Objectivity or subjectivity - which is the better approach?
Slicer reckons it depends on the setting; but often the choice is muddled.
Mood is subjective, but may be objectively obvious, and arguably disorders of mood should be treated based on objective data on what works. Taste is subjective; we don't all like the same things - take mushrooms for example. Not everyone likes chomping on fungi but we don't know objectively whether they taste the same to different people (whether or not they like the taste(s)). As the saying goes, "one man's meat is another man's poison." That's certainly true for mushrooms - but could some be therapeutic rather than toxic? It seems that they have potential for treating mood disorders such as depression.
Tho' they have to be special mushrooms - magic ones even! (Having been accused of believing in magic space pixies, Slicer may as well go for broke - toadstools/mushrooms, psychedelic visions..... :-D)
Shrooms!! And a lack of objectivity could be getting in the way of finding out if they're any good...
In the last few days, there has been a rising chorus of calls for less tight restraints on the scientific study of 'mind-altering' drugs. Amongst those leading the charge is former government drugs adviser, Professor David Nutt. He has stated that magic mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy, cannabis and mephedrone all have potential therapeutic applications but that current restrictions are discouraging investigators from studying them - restrictions related to them being deemed illegal drugs. Is the government out of touch with the scientific community?
Richard Branson sits alongside former UN general secretary Kofi Annan as a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. This week he was giving evidence to the Home Affairs select committee, and stating that current policy was losing the 'war on drugs.' He pressed for regulation of currently illicit substances, and treatment rather than criminalisation. Is the government out of touch with the world of 'recreational' drug users?
"I'm a psilocybin pony
You're a flick fandango phoney
It's a sticky contradiction
It's a thing you call creation
Everything is science fiction
and I ought to know."
I'm In Touch With Your World, The Cars.
Not one of their better songs, but it serves as a useful decoration here. Back in the day, a whole genre of music sprang up which emulated the effect of 'tripping.'
The Byrds, Dylan and the Beatles were amongst those associated with the trend in songs like Eight Miles High, Visions of Johanna, and Day Tripper. But something else was going on at the same time, which was less forward in the public 'consciousness.'
In the 1950s & '60s, drugs such as psilocybin (C12H17N2O4P, one of the main hallucinogenic components of 'magic' mushrooms) and LSD were studied in around 40,000 patients, resulting in about 1000 published papers. However when these drugs became regarded as detrimental in society, such research stopped. Prof Nutt was involved with one of the few studies which has been performed in recent times - it was published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In this study, healthy volunteers were given intravenous infusions of psilocybin while they had Magnetic Resonance imaging of their brains. One of the volunteers said it was like an intense, spiritual experience, an existential experience, that his whole sense of self dissolved and he only existed as a concept.
Slicer has commented before on the harm done by drug abuse (whether legal or illicit substances are involved). Yet, there is good reason to think that psilocybin is worthy of research in patients with depression - a devastating disease, not just a feeling - as the hallucinogen has effects on the same neural pathways as the natural neurotransmitter serotonin, pathways which can usefully be manipulated to treat depression. ('Prozac' is one of several 'SSRIs' which work via these pathways too, but in a different way). However the latest study turned up a few surprises. Prof Nutt explains:
"Psychedelics are thought of as 'mind-expanding' drugs so it has commonly been assumed that they work by increasing brain activity, but surprisingly, we found that psilocybin actually caused activity to decrease in areas that have the densest connections with other areas. These hubs constrain our experience of the world and keep it orderly. We now know that deactivating these regions leads to a state in which the world is experienced as strange."
(Interesting wee version here by Katie Melua)
One of the "hubs" referred to by Prof Nutt is the Posterior Cingulate Cortex, which is thought to be important in consciousness and self-identity. Readers may remember hearing Prof Nutt's name before... and we'll come back to that shortly. In the meantime, the search for objective data in territory responsible for subjective experience set Slicer a-thinkin'...
The notion of "qualia" highlights the disconnect between objectivity and subjective experience. For example, how does one person know that another perceives the colour red, or a particular fragrance, or the taste of mushrooms, in the same way? Qualia have been described as "ineffable" - incapable of being understood, or conveyed, by any way other than direct experience.
"The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."
Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Prize-winning physicist & theoretical biologist.
So... how in touch are we with each other's 'worlds'? Are qualia legitimate 'realities,' or just an admission that objectivity may not be possible in some areas of experience? If they are realities, are they potentially different realities between individuals? It's a moot point, so let's move on. How do we begin to tease apart the pluses and minuses of objectivity?
Objectivity is extremely valuable; necessary in fact in many arenas. Justice and fairness require it. If everyone's out pursuing his/her subjective needs or 'rights' or desires, the strong will succeed at the expense of the weak unless someone or something stands in the way. Isn't it a sense that this is lacking in society, economically, which has prompted the global Occupy Movement? Someone or some process must weigh up objectively the relative needs, benefits and potentially competing rights, and be sufficiently influential to ensure justice prevails. No surprise then that economic fairness was a key focus in Barack Obama's State of the Union speech this week. Objectivity is also the fuel on which the engine of scientific advancement runs.
A physician arguing vociferously for funding of the best possible (often most expensive) treatment for his/her patient, in line with the good ol' Hippocratic Oath, may be trampling roughshod all over the needs of other patients who aren't his patients but who nonetheless deserve a fair share of the finite healthcare resource. This is a strong reason why some medics need to function as managers - to determine relative need more objectively than might otherwise occur. However, healthcare professionals also need to be able to empathise with those requiring healthcare, and Slicer contends that sometimes this requires setting objectivity aside.
Objectivity doesn't help in getting alongside someone (unless it's agreement on the value of objectivity :-j) - it can get in the way of compassion, and it may not be possible to discern what is going on in someone's life, never mind empathise, whilst remaining objective. Pointing out that someone's recently deceased parent or sibling "had a good innings" (exceeded the average life expectancy of the society they live in), whilst that may be objectively true, is hardly helpful at such a time. The bereaved individual may have no less a sense of loss than someone who has lost a loved one 'prematurely.'
What about in the arts? Does objectivity stifle creativity? Is "artistic temperament" another way of expressing a lack of consistency/objectivity that fosters the creative process? Great art is often due to the artist's personal take on his/her subject; and the observer/listener's interpretation of/connection with what's presented. A successful musician who recently held a songwriting workshop in Belfast suggested (analogous to the priorities of house purchasing - location, location, location) the songwriter's top 3 priorities were empathy, empathy, empathy.
Humans seem to be gifted differently in abilities of empathy, compassion, creativity, mercy and justice, and may not share the same priorities in the same circumstances, as a result of their various personality 'types.' The best known example of describing the latter is Myers-Briggs' method. Perhaps this kind of difference in personality type is also why some people don't 'get' science. TJ types tend to demonstrate logic; FJ types empathy. J (judging) types prefer matters settled; P (perceiving) types prefer to postpone decisions and want to keep things open.* All 'types' have something useful to offer in the grand scheme of things.
However, when it comes to matters of science, objectivity is vital alongside expert interpretation. Politicians obviously see the need to convene scientific advisory groups to inform policy, but everyone starts to get a bit twitchy whenever they cherrypick the advice that such expert groups give them, for political ends - which brings us back to Professor Nutt.
You may remember that Prof Nutt was chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a group of unpaid volunteers, with expert status, convened by UK government to provide objective and informed advice on the relative harm of drugs prone to misuse. Such advice was needed to inform government policy. When the then Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked Prof Nutt for pointing out that Advisory Council's view was not being heeded, there was a huge furore, and loud complaint from other Ministers, Lords, and eminent scientists. Many considered that scientific advice was being selectively chosen to justify policy, and that policy to which government was already committed (for whatever undisclosed reasons) was not going to change, regardless of the informed scientific view. A stream of resignations from the Council followed the sacking, and Prof Nutt commented:
Prof Colin Blakemore, a previous Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council and a scientific advisory committee Chair himself, stated that the government had damaged confidence in how they handled scientific information and expert advice, and not just in the matter of drugs but across the board. (Remember the allegations that government "sexed up" the Intelligence Services' view of the likelihood and scale of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction,' on the back of which the UK government took us into war in Iraq?) A group of scientists including Lord Rees of Ludlow, President of the Royal Society, sent correspondence which stated that Ministers dilute advice that might be uncomfortable or embarrassing, and there was too much use of legally-binding non-disclosure agreements which keeps secret the scientific advice on public policy issues.
What was the government response to this widespread outcry? Unfortunately it was well described in the Cars' song quoted earlier "You get the diplomatic treatment, you get the force fed future..." The government's reaction was to introduce a Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to remove the legal requirement for scientists to be on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs! Colin Blakemore pointed out that it "could become filled with 'yes men'. He recalled the words of Barack Obama just before his inauguration: "We should listen to the scientists even when what they say is inconvenient."
To round up, we need to be judicious in when to use objective methodology, and when to be in touch with the subjective needs of others; and government needs ensure that its policies do not get in the way of important research AND to be honest and transparent regarding when it is using objective scientific data to set policy, and when it's using something else...
But, as human beings, what we feel subjectively about situations and about other people is hugely important to us. Slicer figures that one gifted singer-songwriter succeeded in creating empathy for all who find themselves in a Nutt-Johnson situation. Has anyone ever expressed better than this, in song, the frustration felt when someone is out of touch with your world? Here's a tender and nuanced Bryan Ferry cover (no decent Dylan one available on youtube - and Slicer has previously posted his Bobness applied to the meeting of worlds):
"I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is
To see you"
Positively 4th Street, Dylan.
*Slicer is an ENTJ, if you're interested, and hadn't guessed already
Excellent blog covering a wide range of disciplines and raising many questions; I shall confine my comments to Magic Mushrooms and to the potential benefits of scientific research in that area. I believe that Prof. Nutt should be allowed to conduct further enquiry, because of the possible medical, therapeutic and psychological breakthroughs that could be achieved.
There are two reasons why this is controversial. Both are paradigms and emanate from the same conservative desire for control; one political and the other moral.
Politically, the last thing any government is going to fund is another Tim O’Leary telling us all to Turn Tune In and Drop Out with the potential revolutionary consequences that may result.
Morally, even libertines such as myself hesitate from urging my teenage children to take acid and discover their inner Aztec. Our society, and the ethics which bind it, is based upon boundaries with a historical narrative which helps the less enlightened proletariat keep the wheel turning. We have a duty of care to stop people coming into contact with information that will fry their mind irreparably. We cannot allow free thinking to get out of the reserve and go viral.
This however, does not mean that we should not carefully explore these chemicals (or the more emotive term drugs) - under careful, but transparent, supervision - using the objective scientific method.
Subjectively: I have in my youth, but not recently, experimented with psychedelics over many years and have travelled widely in search of the ultimate high. There is no doubt in my mind – or whats left of it- that psylocibin has the potential to heal or strengthen mental and spiritual capacity. It is not merely a recreational drug, nor is imbibing it predestined to lead to psychosis and a spiral of nihilistic addiction.
Unfortunately the political, moral and subjective nature of its effects ensure that it is never discussed rationally. Celts, druids, hippies, junkies pyschos are the labels applied to something less understood than Frankenstein . Suicide and Freudian images of surreal despair are what the closed minded think of when mushrooms are mentioned by the bourgeoisie while happily chewing on their valiaum, slurping their cola and taking a big drag of nicotine.
I didn’t choose that, I chose something different…I chose life
My subjective experience of shrooms is sitting on a beach in Cushendall watching the sun come up, the embers crackling, a feeling of wellbeing, an insight into the purpose and meaning of creation combined with a desire to explore learn and contribute to that great project divined by the architect of the universe.
Wandering through the ancient forests of Ireland being hypersensitive to the noises, smells ,subtlety of the colours and the fragility of life in what seemed like a magic land of health happiness, something to be preserved and cherished.
Laughing spontaneously and losing the sub conscious anxiety which is attached to any young person. Making love, giving and receiving sensual pleasure. Contemplating colour sound and smell for what seemed like an age but was probably an eternity. Wondering lonely in a cloud but immediately being enveloped by other trippers in love joy happiness.
But lets not get too idealistic: we must not confuse psilocybin with heroin/coke/ice as unfortunately the damage done by a cocktail of drugs leaves many dead mentally and ultimately physically. We must continue the fight against the vice like addiction of opiates and the empty lives that result; do not not throw the Buddha out with the bathwater.
Posted by: A Facebook User | 02/01/2012 at 12:03 PM