May 28, 2009
-
I've been thinking a lot lately about what constitutes personality.
I have to admit: a lot of that is due to my obsession with the television show House. So many of the cases Hugh Laurie's character works to diagnose on the show are based on what effect pathology can have on personality.
A classic case study in personality development is that of a man named Phineas Gage. I don't recall the details, but unfortunate Mr. Gage ended up with a railroad spike through the frontal lobe of his brain, which caused a pronounced and immediate change in his personality. The previously nice man turned nasty, constantly snapping at those closest to him.
A patient on House displayed the same symptoms earlier this season, though of course sans railroad spike, which would have made Dr. House's diagnosis profoundly more simple. The man constantly spouted off any thought that entered his head; it was as if he had lost his "filter." In the process, he alienated his daughter, jeopardized his job, and nearly ruined his marriage. He was willing to go to great lengths and undergo several highly risky procedures in an attempt to fix the problem, as he pointed out that he couldn't live his life with the personality changes.
The patient was a successful book editor who had built his career on a reputation as a brutally honest editor but a perfectly nice man. To paraphrase a conversation between Dr. House and another doctor, the man's true, less-than-glowing assessments of his life, his family, and his wife's job were now revealed. But if he built his reputation as a nice person, wasn't that as much a part of who he was as the thoughts he kept to himself?
The episode is called "The Social Contract," which highlights another interesting issue that the show raises. Dr. House refuses to adhere to the "social contract," which is why he comes across as such a jerk. He gives his precise opinion, he says what he means, and he doesn't mince words. Most everyone else, as he is quick to point out to his best friend Dr. Wilson, will tell a lie to someone else as part of the "social contract." Anyone will reassure the Jewish doctor that his nose isn't too big, that it instead "suits his face." To tell the truth would violate the social contract, would hurt someone's feelings. And we can't have that.
In an older episode, we find that a woman feels her sick husband has made her a better person because he is so incredibly nice that it made her jealous, and so she changed to be more like him. At one point, the team decides that the man has neurosyphilis and that the lesions the disease has caused in his brain are the cause of his excessive kindness. This did not turn out to be the actual problem with the patient, but the doctors warned the man's wife that putting him on the medication to treat neurosyphilis might cause his brain to return to normal, resulting in personality changes.
How would you feel to know that the husband you're in love with is so kind and wonderful because a venereal disease has attacked his brain?
What constitutes real personality?
If you take antidepressants so that you are a happier and more pleasant person, have you changed something fundamental to who you are, or have you truly fixed what should be viewed as a problem? (Please don't give me heat about whether depression is a real illness for this statement; I've been down that road.)
At what point do we stop "fixing" things and trying to make everyone the same?
At what point have we changed something fundamental to a person's being?
Soon we'll be able to "fix" nearly anything we want with gene therapy.
At what point have we gone too far?
Comments (7)
Everything goes back to Prometheus, Steph. I'm no Christian Scientist but I agree with your last statements. Although, I'm not sure that we could ever know enough about the way things work as to control our genes cleanly. Too much pleiotropy,epistasis and epigenetics.
-Lori
I'm not thinking about this from the standpoint of Christianity, at this point. I was merely musing about what constitutes someone's personality, and at what point have we gone too far in changing fundamentally who a person is with medicine?
Christian Scientists (separate relgion) don't believe in modern medicine. They are the ones who are always being dragged into court for not giving their children chemo and such. I know, the title of their religion is kind of misnomer. I think they should be called Christian Anti-Scientists.
Also, I think personality definitely goes beyond genes and I think you do too but I'm just saying chemicals do not equal personality. And who knows where to draw the line with drugs. It's everyone's personal choice to take them or not (ex. christian scientists haha)
Well, if you're taking anti-depressants, you're changing the chemical balance in your brain. I can't really say if chemicals = personality, but I think they have at least some influence on it. I don't know how far is too far with taking drugs that will change your personality, but consider this (if you haven't already): people who smoke weed/'recreational' drugs do it to get high/feel happy. They're changing their state of mind, and if they do that often enough, they just might end up changing their personality into something more chilled out. Also, consider anti-depressants in the case of suicidal people (assuming they're suicidal b/c they're depressed). In that case, the drugs are (hopefully) saving the person's life so that they can be happier and motivated to live. However, I've heard of a case where a suicidal kid took anti-depressants and they made it seem to him that nothing mattered (ie nothing had consequence) and so he killed himself. Anti-depressants also have possible side effects such as suicidal tendencies and impulsiveness in general (actually I'm not 100% sure about impulsiveness, but I know I felt REALLY impulsive with Zoloft in my system, which was not always the greatest thing). Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that drugs should probably be used in extreme moderation and only when you're sure of who you really are with and without their influence. To put it in UGA arch-like terms, use your wisdom to determine your personality so that you can justify the use or non-use of drugs...but in moderation
Haha! I love the last line, Emily
And... that's why we don't give antidepressants to teenagers anymore. They tend to cause suicidal thoughts in teens, which I always thought was kind of ironic, in a sick kind of way.
I entirely agree. I remember reading a book once that asked the question "How many of tomorrow's great poets and authors are being medicated out of all creativity?" I'm not against prescribing drugs for those who need it and desire the changes they bring. I am, however, against the absurd idea that deviations from "the social contract" are mistakes which must be corrected. The world is full of interesting and colorful people. It would be a shame to lose that.
Comments are closed.