Psychiatry of Relationships - ADDENDUM

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Sep 2 06:37:00 EST 2002


to LAY FOLKS who might be reading-along:

Please don't misconstrue the stuff I'm discussing.

I'm not talking about Neurosurgery.

Neurosurgeons know the Neuroanatomy within the scope of what they do [treat injuries, aneurisms, hemorhages, excise tumors, etc.]. They are assisted by the very-best technology [typically, mapping-out surgery beforehand] and staffs, have hands that're a cross between diamond-cutter and miniaturist-artist.

The stuff I'm discussing is other than that in which Neurosurgeons are involved.

Discussion 'trimmed'.

However, Psychologists [who are non-Medical Professionals] need to understand the neural toology and its functioning.

Discussion expanded.

ken
    Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
    Doctors Consider Diagnosis for 'Ill' Relationships, By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, September 1, 2002; Page A01 
    
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21469-2002Aug31.html
    
    If the goal discussed in the article is to educate folks with respect to prejudice toward the familiar, this's OK.
    
    But why not begin doing what needs to be done within [adequately-expanded] Neuroscience Departments, including those within Medical Schools, then Academia in general? The applicabilatiy of an understanding of the neural topology and its functioning is perfectly-general, after all.
     
    If the 'goal' discussed in the article is to declare folks 'ill' when they're only victims of Ignorance, then such is not only unacceptable, it's a Lie.
    
    Folks aren't 'ill' if they've just not learned this or that.
    
    The thing to do in the case of folks who've just not learned this or that upon which their well-being depends is to make it possible for them to learn this or that upon which their well-being depends.
    
    When it's the case that everyone's well-being depends upon the degree to which folks learn this or that, then there's a group-wise rationale for digging-right-in, and getting-on with such, isn't there?
    
    Yup.
    
    If the Medical Profession chooses to 'dig-right-in' helping folks through the learning, that's OK, but, first, the Medical Profession has to come to terms with what's in the neural topology. The Medical Profession has to go back to school itself.
    
    That's the 'difficult' stuff that I've been discussing. What's in the neural topology just isn't being taught in Neuroscience programs, and it's unacceptable that, just because the neural topology hasn't been taught in Neuroscience programs, "it shall not be taught in neuroscience programs".
    
    The problem has been prejudice toward the familiar [that which has been handed-down from Professor to Student [future Professor] within Neuroscience programs, including those in Medical School.
     
    So, that's the first 'relationship' that needs fixin', no?
     
    Yup.
     
    K. P. Collins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020902/93a59c49/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list