Huh

Yesterday I offered a brief introduction to the concept of Neuroplasticity. In this post I’ll review Schwartz’s treatment methodology for sufferers of Obssessive Compulsive Disorger (OCD). Before I go further I need to mention Schwartz’s “Brain Lock” a book I haven’t read but which purports to provide readers with enough of the methodology to allow OCD sufferers to treat themselves. For this blog it’ll suffice to give a high level description of the treatment so tomorrow we can focus on why he believes his treatment works.

Schwartz’s methodology, first designed for his OCD patients consists of: Relabel, Re-attribute, Refocus and Revalue. The underlying assumption is OCD is caused by over activity in the “OCD circuit” located in  the orbital frontal cortex, the anterior cingulate gyrus and the caudate nucleus. In effect, these areas combine to act as, in Schwartz’s words, the brain’s transmission. In OCD the transmission is jammed or locked in place and these areas continually broadcast an insistent warning (The doorknob is soiled, your hands are dirty, if you don’t count and alphabetize the cans in your pantry your mother will die…). Schwartz’s treatment is meant to weaken the blaring OCD circuit while strengthening an alternative circuit broadcasting a healthy message. If the patient is successful in leveraging the brain’s plasticity, they will eventually extinguish the OCD circuit. This is where the four “R”s come in:

Schwartz has his patients first relabel the OCD message as false signals and symptoms of their disease. Then he instructs the patient to re-attribute the signals as pathological symptoms and not representing a factual need to rewash their hands again. Once the Patient has sufficiently distanced himself from these signals, Schwartz advises them to refocus their attention on healthier thoughts. As an example, instead of washing their hands they might focus on working in the garden. Finally Schwartz would have them Revalue the OCD compulsions and obsessions, realizing they have no power or intrinsic value. For purposes of this blog I greatly simplified the process and hasten to encourage sufferers of OCD to read Schwartz’s book before deciding whether his treatment makes sense for them. It is worth noting, Schwartz claims a cure rate twice that of other approaches. I encourage people to not dismiss his claims lightly.

Up to this point in the book, Schwartz’s claims are substantiated by impressive amounts of research. When he gets into why he thinks his methodology works, the amount of supporting research is decidedly less substantial. This doesn’t mean his theory is wrong, just it is currently outside of the mainstream and somewhat unsupported by current scientific knowledge. Tomorrow I’ll outline Schwartz’s theory for how his methodology works.

I just finished “The Mind and The Brain” by Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley and I highly recommend it. The thesis is quite interesting and, at least initially, reasonably supported with research. The authors attempt to prove, not only the concept of adult neuroplasticity but also provide a mechanism for how neuroplasticity might work that leads to a potential reframing of the hard problem of consciousness and a strident rejection of scientific materialism.

Neuroplasticity describes the brain’s ability to rewire itself. Rewiring is the mechanism by which a brain both learns and forgets. Neuroplasticity is taken for granted in children. Most people are aware children go through stages of learning. If a child’s brain is monitored with fMRI and PET scans, scientists can see neuronal groups forming, reforming, strengthening and weakening. The mantra, based on the Canadian Psychologist Donald Hebb’s research, is “the neurons that fire together, wire together”. In other words, concepts are represented by groups of neurons that fire together in reaction to external or internal stimuli. The more these groupings fire together the stronger the connections and the more likely they will fire together in the future. As a child learns, neuronal groupings are formed and either strengthened or weakened depending on their success in promoting their own firing. If the concept is used often, the grouping is strengthened if it is used infrequently the grouping is weakened. Through many iterations the child’s brain, starting with relatively few and simple groupings, learns and rewires itself to account for more and more knowledge. As the wirings increase in sophistication the child’s fluency with the represented concepts is improved. For example, when a child first learns to walk she must use all her powers of concentration to succeed but, with success comes a strengthening of the neuronal groupings that provide the body with it’s directions. The brain literally wires itself to account for all the variables necessary for the child to walk and even run without having to think about the process.

So far, none of this is particularly new. However, starting in the eighties scientists started to question dogma arguing once a brain reaches a given level of maturity it’s ability to rewire itself is severely limited. Scientists acknowledged adults ability to learn new concepts but it was assumed this was mostly limited to the mental realm and, even then, hampered by limited neuronal real estate taken up by previous knowledge. Schwartz and Begley show how research by maverick scientists question then eventually disprove the idea neuroplasticity is as limited in the adult brain. Starting with monkeys and eventually moving to humans, scientists show adult brains rewiring themselves, allowing people to recover from Strokes, Obssessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and a myriad of other problems. Schwartz, a research professor of psychiatry at UCLA, was faced with the challenge of designing a behavioral methodology for treating patients with OCD. By refining his methodology and thinking, Schwartz creates a novel theory of mind leading to his emphatic rejection of scientific materialism.

Tomorrow I’ll attend to Schwartz’s methodology and his underlying theory.

My friend Richard Nantel (check out his blog here) argued I have a moral duty to blog. His theory seems to be, the world is full of big problems, the only way things are going to get better is if we put our heads together and share what we know. Frankly, my gut doesn’t completely buy it but what the hell, why not give it a try? So I figured for my first post I’d offer a sense of what I’m trying to do and why.

I want to use this blog to explore things that make me say; huh? or huh! or huh. And I’ll probably even write about some things that made me say huh but now make me think, Ha! In short, I’ll throw things out there and see what sticks. I would LOVE for you to let me know what you think sticks and what you think stinks. Even better, please let me know WHY you think it sticks or stinks.

Things I intend to explore include; Complexity Theory, Emergence, Evolutionary Psychology, The craft of writing, Politics, Economics, Literature, Physics and Metaphysics. Of course I reserve the right to add any topic that makes me say Huh.

Finally, you may note above, I’ve a link for my writings. Not much there at the moment but eventually I’ll be publishing fiction that has been inspired by the above topics. I’ll sign off for now so I can actually  start writing some of this stuff. Hopefully this blog will encourage you to say, in the best possible way, “huh”.