Seeing the brain as a computer, has great value in teaching students how information processing biases, such: ‘as all or nothing thinking’, ‘personalisation’, ‘mental filter’ etc can create distress [See Scott (2016)]. However, metaphors can be pushed too far.
Probably the most glaring example of this, is in the use of ‘arrested information’ to explain ongoing debility post-trauma. Arrested information processing is an article of faith in CBT orthodoxy and EMDR necessitating, it is believed, trauma-focused treatment (TFT). Consequently when TFT doesn’t work there is dismay, for clinicians and clients. Unfortunately, TFT not working is commonplace. For veterans ,the recovery rate is 30-40%, and for civilian trauma, on average, about 50% [See Scott (2022)].
Understanding ‘arrested information processing’ is quite simple when it comes to a computer. I might fail to print out this post because I have failed to press the ‘print’ button, or I’ve forgotten to put paper in the printer or perhaps the cable from my printer to the my desktop has become loose. But applying this concept to the concerns of a traumatised bomb victim, would strike most people as ‘decidedly odd’. It is possible to socialise people to improbable ideas, if their livelihoods depend on it. But such ideas are still prone to evoke a ‘give us a break’ gut reaction. Which can nevertheless be overridden by peer or organisational demands. In Scott (2022)I have argued that the centrality accorded to the trauma is a more plausible explanation of ongoing debility post-trauma. Further it has user-friendly treatment implications, thereby easing dissemination efforts. Despite this there is no evidence of any paradigm shift, no consideration of the counterfactual, this looks suspiciously like dogmatism.
Whilst ‘arrested information processing’ is one of the by-products of identifying the brain as a computer, there are further ‘harms’. The implication is that if the individual could rid themselves of such ‘biases’ they would be happy. But such biases are also the property of those without a psychological disorder [See Daniel Kahneman’s work]. It is difficult to escape thinking that the therapeutic goal is t o create the ‘rational’ person much esteemed in the Enlightenment. Here we run into philosophical trouble, as no computer can tell a person what they ought to do. The computer might describe what ‘is’ e.g the proportion of children in poverty, but not what ought to be done about it. The ethical judgements are in a different category, to the computers concerns – as are judgements about who to reverence and what would constitute purposive behaviour. Indeed anything that makes us human is outside the orbit of a computer.
These considerations appear abstract, but a common client presentation is a depressed client with physical injuries. One could embark on the standard activity scheduling and the likelihood of it improving mood. But oftentimes this doesn’t get off the ground. Here the purposive dimension could be important, if historically he/she had always thought it important to ‘give people the time of day’ this could be re-ignited to fuel the standard CBT therapy, this is going outside the rational but is not irrational, just human. CBT may be the rocket but purpose is the blue touch paper.
Dr Mike Scott