Cultural attitudes to lifestyle related health and diseases: Notions to be discussed

Points of departure

(NB working text – will be completed soon)
CA shapes our behaviours not easy to observe, analyse and understand – also in different sciences – similar to other processes as internalization and socialization.

Not only Pauls (“thus, I do not understand why I do what I do …” see ….) but also all of us including science while complexity is too huge as well as our methodology limited.

But this, not very well understood process shape our ways to behave out of attitudes (scripts, plans, superior construct ..), is what shape our habits – whether we want it or not. Moreover, it can be a scientific definition which is then not used by scientists and laymen, an example is the word/concept medicine is defined in one way scientifically (still I hope) while used as medical – taking pills. Why so? Have effective marketing some role here – serving other interest than societies´ and individuals´ humanistic goals – not realized by them? If CA creation is not well understood by science it seems to be at least used effectively for profits – pragmatic.

Do we “have” a high blood pressure or do we press our blood pressure high – as a consequence of our way to live our lives – eating, breathing exercising, thinking, planning, feeling, social interacting – shaped by social-cultural processes or as Paulus thought by “Satan” – (with my respect for religious paradigms)?

This distinction – “have” or “habitual behaviours” is not trivial for us as well as for profit interests. It is decisive. It result in basic attitudes and believes about own role in own health development, prevention and rehabilitation of diseases and problems. To “take responses for one own life-health” is words that can be “be brave an take pills” or modify/change … life style habits that we within biopsychosocial medicine (Engel, 1977 – a field that still is in the beginning of its beginning but with some basics for a platform for promoting individuals lifestyle health development – giving knowledge and practical applications to tailor individually).

What surprise me is that politicians have not realize they can save extremely much money using a (slowly, educational at all levels) change toward biopsychosocial (lifestyle medicine)

How can we understand what is as complex as variation within and between individual biopsychosocial cultural way of living their lives and its consequences for health development?
We can at least use the idea of Karl Popper and below is my ways to try to – in line with Popper I hope – make some notions.

As (increasing amount and complexity of) general knowledge is impossible to comprehend/understand/study/.. for an individual – world 3 in Poppers approach, it is expressed by a certain individual (world 2 which is individual mental processes/understanding/..) mis- or understanding of certain kind of complex information (which is a part of much more information also within a very, very small field).
Impossible – who can we trust while no one independent on how intelligent/smart an individual is cannot comprehend and make conclusions/decisions which are …. satisfactory – or?

But there is an interface which is called theory and paradigm which is not always in science mis- or understood. If we understand this we will try to be modest in our ways to express ourselves as scientists or clinicians or fellow laymen.
I think about some few examples on earlier thinkers; Hobbes, Kant, Popper, Kuhn … (quitation will be addedd here)

In line with the above we need to be able to
1. See consequences for the above in e.g. medicine, which has huge consequences for e.g. ADHD (see .www.icalm.se project/ADHD in Swedish so far) or Hypertension (see www.icalm.se Projekt/hypertension in Swedish so far), where profits interests obviously is “running the paradigm” – a catastrophe in front of our eyes – most propably1

2. Find out how we can move above weaknesses of world 2, which also is effectively misused by profit interests, e.g. education in simplistic, reductionist medicine – not the right thing for lifestyle related diseases/problems.

3. But first of all formulate the above in ways understood be laymen – including politicians.

What has the above with cultural attitudes in e.g. lifestyle medicine to do? What do you say? My answer is “everything” and “before we have approached a solution of the above the way is open for profits interest for the cost of society’s humanity and caring about its citizens in terms of what we call lifestyle medicine!