Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.
Departamento de Psicologia, UFJF, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.
Braz J Psychiatry. 2018 Jul-Sep;40(3):335-342. doi: 10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2342. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
The mind-brain problem (MBP) has marked implications for psychiatry, but has been poorly discussed in the psychiatric literature. This paper evaluates the presentation of the MBP in the three leading general psychiatry journals during the last 20 years.
Systematic review of articles on the MBP published in the three general psychiatry journals with the highest impact factor from 1995 to 2015. The content of these articles was analyzed and discussed in the light of contemporary debates on the MBP.
Twenty-three papers, usually written by prestigious authors, explicitly discussed the MBP and received many citations (mean = 130). The two main categories were critiques of dualism and defenses of physicalism (mind as a brain product). These papers revealed several misrepresentations of theoretical positions and lacked relevant contemporary literature. Without further discussion or evidence, they presented the MBP as solved, dualism as an old-fashioned or superstitious idea, and physicalism as the only rational and empirically confirmed option.
The MBP has not been properly presented and discussed in the three leading psychiatric journals in the last 20 years. The few articles on the topic have been highly cited, but reveal misrepresentations and lack of careful philosophical discussion, as well as a strong bias against dualism and toward a materialist/physicalist approach to psychiatry.
心智脑问题（MBP）对精神病学有重要影响，但在精神病学文献中讨论甚少。本文评估了过去 20 年来三本主要的普通精神病学杂志中 MBP 的呈现方式。
对 1995 年至 2015 年期间三本影响因子最高的普通精神病学杂志上发表的 MBP 文章进行系统回顾。根据当代关于 MBP 的辩论，对这些文章的内容进行了分析和讨论。
23 篇文章明确讨论了 MBP 并获得了大量引用（平均值=130），通常由知名作者撰写。两个主要类别是对二元论的批判和对物理主义的辩护（心灵是大脑的产物）。这些论文揭示了对理论立场的一些误解，并且缺乏相关的当代文献。没有进一步的讨论或证据，他们将 MBP 视为已解决，二元论视为过时或迷信的观念，而物理主义则视为唯一合理和经验证实的选择。
在过去的 20 年里，三本主要的精神病学杂志并没有正确地呈现和讨论 MBP。关于这个主题的少数几篇文章被高度引用，但却揭示了误解和缺乏仔细的哲学讨论，以及对二元论的强烈偏见和对精神病学的唯物主义/物理主义方法的强烈倾向。
