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 the MBP. Results: Twenty-three papers, usually written by prestigious authors, explicitly discussed the MBP and received many citations (mean = 130). The two main categories were critiques of dualism and defenses of physicalism (mind as a brain product). These papers revealed several misrepresentations of theoretical positions and lacked relevant contemporary literature. Without further discussion or evidence, they presented the MBP as solved, dualism as an old-fashioned or superstitious idea, and physicalism as the only rational and empirically confirmed option. Conclusion: The MBP has not been properly presented and discussed in the three leading psychiatric journals in the last 20 years. The few articles on the topic have been highly cited, but reveal misrepresentations and lack of careful philosophical discussion, as well as a strong bias against dualism and toward a materialist/physicalist approach to psychiatry.

Why Biological Psychiatry Hasn’t Delivered Yet – and Why Neurology Knows

“…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.…”

Knowledge of theory of evolution and beliefs as determinants of dualism in health science students

“…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.…”

“…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).…”

“…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). Moreira-Almeida, Araujo & Cloninger (2018) contend that while literature on psychiatry and the neurosciences mostly adheres to materialism, the bias towards simplistic and reductionist explanations makes some questions on consciousness intractable. In this sense, the prevalence of dualistic beliefs in health professionals may reflect a dissatisfaction with the limits of reductionist approaches to consciousness and related phenomena (Moreira-Almeida & Araujo, 2015).…”

A Possible Case of Censorship of Submissions on the Nature of Consciousness

“…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).…”