM LINE….
Poor validity
Developing a descriptive vocabulary that achieves a high degree of cross-clinician agreement may be served by summative reasoning, but its service to condition validity is another matter
(McGuire & Troisi 1998)
The BPS model a failure?
Essential in vaccinating against dogmatism (biological reductionism or psychoanalytical orthodoxy)
Provides room for an eclectic approach utilising psychotherapy and social work in a neuroscience dominated environment
But…
Criticisms of the BPS Model
“It is like going to a restaurant & receiving a list of the ingredients rather than a menu” (McHugh 1998)
“Too eclectic to provide useful organising concepts around which to understand psychiatry” (Ghaemi 2005)
Fundamentally dualist model - “Descartes without the pineal connection” - due to linguistic conceptual conventions
(Waterman 2001)
Consequences
Separation of psychiatry from the rest of medicine
Inequitable distribution of resources Confusion of aetiology & pathogenesis Impairment in ability to communicate to
students & general public modern psychiatric concepts
Stigmatisation of patients
(Waterman 2001)
Benefits of an evolutionary approach
Answers “why”
– Reductionistic (proximate) approaches miss half the story because most research attempts to explain “what” and “how”
– Evolutionary approaches examine
“why” we are susceptible to maladaptive mental & behavioural phenomena by considering design characteristics
What might evolutionary approaches add?
A theory of gene-environment-behaviour interactions– A theory of behaviour, motivations and
function Causal hypotheses
–A non-judgmental, normalising, humanising explanatory model for patients
Integration of prevailing models into a framework
–An evolutionary classification?
McGuire & Troisi
1998
Nesse
What is a mental disorder from an evolutionary view?
Abnormal phenomena causing biological disadvantage (Scadding 1967)
Disorders are the result of things that have gone wrong with evolved structures that allow for adequate functioning (Klein 1978)
(which, unabated, leads to reproductive disadvantage)
Also: social undesirability (Wakefield 1992)
Why are our minds are poorly designed?
DALYs Western Females18-45yo
(WHO)
Percentage distribution of YLD by mental disorders and nervous system disorders, Australia 1996
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0-14 15-34 35-54 55-74 75+
Years of age
Per
cent
of t
otal
YLD
Mental disorders
Nervous system disorders
Bottom line:
Vast prevalence Huge comorbidity Onset at age of peak health Waxing & waning courses Huge fitness costs
Does evolutionary psychology or psychiatry
have any answers?
Darwin’s view on emotions
Pleasurable sensations … stimulate the whole system to increased action.
Hence … pleasurable sensations serve as … habitual guides.
But pain or suffering… lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil.
…if long continued, causes depression
Darwin Francis (ed), Darwin Francis (ed), The Life & Letters of Charles The Life & Letters of Charles DarwinDarwin, 1887., 1887.
What are emotions? “Adaptations” shaped by Natural Selection Each emotion is a specialised state that
adjusts cognition, physiology, subjective experience & behaviour so that the organism can respond effectively in a particular kind of situation
Positive & negative emotions are derived from the two types of basic arousal…
Cellular instincts
Arousal
Inaction/Avoidance Disengagement/WithdrawalSelf-defense
ThreatOpportunity
AcquisitionEngagementAttack
Who do emotions benefit?
The emotions were “designed not to promote the happiness & survival of the individual, but to favor maximum transmission of the controlling genes”
(EO Wilson)
EvoPsych
"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation."
(Darwin, Origin of Species)
Cosmides & Tooby 1995
Our cognitive architecture resembles a confederation of hundreds or thousands of functionally dedicated computers (modules) designed to solve adaptive problems endemic to our hunter-gatherer ancestors…
The Massive Modularity Hypothesis“Human nature” refers to the accumulated specialized neural circuits common to every member of a species
Our modern skulls house a stone age mind
A Darwinian module
(Adapted from Murphy & Stich 1998)
Mental architecture posited by evopsych
(Adapted from Murphy & Stich 1998)
(Adapted from Murphy & Stich 1998)
A proposed EvoPsych classification
1. Disorders Within the Personi. Internal to the module
an individual's special-purpose computer is malfunctioning
ii. External to the module problematic module output due to problematic input
(garbage in = garbage out)
2. “Environment/Selection Mismatch”– Genome lag hypothesis
3. Adaptive “deviant” behavioural strategies
(Murphy & Stich 1998)
Evolutionary Neuroanatomy: Triune Brain
(MacLean 1973)
The Four “Time-Depths” classification of
“Stress & Fear Circuitry” (Anxiety) Disorders
Based on evolved fear circuitry traits that have outlived their usefulness
Bracha, 2006
Time depths Classification (from Bracha)
1. Mesozoic Era
Mammalian-wide fear circuits
(140 MYA)
Separation anxiety
Extreme fear of adult non-kin males in toddlers
Extreme fear of high elevations in adults
2. Cenozoic Era
Simian-wide fear circuits (20 MYA)
Fear of snakes, reptiles, confined spaces, darkness, water immersion, suffocation during forest fire, muscle exhaustion under predation
Acute jaw-clenching
3. Paleolithic Era
H. Sapiens-wide fear circuits (200-14 TYA)
Compulsive Lock & stove checking, washing (Obsessive fear of contamination), hoarding (esp.
tools, weapons & leather goods), fear of insects or miceFear of scrutiny by non-kin conspecifics (Generalized Social Phobia)
4. Neolithic era
Culture-bound genome-specific fear circuits (12 TYA)
Primary dissociative disorder
Somatoform states: Pseudoseizures, Pseudoparalysis (e.g. limping), Imbalance (Pseudocerebellar symptoms),
BlindnessEpidemic sociogenic illness (“epidemic hysteria”)
Archetype disorders
Mental disorders may manifest as a failure to meet biosocial imperatives (goals or social roles)
by the 4 archetypal propensities
Stevens & Price 2000
Biosocial goals
1. The stranger archetype
2. The affiliation and bonding archetype
3. The hierarchical ranking dominance-submission archetype
4. The courtship & mating archetype
(Stevens & Price, 2000)
1. Defense (fight or flight)
2. AttachmentAttachment
3. Dominance-striving
4. Reproduction
(Gardiner, 1988)
Archetypal systems
Why are our minds so poorly designed?
Because of past evolutionary compromises & trade offs organisms are not optimally designed
McGuire & Troisi 1998 Mayr 1983
Selection does not optimise adaptive traits or strategies as much as it gradually eliminates unfit traits/strategies
Tuomi et al 1983
A proposed general evolutionary
classification1. Novelty
– From pathogens or competitors – From aspects of the modern environment
2. Trade-offs – Genes with costs as well as benefits – All traits are a two-edge sword
3. Constraints 4. Accidents and mishaps (too rare to shape
defenses)
5. Defenses (often confused with diseases)
Nesse RM 1995
A proposed psychiatric evolutionary
classification
1. Primary brain abnormalities
2. Environmental trauma or uniqueness
3. Byproducts (adaptive but distressing)
(adapted from Nesse RM 1991)
Unveiling an upgraded BPS model…
The
MMalfunction-
DDysregulation-
AsAsocialisationModel
The MDAMDA Model
Places the DSM & BPS (atheoretical) models within a (theoretical) evolutionary framework
General evolutionary explanations (y-axis) grouped alongside
organism-specific archetypal (functional) disruption (x-axis)
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal Disruption (H. Sapiens)Disorders of:
AAttachmen
t/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarch
ical/Ranking Archety
pe
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response
Archetype
1. Mal-function
2. Dys-regulation
3. Asocial-isation
Maintaining a BPS framework
Malfunction correlates with “Bio” Dysregulation correlates with
“Psycho” Asocialisation correlates with
"Socio-cultural”
… Makes the evolution from an atheoretical to a theoretical classification system easier, and reduces dualism inherent in BPS and DSM
Descriptions vs aetiology
Proposal that each DSM disorder may have more than one possible aetiological basis
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma 2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
1. Disorders of Malfunction
1.1 Modular - Mental disorders resulting from localised (modular) brain malfunction due to abnormal differentiation.
1.2 Integrative - Mental disorders that result from NON-localised brain malfunction, causing widespread cerebral dysconnectivity.
Secondary to injuries of the developing central nervous system in the context of genetic vulnerability
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
1.1 Modular Malfunction Intracranial lesion causing psychosis,
mood disorder or cognitive impairment Malfunction of Theory-of-Mind (ToM) “module”
– causes “mindblindness” (Baron-Cohen 1997)
– Pts with Autism, Aspergers & acute SCZ perform worse on ToM tasks (Brune 2005)
(ToM proposed to be a crucial component of a “social” module in humans)
Machiavellian intelligence is a domain-specific faculty of inferring mental states of others (Brune 2001)
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
1.2 Integrative Malfunction Schizophrenia
– a disorder of integration (Andreason) a disorder of integration of the social brain (Burns
2004)
– A disorder of over-pruning investigatory evidence for reduced cortical
connectedness neural network computer simulation
– adaptive advantage of robust network pruning = the enhancement of cog functioning …until it pushes up against a “psychotogenic threshold”
(McGlashan & Hoffman 2000)
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
2. Disorders of Dysregulation
Mental disorders that result from dysregulation of established defenses
2.1 Environmental trauma or mismatch– mental disorders may result from normal brain mechanisms becoming dysregulated as a result of exposure to novel environmental circumstances, idiosyncratic learning histories or sensory trauma causing maldevelopment of mind programs. 2.2 Maladaptive memes - behavioural dysfunction resulting from contagious propagation of maladaptive ideas.
Types of brain trauma
2.1– Blunt
– Toxins
– Somatosensory 2.2
– Ideational
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
2.1 Environmental Dysregulation
Epidemic of Depression– N=39,000 in 9 studies, in 5 global locations
youth more likely to have had MDE than their elders, esp. in higher economically developed cultures
– Mass communications increased competition, unreachable goals,
dissatisfaction with selves & family decreased interactions,
– New technology disintegration of families & communities
(Nesse & Williams, Why We Get Sick, 1995)
Triggers of Depression
Loss of attachment – carer, mate Loss of rank – social status Loss of resources
– Internal Trauma Bodily damage
– External Bad decisions e.g. wasted effort pursuing
risky goals Disruption to major life goals and
enterprises
(Nesse 2000)
(Stevens & Price, 2000)
(Bowlby)
Depression as an Adaptation
Communicate need for help
Signal yielding in hierarchy conflict
Disengage from unreachable goals
Regulate patterns of investment
(Nesse, AGP, 2000)
(Price, Sloman, Gardner, Gilbert, Rohde, BJP, 1994)
(Darwin, 1872)
Why doesn’t recovery occur?
Brain Level
Alternative strategies of the Triune Brain
Winning (Escalating)
(Positive arousal)Losing (De-escalating)
(Negative arousal)1. CORTEX (Reason) Fight to win Actively submit
2. LIMBIC (Emotion) Get angry Feel chastened
3. REPTILIAN (Instinct) Mood elevation
Depression
(Stevens & Price, 2000; MacLean, 1973)
Adaptive Depression
Brain Level
Alternative Strategies
Winning (Escalating) Losing (De-escalating)
1. CORTEX (Reason) Fight to win Actively submit
2. LIMBIC (Emotion) Get angry Feel chastened
3. REPTILIAN (Instinct) Mood elevation Depression
Adaptive depression is where the triune is unified in choosing a de-escalating strategy
Maladaptive Depression Due to Conflict within the "Triune"
Brain Results when all three "central
processing assemblies" are not pulling together towards the same objective
Stevens & Price suggest that maladaptive depression requires pharmacotherapy whereas adaptive depression requires psychotherapy
Involuntary yielding or "blocked higher level losing"
Brain Level
Alternative Strategies
Winning (Escalating) Losing (De-escalating)
1. CORTEX (Reason) Fight to win
Actively submit
2. LIMBIC (Emotion) Get angry Feel chastened
3. REPTILIAN (Instinct) Mood elevation DepressionDepression
People may develop a depressive illness when the losing strategy of the reptilian level is activated in conjunction with ... adoption of the winning strategy at the (neo)cortical &/or limbic levels. i.e. "blocked higher level losing".
Reasons for an “upper block”
1. Internal factors : – predisposing personality traits
obsessive & narcissistic traits high sensitivity to insult
2. External factors : – loser cannot provide winner’s demands– winner continues attacks forcing victim into
"learned helplessness"
Anger-propagating Depression
Brain Level
Alternative Strategies
Winning (Escalating) Losing (De-escalating)
1. CORTEX (Reason) Fight to win Actively submit
2. LIMBIC (Emotion) Get angry
Feel chastened
3. REPTILIAN (Instinct) Mood elevation Depression
Intractable anger causing maladaptive depression when something very unjust has been done to the person, which leads to resistance to yielding - often develops secondary to Chronic PTSD
PTSD An “Over-learnt Survival
Response” with asynchrony caused by a failure of cortical inhibition to limit the trauma rehearsal (“overconsolidation”) generated by the limbic lobe
(Silove 1998; Bracha 2006)
Sequence of events in PTSD:
Fear response causes excessive activation of threat response neural circuitryInadequate orbital prefrontal feedback Failure to switch off activation of the threat response system Failure of recovery
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmenta
l Trauma2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
2.2 Meme Dysregulation Meme = evolution of culture (ideas)
– Competitive co-evolution b/w genes & culture
– Man must adapt to novel “cultural” environments/ influences
(Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976)
Mental disorder caused by:– Conflict b/w culture & gene – Inability to adapt to culture– “Garbage input = garbage output”
Mimetic Lexiconhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html
meme – (pron. `meem') A contagious information pattern
that replicates by parasitically infecting human minds and altering their behavior, causing them to propagate the pattern. (Term coined by Dawkins, by analogy with "gene".) Individual slogans, catch-phrases, melodies, icons, inventions, and fashions are typical memes. An idea or information pattern is not a meme until it causes someone to replicate it, to repeat it to someone else. All transmitted knowledge is memetic. (Wheelis, quoted in Hofstadter.) (See meme-complex).
meme-complex A set of mutually-assisting memes which have
co-evolved a symbiotic relationship. Religious and political dogmas, social movements, artistic styles, traditions and customs, chain letters, paradigms, languages, etc. are meme-complexes. Also called an m-plex, or scheme (Hofstadter). Types of co-memes commonly found in a scheme are called the: bait; hook; threat; and vaccime. A successful scheme commonly has certain attributes: wide scope (a paradigm that explains much); opportunity for the carriers to participate and contribute; conviction of its self-evident truth (carries Authority); offers order and a sense of place, helping to stave off the dread of meaninglessness. (Wheelis, quoted by Hofstadter.)
A sociotype of an auto-toxic meme-complex, composed of membots and/or memeoids. (GMG) Characteristics of cults include: self-isolation of the infected group
(or at least new recruits); brainwashing by repetitive exposure (inducing dependent mental states); genetic functions discouraged (through celibacy, sterilization, devalued family) in favor of replication (proselytizing); and leader-worship ("personality cult"). (Henson.)
cult
An infection strategy in which a meme attempts to imitate the semiotics of another successful meme. Such as: pseudo-science (Creationism, UFOlogy); pseudo-rebelliousness (Heavy Metal); subversion by forgery (Situationist detournement). (GMG)
mimicry
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmental Uniqueness
2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
3. Asocialisation Disorders
Diagnosed if the behaviour of the individual leads to severe subjective distress, objective distress (of family/community) AND negative social or harmful consequences.
Characterised by behaviours that are not acceptable to the individual's community BUT are adaptive for their genes (transmission).
The memes of the individual’s social group DIVERGE FROM the adaptive function of the individual's deviant behaviour.
Disorders of Sociability
3.1 By-product– Patterns of emotion or behaviour that are
painful or socially unacceptable, but nonetheless adaptive
3.2 Defense– An evolved solution to a challenge that
may cause suffering & distress as part of the strategy to respond effectively to the threat
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: x
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
1.1A 1.1B 1.1C 1.1D
1.2Integrative
1.2A 1.2B 1.2C 1.2D
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmental Uniqueness
2.1A 2.1B 2.1C 2.1D
2.2Maladaptive
Meme2.2A 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product (trade off)
3.1A 3.1B 3.1C 3.1D
3.2Defense 3.2A 3.2B 3.2C 3.2D
3.1 By-product
Delusional male sexual jealousy– a mate-guarding tactic – Although an uncomfortable, undesirable
state that can give rise to antisocial acts, it is likely to increase reproductive success & be maintained by NS.
(Daly, Wilson and Weghorst 1982; Symons 1979)
3.2 Defense
… to motivate to urgent action
for survival(Walter Cannon, 1929)
Startle may activate the Fight or Flight Program
Anxiety disorders– Panic disorder
Situations evoking anxiety as a defense
Harm from strange humans Stranger anxiety Separation from carer Separation anxiety Threats to status/group membership
Social anxiety Socially unaccepted impulses
Obsessive self-doubt Lack of food or other resources
Obsessive hoarding Getting sick
Hypochondriasis/Obsessive cleanliness Dangerous small animals Small animal phobias Potential attack to family members General anxiety Imminent attack by predator Panic Environment in which attack is likely Agoraphobia
(Adapted from Nesse, 1990)
The Fight or Flight Program
A two-edge sword Lungs: SOB, choking, parasthesia
Heart: Palps, chest pain, flushes
Muscles: Trembling, tension, sweating
GIT: Dry mouth, butterflies, nausea, belching
Brain: Dizziness, faintness, lightheadedness, catastrophic cognitions & fear
Lungs: ↑blood O2
Heart: ↑O2 blood delivery
Muscles: ↑O2 metabolism
GIT: ↓bld flow to gut
Brain: activation of fear circuitry
The Smoke-Detector Principle
Anxiety is a useful defense…but it uses extra calories, makes us less fit for everyday activities & damages tissues
So why is it so readily triggered? Because the cost of getting killed even
once is enormously higher than the cost of responding to 100 false alarms
Nesse, 2005
Test-driving MDD & Psychosis
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION DISORDER: Major Depressive Disorder
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
Due to general medical disorder Drug-induced
Melancholic & psychotic depressionPseudodementia (subcortical)
Dysthymia due to deficit in reciprocal exchange module (McGuire, Murphy)
1.2Integrative
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmental
Trauma Maladaptive depressions (conflict within the Triune brain) e.g. Anger-Induced
Depression2.2Maladaptive
Meme
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product
Dysthymic temperament for social cohesion (Akiskal)
Adaptive depressions e.g. due to Involuntary Yielding in Social Competition, to disengage from unreachable goals, to
regulate patterns of investment
3.2Defense
EVOLUTIONARY CLASSIFICATION
DISORDER: Psychosis
Archetypal DisruptionDisorders of:
AAttachme
nt/Affiliation Archetype
BHierarchic
al/Ranking
Archetype
CCourtshi
p/ Mating
Archetype
D Threat
Response Archetyp
e
1. Mal-functi
on
1.1Modular
Due to general medical disorderDrug-induced
Schizophrenia as Disorder of Integration due to Over-Pruning, As a Disorder of the
Threat Response Archetype
1.2Integrative
2. Dys-regulati
on
2.1 Environmental
Trauma
Shared psychotic (Folie au Deux)2.2Maladaptive
Meme
3. Asocial-isation
3.1By-product Delusional jealousy
Disorder of Spacing in SCZ3.2Defense
More…
http://www.ep.org.auLinks
BibliographyTheories
Interest Group
top related