The primary role of evolutionary psychiatry, in my view, is to counter the analytical dogma - psychodynamic theory (actually, an assumption) that "mental illnesses arise from unsolved conscious conflicts [and traumas] in early childhood." We really can't have both ways: either children are born with a complete set of genetic tools (shaped by tens o of thousands of years of evolution) with all evolutionary adaptations and vulnerabilities OR they are born "tabula rasa," then parents/caretakers 'mold' them into either healthy or mentally ill adults. A solid and scientific evolutionary theory must confront the apparent absurdity of the latter proposal.
The biggest obstacle to the evolutionary psychiatric model lies in the popular classification, which excludes the key organ from the discussion. There is no mention of the brain anywhere in the DSM. The brain, however, is where all evolutionary (and psychopathological) changes occur. Only after introducing a classification based on dysfunctional neurocircuits might we be able to incorporate evolutionary psychiatry into the clinical scheme.
Presently, the evolutionary bases of mental disorders have limited practical therapeutic applications. We don't treat etiology, not only in psychiatry but also in the rest of medicine. We don't even treat pathology. The best we can do, with the available tools, is to restore lost or diminished functionality and reduce distress. Evolutionary psychiatry's contribution to treating psychiatric disorders is minimal at best. Still, it is a challenging intellectual exercise and helps make sense of mental diseases.
Lastly, I was unpleasantly puzzled by Dr. Troisi's words: "Medical curricula can take advantage of individual differences to produce rich and varied doctors rather than continue unconsciously in favour of standardization." I would like to know what compelled him to say that.
The primary role of evolutionary psychiatry, in my view, is to counter the analytical dogma - psychodynamic theory (actually, an assumption) that "mental illnesses arise from unsolved conscious conflicts [and traumas] in early childhood." We really can't have both ways: either children are born with a complete set of genetic tools (shaped by tens o of thousands of years of evolution) with all evolutionary adaptations and vulnerabilities OR they are born "tabula rasa," then parents/caretakers 'mold' them into either healthy or mentally ill adults. A solid and scientific evolutionary theory must confront the apparent absurdity of the latter proposal.
The biggest obstacle to the evolutionary psychiatric model lies in the popular classification, which excludes the key organ from the discussion. There is no mention of the brain anywhere in the DSM. The brain, however, is where all evolutionary (and psychopathological) changes occur. Only after introducing a classification based on dysfunctional neurocircuits might we be able to incorporate evolutionary psychiatry into the clinical scheme.
Presently, the evolutionary bases of mental disorders have limited practical therapeutic applications. We don't treat etiology, not only in psychiatry but also in the rest of medicine. We don't even treat pathology. The best we can do, with the available tools, is to restore lost or diminished functionality and reduce distress. Evolutionary psychiatry's contribution to treating psychiatric disorders is minimal at best. Still, it is a challenging intellectual exercise and helps make sense of mental diseases.
Lastly, I was unpleasantly puzzled by Dr. Troisi's words: "Medical curricula can take advantage of individual differences to produce rich and varied doctors rather than continue unconsciously in favour of standardization." I would like to know what compelled him to say that.