The Emotional diagnostician
I was listening to the NPR program, The People’s Pharmacy this morning, February 10, 2018. Their featured guest was Dr. Lisa Sanders who is a physician who also writes about diagnostic challenges for the New York Times. I especially appreciated the fact that she stressed that the distinction between physical and mental is not really accurate. Although a symptom such as anxiety might originate with a thought, that thought triggers a physical reaction. The thought itself is a physical process. At any rate, prior to listening to this program this morning I was thinking about often we consider ourselves emotional diagnosticians based on what we perceive as cues. The cues might be sound, a look, skin tone, smell, what a person is wearing or the setting in which we encounter the person. The tendency is to quickly process the cues, make a diagnosis, and then possibly make a decision about how to treat that person.
I am reminded of the report in the New Testament when the disciples observed Jesus talking to someone they knew to be a prostitute. Just knowing her history was enough information for the disciples to decide how to diagnose her character. That was also enough information for them to diagnose whatever emotions they might have thought she was expressing.
Those of us who have cared for a pre-speech infant know the frustration of trying to guess what the child is attempting to communicate, especially if they are expressing some form of distress. We might check:
It may be just that the child wants to be held or to join everyone else who is awake.
My point is that we do not usually assume that we can diagnose the problem based on the perceived emotion of the infant. Yet, as the child grows and eventually becomes an adult, we might think that we have become a diagnostic expert. If we perceive anger we might decide that the person is just a disagreeable person to be avoided at all cost (we might even have a more unkind term for them). We might decide that they have been drinking or using drugs. If the person is also a certain color or have certain tattoos, we might decide that they are dangerous. If a person has a smile or is laughing following the death of a relative we might assume that they do not care if the person died and are a sociopath.
One could give numerous examples of how easy we diagnose what is going on with someone emotionally. We might want to consider the possibility that we do so in a very unscientific way. Most of the time we have no idea what is going on with a person. Even if they tell us we might unconsciously fill in the blanks and come up with our own diagnosis.
All scientists including physicians know that, at best, they can only make educated guesses about a diagnosis. Perhaps we need to practice listening and observing with an open heart and mind using the third eye of self-knowledge. Even then we would do well to keep our diagnosis very tentative.
Written February 10, 2018
I was listening to the NPR program, The People’s Pharmacy this morning, February 10, 2018. Their featured guest was Dr. Lisa Sanders who is a physician who also writes about diagnostic challenges for the New York Times. I especially appreciated the fact that she stressed that the distinction between physical and mental is not really accurate. Although a symptom such as anxiety might originate with a thought, that thought triggers a physical reaction. The thought itself is a physical process. At any rate, prior to listening to this program this morning I was thinking about often we consider ourselves emotional diagnosticians based on what we perceive as cues. The cues might be sound, a look, skin tone, smell, what a person is wearing or the setting in which we encounter the person. The tendency is to quickly process the cues, make a diagnosis, and then possibly make a decision about how to treat that person.
I am reminded of the report in the New Testament when the disciples observed Jesus talking to someone they knew to be a prostitute. Just knowing her history was enough information for the disciples to decide how to diagnose her character. That was also enough information for them to diagnose whatever emotions they might have thought she was expressing.
Those of us who have cared for a pre-speech infant know the frustration of trying to guess what the child is attempting to communicate, especially if they are expressing some form of distress. We might check:
- To see if baby’s diaper needs changing.
- To make sure something is not physically causing them discomfort such as a toy, which has rolled under them.
- To see if they have a temperature.
It may be just that the child wants to be held or to join everyone else who is awake.
My point is that we do not usually assume that we can diagnose the problem based on the perceived emotion of the infant. Yet, as the child grows and eventually becomes an adult, we might think that we have become a diagnostic expert. If we perceive anger we might decide that the person is just a disagreeable person to be avoided at all cost (we might even have a more unkind term for them). We might decide that they have been drinking or using drugs. If the person is also a certain color or have certain tattoos, we might decide that they are dangerous. If a person has a smile or is laughing following the death of a relative we might assume that they do not care if the person died and are a sociopath.
One could give numerous examples of how easy we diagnose what is going on with someone emotionally. We might want to consider the possibility that we do so in a very unscientific way. Most of the time we have no idea what is going on with a person. Even if they tell us we might unconsciously fill in the blanks and come up with our own diagnosis.
All scientists including physicians know that, at best, they can only make educated guesses about a diagnosis. Perhaps we need to practice listening and observing with an open heart and mind using the third eye of self-knowledge. Even then we would do well to keep our diagnosis very tentative.
Written February 10, 2018
RSS Feed