Two-eyed seeing as a philosophy to facilitate communication between traditional indigenous cultural practitioners with psychiatry and other mental health practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A communication gap exists between psychiatry and indigenous people about views of mind and mental health, which often becomes an obstacle to optimal care and a source of distrust. Objectives We aimed to explore the utility of the concept of two-eyed seeing for facilitating communication among traditional cultural practitioners (TCP) and conventional mental health practitioners (CMHP). Methods “Two-eyed seeing” is spreading across North America as a metaphor for explanatory pluralism. Albert Marshall, a M’iqmaq from Nova, Scotia, Canada, developed this traditional concept (eptuamptamuk in M’iqmaq) to speak to the idea that indigenous knowledge is as valid as contemporary science for conceptualizing phenomena. We taught the concept to 100 practitioners, equally balanced between CMHP’s and TCP’s, and obtained ongoing feedback about the results of their applying these ideas to their ongoing collaborations. Qualitative research methods were used to evaluate this feedback. Results Using the two-eyed seeing concept allowed CMHP’s to better listen to TCP’s descriptions of their concepts of mind and of mental suffering. TCP’s felt more respected by CMHP’s. While concepts such as spirit visitation, the breaking of taboos, and intergenerational curses are inherently foreign to CMHP’s, the two-eyed seeing concept allowed them to bracket these ideas as interesting and to interact with the TCP in a more productive way, while allowing them to observe the effects of the TCP’s interventions in a less judgmental way. Conclusions Two-eyed seeing allowed a rich dialogue between CMHP’s and TCP’s that enabled each to appreciate the other’s perspectives, leading to greater cooperation and collaborative treatment. Outcomes improved. Disclosure No significant relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".