About their problems. They try to find answers for their problems together. For example
|
WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED LOVE?
What is love? Dr. Michael R. Liebowitz, assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, believes that falling in love is influenced by our brain chemistry. This connection is the focus of Dr. Liebowitz's book, The Chemistry of Love. In an interview with People magazine, he discussed his neurochemical theories of romance.
Don't you find it upsetting to reduce an emotion like love to a chemical equation?
I'm a big believer in romance. The emotions we feel when we're in love are so powerful that when they're going on, nobody thinks about chemicals in the brain. Look at it this way. I know how digestion works. I know what goes on in my body when I eat something. But that has nothing to do with my enjoyment of a good meal.
What is love, chemically speaking?
I try to distinguish between romantic attraction and romantic attachment because I think they're chemically distinct. The symptoms of attraction -falling in love - are very much like what happens when you take an artificial stimulant. Your heart beats faster, your energy goes up, you feel optimistic. There are certain chemicals in the brain - phenylethylamine (PEA) is one - that produce the same effect when released.
What, then, is the basis for romantic attachment? What keeps us together?
There is an area in the lower brain called the locus ceruleus where feelings of panic and separation anxiety seem to begin. There are certain brain chemicals, called endorphins, that slow down the activity of the locus ceruleus. I believe that we're programmed at birth to produce endorphins when we're in close relationships. It's nature's way of keeping us together. When the relationship ends or when we're afraid that it might end, the production of endorphins stops and we're thrown into a panic.
Why do people grow tired of each other?
What's intense in a relationship is the newness. That's why the great romances of literature are never between people who stay together. Romeo and Juliet, for example, never had a chance to get used to each other.
Why does being in love make everything in life seem wonderful?
Our pleasure centers need a minimum level of stimulation to function. Love lowers this level. When we're in love, it takes less stimulation to give us pleasure. That's why everything feels possible when you're in love, why everything looks more beautiful.
Do people work better when they're in love, or are they too distracted?
When people's emotional needs are being met, they work better. Love gives you more energy, more enthusiasm.
How do you keep love alive? How do you keep the PEA flowing in your own ten-and-a-half-year marriage?
You need newness, sharing, and growth. My wife has changed careers lately. We shared that. She gave me a lot of ideas for this book. We were able to share that. We're buying a new home, an old farmhouse with some land. We'll be farmers together in a small way. All these shared changes are important. The brain has to experience a change, or there will be no excitement.
|
Anxiety : korku, endise, tasa, kaygi; endise |
|
attachment : baglama, ilistirme, bitistirme, takma; katma, alma; baglanti, bag; |
|
attachment : "(i.) bağlılık, merbutiyet; ilgi, alaka; sevgi, muhabbet |
|
attraction :çekici sey; çekim; çekicilik, cazibe |
|
Believer : inanan, mümin |
|
Digestion : hazım, hazım gücü, sindirim; kavrama, idrak etme; ısı ile yumuşatma |
|
distinct : farkli, ayri; açik, belirgin |
|
distinguish : ayirt etmek, ayirmak, farki görmek; tanimak, seçmek, görmek; ayirmak, ayri kilmak |
|
distracted : kafasi karismis, telasli |
|
emotion : heyecan, duygu, his. |
|
enjoyment : zevk, haz; tasarruf hakki |
|
enthusiasm : şevk, istek; heves |
|
flowing : akma, akis |
|
go on (with) : sürmek; devam etmek |
|
locus : yer, mahal, konum, mevki. |
|
newness : yenilik |
|
optimistic : iyimser |
|
slow down : yavaslamak; yavaslatmak |
|
stimulation : uyarma. 2. teşvik |
|
symptom : bulgu, belirti, isaret |
|
upset : devirmek; devrilmek; bozmak, altüst etmek; üzmek, nesesini kaçirmak, telaslandirmak |
180 WHO'S CRAZY?
A bizarre experiment in the United States has demonstrated that psychiatrists cannot distinguish effectively between people who are mentally ill and those who are not. According to its originators, the experiment demonstrates that the conventional psychiatric diagnosis may not be perfect and psychiatrists may sometimes make mistakes. The experiment also lends considerable support to the position taken by radical psychiatrists like R.D. Laing, who argue that diagnoses of mental disease are often no more than convenient labels designed to make life easier for doctors.
Eight perfectly normal people, by shamming symptoms of a mild kind, successfully gained admission to psychiatric wards where they remained undetected during their stay. Once admitted, their behaviour was normal in every way. They stopped pretending and behaved as normally as they could, but doctors and nurses continued to treat them as disturbed.
In every case but one the diagnosis was schizophrenia. Once they were labelled as mentally ill, everything the 'pseudo-patients' did tended to confirm the diagnosis in the eyes of the medical staff, though other patients in the hospital were much less easy to convince. To gain admission, the pseudo-patients told the whole truth about their lives, their emotions and their personal relationships - all of which were within the normal range - and lied only about their names, symptoms, and in some cases their occupations. The symptoms they complained of were hearing disembodied voices saying the words 'empty', 'hollow' and 'thud'. This was sufficient in every case for them to be classified as mentally ill and admitted to the hospital.
As many as a third of the real patients inside detected that they were frauds. 'You're not crazy. You're a journalist or a professor. You're checking up on the hospital,' was a typical comment from a real patient.
The experiment was carried out under the supervision of Professor D.L. Rosenhan of Stanford University, himself one of the eight pseudo-patients. Writing about the experiment in this week's Science, he concludes: "We cannot distinguish mentally ill people from sane people in mental hospitals ...... How any people, one wonders, are sane but not recognised as sane in our psychiatric institutions? How many have been stigmatised by well-intentioned, but nevertheless erroneous, diagnoses?"
In Professor Rosenhan's view, the hospital itself is an environment that distorts judgement. As evidence, he quotes what happened to the patients who asked doctors perfectly sensible questions. They took the form: "Pardon me, Dr. X, could you tell me when I will he eligible for ground privileges?" - or some similar request, courteously presented. In almost three-quarters of the cases the psychiatrist's response was to walk on, looking away. Only one doctor in 25 stopped and tried to answer the question.
But the clinching piece of evidence comes from another experiment in which a hospital was warned that pseudo-patients would be presenting themselves. Faced with this threat to their professional reputation, the doctors admitting patients became much more conservative in their diagnoses. Of 193 patients presenting themselves, one doctor was firmly convinced that 41 were frauds, while another doctor suspected 23. In fact, no pseud-patients had arrived at all.
|
|
Dostları ilə paylaş:
