The butterfly effect in psychiatry: a case example

Abstract

The butterfly effect is that a small change at one place in a complex dynamic system can lead to large and unexpected consequences. In modern science, the theory can have applications in physics, mathematics, engineering, as well as biology, psychology, and cognitive science. The dynamic approach to cognition emphasizes the complex process of human development including mental, behavioral, neural and social systems interacting with each other over the life course. Emotion-related experiences as the result of interaction between person and his environment have been useful for explaining the butterfly effect in psychiatry practice. Here, we report a patient with depressive episode that has developed after psychosocial stress and has been treated with electroconvulsive therapy.

Keywords

• butterfly effect, complex dynamic system, human behavior, mental disorders, chaos theory

Psikiyatride kelebek etkisi: Bir olgu bildirimi

Abstract

Kelebek etkisi karışık dinamik sistemlerde başlangıçtaki küçük bir değişimin, beklenmedik büyük bir sonuca yol açmasıdır. Modern bilimde, bu teorinin fizik, matematik, mühendislik gibi alanların yanısıra biyoloji, psikololoji ve nörobilimde de uygulamaları bulunmaktadır. Bilişsel işlevlere dinamik yaklaşım insan gelişiminin karmaşık süreçlerinin yaşam boyunca zihinsel, davranışsal, nöronal ve sosyal sistemlerini ve herbiri arasındaki etkileşimini vurgulamaktadır. Psikiyatri pratiğinde, birey ve çevresi arasındaki etkileşimin sonucu ortaya çıkan rahatsızlıkların anlaşılmasında kelebek etkisi faydalı olabilir. Bu yazıda psikososyal yüklenme etmeni sonrası gelişen depresif dönem nedeniyle elektrokonvulsif tedavi uygulanan bir vaka sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• kelebek etkisi, karışık dinamik sistem, insan davranışı, psikiyatrik rahatsızlıklar, kaos teorisi

References

1. Lorenz E. Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas? American Associations for the Advancement of Science 139 th Meeting in Washington. December 29, 1972.
2. Arrow H. Chaos, complexity, and catastrophe: The nonlinear Dynamics perspective. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2005;201-19.
3. Maguire S, McKelvey B, Mirabeau L, Oztas N. Complexity science and organization studies. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TB, Nord WR, editors. The SAGE Handbook Of Organization Studies. 2nd. London: Sage Publications; 2006.
4. Guastello SJ. What Is Chaos Theory? Chaos and Complexity in Psychology, Psyc 198 & 896 Fall, 2007.
5. Kendall BE. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Encyclopedia of life sciences. 2001.
6. Murphy BK, Miller KD. Balancedamplification: a new mechanism of selective amplification of neural activity patterns. Neuron. 2009;61:635-48.
7. Bloom SL. Chaos, complexity, self organization and US. The psychotherapy review. Ian G. Jones Healy Editor. PO Box 14 Teddington TW118YY UK. 2000.
8. Thelen E, Smith LB. Dynamic Systems Theories. Fusella PV. Dynamic Systems Theory in Cognitive Science: Major Elements, Applications, and Debates Surrounding a Revolutionary MetaTheory Dynamical Psychology. 2013; p.258-307.

9. Kiel, LD. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for Managing Change, Innovation and Organizational Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994.
10. Downing, LL. A cusp catastrophe model of cult conversions, in D.O. O’Learyand G.S. McGhee (Eds.), War in Heaven, Heaven on Earth: Theories of the Apocalyptic, London: Equinox. 2005;221-35.
11. Flay BR. Catastrophe theory in social psychology: Some applications to attitudes and social behavior. Behavioral Science. 1978;23:335-50.
12. Maas HLJ, Kolsteın R, Plıgt J. Sudden Transitions in Attitudes. Sociological Methods&Research. 2003;32:125-52.
13. Muijs D, Reynolds D. Effective Teaching. Evidence and practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2005.
14. Tooni G, Edelman GM. Consciousness and complexity. Neuroscience 1998;182:1846-51.
15. Dhamala M, Pagnoni G, Wiesenfeld K, Berns GS. Measurements of brain activity complexity for varying mental loads. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2002;65(4):041917.
16. Barton S. Chaos, Self-Organization, and Psychology. American Psychologist. 1994;49;5-14.
17. Bremner JD. Changes in Brain Volume in Major Depression. Depression: Mind And Body. 2005;2:2.
18. Hasler G. Pathophysiology of depression: do we have any solid evidence of interest to clinicians? World Psychiatry. 2010;9:155-61.
19. Harris T. Recent developments in understanding the psychosocial aspects of depression. British Medical Bulletin. 2001;57:17-32.
20. Drevets WC, Price JL, Furey ML. Brain structural and functional abnormalities in mood disorders: implications for neurocircuitry models of depression. Brain Struct Funct. 2008;213:93-118.
21. Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG. The Brain, Homeostasis, and Health. Balancing Demands of the Internal and External milieu. The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology, 2011;73-91.
22. Connor TJ, Leonard BE. Depression, Stress And Immunological Activation: The Role Of Cytokines In Depressive Disorders. Life sciences. 1998;62:583-606.
23. Bob P. Chaos, Cognition and Disordered Brain. Activitas Nervosa Superior. 2008;50: 114-117.