Brad Bowins

Dr Brad Bowins is a psychiatrist, researcher, and founder of The Centre For Theoretical Research In Psychiatry & Clinical Psychology. His research and writings challenge the status quo, fostering paradigm shifts so crucial to the advancement of science and knowledge. Several theoretical perspectives presented in peer-reviewed papers have advanced the way that key aspects of mental illness and other phenomena are understood. He is also an avid traveler, skier, scuba diver, underwater photographer, with several travel articles focusing on skiing, scuba diving, and adventure activities.

Apr 142017
 

These days the term “evidence-based medicine” is tossed around to the point where it loses any meaning. In conversations about virtually any topic in psychiatry and clinical psychology, the term spills out as a knee-jerk, or more appropriately, mouth-jerk, reaction. The speaker seems to feel that he or she has stated something profound. Meanwhile, those expressing it rarely consider the quality of the evidence that medicine is based on. In areas of medicine where there are hard endpoints such as blood pressure, research by the pharmaceutical industry itself reveals 80% of even top tier lab results are false, and these appear in top medical journal. In psychiatry and clinical psychology, with very soft endpoints such as points on a rating scale, the bias can be far worse. In psychology generally a crisis exists, whereby even top results are not being replicated. In psychiatry, largely due to the capture of the discipline by the pharmaceutical industry, antidepressants results have been presented in a very biased fashion suggesting that they largely suffice for depression and anxiety; forget about psychotherapy. More objective investigations have revealed that the positive impact is far less, such as only 52% of studies showing a benefit. Theory applied to psychiatry and clinical psychology can anticipate and rectify much of the bias that plagues these disciplines, such as showing why combined treatment with medications and psychotherapy is likely to work better, and demonstrating solid mechanisms to diverse psychotherapies, not just a specific type. In the, A Conflicted World: Research Bias chapter of At The Tipping Point: How To Save Us From Self-Destruction, I apply solid theory to demonstrate the extensive bias in psychiatry and clinical psychology, and indicate how we can shift to truly objective evidence based medicine!

Apr 072017
 

Assuming that homoerotic behavior as a dimension characterizes humans and many animal species, there must be an evolutionary based reason for it: Nature does not waste resources, and hence if a template for a behavioral propensity has evolved in numerous species there must be benefits. Research presented in Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation has shown multiple benefits for homoerotic behavior varying over different species including:

-Proceptivity enhancement, meaning that homoerotic stimulation assists the individual in heteroerotic sex.

-Receptivity reduction whereby the stimulated partner wastes sexual energy, leaving more reproductive opportunities for the initiator of this strategy.

-Greater success in defending a nest or territory, necessary for successful rearing of offspring.

-Expression of sexual receptivity in females.

-Dominance assertion involving the communicating of dominant-submissive relationship standing.

-Practice for heterosexual copulation.

-Tension reduction.

-Reconciliation.

-Alliance formation.

Research focusing on primates reveals that alliance formation, tension reduction, and reconciliation stand out for these species, and presumably humans. For example, same-sex contact increases in same-sex settings such as prisons and boarding schools, to foster protective alliances, and also ease tensions and reconcile conflicts. Heteroerotic contact can also provide these benefits, and of course it fosters reproduction.

Mar 292017
 

We love to set up discrete categories to simplify information processing, whereas natural events tend to occur in a continuous fashion as a spectrum. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are yet another installment of our propensity to create discrete entities. Alfred Kinsey way back in the 1950’s accurately described how we set up sexual orientation as discrete entities, whereas it is a spectrum. He placed homosexuality and heterosexuality on opposite poles of the same spectrum, capturing the continuous nature. Unfortunately, this particular arrangement fails to capture the true nature of sexual orientation, because homosexuality and heterosexuality trade off against each other, meaning that bisexuals represented by the mid-section must be less hetero than heterosexuals and less homo than homosexuals, when bisexuals frequently have robust motivations of both forms. What makes sense and is described in the Dimensions Of Sexual Orientation chapter of Outing the TRUTH About Sexual Orientation, is separate homoerotic and heteroerotic dimensions: Bisexuals have robust motivations for both behavioral propensities, “heterosexuals” heteroerotic >> homoerotic motivation, and “homosexuals” homoerotic >> heteroerotic motivation. It makes sense and aligns with how nature favors continuums, but many still prefer to see discrete homosexual and heterosexual categories that really only contribute to the disorientation of sexual orientation!

Mar 222017
 

Can animals be “gay?” It probably would not make for a Disney movie, but indeed numerous species demonstrate homoerotic behavior. Insects, other invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, land and marine mammals, and primate species clearly engage in homoerotic behavior. A key here is the term “homoerotic behavior,” as opposed to a way of life or identity: These species also engage in heteroerotic behavior with almost no examples of strictly “gay” behavior (really only about 8% of domesticated male sheep). Even animals we consider very masculine, such as male lions, engage in homoerotic behavior; there goes our comfortable stereotypes. Indeed, the more that researchers look with an open mind, the more species they discover that engage in homoerotic behavior! What this means is that templates for homoerotic behavior were well established in the animal kingdom long before humans came along and invented “homosexuality.” Ah, maybe the issue is not homosexuality, but instead homoerotic behavior. See the Animal Homosexuality chapter of Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation to learn more about homoerotic behavior in animals.

Mar 092017
 

Although seemingly more promising than psychological theories, biologically based ones struggle to explain sexual orientation. While hormones can influence masculine and feminine behavior, they do not show any clear impact on sexual orientation; it is important to appreciate that gender role inversion is not linked to homosexuality. Based on early research, brain structures and namely the hypothalamus, possibly underlie homosexuality, but none has stood up to repeated research. Then there is the possibility of “gay” genes that has also come up empty handed. Biological explanations have been proposed to explain the evolutionary paradox: How could homosexuality not leading to reproduction ever have evolved? These theories often take the perspective that even though the reproductive success of gay men (they do not consider gay females) is diminished, the reproductive success of relatives is enhanced. For example, gay men by being altruistic help relatives succeed. Really? There is absolutely no evidence that gay men are more altruistic than the average person, and we can all think of gay men we know who are as selfish as the rest of us. Another evolutionary perspective is that “gay” genes (recall none identified) assist the man in being a better parent, such as being more nurturing. Beyond diminishing the “masculine” father role, this approach entails gender role inversion found to be false. Biological perspectives then end up no better than psychological ones at explaining homosexuality (see the Biological Theories chapter of Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation), strongly suggesting that we are way off the mark in assuming that homosexuality is a real entity.

Mar 042017
 

Attempts to explain homosexuality from a psychological perspective have primarily consisted of psychoanalytic and social learning. Psychoanalytic theories focus on sex role inversion, whereby a child identifies with the gender role of the other sex parent, and acquires the attraction pattern of that parent: A male identifies with his mother’s gender and develops attraction to males, and a female identifies with her father’s gender and develops attraction to females. A rejecting father and often overly dominant mother were often seen as the cause of sex role inversion for males. One of the fatal flaws of this perspective is that sexual orientation and gender role are not linked despite what people think. In other words, very “macho” men and feminine females often identify with being homosexual. Another flaw is that research supporting these theories was highly biased. Social learning theories argue that characteristics of the social environment form sexual orientation based on reinforcement and punishment effects. Hence, if a male child’s social environment reinforces feminine behavior, then the child will become homosexual. Note the role inversion aspect. None of these psychological theories has proven valid for gender identity or sexual orientation. An interesting path analysis by Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981) examined all hypothesized paths based on psychological theories to homosexuality, and found essentially zero support for these theories! A more detailed look at these theories and the path analysis can be found in the Psychological Theories chapter of Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation.

Feb 252017
 

Discrimination and persecution of non-heterosexual individuals is an ongoing issue, and several countries still prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality. Why though?

We have a tendency very embedded in our psyche, derived from our evolution in hunting-gathering groups, to distinguish in-group from out-group members. Hence, whenever there is any basis for this distinction we define it and typically over-value attributes of the in-group and diminish attributes of the out-group. Applied to sexual orientation, we have socially constructed it into distinct heterosexual and homosexual identities, thereby fueling in-group/out-group distinctions. Given how the majority of people identify with the sexual orientation identity of heterosexuality, and homosexuality is perceived as lesser than because it does not lead to reproduction, it is inevitable that discrimination will transpire towards non-heterosexuals.

Now those who are paying attention will note that I said, “we have socially constructed” sexual orientation identities. Throughout recorded time sexual orientation has been understood in various ways, and only more recently as distinct identities. Even sexology researchers buy into this social construction and never really look at what is actually going on. In Outing The TRUTH About Sexual Orientation, I demonstrate how we all have homoerotic and heteroerotic motivations organized as separate dimensions, each person having a given level of motivation on both dimensions. What this means is that we are all bisexual at the core, and there is no actual homosexual and heterosexual identities, at least not from a scientific perspective. Now if we all have homoerotic and heteroerotic motivations varying in strength, it follows that it is ludicrous to create in-group and out-group distinctions. Discrimination and persecution applied to sexual orientation should then vanish, and rightfully so. But that sensible reality will eliminate all the drama we also seem to love, so many prefer to live in a delusional world regarding sexual orientation. Sad but seemingly true.

Nov 222016
 

By way of introduction to this cosmology site, I am Dr. Brad Bowins, a psychiatrist, researcher, and founder of the Centre For Theoretical Research In Psychiatry & Clinical Psychology (psychiatrytheory.com). You might well be wondering how my background relates to cosmology? There are three reasons:

The first part of this answer is that researchers interested in theory tend to be curious, and for me it is a driving force. Consistent with my nature, I am very curious about the nature of the cosmos (cosmology).

The second reason is that theoretical research requires a very broad knowledge base to produce theories having any reasonable likelihood of discovering the truth, the ultimate goal of science. A quick look at my peer-reviewed publications under Other Writings, demonstrates that my research is very diverse and cross-discipline, enabling the theories to represent a “best of fit” with the available information. This cross-discipline approach includes physics concepts, such as how entropy likely contributes to the decline of human specific cognition (negative symptoms) in schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses. Hence, although I am not a physicist, I do have some familiarity with the fascinating concepts generated by this discipline.

The third reason is that in reviewing cosmology theories it became apparent that biological processes are completely ignored, often being viewed as a “fluke,” or even worse, “chemical scum.” My background in life sciences and research triggered the unique insight that the nature of biological systems, namely interconnectedness, interdependence, and symbiosis, actually reveals much about the nature of the cosmos. From this very different angle, the primary theory arose, followed by additional concepts (see the pdfs available below).

I fully acknowledge that the concepts are speculative, as with all other such theories. In addition to hoping that they are accurate revealing the true nature of the cosmos (what researcher does not?), it is my desire that they will encourage other theorists to appreciate the potential contribution of biological systems to cosmology, and also stimulate lively debate among the curious.

Brad Bowins, MD

Visit my Cosmology Website

Nov 222016
 

Support for psychiatry and clinical psychology theory development—Promoting the benefits of theoretical research, providing guidelines, and personalized assistance in developing theories (for psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, professionals in related disciplines, and trainees in these areas).

“There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” (Kurt Lewin). Good theory fosters very practical approaches to treatment.

According to Karl Menninger in Man Against Himself (1938) “A theory, even a false one, is better than to attribute events to pure chance. “Chance” explanations leave us in the dark; a theory will lead to confirmation or rejection.”

Good theory
  • Brings creative intellectual processes to bear on major issues
  • Facilitates shifts from fixated to more productive lines of enquiry
  • Produces viable answers to complex questions
  • Provides focus and direction
  • Generates testable hypotheses
  • Helps synthesis disparate data
  • Creates a meaningful context for interpreting empirical findings
  • In balance with empirical studies enhances true research outcomes
  • Improves the conceptual understanding of statistics
  • Fosters cross discipline knowledge often hampered by other research methods

Academic departments often favor empirical research over theoretical research. From issues of conflict of interest, researcher bias, patient selection criteria, statistical treatment of the data, slanted interpretation of the data, and under-reporting of negative results to mention a few concerns, so-called objective research is highly subjective. On the other hand theoretical research conducted with an open mind and spirit of curiosity adhering to rigorous guidelines can be relatively objective.

The take home message is that good theoretical research has value in psychiatry and clinical psychology, and at least as much as empirical research. Progress in science occurs with a balance of theoretical and empirical research, and in an ideal universe both exist in balance. Those conducting well grounded theoretical research in psychiatry, clinical psychology, and related disciplines are performing a very valuable function for the advancement of science and need to be fully aware of this reality. Actively resist internally and externally generated notions to the contrary. Believe in what you are doing!

Visit the

Centre For Theoretical Research In

Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology