{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023009950248756218, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014925373134328358, 'mean_word_length': 5.56734693877551, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
System as metaphor in the psychology and biology of shame.

Biological theories of brain and psychological theories of mind are two systems of explanation that seem related to one another. The nature of the relationship is problematic and constitutes the age-old mind-body problem. The most prominent solutions currently are variations of materialism. While psychological theories can be consistent with materialism, there remains a difficulty in comprehending nonphysical (social, psychological) causes of physical effects. This difficulty is an obstacle to integration in psychiatry, where we routinely assume that illnesses that include or depend on biological dysfunction are caused multifactorially by causal agents such as perceived parental warmth, parental loss, stressful life events, genetics, and personality (Hammen et al. 1992; Kendler et al. 1993). Unity theory adopts the stance that neurobiological theories and psychological theories are essentially disparate explanations of the same psychobiological events; thus the relationship of mind to brain is one of shared reference (Goodman 1991; Maunder 1995). In Goodman's model the gap between biological and psychological systems is not bridgeable. Different conceptual categories refer to the same referents but cannot interact with each other. Stepping into the breach, systems theory has been presented as offering a language that can bridge the gap between psychological and biological theories of causation (Schwartz 1981; Weiner 1989). Thus, there is a controversy about the applicability of systems theory for integration in psychiatry.