Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I have been having a conversation with a GP strongly in favour of a BPS approach and we got on to the question of describing causes as mental or physical or psychological or biological or whatever.
The GP suggested that if we were dealing with fear causing an increased heart rate then it was more useful to use the psychological concept of fear as a cause rather than some neurophysiology.
I had a think about that. It might make sense but then we hit the problem that we have no way of ascertaining that what we call fear - indicated by a subjective sensation - actually causes the increase in heart rate. Although BF Skinner has gone out of fashion he was still in a sense right that all we can do in terms of science is to link some input like seeing a tiger, with an apparently neurophysiologically mediated tachycardia.
You might say that we know from experience that the sense of fear plays a reliably predictable role in this but actually it doesn't. I have on several occasions been moved to tears by sensory inputs without feeling any emotion at all.
What I realised was the bottom line is that despite all the academic units of psychology throughout the world Karl Popper's remarks remain true that when it comes to linking thoughts to actions theories are so vague and contingent that they do not make useful predictions. And then there is the fact that for things like ME we know that 99.9% of the time stimuli that cause emotions and thoughts do not produce the symptoms.
So although I agree that we cannot exclude 'psychosocial factors' in the genesis of all sorts of things the important fact is that we do not know enough ever to usefully invoke these factors. Anyone who claims that it is evident that they contribute is bullshitting.
For sure we can invoke grief as a cause of misery in a recent widow and stuff like that but fear causing fatigue? Where is the evidence for a mechanism that provides a consistent causal link? Even if we all think we feel tend to tired if we are miserable that isn't enough to explain il health. It in no way compares with a low thyroid level leading to sleepiness and a slow heart rate.
So where I think I would agree is in that maybe the discussion should move from saying how could psychosocial factors possibly be relevant to how could anyone be sufficiently sure they are to claim it is likely? And I don't think there need be any timidity about that. I have come to learn from this ME business just how messianic so many of my colleagues are about their beliefs in these factors. It is a cult, for sure. It has the epidemiology of a cult!
For some of these things I can find that I use the terminology of the biopsychosocial school just to more easily allow some discussions to take place, but there is a downside to that and it probably does mean I sound as if I'm coming from a position that is not quite my own. Being able to challenge your opponents on their own terms is useful!
On being 'sure', I think you're right, but also the BPS approach tends to avoid making claims about being 'sure', and instead tries to present itself as a collaborative form of exploration between patients and therapists. This isn't always how it comes across to patients, and even if it were there are downsides to it that seem to get commonly overlooked.
Also, on being 'sure', and the lack of a mechanism that provides a consistent causal link, I think that the fact we don't know much about the cause of ill health in ME/CFS, and the way that many in medicine view themselves, means that the question is often 'is there a better way of me helping my patients?', rather than 'can I be sure?'
However, I can see no logic to the idea that being psychologically stressed can lead to physical ailments.
I think that we can point to lots of examples of acute stress leading to short term physical problems. I guess PTSD has symptoms that could be classed as 'physical'. There are problems with trying to divide things into 'physical' and 'psychological', especially when psychological diagnoses will often stem from problems seen as 'physical', our beliefs affect our behaviour, etc. Also, with a lot of conditions like ME/CFS, Long Covid, etc, there will be somewhat arbitrary cut-offs for when a patient fulfils the criteria for diagnosis, so almost any 'psychological' problem that makes peoples lives worse could increase the chances of people being classed as being ill enough to fulfil those criteria.
It feels difficult to be clear when talking about these sorts of things so I expect it's easy for little misunderstandings to occur.
Last edited: