درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Objective: Somatic symptoms consist of a wide range of symptoms and until yet clustering them has been very challenging for researchers and therapists. The present study aims to explore underlying psychological factors of various functional somatic symptoms and determine if there are any similarities or differences in these factors that could help classify these symptoms as one syndrome or discrete ones. Method: This study adopted an association rule mining method based on data mining. 643 participants were recruited using a convenience sampling technique. Data were collected using the checklist of somatic symptoms (Lacourt et al., 2013), Attachment Questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 2017), Defense Style Questionnaire (Andrews et al., 1993), and Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (Lane, 2006). Results: Cognitive, gastrointestinal, and fatigue symptoms are related more to immature defense mechanisms. Musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiac symptoms are associated with neurotic defenses. Fatigue symptoms are associated with ambivalent attachment and musculoskeletal symptoms are related more to avoidant attachment. Indeed, it could be said that there are two clusters of somatic symptoms, one of which is attachment and the other is defense mechanisms. This supports the splitters’ view about somatic syndromes. Conclusions: These findings show various types of somatic symptoms have qualitatively different risk factors. Our findings imply that psychotherapists should consider the kind of syndromes a patient has and their underlying psychological predispositions to manage the problem better.  

Iranian exceptionalism has been a major factor in preventing rapprochement between the US and Iran. There are two major factions within the foreign policy establishment of the Islamic Republic representing “reconciliation discourse” and “resistance discourse”. These two can be seen as sub-discourses within the Islamic Revolution discourse engaged in a struggle over its “correct” interpretation. The reconciliation discourse emphasizes on “prudence”, while the resistance discourse emphasizes upon “conscientiousness”, both signifiers within the Islamic Revolution discourse. Both movements agree that these signifiers exist within the discourse, but they disagree about the primacy and centrality of one over the other. The “reconciliation discourse” seeks development as the main goal of Iran’s foreign policy, and, hence, considers reconciliation with the US to be a precondition to that goal. Its arguments imply that Iran is not an exceptional country. The resistance discourse, on the other hand, is deeply exceptionalist and deems resistance against the US and maximalist independence to be the main objectives of Iran’s foreign policy. This discourse strongly opposes mending ties with the US because such a move would be understood as a threat to Iran’s exceptionalism. These sub-discourses also perceive the US differently; the reconciliation discourse considers US to be dynamic and heterogenous, while the resistance discourse considers US to be unchanging and monolithic, and this disagreement also contributes to their policy toward the US, and this understanding is also closely intertwined with exceptionalism. Overall, the dispute over Iranian exceptionalism has made relationship with the US the main issue of contention within Iranian foreign policy discourses.