What You Can Change _. And What You Can't - Martin E. Seligman [138]
5. For a meta-analysis (composite analysis of many studies), see K. Eppley, A. Abrams, and J. Shear, “Differential Effects of Relaxation Techniques on Trait Anxiety: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 45 (1989): 957–74. In their review of seventy studies, TM does best, exceeding progressive relaxation and other relaxation and meditation techniques, which all reduce trait anxiety as well. Recent evidence also suggests benefits of meditation for even the severely anxious patient: See J. Kabat-Zinn, A. Massion, J. Kristeller, et al., “Effectiveness of Meditation-Based Stress Reduction Program in the Treatment of Anxiety Disorders,” American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (1992): 937–43. See also G. Butler, M. Fennell, P. Robson, and M. Gelder, “Comparison of Behavior Therapy and Cognitive Behavior Therapy in the Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59 (1991): 167–75.
6. My one warning about meditation and relaxation concerns depression. I do not recommend either of these techniques if you are highly depressed (see chapter 8). Both relaxation and meditation work by lowering autonomic nervous system arousal. Highly depressed people (who are not agitated) need autonomic rewing-up, and not dampening, since lowering arousal further can feed into their depression. Adverse effects of TM are not unknown, but the majority of practitioners report no adverse effects at all. See L. Otis, “Adverse Effects of Transcendental Meditation,” in D. Shapiro and R. Walsh, eds., Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (New York: Aldine, 1984), 201–8.
CHAPTER 5 Catastrophic Thinking
1. You might wonder about my choice of sex for case histories. When there is a clear prevalence for females, as there is for panic (two to one, women versus men), I choose she. If there is a clear prevalence for males, I use he. If there is no difference, I will use he and note the prevalence.
2 It has become fashionable to claim that the distinction between the biological and the psychological is not meaningful. It is all a pseudoquestion of historic interest only, some writers tell us. Or we’re told that there is no deep distinction between mind and body. “Reductionists” tell us that all psychological events are ultimately biological, but that we just don’t know the biology of them yet. “Interactionists” tell us that all psychological events are just the interaction of environmental events and biology.
I plead agnosticism.
Both reductionism and interactionism are philosophical positions, unproven matters of faith. One or the other might turn out to be correct—in a thousand years. It may ultimately turn out, for example, that cognitive therapy works because it changes the trait of pessimism that is located in a presently unknown chemical pathway in the hippocampus. Such a possibility, however, is completely unhelpful to the consumer trying to decide if cognitive therapy or imipramine is the best thing for her depression now. Such a possibility is completely irrelevant to the scientist trying to find out now if pessimism is a risk factor for depression.
Right now, 1994, there are clear and useful distinctions between the biological and the psychological. Psychological events are measured at the molar level, the level of the whole intact person: Feelings, thoughts, traits, and behaviors are examples. Biological events don’t require a whole person for measurement; they are specified molecularly: Neural firings, endorphin changes, and dexamethasone suppression are examples. When something is primarily psychological, this means that it can be treated by interventions involving the whole person—cognitive therapy, psychoanalysis, hypnosis, behavior therapy, meditation, or day care, for example. When something is primarily biological, this means that intervention can successfully occur at the molecular level: drugs, surgery, or electroconvulsive shock, for example.
When someone tells you that there is no biological/psychological distinction, that the nature/nurture dispute