2018
DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

Abstract: Objective: The mind-brain problem (MBP) has marked implications for psychiatry, but has been poorly discussed in the psychiatric literature. This paper evaluates the presentation of the MBP in the three leading general psychiatry journals during the last 20 years. Methods: Systematic review of articles on the MBP published in the three general psychiatry journals with the highest impact factor from 1995 to 2015. The content of these articles was analyzed and discussed in the light of contemporary debates on th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This dualism is then countered by repeatedly pointing out correlations of structural or functional brain abnormalities with symptoms of mental disorders [ 8 ]. Unfortunately, dualism is often misinterpreted in psychiatric discourse as an independence between mind and brain [ 2 , 9 , 10 ]. It is therefore questionable whether traditional psychiatry’s intrinsic dualism actually hampers clinical progress.…”
Section: Biological Psychiatry: the Call Of Mechanism (And Some Pseudo-problems)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This dualism is then countered by repeatedly pointing out correlations of structural or functional brain abnormalities with symptoms of mental disorders [ 8 ]. Unfortunately, dualism is often misinterpreted in psychiatric discourse as an independence between mind and brain [ 2 , 9 , 10 ]. It is therefore questionable whether traditional psychiatry’s intrinsic dualism actually hampers clinical progress.…”
Section: Biological Psychiatry: the Call Of Mechanism (And Some Pseudo-problems)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, criticism to neuroscientific reductionism and the inability of molecular explanations to account for mind phenomena has been raised as a reason for the belief on the soul as separate from the body (Preston et al, 2013). In this sense, it has been argued that reductive physicalism can also be a source of stigmatization (Moreira-Almeida, Araujo & Cloninger, 2018), that exclusive reliance on molecular explanations of mind phenomena may obscure social causes of psychic suffering to favor economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry (Tabb, 2021). For these reasons, and assuming that dualistic or reductive physicalist stances may affect professional practice, understanding the factors affecting or determining the notions about the relationship of mind and body in future health workers, as well as identifying devices that foster a conscious reexamining, is of great interest.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the issue is far from resolved, a vast amount of empirical findings from research in neuroscience shows mensurable correlates to thought processes, challenging strict “substance” dualism. Nevertheless, it is not clear that this evidence is sufficient to fully understand thought, consciousness or psychopathology (Moreira-Almeida, Araujo & Cloninger, 2018; Motuca, 2016). In fact, regardless of the advancement of neurosciences, the dualist stance is frequently observed in the general population, including scientists and health professionals (Strejilevich et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It has its flaws, but scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer-review process is a vital part of that system. However, science development is jeopardized when journals tend to present a field's state-ofthe-art findings in a biased or misguided way (Moreira-Almeida et al, 2018) or suppress investigations with a particular perspective (Cardeña, 2015).…”
Section: Highlightsmentioning
confidence: 99%