-
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Self-Critical Perfectionism Predicts Lower Cortisol Response to Experimental Stress in Cfs Patients
- Thread starter voner
- Start date
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
I very much doubt there is any truth to the psychologists' suggestions found in some of these studies that perfectionist / obsessive-compulsive traits somehow prevent ME/CFS patients from getting better. I think that is almost certainly a lot of nonsense.
Like most people here, I think the idea that your personality traits could underpin disease highly implausible. I don't go for this idea that mental traits can have a causal effect at the mental level in diseases like ME/CFS.
However, given that an association between ME/CFS and perfectionist / obsessive-compulsive traits appears to have been found, I think there may be a link between these conditions at the level of brain biology, but not at the mental level.
Personally though, I wish the psychologists would focus on mental symptoms that actually make life hard for ME/CFS patients, like the emotional hypersensitivity. Emotional hypersensitivity is something that many ME/CFS patients find a bit debilitating; whereas any perfectionist traits that some ME/CFS patients may have do not really seem to cause any problems or suffering.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
The studies I've looked at which claimed to show an association have all been very poor.
Given how CFS is often diagnosed, and how personality traits tend to be measured, you would expect some association with different traits and CFS simply because different people are likely to have different biases when completing questionnaires. Currently though, I'm not even convinced that they have good evidence of this, never-mind good evidence of an association between CFS and anything like 'perfectionism'. I think that a lot of the academic work on 'personality' has serious problems with it and we should be cautious about assuming any of it usefully reflects reality.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
If there were no association between a given disease and the various personality traits tested, you would expect the average value of a given personality trait to be the same as it is for the general healthy population.
But when in a given disease, the average value of a personality trait is different to that of the general population, that indicates an association between the disease and the personality trait.
It is not just ME/CFS that psychologists examine for personality trait deviations from the norm. OCD has been found to be more prevalent in multiple sclerosis, for example.
There has always been the question and criticism in psychology regarding what personality traits actually represent. Are they an arbitrary construct invented by psychologists, or do personality traits map onto some underlying neurological hardware in the brain?
To an extent, it does not really matter that much if they are arbitrary constructs; after all, each of us is a natural psychologist who creates our own personality trait constructs. For example, most of us would be able to gauge the level of aggressiveness in our friends. I have friends who are pretty aggressive, and others who are very laid back. But in order to make that observation, I have created my own aggression personality trait scale, based on my judgement of their behavior.
Whether the aggression personality trait arises from some underlying neurological hardware in the brain is not really my concern as a natural psychologist. Like many people, my main concern and goal in judging people's aggressiveness may be more to do with a desire to avoid say an aggressive confrontation. Thus we use personality traits in our judgement of others because of their social utility.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Only if you assume we're able to accurately identify these personality traits and accurately diagnose the disease.
It does seem that some personality questionnaires would be likely to class behavior and beliefs which are likely to be associated with chronic ill health (or other unusual life circumstances) as reflecting particular personality traits. To me this seems to be a problem. I think it's very difficult to come up with a simple and valid measure of something like 'personality'.
Also, it matters if the questionnaires used by psychologists are measuring something other than that which most people understand by terms like 'perfectionist personality traits'.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
Think about your own subjective judgements of people's personalities: you as a natural human psychologist will have all sorts of personality scales of your own that your measure other people on.
For example, you will certainly have in your mind a sense of the intelligence of another person, and could probably rank all your friends quite accuracy on a scale from say 1 to 5 for intelligence.
And you would probably be able to perform similar rankings for the other personality qualities of your friends have, say their level of compassion, empathy, diligence, friendliness, loyalty, courage, honesty, and so forth. There are almost an infinite number of ways you could measure personality, and most of us as natural human psychologists will judge others using hundreds if not thousands personality traits — and often using personality traits we ourselves invent.
Yes, you would hope that personality trait questionnaires would be validated against people's normal subjective judgement of a person's personality.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
That's quite different to devising a valid questionnaire though. (The idea of assessing different groups of patients in this way does make it seem quite clearly like a form of bigotry imo)
Anyway, I'm wary of assuming I'm able to meaningfully assess those around me. Particularly if I was trying to distinguish life-long personality traits from the individual's responses to current external circumstances. I find that people are complicated, and you often only get to see small parts of their identity. Different experiences can bring out different sides in surprising ways. I think it's best to be cautious with things like this in our private lives, and even more so for researchers working in this area, where unfounded of exaggerated claims can be used to stigmatise different sub-groups of people.
(Also - I suspect that people would tend to assess the intelligence of personality of those around them in a way that flatters themselves: I half of us think that we're in the bottom half for intelligence).
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
Certainly there can be some personality traits that are strongly culturally determined. For example, if we take a trait like stoicism, well the Victorians were very stoic, because it was a Victorian value. Whereas modern people tend to complain at the slightest discomfort, which is very unstoic. So that trait is strongly culturally determined.
However, other traits are more innate, and it is these traits that will likely be underpinned by individual neurological architectures.
The introvert–extravert trait is pretty innate; it is not something you can change much. This trait definitely seems to be underpinned by physiology and neurological architecture, because if you numerically rate people using a questionnaire to determine where they are on the introvert-to-extravert dimension, and if you then get these people and put one drop of lemon juice under their tongue, the number of milliliters of saliva produced in response to the lemon juice will be related to how introvert they are (the more introvert, the more saliva produced as a physiological response to the lemon juice).
So we see from this famous lemon juice experiment that the introvert–extravert trait seems to be connected to the basic physiological and neurological makeup of a person. In fact it is believed that the reticular activating system (RAS) is behind the introvert–extravert dimension; introverts have increased activity in their RAS.
However, other traits are more innate, and it is these traits that will likely be underpinned by individual neurological architectures.
The introvert–extravert trait is pretty innate; it is not something you can change much. This trait definitely seems to be underpinned by physiology and neurological architecture, because if you numerically rate people using a questionnaire to determine where they are on the introvert-to-extravert dimension, and if you then get these people and put one drop of lemon juice under their tongue, the number of milliliters of saliva produced in response to the lemon juice will be related to how introvert they are (the more introvert, the more saliva produced as a physiological response to the lemon juice).
So we see from this famous lemon juice experiment that the introvert–extravert trait seems to be connected to the basic physiological and neurological makeup of a person. In fact it is believed that the reticular activating system (RAS) is behind the introvert–extravert dimension; introverts have increased activity in their RAS.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I'd be very surprised if coming down with CFS did not alter whether a lot of people were classed as introverts or extroverts - enthusiasm for partying is somewhat health related. The questionnaires I've seen to assess these categories do not inspire much confidence.
I'm just --d'oh!--realizing why there are so many stupid papers about stupid subjects about ME...academics *have* to publish, and ME has been branded a psych condition well and truly and loudly in the UK...so anyone wanting to write an "easy" paper or do a "sure-thing" kind of study just needs to pick ME and some random psychological trait and "find" an association there. Subsequently, a huge pile (mess) of papers to cite and quote in support of any new amazing unprovable psychological "association" you care to write about. It's a circle-jerk.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
I also imagine that ME/CFS may affect where you are on the introvert-extravert scale. I think neurological disease states that effect the brain may well alter certain traits, because of the fundamental changes to brain functioning that neurological diseases can cause.
Once you have ME/CFS, you tend to be very sensitive to overstimulation. This suggests that ME/CFS patients might shift towards the introvert side of the introvert-extravert scale.
In the general population, introverts are those whose brains are very quickly aroused by stimuli, whereas extraverts take a lot of stimulation before their brain gets aroused. This is why the stereotype of an introvert in someone who loves quiet libraries where there is ample stimulation for the introvert; but the extravert may be bored in that environment, because their brain requires a higher level of stimulation before it gets aroused to its optimum state. So extraverts are more likely to be found at parties, or found constantly socializing.
When I took the introvert-extravert questionnaire many years ago, when I was healthy, I came out at around 3 out of 10 on the scale (with 1 being introvert, and 10 being extravert). So I came out as an ambivert (= a balance between introvert and extravert), but on the introvert side. At the time, my questionnaire result seem quite accurate, I thought, because it seemed to capture my character and disposition: often bookish, but also capable of enjoying a wild party now and then.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I'd have thought that any form of disease which led to people feeling ill would affect it. A lot of ways of assessing these things would also seem to be affected by other external social factors too. I'm not confident that personality questionnaires are a valid way of measuring anything of any real interest of importance.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
Some say the same thing of physicists using particles accelerators to discover new fundamental particles; some people ask: "what is the point?" But if you have an intense scientific curiosity, you are going to be passionately driven to explore areas such as particle physics.
In psychology, the personality theorists of the 20th century (and there were quite a few of them) set out to explore the mind and human personality. I have found reading the literature of personality theorists immensely interesting, rewarding and educational. I found it pivotal in helping me to understand both myself and others.
But I can imagine that those who find the study of the mind boring will get very little out reading the works of the personality theorists. Whether it is of interest may depend on whether you have an interest in exploring the mind.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
It's not that I have no interest in the human mind, it's that I'm concerned there is a tolerance for churning out poor quality research built upon cheap and easy questionnaires that are not valid measures of the things people are genuinely interested in. A real interest in understanding the mind requires a critical analysis of the available evidence and the claims being made.
A.B.
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,780
Benefits of particle accelerators for society:
Semi-conductors: The semi-conductor industry relies on accelerator technology to implant ions in silicon chips, making them more effective in consumer electronic products such as computers, smart phones and MP3 players.
Clean air and water: Studies show that blasts of electrons from a particle accelerator are an effective way to clean up dirty water, sewage sludge and polluted gases from smokestacks.
Medical diagnostics: Accelerators are needed to produce a range of radioisotopes for medical diagnostics and treatments that are routinely applied at hospitals worldwide in millions of procedures annually.
Pharmaceutical research: Powerful X-ray beams from synchrotron light sources allow scientists to analyze protein structures quickly and accurately, leading to the development of new drugs to treat major diseases such as cancer, diabetes, malaria and AIDS.
Nuclear energy: Particle accelerators have the potential to treat nuclear waste and enable the use of an alternative fuel, thorium, for the production of nuclear energy.
Shrink wrap: Industry uses particle accelerators to produce the sturdy, heat-shrinkable film that keeps such items as turkeys, produce and baked goods fresh and protects board games, DVDs, and CDs.
DNA research: Synchrotron light sources allowed scientists to analyze and define how the ribosome translates DNA information into life, earning them the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Their research could lead to the development of new antibiotics.
Cancer therapy: When it comes to treating certain kinds of cancer, the best tool may be a particle beam. Hospitals use particle accelerator technology to treat thousands of patients per year, with fewer side effects than traditional treatments.
http://www.acceleratorsamerica.org/files/AcceleratorsFactSheet_102309_Final.pdf
Particle accelerators are clearly useful to society.
What concrete benefits has personality research provided to mankind? Other than employment for psychologists of course.
Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
Right. I note your careful wording "classed as introverts or extroverts". The underlying neurology might not change, but the questionnaire answers certainly might!
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
Psychology has always struggled in trying to make itself into a hard science. It really is quite a soft science.
(In fact for me, my big attraction to reading psychology was precisely because it is softer but warmer science; I had just completed a mathematics and physics degree, which is very black and white logical, and though I loved those subjects, I felt they had made my mind a bit too hard and sort of "binary"; so my foray into psychology was precisely because it was soft and warm, not hard and cold like mathematics and physics; reading psychology I found helped re-humanize me after my maths/physics degree in which I lived and breathed only pure cold logic).
Anyway, in their struggle to make their field of psychology a harder more objective science, the personality theorists introduced questionnaires to create a standardized measuring tool. This was a big advancement on just using the subjective judgement of a psychiatrist to determine a person's personality. The questionnaires are used to try to create more objectivity.
Now no doubt there may be shortcomings to questionnaires as a measuring instrument, and perhaps in future, once we get a better understand of the neurological underpinnings of personality traits, and develop futuristic new brain scanning technologies, we may be able to measure personality traits directly in the brain. However, until then, the personality questionnaire is the most objective system we have at present — unless you have some ideas to offer to improve on it.
Don't forget that the accuracy of many medical tests is also far less than perfect. Lyme disease testing comes to mind.
So you are equating truth to utility?
There are plenty of areas in mathematics, particularly in number theory, that have absolutely no practical utility whatsoever. Yet mathematicians are driven to explore these areas, and discover new mathematical truths therein, because that is their passion.
But if you want to know how psychological research into personality has changed to world, just look at the whole machinery of the modern consumer economy. Tapping into the psyche to create the consumer mindset was based on the ideas of Freud. It was Freud's American cousin, a very wealthy and influential New York banker, who adapted Freud's idea to create the consumer mindset. That in itself is a very interesting story.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Only if the questionnaires used were accurately measuring 'personality traits'. To me it seems that these questionnaires are routinely misused to produce cheap but harmful research. If these questionnaires just make studying personality look a little more like hard science to those who fail to take the time to look critically at the questionnaires themselves, then that has only benefited those doing this research.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,865
My view of where psychology needs a fundamental shift of emphasis is not so much it its measurement of psychological parameters like personality traits — I think the consistency of these measurements is likely good enough; but where I see psychology failing is in its theoretical treatment of cause and effect.
Throughout the 20th century, which was the golden era of psychology, the assumption of psychologists has nearly always been that psychological effects must have psychological causes.
So for example, if you have schizophrenia (psychological effect), many psychologists assume and theorize this was triggered by something like bad early family experiences or suchlike (psychological cause).
Now in normal psychology (= the psychology of people that are not mentally ill), I agree that most psychological effects will have a psychological cause. If your girlfriend leaves you (psychological cause), then you may become quite depressed (psychological effect).
However, in abnormal psychology (= the psychology of people with mental illnesses), in most cases I think the cause of the mental symptoms and illness is to be found in the brain, as a neurological dysfunction, not in the mind as a psychological cause. But unfortunately there is still a very strong bias in psychology to look for psychological causes of mental illnesses in the mind, rather than look for physical dysfunctions in the brain.
This is what needs to change, because I think for abnormal mental symptoms (mental illness), these are generally not caused by psychological factors, but by brain dysfunction (the exceptions are PTSD, in which psychological factors play a major role, and depression, which can be triggered by psychological factors).
If psychologists were looking into the brain for causes of the mental and cognitive symptoms of ME/CFS, we would have never have had the Wessely school nonsense of "the belief that you are ill is the cause of ME/CFS".
In fact, psychologists would have been our greatest ally, had they looked at the brain rather than the mind in order to explain the mental and cognitive symptoms ME/CFS.
In summary: I see nothing fundamentally wrong in the way psychologists measure psychological parameters. But I do see major flaws in their default assumption that abnormal psychological symptoms/illnesses have a psychological cause.
Throughout the 20th century, which was the golden era of psychology, the assumption of psychologists has nearly always been that psychological effects must have psychological causes.
So for example, if you have schizophrenia (psychological effect), many psychologists assume and theorize this was triggered by something like bad early family experiences or suchlike (psychological cause).
Now in normal psychology (= the psychology of people that are not mentally ill), I agree that most psychological effects will have a psychological cause. If your girlfriend leaves you (psychological cause), then you may become quite depressed (psychological effect).
However, in abnormal psychology (= the psychology of people with mental illnesses), in most cases I think the cause of the mental symptoms and illness is to be found in the brain, as a neurological dysfunction, not in the mind as a psychological cause. But unfortunately there is still a very strong bias in psychology to look for psychological causes of mental illnesses in the mind, rather than look for physical dysfunctions in the brain.
This is what needs to change, because I think for abnormal mental symptoms (mental illness), these are generally not caused by psychological factors, but by brain dysfunction (the exceptions are PTSD, in which psychological factors play a major role, and depression, which can be triggered by psychological factors).
If psychologists were looking into the brain for causes of the mental and cognitive symptoms of ME/CFS, we would have never have had the Wessely school nonsense of "the belief that you are ill is the cause of ME/CFS".
In fact, psychologists would have been our greatest ally, had they looked at the brain rather than the mind in order to explain the mental and cognitive symptoms ME/CFS.
In summary: I see nothing fundamentally wrong in the way psychologists measure psychological parameters. But I do see major flaws in their default assumption that abnormal psychological symptoms/illnesses have a psychological cause.
Last edited:
Old Bones
Senior Member
- Messages
- 808
There's a third dimension to be considered here -- behaviour. I've done several Myers-Briggs personality tests, all professionally administered, scored and interpreted. The first was in my early 20's, ten years before illness onset. The second was about three years post onset, and the third several years after that. Every test indicated the same personality type. With respect to extroversion/introversion, I scored somewhat more "I" than "E" each time. This consistency in test results was probably due to how many of the questions are worded. They use phrases such as "drawn toward", "impressed by", "swayed by", "comfortable with", etc. Had the questionnaire asked more what I do rather than what I think, feel or believe, my results would likely have differed more. Because now, my behaviour is distinctly introverted. I suspect this is not because my personality has changed, but rather, because the illness has imposed more introverted characteristics based on physical limitations and the need to avoid activities that make me worse.