According to the BBC (and many others)...Libido problems 'brain not mind'The research in question (which hasn't been published yet) has been covered very well over at The Neurocritic. Basically the authors took some women with a diagnosis of "Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder" (HSDD), and some normal women, put them in an fMRI scanner and showed them porn. Different areas of the brain lit up.
Scans appear to show differences in brain functioning in women with persistently low sex drives, claim researchers.The US scientists behind the study suggest it provides solid evidence that the problem can have a physical origin.
So what? For starters we have no idea if these differences are real or not because the study only had a tiny 7 normal women, although strangely, it included a full 19 women with HSDD. Maybe they had difficulty finding women with healthy appetites in Detroit?
Either way, a study is only as big as its smallest group so this was tiny. We're also not told anything about the stats they used so for all we know they could have used the kind that give you "results" if you use them on a dead fish.
But let's grant that the results are valid. This doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We know the women differ in their sexual responses - because that's the whole point of the study. And we know that this must be something to do with their brain, because the brain is where sexual responses, and every other mental event, happen.
So we already know that HSDD "has a physical origin", but only in the sense that everything does; being a Democrat or a Republican has a physical origin; being Christian or Muslim has a physical origin; speaking French as opposed to English has a physical origin; etc. etc. None of which is interesting or surprising in the slightest.
The point is that the fact that something is physical doesn't stop it being also psychological. Because psychology happens in the brain. Suppose you see a massive bear roaring and charging towards you, and as a result, you feel scared. The fear has a physical basis, and plenty of physical correlates like raised blood pressure, adrenaline release, etc.
But if someone asks "Why are you scared?", you would answer "Because there's a bear about to eat us", and you'd be right. Someone who came along and said, no, your anxiety is purely physical - I can measure all these physiological differences between you and a normal person - would be an idiot (and eaten).
Now sometimes anxiety is "purely physical" i.e. if you have a seizure which affects certain parts of the temporal lobe, you may experience panic and anxiety as a direct result of the abnormal brain activity. In that case the fear has a physiological cause, as well as a physiological basis.
Maybe "HSDD" has a physiological cause. I'm sure it sometimes does; it would be very weird if it didn't in some cases because physiology can cause all kinds of problems. But fMRI scans don't tell us anything about that.
Link: I've written about HSDD before in the context of flibanserin, a drug which was supposed to treat it (but didn't). Also, as always, British humour website The Daily Mash hit this one on the head...
12 comments:
I think I agree with all your points about the weird part. However there may be 2 advantages if there is a causality and not just a simple correlate:
1) which part of the brain's activity correlates with sexual desire? how does it fit with our current understanding of that region?
2) can it actually predict the behaviour or not? I am not sure if they have done this or not but I am not really sure if one needs to 'predict' in this case.
I read the BBC report, and thought they missed the mark a bit. Though the scans may show differences, that information seems self evident. If one of the (SEVEN) women with normal sex drive are exposed to erotic material, they are likely AROUSED. The women with HSDD are presumably NOT aroused, because they are not interested in sexual activity (and may even feel anxiety). Wouldn't the arousal/no arousal also result in different imaging results? So though they observed a difference, the difference could be secondary to the "emotional response"...right?
And my big toe does stuff too. So does my dick (sometimes). As well as my ass (a lot of times). So what is the point???
Of course, if the brain scans findings are replicated in the wider population, and, someone develops a brain model that explains the condition, and, that provides a new insight or mechanism for treatment, and, hypoactive sexuality needs treating...
There's a funny all-or-nothing - or dumber and dumb - style of thinking in this kind of stuff. One benefit of any brain scan is that it put the old non-physical sickness of the soul psychological model out in the garbage, which is good. Unfortunately that funny gets replaced with a possibly even more stupid "problem solved - it's the brain making these images", forgetting that we need a real model not just some hi-tech correlates to do anything useful.
It sure takes some people a long time to get this point, doesn't it?
Anonymous #1: Exactly. Also, it's possible that there group differences in behaviour (squirming in embarrassment? Sniggering at the crap quality of the erotic stimuli?) etc.
spike: Well the areas they found were all over the brain and most of them were not known for their links to sexual desire or indeed any kind of desire, see the Neurocritic post for details.
However even if they had found blobs in the most desire-y regions (i.e. the ventral striatum etc.) - that still wouldn't tell us much because we already knew they had differences in desire.
Apart from the continuing, and almost beguiling obsession with brain scans (ooh look - different bits light up on the screen, ooh arrh), your follow up comment reminds us all too well of the never-ending commitment to "duh research": the researchers already knew the women experienced different levels of desire - the women told them so!
Bit like Myer Brigss and other personality tests, entirely circular - someone is shown to be an "extrovert" based on their self-assessment as being ... an extrovert!
Sheesh.
I put one foot in front of the other: my brain made me do it.
Anon the point is you're gay.
What's what what?! A bear in the bedroom? That might be abit too kinky for my liking. But I approve of sex studies and demand open access to that.
Hey Jim: So you think "the old non-physical sickness of the soul psychological model out in the garbage" is passe??? LOL. What a nut you are. Does the brain determine mind? Yes, to a point. Does the mind determine brain? Yes to a point. It goes both ways. Have you ever heard of the placebo effect? Or conversion disorders? Or Cognitive therapy? Are you a Neanderthal?
Obviously he must have a soul. Have you ever watched Pokeman? Do you know who Pikachu is? He can be more effective than CBT sometimes. Point being a theory changes, evolves etc. a soul is an esoteric intuition driving every essence of being to etc. it don't belong in the brain scanning argument. Maybe it's time to stop justifying your ferocious beastly procreation, and stick to missionary or even abstinence. Are you frothing? Salivating? Come into the light.
jim: Sure, if the brain scans lead to a better understanding of the condition, then that's great - but it's a big if. For example, if you scanned the brains of French people and English people and showed them French and English words, you would find differences - more left-sided activation in Broca's and Wernicke's areas when people were looking at words they understood, etc.
That would tell you nothing whatsoever about why people speak the language they do. It just maps out the consequences of it.
It might tell you something about the brain in general, but it tells us nothing interesting about French or English.
NC's position seems similar to the question: Is the sky blue?
Yes, we pereive it as blue.
No, the atmosphere is colored by our vision system.
These are two (rhetorically) contradictory answer but both right.
The "bear" answer is right if the goal is to get away - now! A brain answer however, is more generalizable and useful across, people, situations and for people who run away when there is no bear.
Playing to the intuitive, face validity of the scenario is a rhetorical tactic playing to common sense. zzzzzzzz
Post a Comment