FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1964090892> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1964090892 endingPage "230" @default.
• W1964090892 startingPage "220" @default.
• W1964090892 abstract "MODELS FOR PSYCHIATRY: ICONS OR EFFIGIES? HELEN L. MORRISON* Introduction Man, like science, attempts to explain the world in terms of concepts. Science, unlike man, demands systematization of these concepts and endeavors to study their interrelationships. The science of psychiatry, in its search for a comprehensive theory of the realities of man, has often been characterized by its monolithic separatist postures [1] which have demanded rigid metapsychological borderlines. This paper will discuss one process of theory making in psychiatry. The major emphasis of this paper is on the use of models in our science. A discussion of animal models used in the study of human psychopathology will serve as examples of psychiatric model building. This work will conclude by addressing those issues which surround the uncritical acceptance of oversimplified , untested theories of the structure of behavior. Our current science belies the theoretical tradition and heritage ofour early researchers. Freud emphasized the continually developing and changing entity of our concepts of the mind and warned against a hardened , inflexible approach to its study. Blum notes that piecemeal theories tend to foster shortsightedness and demands that we move from a narrow, dead-ended view of behavior [2]. We have often been unable to accept the goal of science. Science attempts to unify concepts from many disciplines and demands a flexibility not often found in our field. As a result, the use of untestable metapsychological concepts has hampered the scientific understanding of the syndromes in psychiatry [S]. Over the course of the past 40 years, scientific methodology has become synonymous with biological investigation. Early attempts to systematize the study of pathological behavior by utilizing a direct experimental approach foundered in empirical untestability and loose con- *Address: 919 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611. & 1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved 003 1-5982/82/2502-0253$01 .00 220 I Helen L. Morrison ¦ ModekforPsychiatry jecture. Theoretical reductionism is convenient only in its focus on one area ofstudy. It fails to take into account the multiplicity ofvariables and their interactions in the complex formation ofbehavior [4, pp. 1-10]. We could not account for variations in perspective. In our search for conceptualizations (mistakenly viewed as ultimate realities), we imposed an untenable certainty for the way things are to be [5]. We lost sight of the synthetic view. In our theorizing we stressed coverage rather than consistency . Psychiatry, like quantum physics, found itself in the same causal boat afloat on a probabilistic sea [6]. In attempting to formulate the goals of a comprehensive theory ofthe mind, earlier philosophical psychology and common sense needed to give way to the building of psychological theory based on experimental data [7-9]. Hebb [10] set forth goals for theory building but found himself working on a still shaky biological foundation. Theory did not provide us with an objective and fundamental analysis of behavior, and psychiatry turned to the laboratory and empirical scrutiny. Communication within and among orientations once again demanded description [11] and, thus, experimental data. The exploration of studies in behavior began with concepts. These were basic descriptive categories which were used not only in the theoretical sense but also in the observational sense. Observation implied an experience which rested on theoretical assumptions. Theoretical concepts , in order to be tested, demanded operationalization. Areas of investigation lacking any prior concepts lacked structure and continued to be elusive and blank. We searched for explanations of the intangible in terms of the tangible and used what we knew to define the unknown. The study of parallels offered by objects were used in attempts to organize the confusion. We attempted to measure concepts by converting them to variables. Once this was begun, there were attempts to relate these variables and to find their connections. The development of normative theories of behavior needed to be capable of empirical application . Experimentation aided in the derivation of the content of normative theories [12]. Models definitions The bridge between theory and experimental data became the model. A model is the assumptions of the theory and an intuitive basis for study. The model, an imperfect copy, permitted dealing with theories which were in the process of growth. As heuristic devices, models make it possible to make..." @default.
• W1964090892 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1964090892 creator A5000422620 @default.
• W1964090892 date "1982-01-01" @default.
• W1964090892 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1964090892 title "Models for Psychiatry: Icons or Effigies?" @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1519496632 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1559817689 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W157358782 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1576711330 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1717383561 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1818886123 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W186411747 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1966439420 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1969466593 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1970023394 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1971875228 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1980211269 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1981491361 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1986007021 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1989900695 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1993961818 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W1996429333 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2005664188 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2015055898 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2020011498 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2020787539 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2034362833 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2046326083 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2052845364 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2055769190 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2056994786 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2058607151 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2059676854 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2062320451 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2068468892 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2094819641 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2117124138 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2128969865 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2144538597 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2278503234 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2323347049 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2327484486 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2327983342 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2403514512 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2404364247 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2409153676 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2415596454 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2433549796 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2479420351 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2495400385 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2515951737 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2797787915 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W2802006459 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W351644314 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W41754221 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W562051535 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W562450330 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W566129818 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W584708829 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W594806246 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W629118703 @default.
• W1964090892 cites W950082919 @default.
• W1964090892 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1982.0042" @default.
• W1964090892 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7133953" @default.
• W1964090892 hasPublicationYear "1982" @default.
• W1964090892 type Work @default.
• W1964090892 sameAs 1964090892 @default.
• W1964090892 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1964090892 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1964090892 hasAuthorship W1964090892A5000422620 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C110099512 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C2780598303 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C105795698 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C110099512 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C111472728 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C111919701 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C138885662 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C144024400 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C15744967 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C188147891 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C202444582 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C2780598303 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C33923547 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C41008148 @default.
• W1964090892 hasConceptScore W1964090892C9652623 @default.

• next