Photo courtesy of Karen and Brad Emerson and Flickr
“The brain can only assume its proper behaviour when consciousness is doing what it is designed for: not writhing and whirling to get out of present experience, but being effortlessly aware of it.”
Alan Watts
People often ask me how the principles behind clarity relate to the theory of “chemical imbalances” as a cause of depression, anxiety, addiction and other problems. In this article, you’re going to discover why the biomedical model of mental disorder is not as solid as you may have been led to believe.
Here’s an excerpt from my forthcoming book RESULTS: Think Less, Achieve More (© 2016 Jamie Smart, John Wiley & Sons Ltd) that speaks directly to this question:
Feelings are giving you essential feedback about THOUGHT in the moment; the glasses you’re wearing…
That’s not a problem. The problem is that we sometimes believe our feelings are letting us know
about something other than the glasses we’re wearing…
“Wait a minute. I’ve read that depression is caused by chemical and hormonal imbalances, and that neuroscientists have identified a ‘happiness gene’. Are you really saying that stress, anxiety and depression is just a person’s thinking? That the ‘biomedical model’ of mental disorders is wrong?”
Yes and no…
Consider someone who blushes in embarrassment as a colleague tells a group of co-workers a suggestive joke. Blushing is the end-result of a variety of involuntary processes. These involve neurological activity, stress hormones, neurochemicals, blood vessel dilation etc. And what causes all of this?
THOUGHT in the moment…
Their non-blushing colleagues are having a different THOUGHT-generated experience, so they don’t blush.
Think about it: If something as simple as “embarrassed thinking” can have such a profound impact on a person’s brain and body (e.g. Blushing), what do you think the impact of months or years of “depressed thinking” will have had on a person’s brain chemistry?
While it’s possible that differences in brain chemistry and genetics have an influence on a person’s state of mind, we won’t be able to determine the relationship definitively until research is conducted by scientists who have an understanding of the nature of THOUGHT. Until that point, it’s likely that “symptoms” and “correlations” will continue to be misinterpreted as “causes”.
In fact, a 2013 paper by Brett J. Deacon, PhD (published in the highly-regarded Clinical Psychology Review: The Future of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychotherapy*) raises significant concerns about the biomedical model. He suggests that framing mental disorders as biochemically-induced brain diseases, then treating them with “disease-specific” psychiatric medications has led to a lack of clinical innovation, and poor results for patients. Deacon states that “an honest and public dialog about the validity and utility of the biomedical paradigm is urgently needed.”
* SOURCE: The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research by Brett J. Deacon PhD. Clinical Psychology Review Volume 33, Issue 7, November 2013, Pages 846–861.
When we slip into the La-la Land of the outside-in misunderstanding, we go into “victim” mode. Our thinking accelerates and multiplies as we mistakenly attribute our feelings to “other than THOUGHT” factors. But the moment we wake up to the fact of where our experience is coming from, our heads start to clear, and we come to our senses in the reality of the now.
I wish you every happiness, and increasing clarity,
Big love
Jamie