posted by KT 

Our topic this week:  Philosophy for the young – corrupting… or empowering?  We asked that question in front of an audience of high school at Palo Alto High School, in Palo Alto, California.  We record this program there last May, at the invitation of a teacher,  Lucy Filppu, an English teacher by training,  who teaches a special humanities course.  We had a blast and we’d very much like to thank the students and teachers at Paly, as it is affectionately called,  for having us.  We’d love to go back sometime. 

Now the The charge that philosophy actually corrupts the young is nearly a old as philosophy itself.  Over 2,400 years ago, in one of the most famous trials of all times, Socrates, one the founding fathers of Philosophy, was condemned to death for corrupting the youth of Athens.  Now I have no doubt the young men who followed Socrates all around Athens being tutored by him were royal pains for the authorities.  But Socrates didn’t corrupt the young; he empowered the young.  He empowered them to think for themselves, to question received wisdom, and not to be cowed by authority.  No doubt, they made the authorities uncomfortable.  But making the authorities uncomfortable isn’t the same as being corrupt.

Of course, the attitude that the wisdom of your elders is something you can take or leave, that no one has authority over you unless you grant them authority – that’s a dangerous attitude for a young person to have.   No doubt Socrates instilled that attitude into his young pupils.   And you could say that’s a dangerous thing.  But it’s more dangerous to those who claim to be authorities than to the young themselves,  I would think.

Of course,  I don’t want to deny that philosophy has to be used carefully and that it can be dangerous if used wrongly. Done wrongly, philosophy can be highly corrosive to one’s life.  It can lead you to doubt everything.  It can cause you wonder whether life has meaning, to question your religion, your country, your parents, and even your teachers.  Do we really want to cast the young out onto the sea of philosophical doubt and uncertainty?  Don’t we want to teach them to how to thrive and succeed in the world?  To do that, they sometimes have to accommodate authority, not question it or reflexively rebel against it.  

Of course,  we really shouldn’t be promoting reflexive rebellion against all authority, just because it’s authority.  But that sort of rebellion wouldn’t display a philosophical attitude; it displays an adolescent attitude, and an arrogant one at that.  Philosophy isn’t about intellectual arrogance; it’s about intellectual honesty and humility.  Philosophy demands that you subject not just the beliefs and prejudices of others, but also your own beliefs and prejudices, to the light of critical reflection.

Socrates himself actually exemplified that kind of intellectual humility in fact.  He was a seeker of knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment.  He didn’t claim to possess them already.  Of course, there’s the paradox that his intellectual humility actually made Socrates the wisest man in Athens, according to the Oracle at Delphi.  He didn’t know anything, but unlike all the other supposed wise men of Athens, he knew that he didn’t know anything.   They, on the other hand, thought they knew it all, but actually knew nothing.

Though our schools don’t, in general, do much teaching of philosophy to the young, it seems to me that the young are natural philosophers.    Given where they are in their lives, the young are bound to be gripped by philosophical questions.  Young people are in the business of trying to figure out who and what they are.  Philosophy is devoted to answering just the sorts of questions that will grip any reflective human engaged in such a process:  “Who am I?”  “What's right, and what's wrong?”   “What things are worthy of my deepest allegiances and affections?”  “What is my place in the social world?

Moreover,  we adults sometimes pretend, like the supposed wise men of Athens, that we have all that answers and that all the young need to do is listen, learn and obey.  But by the time they're in their mid-teens,  they see through that pretense.  Young people are going to experiment with philosophizing.  We just have to live with that fact.   I  certainly did when I was young.  And I have no doubt that many of you who are reading this did it when you were young too.  Since it wouldn’t do us a bit of good to avert our eyes and pretend that it isn’t happening, it’s our job as the older, wiser, more experienced ones to make sure they do it safely.

What better, safer way for the young to philosophize than out in the open, on the radio, in the company of a couple of experienced practitioners like John and me?  But we also wanted  someone younger and cooler to help us out, someone with more experience speaking directly to the young.  So to help us out we invited someone who fits that bill exactly --  Jack Bowen,  author of the best-selling novel  The Dreamweaver, who also teaches philosophy to high school students.

It was fun time.  Hope you give a listen. 

 

I have a confession to make. Sometimes late at night I’ll catch an infomercial or two. It’s a silly obsession I have. One that my husband can’t understand.

But it’s not the products themselves that make me intrigued. I’m drawn to what it does to the people who use them.

Wouldn’t it be great to make your life perfect with a blink of an eye, a swipe of a magic wand?

I think that’s what makes me glued to the screen. There’s something so attractive about the belief that the right food, exercise equipment or program will somehow drastically change your life for the better.

But then I turn the TV off. Because I know it’s Hollywood and I know that real life is filled with emotional storms, depression and difficulty. And that real lasting change comes from being committed to hard work on a daily basis.

How about you?

When it comes to life’s difficulties are you drawn into the fantasy? Or are you conscious about the importance of real change and your power to make that happen?

Well maybe these will help. We’re ending another week with a round of top posts that will get you prepared for emotional storms, give you the facts on college depression (something relevant to the current fall school year), bring lasting change to your life and more.

Hope you have a great weekend!

Rising Above Emotional Storms

(The Therapist Within) – Remember those moments when everything feels like it’s going all right? The sun is out. Your relationships are fine. And then suddenly? A storm comes out of nowhere. Even if it’s something that’s been brewing for a time, it can still take you for surprise. The question is do you have the tools to deal with these emotional storms? Go here to get prepared for that next emotional storm.

Statistics About College Depression

(World of Psychology) – September means back to school. But did you know it also may mean depression? This top post reveals the alarming statistics of depression among college kids. It will surprise you!

What Percent of People With Bipolar Disorder Can Achieve Bipolar in Order

(Bipolar Advantage) – Maybe it’s not your beliefs that are skewed, maybe it’s those psychology studies and discussion groups. Bipolar Advantage takes a look at how the skewing of a particular audience impacts the way we perceive mental illness.

Why You May Need to Leave the Mind Behind for Real Change

(Mindfulness and Psychotherapy) – It may be tempting to believe in quick, fast, immediate change. But real change takes a lot of work. A post that’ll open you up to become aware of what you need to make real transformations in your life. Hint: You may need to leave your mind behind for this one.

Kabbalah’s Three Dimensional Smile (God in Therapy Series)

(Therapy Soup) – In this God in Therapy Series, Therapy Soup introduces us to Kabbalah and the importance of laughter and a smile. All affect our perceptions and reality and have implications for psychotherapy. Now doesn’t that make you want to smile?

Definition: A self-report inventory is a type of psychological test often used in personality assessment. This type of test is often presented in a paper-and-pencil format or may even be administered on a computer. A typical self report inventory presents a number of questions or statements that may or may not describe certain qualities or characteristics of the test subject. Learn more about self-report inventories.

...

Read Full Post

by Neil Van Leeuwen

I’d like to talk frankly about why research on the topic of self-deception hasn’t made much progress—as far as I can see—despite a steady-stream of on-going interest. There’s been some excellent work, but it doesn’t seem to me that the topic on the whole has moved forward all that much.

In both philosophy and psychology there has been a tendency to talk about self-deception as if it were one thing. If it’s one thing, we can just figure out what that is. Right?

 The philosopher’s approach is to try to solve the paradox of self-deception and come up with an analysis of self-deception in terms of necessary and/or sufficient conditions.

 The psychologist’s approach is to try to demonstrate experimentally that certain behaviors require positing a mental state of “self-deception.” (This approach is excellently illustrated by the classic 1979 article from Ruben Gur and Harold Sackheim, entitled “Self-Deception: a Concept in search of a Phenomenon.”)

 Neither approach is exactly wrong. But here’s the problem. “Self-deception” is a term that only loosely refers. If we were to survey all the psychological states that the term can aptly be applied to, we’d find vast differences within that set of perfectly real phenomena. There are, at least, what I would call classic self-deception, self-inflation bias, semi-pretense, and false emotion, all of which seem to me to be distinct—but all of which get loosely termed “self-deception.” I’ll turn to those shortly. For now, let’s stay focused on the methodological problem.

 The implicit assumption that self-deception is a unified phenomenon creates problems for philosophers and psychologists in different ways.

 For philosophers: any good analysis of one of the self-deceptive phenomena (which ends up being an “analysis of self-deception [full stop]”) is subject to apparent counterexamples from someone who points to one of the other self-deceptive phenomena. For example, theorist number 1 (who has classic self-deception in mind) may produce an “analysis of self-deception” that theorist number 2 (who has false emotion in mind) presents a “counterexample” to. The two theorists are in fact talking past each other without realizing it, because of this mistaken assumption of unity. They are both talking about “self-deception.”

 For psychologists: the problem is even simpler to describe. Bodies of data can seem to contradict when they in fact don’t, simply because a data set about one phenomenon is labeled under the same heading (“self-deception”) as a data set that’s in fact about a distinct phenomenon. Something like this may be what happened in the debate in the 1990s consisting of Shelley Taylor (and colleagues) versus Randy Colvin (and colleagues). The “self-deceptive” phenomena that Taylor found conducive to success and happiness are just not the same mental states as the “self-deceptive” phenomena that Colvin found detrimental to social well-being. (I do some untangling of that particular debate in “Self-Deception Won’t Make You Happy,” in case you’re interested.)

 This whole situation impresses upon me one thing that Robert Trivers told me once. He said that what I should be doing with my time and philosophical ability is logically analyzing and distinguishing different kinds of self-deception, which could be a benefit to everyone. I think he was implying that it was a mistake to look for one holy grail analysis of self-deception.

 So here I’d like to make some progress on his suggestion. The following four phenomena are distinct, although they could all (in some cases more loosely than others) be called “self-deception.”

 Classic self-deception. This is a phenomenon of motivated irrationality, in which motivational forces in the agent somehow drive him/her to form a belief that runs contrary to the wealth of evidence that she possesses. The mind is in some sense divided. Thus, classic self-deception is rightly said to involve some sort of epistemic tension. This is the phenomenon that philosophers are most focused on, since it seems paradoxical. But being focused on classic self-deception hasn’t saved us from accidentally labeling cases of the other phenomena as “self-deception.”

 Self-inflation bias. We often hear statistics along the following lines. “94% percent of college professors believe they are above average in their scholarly abilities.” “85% of people think they are above average at driving.” And so on. These statistics are evidence of a general tendency people have to think better of themselves than rigorous analysis of the evidence would warrant. Importantly, I don’t think this self-inflation bias needs to involve an epistemic tension like self-deception does. The self-inflator is wholehearted in her high opinion of herself. Furthermore, this general tendency isn’t motivated by specific desires and insecurities, as is the case in classic self-deception.

 Semi-pretense. Often we go about imitating others without any intention to imitate or pretend. Sartre’s waiter is a great example of this. We take on the trappings of a certain character, without even being aware that that’s what’s happening. If the character I’m unwittingly imitating is inappropriate to my actual circumstances, someone might say I’m deceiving myself. But I prefer to call this phenomenon semi-pretense, because it’s in between plain action and full pretending. (But note that semi-pretense can contribute to classic self-deception, if the agent goes on to form beliefs on the basis of the semi-pretense.)

 False emotion. As Robert Frank discusses in Passions within Reason, people often have emotions for strategic social reasons. Often that’s good. We may cry because we genuinely need help. But crying may well be disproportionate to the amount of genuine need—a way of manipulating other parties into doing one’s will. Importantly, such manipulative false emotion needn’t be (and perhaps usually isn’t) consciously planned. The agent is convinced by her own false emotion! This, again, may be loosely called self-deception, although it is rather different from the preceding three phenomena.

 There are other distinct phenomena, too, that pre-theoretically get thrown into the basket of “self-deception.” Progress will require greater precision going forward.

I’d like to close this blog with a note to anyone who, like me, takes an interest in the evolutionary status of “self-deception.” I have argued in various places that self-deception is not an adaptation evolved by natural selection to serve some function. Rather, I have said self-deception is a spandrel, which means it’s a structural byproduct of other features of the human organism. My view has been that features of mind that are necessary for rational cognition in a finite being with urgent needs yield a capacity for self-deception as a byproduct. On this view, self-deception wasn’t selected for, but it also couldn’t be selected out, on pain of losing some of the beneficial features of which it’s a byproduct. This view seems opposed to the view of Robert Trivers, who maintains that self-deception is an adaptation to facilitate interpersonal deception. But it could be, in light of the foregoing distinctions, that Trivers and I were talking past each other.

I hereby wish to suggest the following. Self-inflation bias and false emotion are evolutionary adaptations that serve interpersonal deception, as Trivers has theorized. But classic self-deception and semi-pretense are in fact spandrels. Whether or not I am right in these particular hypotheses, I think the methodological point of this blog still stands.

Since it is going back-to-school season, I thought I’d educate you on some alarming statistics about depression among college students. Here are the facts, just the facts:

One out of every five young people and one out of ever four college students or adults suffers from some form of diagnosable mental illness.

About 19 precent of young people contemplate or attempt suicide each year.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among people ages 15-24, and the second leading cause of death in college students ages 20-24.

Over 66 percent of young people with a substance use disorder have a co-occurring mental health problem.

Teens diagnosed with depression are five times more likely to attempt suicide than adults.

Over two-thirds of young people do not talk about or seek help for mental health problems.

44 percent of American college students reported feeling symptoms of depression.

From 1980 to 1986, the suicide rate for African-American males ages 15-19 increased more than 100 percent.

Four out of every five young people that contemplate or attempt suicide exhibit clear warning signs.

80-90 percent of people that seek the necessary form of mental health treatment can function the way they used to.

Stereotypes are one of the largest barriers preventing young people from seeking the help they need.

An estimated 5 million young females suffer from eating disorders each year, and eating disorders are the deadliest mental illness, claiming more lives than any other illness.

Deaf Abused Women’s Network (DAWN)

Title: Empowerment Advocate

Hours: Full time at 40 hours per week

Location: Deaf Abused Women’s Network office in Washington DC

Supervision: Interns

Reports to: Deaf Abused Women’s Network Advocate Coordinator

The Empowerment Advocate should have extensive knowledge ofdomestic violence and sexual assault. The Empowerment Advocate will provide direct services to Deaf, hard of hearing and Deaf-Blind survivors of domestic violence and/or sexual violence by assisting them in navigating the civil and criminal judicial process and providing crisis management. The Empowerment Advocate will serve as a direct link to community resources to assist survivors in maintaining their safety and fulfilling immediate social service needs through short-term case management. The Empowerment Advocate will provide systematic advocacy by serving as an expert on the implications for improving the criminal legal system response to Deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf-Blind survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking.

DUTIES INCLUDE:

- Provide immediate crisis management, and advocacy for Deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf-Blind survivors in legal and medical settings.

- Provide guidance and knowledge through the judicial system that may include protection order process, civil and/or criminal charges, and answer questions about navigating the judicial process.

- Provide guidance and knowledge through the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) process.

- Provide short-term case management to survivors by connecting them with local resources and social services.

- Provide assistance with emergency housing.

- Provide information and assistance with emergency food and transportation services.

- Provide assistance with applying for social service agencies.

- Assist the Advocate Coordinator in maintaining client services.

- Assist the Executive Director and Coordinator with Outreach and Education program efforts.

JOB REQUIREMENTS:

Bachelor’s Degree required
Extensive knowledge of and training in domestic violence and sexual violence
Excellent American Sign Language and written communication skills
Well organized and detail oriented
Able to work in diverse settings
Excellent people skills
Able to work in time sensitive situations
Knowledge of Deaf culture
Knowledge of and ability to work within the family services and criminal legal system

How to apply:

Submit a resume and cover letter detailing reason for interest in this opportunity, relevant previous experience, and two references to:

Deaf Abused Women’s Network
Attention: Amy L. Rousseau, Executive Director
5321 First Place NE
Washington, DC 20011

or email to: director@deafdawn.org

DEADLINE TO APPLY: FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 2010

Accessible Deaf Domestic Violence Hotline: The National Deaf Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) is a wonderful resource for the Deaf community. The confidential hotline sponsored by Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services (ADWAS) offers support for Deaf women who are experiencing domestic violence. Friends and family members can also contact the hotline for information about how to support loved ones who are in domestic violence situations. Additionally, the hotline provides domestic violence resource information and facts and statistics about domestic violence.

Anyone seeking information about domestic violence can contact the hotline in one of four ways:

Videophone: (206) 787-3224
Email: ADWAS@NDVH.org
Instant Messaging (IM): ADWASHotline
TTY: 1-800-787-3224

The hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9 am – 5 pm PST.

See the video below for more information.

Lab reports are often required for psychology courses, especially those in applied or experimental psychology. The purpose of a lab report is to clearly and concisely describe an ...

Read Full Post

Here's one more reason to avoid being a couch potato - a new study published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience has found that walking at a moderate pace for 40 minutes three times a week can improve connectivity in the brain, increase performance on cognitive tasks and battle the decline in brain function caused by aging.

Read Full Post

New Study Suggests Walking Improves Brain Function originally appeared on About.com Psychology on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010 at 07:01:52.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Clinical psychology is concerned with the assessment, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of psychological disorders. Most clinical psychologists have a doctorate degree in clinical psychology, although opportunities also exist for those with a masters degree.

Read Full Post

Have You Considered a Career in Clinical Psychology? originally appeared on About.com Psychology on Monday, August 30th, 2010 at 07:01:55.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

• Why Jessica Stern studies violence: Raped age 15; police investign over whn father said she "seemed to have forgotten it" http://is.gd/eJsBO #
• Workplace violence / terrorism: DoD releases report “Lessons Learned from Fort Hood.” http://is.gd/eJts3 #
• Video via @WRY999 Jim Fallon discusses Neuroscience of Murder & Aggression "Exploring the Mind of a Killer". Fascinating. http://is.gd/eJtWg #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• New issue: Crime & Delinquency 56(4). Articles on Juvenile justice, community policing, released Inmates, risk, control. http://is.gd/eHXa8 #
• New research: Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls. Linguistic analysis method 50-65% accuracy. SSRN via http://is.gd/eI0bA #
• New study On Violence Prevention And Intervention Employing Street Outreach Workers. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/198541.php #
• Press release (bad spelling), new book: Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment and Treatment ed. by Gannon & Cortoni http://is.gd/eI0oX #
• RT @ResearchBlogs Links between animal cruelty and domestic violence http://goo.gl/fb/b8rO2 #

Powered by Twitter Tools

posted by KT

Our topic this week is self-deception. 

Self-deception is rampant in human affairs.  And although too much self-deception is probably a bad thing, a little self-deception may be just what a person needs to get through the day.   One should never underestimate the power of positive illusions.  For example, psychological studies show that people who are overly optimistic about their own abilities often have enhanced motivation, which enables them to do better in the face of challenges than people with more realistic assessments of their own talents.

Of course, it may be that for every one person who benefits from self-deception, there are scads who are burned by it.  Think of the pathological gambler who goes bankrupt betting on a “sure thing” or a battered wife who keeps returning to her abuser, confident that he won’t do again. Or think of the mass self-deception that causes the American electorate to believe we can have lower taxes, more government services, and a balanced budget all at the same time.   Clearly,  people subject to this sort of self-deception run a real risk of ruin.

Still,  I’m prepared to say that self-deception always leads to ruin.   I suspect that self-deception, like many facets of human life, has both a dark side and a light side.  Perhaps key to happiness is to staying on light side and avoid the dark side.  But doing that would be no easy task.   I doubt that there could be a formula or even a set of rough principles that told you when it would be happiness making to deceive oneself and when one needed to be relentlessly honest with oneself.

Moreover, when you stop and think about it, self-deception borders on the paradoxical.   It’s easy to see how you can deceive somebody else.  Maybe you hide or distort some evidence or maybe you straight-out lie to them and, like a fool, they believe you.  There may be something morally wrong with deceiving others, but there’s nothing incoherent about it.  It can certainly be highly advantageous for me to get you to believe what I know to be false.    But in the case of self-deception the deceiving party and the deceived party are one and the same.  That’s what makes it so puzzling.

At first blush, it looks as though in order to be self-deceived you have to believe things that you know to be false.   But if you know something to be false, how can you believe it?  You can’t just self-consciously will yourself to believe things you already know to be false.  You can certainly pretend to believe things that you know to be false.  But self-deception doesn’t seem like a form of pretense, not exactly anyway.   Though some have denied it, self-deception seems to involve straight-out believing and believing something that, at some level,  you know to be false.

That suggests that when you are self-deceived you simultaneously believe and disbelieve the same thing.  At some level that gambler mentioned earlier knows he’s betting on a losing proposition.  But at another level he really believes he has chance of winning.   That sounds pretty darned irrational.   It’s not immediately obvious how such irrationality is even psychologically possible. 

That’s  one question that a good theory of self-deception needs to answer. Self-deception is pretty obviously possible,  but explaining just how it’s possible is not a simple matter.

A good theory of self-deception had also better explain how self-deception manages to be so pervasive.  Self-deception is not a rare and exceptional thing for us humans.     We humans pride ourselves on being paragons of rationality.  And there is more than a little justification for that pride.  After all, our brains have created science, art, mathematics politics and philosophy.  But the problem is that right along side all these amazing capacities sits a capacity for rampant self-deception.   Why do we have such a capacity in the first place?   Did natural selection specifically design our brains for self-deception?

And then there’s the original question that I started out with.  Can self-deception sometimes be the key to human happiness or will self-deception always lead you to misery and ruin, at least in the long run? Those are just some of the questions we’ll put to this week’s guest --   Neil van Leeuwen.  Besides being one of the world’s up and coming authorities on self-deception,  Neil has deep connections to Philosophy Talk.   When he was a graduate student at Stanford,  working on his very fine dissertation on self deception – he served as Philosophy Talk’s  Director of Research.  He’s now gone on to bigger and better things, obviously.  But we’re really pleased to welcome him home. 

Definition: Behavioral psychology, also known as behaviorism, is a theory of learning based upon the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning. Conditioning occurs through interaction with the environment. According to behaviorism, behavior can be studied in a systematic and observable manner with no consideration of internal mental states. Read more...

...

Read Full Post

Have you ever wanted to become more creative? While creativity is sometimes thought of as an inborn trait found in a gifted few, there are a number of steps you can take to develop your creative skills. For example, researchers have found that having a positive mood often leads to more creative solutions to problems.

Read Full Post

20 Tips for Boosting Creativity originally appeared on About.com Psychology on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 10:01:19.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The Health Protection Agency has released its most recent figures on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) (including HIV) today. This is based on data collected from GU clinics across the UK annually. You can read the main report here. Those who’re of the more thorough/geekier persuasion may also want to look at the data summaries of STIs (including breakdown by region, ethnicity and age) available at STI Epidemiology in England 2009 and Trends in STI diagnoses. I would recommend reading and critically appraising the HPA report and datasets if you are interested in this topic – particularly if you’re writing about it for the media, blogs or using it in health education/practice.

What are the main findings and recommendations of the HPA report?
* Numbers of new diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the UK rose by 3% between 2008 and 2009, continuing the trend of the past decade.
* The impact of poor sexual health is greatest in young heterosexual adults and in men who have sex with men.
* There is considerable geographic variation in the distribution of STIs with highest rates seen in urban areas of higher deprivation, reflecting concentrations of the population who are at greatest risk.
* Some antibiotics may become less effective (or even ineffective) in treating STIs in the coming years.
* Increasing sexual behaviour risk may be contributing to the rise in STIs and will have done so in men who have sex with men, but much of the change will have been due to the increasing application of more sensitive tests throughout the past decade and to the more recent expansion of Chlamydia screening of young adults in community settings.
* Prevention efforts, such as greater STI screening coverage and easier access to sexual health services, should be sustained and continue to focus on groups at highest risk.
* Health promotion and education remain the cornerstones of STI and HIV prevention through improving public awareness of STIs and HIV and encouraging safer sexual behaviour such as consistent condom use and reductions in both the numbers and concurrency of sexual partnerships.

Why are UK STI rates rising?
Over the past five years there have been several initiatives to improve testing and treatment for STIs. This has included
- more rapid testing (particularly pee in a pot tests) and screening for STIs such as Chlamydia and Gonorrhea
- greater targeting of the under 25s to have said testing (via GPs, community pharmacies, and GU clinics)
- improved data collection on STI rates via individual services and the Genitourinary Medicine Clinic Activity Dataset
- a shift in focus in public health campaigns from STI prevention and normalising condom messaging towards testing/treatment focus
- attempts to make services more accessible to young people with initiatives such as ‘You’re Welcome’
- sexual health services have been modernising and restructuring, with standards of care established and sexual health networks being created to try and improve sexual and reproductive health services

It would be naïve to claim all of these changes are responsible for the identification of record levels of STIs, nor that all of them have been effective. But it is worth noting (and the HPA report acknowledges) that some of the increased detection of STIs will be down to higher levels of screening. So from that perspective the figures are more positive – it tells us we are identifying and treating people with STIs more than in the past.

Alongside these healthcare initiatives there are other, less positive reasons why STI rates are rising in the under 25s. These include:

Our lack of comprehensive, quality sex education
Sex education remains patchily delivered across the UK with some places doing excellently, others not so well or even teaching negative messages (more information here and here). Young people generally are afraid of unplanned pregnancy (and overestimate rates of unplanned pregnancy), but less aware of STIs. This is particularly the case if education focuses on teaching the names of STIs and showing gory symptoms, but doesn’t explain how you get and prevent STIs or talk about how many are symptomless.

Public Health Campaigns
While we have had government led public health campaigns aimed at the under 25s for the past twenty years these have been patchy, underfunded, and subject to numerous changes in messaging resulting in confusing ideas shared (my insider view of the problems with UK government backed sexual health campaigning can be found here). Despite the limitations of sexual health campaigns from the previous government it is worth noting the current coalition appears to be doing little in the way of public health campaigning for sexual health services.

Access to and funding of services
GU clinics have traditionally been referred to as the ‘Cinderella service’ – not as well funded nor respected as other areas of healthcare. Getting appointments also remains a problem with some services struggling to give appointments in 48 hours or less. In many places waiting times can be weeks rather than days. While demands on services continue to increase, along with the workload of staff rising massively, funding to match these demands is not forthcoming. Perhaps unsurprisingly some staff aren’t always sympathetic which can be off putting. Meanwhile despite underfunding, over expectation and cuts, it is generally staff who are blamed if services don’t hit targets.

Aside from getting seen within services is the wider problem of people knowing how to find them. Many clinics still struggle with promoting their services to the public, or being open at accessible times.

To see how it works in practice, try this experiment. Imagine you’re 16 (or thereabouts). You still live at home. You need to find where a sexual or reproductive health clinic is in your area. Your school hasn’t provided you with any advice, you can’t ask your parents and your friends aren’t much help. Without using the internet, how do you find a clinic locally? Look around your neighbourhood. Can you spot any posters or leaflets? Is there information at your pharmacy or GP practice or library? Are there any youth centres or clinics offering support – and if so when are they open? If you find services are there any that are open at times you could get to? (To make it more challenging imagine you were under confident, struggled with literacy or language, or perhaps had very strict parents who needed to know your whereabouts – this may further limit what you would be able to access).

Silo working
While there is plenty of research on sexual health services and initiatives to improve waiting times, accessibility, youth friendliness and treatment/testing options, alongside evaluations of what works within sex education, we sadly do not see much in the way of collaborative working. This is often referred to as ‘silo working’ where individual practices, organisations or individuals may well have great ideas but do not share them together. Alternatively work may be replicated (including mistakes) or opportunities for collaborative practice are missed. While services are overstretched, underfunded and pressurised it is difficult to find the time or enthusiasm to network.

Culture, attitudes and sexual climates
Norms and values relating to sexual behaviour have undoubtedly shifted over the past few decades. Pre and extra marital sex is no longer viewed as taboo by the majority of the UK population. Contraception to prevent pregnancy has enabled people to have sex for pleasure. Discussions about sex within popular culture have become more prevalent and some may argue more explicit, although this has not been matched with education to enable people to negotiate a culture that may well feel more sexualised to some. New technologies, the internet and shifts within publishing have allowed easier access to sexual imagery. These are not in themselves a problem but may become one if people do not have the life skills to interpret what they see and enjoy respectful relationships.

Our media undoubtedly plays a role here by covering sexual health stories with a mix of salacious scandal mongering and moral judgement. Every time sexual health data is released the media’s approach is to hysterically report a crisis and speculate on the reasons for it, but at no point to campaign for any initiatives to improve sexual health. The media COULD help by being supportive about sex education, campaigning for more funds to GU services, highlighting how to access services (for local news) or providing accurate sex advice to help people negotiate pleasurable safer sex.

Confusing/mixed messages on safer sex
STI rates can be reduced by condom use. Many young people do use condoms, but they may not consistently use condoms with partners over time. And they may also not get screened for STIs before using a non barrier method of contraception. The focus on testing and treatment without including prevention messages means some young people assume regular testing is sufficient to cope with STIs. Clinicians and sex educators often give mixed messages with some suggesting regular testing is mandatory, others advocating self management and using barrier methods of contraception is better. So people can be confused about what the right approach to managing their sexual health should be.

Confidence and communication
Evidence suggests young women in heterosexual relationships find it difficult to negotiate condom use, while young men will use condoms but won’t necessarily mention them unless a girl does (for more on condom negotiating styles and gender see, for example here). Varying sexual health initiatives have attempted to encourage girls to carry condoms and insist on their use or enable young men to do the same. Some have also focused on clearer communication and negotiation skills both about safer sex but also around discussing other intimate and pleasurable topics together. Studies on men who have sex with men indicate older men tend to be more aware of condom use but there is still variable use within relationships and condoms tend to be used more for anal sex than during other activities like oral sex or masturbation. Both straight and gay couples can assume condoms only need to go on just before a man is going to ejaculate so have penetrative vaginal or anal sex without a condom, putting one on before a guy comes.

‘Risk’ and ‘responsibility’
Negotiating safer sex is more difficult when alcohol is involved, and most people do not assume their partner is likely to have an STI. When you’re thinking about how much you fancy someone you’re not necessarily considering their sexual history. There can also be the view that STIs are things that happen to dirty, bad or promiscuous people – other people, not you. Sexual health messaging – particularly through education and public health campaigns often overemphasise morality discourses of ‘risk’ or ‘responsibility’. These tend to be ineffective as many young people do not consider being intimate as inherently risky or irresponsible. Such an approach also assumes older adults act in different (and more ‘appropriate’) ways than younger people, which is neither fair nor true. Within much sex education and healthcare lies the subtext that ‘good’ sexual behaviour is always being prepared, always having condoms to hand and always effectively negotiating their correct use, while sober. What may be great in theory often simply does not happen in real life.

How did the media (and public) respond to this story?
The media response to this story was interesting. Most coverage I saw repeated the HPA’s press release pretty much, some adding additional comment about why STI rates were so bad (most of them missing key areas as outlined above). While the coverage was perhaps not as hysterical as recent discussions on young people and contraception or abortion, there was still very much a subtext of blame and judgement among much coverage. Accompanied by a lot of handwringing about the state of our nation’s sexual health with relatively little discussion of what we might do to improve our wellbeing.

The overwhelming majority of coverage did not clarify that much of the increased prevalence in STIs was down to testing initiatives and treatment programmes. The focus suggested the STI rates were solely down to young people having multiple partners.

It seemed most journalists did not consult the HPA report nor particularly interrogate the data. Those called upon to comment were not generally selected from GU services or sexual health research. Instead it seemed anyone who’d ever written something about sex, sex therapists or generalists on the topic were asked to give their opinion about young people and their behaviour rather than appraise or expand upon the HPA data. Some of the comments made by sex experts on twitter, broadcast and print media clearly showed they had also not consulted the HPA report but still commented on its findings. It is very worrying when both a journalist and the person they ask to explain a report have not actually looked at said data.

Additional input from experts and the public shifted the debate towards a more blame-focused narrative generally blaming young people, or repeating memes such as:
- young women are all victims, they cannot make decisions for themselves
- young men are all predators, who are at the mercy of their overactive sex drives
- feminism has caused young women to act like men
- Sex and the City has taught young women to be promiscuous
- Young men are being blamed for STI rates
- Young women are being blamed for STI rates
- Young men’s needs are being ignored
- Young women’s needs are being ignored
- Young people are feckless, irresponsible and simply don’t care about STIs
- ALL young people undoubtedly know ALL about STIs and cannot claim otherwise
- Sex education/pornography/rap music etc is to blame for rising STI rates
- STIs were not a problem for previous generations
- Scaring young people about STIs will put them off having sex and combat this trend
- Young people who get STIs (particularly repeatedly) should be punished/refused access to healthcare
- STI rates are just as bad in the over 40s, if not worse than in the under 25s

While some of these are more extreme than others it does show how often this debate is further hampered by moral and opinion based discussions that have very little to do with the realities of why young people get STIs. Rather than exploring reasons and finding solutions we are encouraged instead to blame, shame and generally judge people who have STIs – not focus on wider causes or feasible solutions.

What can we do about our STI problem?
This is not a case of us having a problem but not knowing what to do about it. Our epidemiological data for STI rates is improving every year, sexual health services are modernising and new initiatives for testing/treatment are available, alongside prevention messages and strategies to promote safer sex. We know quality sex education increases safer sex and the likelihood of people being able to communicate their sexual needs assertively while reducing coercive behaviour. We know that training up teachers and health professionals to talk about sexual health issues with confidence – and to see these issues as important is necessary. We know young people are interested in such information. We know services would work better with more funds and resources, and if collaborative working was encouraged – and if the media supported rather than scuppered sexual health initiatives.

There is no mystery here. We have ample evidence to fix this. We are failing to do so because our debates on this issue focus on blaming young people and those with STIs and not focusing on the systemic problems that need to be fixed. This is not to say people are not responsible for their own sexual health, but with our current haphazard approach we also do not enable people to take control over their sexual wellbeing.

Data like this always tells a story – about people affected by STIs. But it perhaps masks the discomfort, anxiety, nuisance, distress or fear having an STI may cause. It misses what can happen to relationships, people’s self esteem, or future fertility.

It’s very easy to sit in judgement on those who have STIs. Assuming you don’t have one (are you sure?) or you would never have unprotected sex. It is very easy to believe we’re facing rising STIs purely because of feckless youth. But it completely misses the point. This is a major health crisis – and it affects us all.

Sources of help, advice and further resources
Sexual Health Helpline call 0800 567 123
NHS Choices on Sexual Health includes resources, advice materials and the facility to find your nearest sexual health/genito urinary clinic by postcode
Manchester Sexual Health Network has created the most comprehensive list of related links on GU/SRH I’ve found
NHS Evidence – Sexual Health Services links to resources, data and research on sexual health in the UK

Conducting your first psychology experiment can be a daunting task. Learn more about ten of the steps you should follow in order to successfully complete a psychology experiment.

More About Psychology Research & Experiments

...

Read Full Post

Are you a high school student? Are you planning to study psychology when you get to college? If so, then you should be choosing classes now that will help you succeed in your college-level psychology courses.

Read Full Post

Classes You Should Take In High School If You Want to Major in Psychology originally appeared on About.com Psychology on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 at 11:26:35.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Does crossing your arms indicate that you're feeling defensive? Do shifty eyes mean that someone is telling a lie? The things we communicate without words can carry as much meaning as any verbal expression, but it is important to have the skills to both understand and express such signals.

Read Full Post

Tips to Improve Your Nonverbal Communication Skills originally appeared on About.com Psychology on Monday, August 23rd, 2010 at 08:15:07.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Posted by John Perry

Our topic this week  is Humanism.  The program was recorded live at at meeting of the American Humanism Assocation, in San Jose.

 Well, one might wonder, what controversy can we find in Humanism?  We usually think of Humanism as that glorious movement in thought that began in the Renaissance, with the rediscovery and re-appreciation of the texts and art of the Greeks and Romans.  Human life, in this world, moves to the center of attention, while God, Heaven, angels and the like, the focus of medieval thought, move aside.  Humanism led to the Enlightenment, to Locke and Hume and Kant, to democracy and science and progress.  Not to mention to Humanities Divisions in modern universities, with philosophy departments, and philosopher hired to teach and think.  Three cheers for Humanism!

Descrbied this way, Humanism doesn’t seem very controversial.  For one thing, it doesn’t seem opposed to religion in general or Christianity in particular, as long as it pays suitable attention to humans.  Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel.  Leonardo da Vinci painted the Last Supper.  Locke wrote a book about the Reasonableness of Christianity.  So all these important Renaissance and Enlightenment humanists seem to have been Christians. 

But that raises the question:  why are religious types, and fundamentalist Christians in particular, so upset these days about Humanism -- calling Humanism a plot to take over our schools, introduce relativism into morals, and all sorts of other evil things?

Well, they are thinking of Secular Humanism. So is secular humanism an alternative to Humanism, or a species of it, or what? Secular humanism, or scientific humanism, is really a species of humanism in the more general sense.  But many see it as the natural development of the ideas implicit in all humanism.  Secular humanism doesn’t just move the focus of attention from God and heaven and angels to humans, it drops God and heaven and Angels from the picture altogether.  It doesn’t just appreciate science, it takes the reality science discloses to be all the reality there is. 

So secular humanism really goes beyond appreciating human-oriented art; it involves a set of philosophical doctrines.  And in fact the philosopher John Dewey was instrumental in drawing up The Humanist Manifesto -- first version, 1933.  It’s pretty philosophical!  Here's a rough sketch.  The universe wasn’t created by anyone; humans are part of the natural world; mind and body dualism is rejected; there are no supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values; the end of human life is the here and now, not some afterlife, and a lot more.

So how about the Humanists spread out in the audience before us  as we recorded this program, humanists of the American Humanist Association.  -- are they just old fashioned, "Humans are sort of important and the Greeks and Romans were cool” type humanists, or are they secular humanists?  Defnitely the latter.   The American Humanist Association descends from Dewey and his friends.  You can find Manifesto One on their website, as well as Two and Three.  We we're definitely in the presence of secular, scientific, God-not-fearing, capital-H Humanists.

That means, according to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly, and quite possibly the Pope too, these people are bound and determined to undermine the moral basis of America, subvert values, educate a generation of atheists, and God knows what else -- or maybe I shouldn’t put it that way…

But we don’t need Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly, or even the Pope, to tell us what the American Humanist movement is about, because our guest was one of their intellectual leaders --  Jennifer Bardi, editor of The Humanist magazine. 

 Here are the fifteen points of the original AHA Manifesto --- for later revisions, see their website.

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

 

 

 

 

 

Definition: According to Freud, the ego is the part of personality that mediates the demands of the id, the superego and reality. The ego prevents us from acting on our basic urges (created by the id), but also works to achieve a balance with our moral and idealistic standards (created by the superego)... Read more

...

Read Full Post

This post is based on a true story. I’ve altered identifying details, but the events described are real. I wrote it a while ago as a training activity for healthcare practitioners to consider some of the fuzzy boundaries that exist around mobile technology and our working practices. In an era where we’re eager to use new technologies to improve healthcare and health education there can also be hidden issues we’ve perhaps not focused on as much as we should.

See what you think about the case described below. What would you do if you were the healthcare practitioner, the patient, or the carer talked about in the story?

Darrell, a newly qualified physiotherapist was talking animatedly with his colleagues over lunch about a new patient Ketan, a six-year-old boy recovering from a car accident that had left him with severe leg injuries. ‘He’s amazing’ enthused Darrell, explaining how Ketan was slowly learning to walk again, ‘here, let me show you’. Darrell produced his mobile phone, and after pressing a few buttons showed his colleagues a series of photographs. There was Ketan concentrating hard, frowning as he performed his exercises. Next a shot of the injured leg, followed by a beaming Ketan giving a gap-toothed grin and thumb’s up to the camera. Louise, one of Darrell’s co-workers was the only one to appear concerned. Raising her voice above the ‘isn’t he adorable?’ comments of her colleagues she asked ‘is it okay to take pictures like this?’ ‘Oh yes’ Darrell reassured her ‘I asked Ket’s mum and she said it was fine, in fact, here they are together’. A fourth photograph was shown, picturing a smiling Ketan seated on his mum’s lap, pointing at his leg, whilst she looked uncertainly into the camera.

Darrell’s case probably isn’t that unusual. With new technologies it’s now easier than ever to capture a memorable moment, and that includes colleagues, patients and their families. Darrell wasn’t using the images for research or training, he was inspired by Ketan and wanted to share that feeling with others. He genuinely meant no harm. Ketan was clearly happy to show off his ‘poorly pins’ as he and Darrell had come to name them. Ketan’s mum probably was happy that such an enthusiastic health professional admired her son enough to take his picture.

But would she have agreed so readily knowing Darrell intended to show the picture to his colleagues, friends, and relatives? Perhaps Ketan’s mum thought that Darrell’s photo taking was part of his job, so didn’t question it. Or maybe she felt unable to say no. Given many people aren’t aware you can take photographs with mobile phones Ketan’s mum might not have even been properly aware that pictures were being taken.

Consistently we ask patients to share their stories, lend us their images, and let us sample bits of their bodies. We use this to diagnose, help and treat patients, to teach medical students, or to make new discoveries in research. Patients can expect to be asked to share their histories, be photographed, filmed or audio taped. That doesn’t mean they always understand what they are consenting to, nor have control over how the information, images, or samples they provide will be used.

And outside of this process are the health care staff like Darrell with their own agendas. They collect images or stories to explain their work, to move others as they’ve been moved, or even to make themselves look good in front of friends and colleagues. Maybe like Darrell they show a picture of a cute case study, or perhaps regale squeamish friends down the pub with a story of a particularly gruesome illness or difficult patient. Shouldn’t we be training our staff to respect patient confidentiality and privacy? Or in criticising someone like Darrell are we stifling their skills, and denying them job satisfaction?

In an era where public access is greater than ever, where we’re used to seeing candid shots of celebrities, Darrell’s behaviour isn’t out of place. But in a hospital setting where his job is to provide care, is it appropriate? Ketan’s recovery made a remarkable story – but maybe it wasn’t Darrell’s to tell.

Quizzes like these aren't evidenced based - they're just for fun. But I do hate when they're accurate. This one in particular got me spot-on.

Your Power Color Is Red-Orange

At Your Highest: You are warm, sensitive, and focused on your personal growth. At Your Lowest: You become defensive and critical if you feel attacked. In Love: You are loyal - but you demand the respect you deserve. How You're Attractive: You are very affectionate and inspire trust. Your Eternal Question: "Am I Respected?"

What's your power-color?

posted by KT

Our topic this week is Bodies for Sale.The buying and selling of vital organs is illegal in most developed countries.  But there is a thriving, global black market in body parts.  Should the buying and selling of organs be legalized and brought into the above ground economy?  Or is something inherently wrong about treating the human body and its parts as mere commodities?

One thing for sure.  There is huge pent-up demand for body parts.  In the US alone, according to the National Kidney Foundation, over ninety-five thousand people are currently waiting for an organ transplant, with another four thousand added to the wait list every month.  In 2006, more than six thousand people died awaiting life-saving organ transplants.  And of the twelve thousand dying people who could donate organs, only about half actually do.  The numbers are just staggering – utterly staggering.   In 2002, the World Health Organization pegged the number of people suffering from diabetes around the world at a hundred seventy one million.  By 2030 the number will climb to nearly four hundred million.  Those folks are prime candidates for kidney transplants.

So… we’ve got a huge global demand for bodily organs and an inadequate supply of donations.  Is it any wonder there's a thriving black market?  Legend has it that a healthy kidney can fetch up to a hundred fifty thousand dollars.  That’s a mighty tempting number.  Doesn’t that suggest that if there were open, legal, well-regulated markets in bodily organs the supply problem would just disappear?  And we might do a lot to alleviate third world poverty while we’re at it. 

But legend and reality don’t always match.  Take that hundred fifty thousand price tag for a kidney, for example.  Numbers like that are sometimes thrown around on internet chat rooms, but the reality is quite different.  In places like the Philippines or Iran -- where the buying and selling of organs is not against the law -- the price for a kidney is pretty low -- a few thousand dollars at most.  It’s true that black market brokers will sometimes charge as much as ninety thousand dollars to their rich Western clients for third-world kidneys.  But hardly any of that money reaches the person who offers up the kidney for sale.

You might think that the  problem is the black market itself, but it also could be that even an  open global market in kidneys might do more to enrich those who exploit the poor than it would do to help the poor themselves.    Even open global organ markets have great potential to exploit the poor and desperate around the world by turning their bodies into repositories of spare parts for the well-off, without really doing much to improve their own lot.  After all, not many middle or upper class Westerners are going to sell a kidney for a few thousand bucks -- even on a legal open market.   And not many of the world’s desperately poor are going to be able to afford to buy kidneys on ANY market.   So even in an open market the burden would fall disproportionately on the poor, while the benefit would fall disproportionately on the rich.   

So the situation is deeply morally fraught.  It seems pretty nearly completely upside down to the egalitarian liberal in me.  And then there’s the intrinsic yuckiness of  thinking about your own body parts as mere commodities.   I tend to be a Kantian and the Kantian in me tends to recoil at the very idea of treating my own body as a mere thing, a mere tool to be bought and sold like any other commodity.  Kant would probably say the buying and selling of organs is inherently wrong.  When you sell an organ, you're treating yourself as a mere means, rather than as an end in itself.  And Kant thought you should always treat yourself and others as ends in themselves.  And my gut instincts almost always go with Kant on these matters. 

But, of course, it turns out to be more complicated than Kant realized.  When I sell my labor, for example, I allow my employer to treat me as a mere means.  If it’s morally okay to sell your bodily labor, why isn’t it morally okay to sell your bodily organs?  I'm not sure the Kantian has a satisfactory answer to that question. 

We’ll put that question and much more to our guest,  Debra Satz,  author of the very fine book, Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: On The Limits of Markets.  Tune in to see what she has to say. 

Chromotherapy is the use of color and light to bring health and balance into one's life. As a psychologist, I feel that there are many ways to create a sense of well being. I'm open to all kinds of experiences, and like to hear when people try something new that has been meaningful to them.

Chromotherapy has been around since ancient times. Notably, Egyptians built solarium rooms with colored glass to achieve certain therapeutic benefits. The sun would shine through the glass and flood an ill person with color.

Today, there are many practitioners who use color and light in interesting ways. Some Color Therapists have a box with a mechanism that flickers light into the eyes. They report success in speeding the recovery of stroke victims and people who experience chronic depression. Some Color Therapists recommend the wearing of eyeglasses with colored lenses to achieve benefits of color exposure. Another kind of color therapy example is the practice of Feng Shui, where color is strategically placed into your home and work spaces for optimum balance of energy[1].

Using Chromotherapy doesn't only involve bathing yourself in color in a physical sense. Another form of Chromotherapy is "Color Breathing"[2].

"Color Breathing" is a meditative practice, that can easily be performed before going to sleep, or when waking in the morning, at work or at home.

With "Color Breathing" you choose a color to suit your needs. Simply hold the color in your mind's eye. Then, as you inhale a deep, slow breath through your nose, you visualize that color, try to feel the color and see the color. Then you exhale slowly through your mouth, continuing to visualize and experience the color.

Breathing Colors

Red: Increase energy and power. Affects the heart by increasing pulse rate, and the muscles by increasing their tension. Influences vitality, and increases body temperature. Can be used to develop excitement and sensuality.

Orange: Cure procrastination, improves attention, stimulates creative thinking and enthusiasm.

Yellow: Experience Joy, optimism.Increases neuromuscular tone. Purifies blood, helps digestion, and has a cleansing effect. Strongly stimulates happiness, brings on a sense of security, as well as a strong feeling of well-being.

Green: Regulates the pituitary gland, fights depression, bulimia, and other psychosomatic conditions affecting the gastric system. It is useful in calming the nervous system, fights irritability, insomnia and can be used to assist in reducing anxiety.

Turquoise: Improve immune system, ,increases intuition and sensitivity.
Turquoise is important for respiratory system and in strengthening the metabolism.

Blue: Relax, reduce high blood pressure, calms breathing rate and heart rate. It has anti-inflammatory and muscle relaxing effects. Calms strong emotions like anger, aggression or hysteria.

Purple: Boost self worth, gain wisdom, decreases sensitivity to pain, helps in detoxification.

Pink: Let go of negative feelings, heals grief and sadness. Restores youthfulness. Brings you in contact with your feelings.

White: Provides energy and balance, by stimulating the production of serotonin, a substance which regulates both sleep and the nervous system. Re-balances the psychophysical and hormonal systems in people who suffer from seasonal depression

Black: Is a power color and can bring authority. It can also provide protection, calm, silence as well as submission.

Brown: Increases decisiveness and concentration. This color also provides stability, grounding, conservation, protection. Brown can help awaken common sense and discrimination. It brings us back down to earth.

Silver: is the color of peace and persistence. It has been used for fighting cancer of tissue and blood.

Gold: It is a curing color, strengthening all fields of the body and spirit. Gold is very useful in increasing self-awareness. It can also renew enthusiasm.

Do you have a favorite color?

Posted by JP

 

William James, the topic of this morning’s program,  is one of America’s greatest philosophers.  His career spanned the turn of the Twentieth century; he actually was teaching at Stanford at the time of the 1906 earthquake, and wrote an interesting essay about his experiences and feelings during the quake.

James was a precursor to contemporary philosophers, in that he was really a cognitive scientist / philosopher.  He was in both departments at Harvard.  His two-volume PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY was the bible of psychologists at the time.  It still makes fascinating and rewarding reading. His book THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, which is a combination of philosophy, psychology and sociology, virtually originated the serious study of the psychology of  religion.

As a philosopher, James is best known for pragmatism.  I think there are two sides to pragmatism, one pretty plausible, one not so plausible

The plausible side is his pragmatic theory of meaning.  James illustrates it with a story.  Some campers are having an argument about this situation.  A squirrel is running around a tree in a certain direction.  A man is following the squirrel around the tree in the same direction.  Both the squirrel and the man are clearly going around the tree.  But is the man going around the squirrel?  He must be, since he is going around in a circle, inside of which the squirrel lies.  But he must not be, because he is always looking at the squirrel's back.  If you go around a squirrel you first see his back, then his side, then his front, and so on...

You can see that James hung around with a very intellectual crowd.  Apparently, instead of drinking beer and talking about sports, or movies, or even politics, they chose to discuss this rather arcane subject.   Anyway, according to James, there was a spirited argument, about whether it was true or not that the man went around the squirrel.  But James pointed out that the two hypotheses  --- that the man goes around the squirrel and that he does not --- don't lead to different observable consequences.

So he asked his friends:  what evidence, what observation, would show that one hypothesis was correct and the other incorrect.  And the couldn't come up with anything.  So they were really arguing about nothing.The pragmatic theory of meaning points out that both hypotheses have the same observable consequences; or, as one might put it, they both do the same work in predicting the future.  So they have the same meaning and the argument is empty.

This is similar to things that Hume said, and what later philosophers, like Carnap, called the verifiability theory of meaning.  The meaning of a sentence is basically the observations that would show it's true.  William James is a bridge between earlier empiricists like Hume and modern empiricism.  Hume looked for meaning of an idea or belief in the causes of an idea, the “sense-impressions” which gave rise to it.  20^th century empiricists, following James, look to later sense-impressions, the sense-impressions you will expect to have, if the belief is true.

I don’t think that the pragmatic theory of meaning is going to solve all of our problems, but there is something pretty plausible about it.  By my lights the same cannot be said for the pragmatic theory of truth.  This is the idea that what makes a belief true is that it works.  Here’s a quote:

            Truths are goods because we can "ride" on them into the future without being unpleasantly surprised. They "lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters as well as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency, stability and flowing human intercourse.  They lead away from eccentricity and isolation, from foiled and barren thinking"

This  seems to me to have things just backwards.  If  you hold true beliefs you won’t be surprised by experience.  But the lack of surprise isn’t what makes the beliefs true.  It’s their truth that accounts for the lack of surprise.   At any rate, this dubious idea gave James an opening for beliefs like immortality and God; these beliefs may help your life go well …. But that doesn’t, in my humble opinion, make them true.

Our guest will be Russell Goodman from the University of New Mexico, who can take us a little deeper, and perhaps make James theory of truth a little more plausible. 

 

 

This post was originally published shortly after our episode on William James -- which is being rebroadcast this wee-- originally aired.  We're moving it up to the top of the blog in honor of the rebroadcast. 

Russell Goodman, who was our guest a couple of weeks ago, for our episode on William James sent the following remarks as a follow up to our on-air conversation. They are posted here with his permission.

I wanted to comment on that squirrel going around the tree story with which  James opens the second chapter of Pragmatism.  It's a great story, but it seems, from my experience, to itself provoke as much disagreement and puzzlement as the squirrel and the man themselves do.

At first blush, it seems like a good verificationist story- a dispute about  two terms or hypotheses that have the same empirical consequences.  James's  point would be then be that the dispute is idle (as you put it in your  introduction, the campers are “arguing about nothing.”)  This seems to be  James's conclusion in the second paragraph, where he writes:  “If no  practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle.”  That's fine, and this statement fits Peirce's example (in “How to Make our Ideas Clear”) of a cup of wine that is allegedly Christ's blood but gives all the signs of  just plain wine.

But James's conclusion does not fit what he says in the first paragraph,  where the point is NOT that there is no “practical difference” between the  cases but rather that if one makes the distinction between two senses of  “going around”  (i. e. passing north of,  east of, south of,  west of, vs. facing the belly, then the side, then the back, then the other side of the  squirrel) there is no need for disagreement.  That's because each sense determines a DIFFERENT, empirically verifiable set of consequences, either for the man himself (if he can catch sight of the squirrel's belly, etc, it being a narrow tree) or certainly for the observers, who can tell whether  the man is facing the squirrel's back or belly (is the squirrel standing?) or merely circling a squirrel who keeps his belly facing the man.

So, James misinterprets his own example as one in which there is no practical difference between the two hypotheses, when there actually is. In either interpretation however, the example is meant to furnish a picture of traditional philosophy, as (in the words of one of James's heroes, George Berkeley) raising a dust and then complaining that one cannot see. In this guise pragmatism is a critical philosophy or therapeutic philosophy, freeing us from pseudo problems.  There's also a positive side (e. g. his 'humanistic epistemology') that the example doesn't seem to exemplify.

Another puzzling thing about James's example is the question of what it has to do with pragmatism, or why we need pragmatism to tell us this?  As James points out, the idea of making a distinction when we encounter a (seeming) contradiction is an old one in philosophy.  It's a funny idea to invoke at the beginning of a chapter where one expects to learn about what is distinctive about pragmatism.

From years of teaching this chapter I've learned not to start with the squirrel example,  but to pass to other points he makes in this really quite amazing piece of writing.  Last spring I gave a seminar on the chapter in North Carolina and we had a very lively discussion about the squirrel example for most of an hour, with people disagreeing about whether James really did misinterpret his own example!  We didn't get much further however.  What do you think?

Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that infects mice and makes them less afraid of cats. The fearless mice are more likely to be eaten by cats, and the parasite reproduces in the cats' digestive tract. Toxoplasma's ability to alter mouse behavior has led to a bit of evidence and a lot of theories about how human brains might be affected by the parasite. Since about a third of adult humans worldwide have toxoplasmosis, this is a pretty important question.

...

Read Full Post

• New research: “Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility” J. Exp Soc Psy http://is.gd/dWINO #
• New research: “Anger as a cue to truthfulness” Truth-tellers accused of wrongdoing show more anger than liars, but… http://is.gd/dWIVx #

• How police interviewers’ influence strategies affect whether suspects from different cultures provide info. http://is.gd/dTgJL #
• Journal article on investigative interviewing practices in China. http://is.gd/dTh28 #
• Journal article: Truth bias and regression toward the mean phenomenon in detecting deception. http://is.gd/dTimj #
• Can the Implicit Association Test be used to distinguish truthful and deceitful witnesses? Yes and no. Journal article: http://is.gd/dTiNI #

Powered by Twitter Tools

posted by Ken Taylor

Our  topic this week is social realities.  I must admit that when I first brought the nature of social reality up as a topic for an episode of Philosophy Talk, the non-philosophers on our team all went  “huh?”   That phrase obviously doesn’t mean much to the person on the street.  But  social realities are all around us.  Think of cocktail parties, football games, bar mitzvahs, political rallies, and even nations.  These are all social realities.  

 And in connection with this sort of thing both parts of that phrase “social reality” are worth focusing on. All the things I just mentioned are things that really and truly exist.  They aren’t figments of anyone’s imagination; they’re real.  Really real.  Objectively real.   But at the same time, they're all made up entities, at least in a sense.   Cocktail parties exist only because a group of people get together and say “we're having a party now.”  People just sort of decide that these things are going to exist.  And so they do exist.  Seems kind of like magic.

It isn’t really magic,  but it is puzzling.  At bottom, social realities are just creations of the human mind.  Not individual human minds, but collections of human minds.   You can’t all by your little lonesome create a social reality.  Try it and you really will end up with something that’s just a figment of your own imagination.  But put a bunch of people together, let them exercise their imaginations together;  let them agree; and presto,  you’ve got a new social reality. 

What could, I suppose, make that sound a little like magic still is the fact that it takes at least two minds to make a social reality. If one mind can’t do it, why are two or more minds any better, you might ask.  Well the answer is that social realities are, by their very natures,  founded on agreement.   If a bunch of humans agree to create a club, then there is a club.  If a bunch of humans agree to form a nation, then there exists a nation.  And although clubs and nations are nothing but products of human agreement, they're not figments of our imagination.  To be sure they are products of our imaginations, but they’re real products, not mere figments.  Once we agree that they exist, they are  as objectively real as rocks and mountains.

Not only are things like clubs and nations real, they are  really important.  They have a huge impact on our lives.   We’re immersed in a universe of ever changing social realities.  And they play an immense role both in determining how we live and how well we live.   Our earliest forbears foraged on the savannah and huddled in caves. Civilizations have risen and fallen and with them, ways of life have come and gone.  Throughout these massive changes in the social world, the biological and physical worlds have changed too -- but not as radically, and mostly in ways that are more or less direct consequences of changes in the human social world. 

So the social world affects not only the way humans relate to one another, but also how we interact with the rest of the biological and physical world.   Science, for example, is really a complex social undertaking by which humans collectively seek to understand the physical, biological, and even the social world itself.

Now scientific understanding of the social world sounds like a good thing.  But it also sounds a bit like sociology or anthropology or maybe social psychology.  We’re philosophers.  Why should we philosophers worry about the social world?

Well for one thing, we want to understand just how the social world arises out the natural world.  

But wait a minute, you’re about to interject. You started out by saying that social realities are a creation of the human mind.  Doesn’t that suggest that the social world doesn’t arise out of the natural world at all?  In one sense yes; in one sense no.   The sense in which the social world is not part of  unaided nature is obvious.  The social world depends entirely on us humans and not on the blind and impersonal forces of nature.  But ultimately human beings are just parts of the natural world.  So the power of the human mind to create social realities must have its roots in human psychology, which must ultimately have its roots in human biology, which must ultimately have its roots in physics.

 This may sound a little reductionist.  Afterall, I  started out talking about the power of the human mind to create, almost out of nothing, all varieties of new social realities.  And now I seem to be suggesting that it all comes down to the chemical processes of the brain.   It’s definitely got to come from somewhere.   It’s not just magic.  And besides, even animals have some limited power to create social realities.  It would certainly be good to understand just what equips the human mind to build social realities of such a wide variety and just how those human capacities evolv ed from lower level capacities of social animals,

There’s obviously a lot to think about here.  Fortunately for us we had an excellent guest for this episode -- Berkeley’s own John Searle, author of Making the Social World. 

I should say that this program was recorded in front of live audience at the Marsh Theater – this time in Berkeley, California.  As a consequence, you won’t be able to join the conversation on air.   But you can join it here.   

Just cut and paste a section of something you've written to see what famous author writes like you do!

I write like Margaret Atwood - who is a Canadian author, poet, critic, essayist, feminist and social campaigner.

Yeah. That's sounds about right for me!

posted by Ken

Our topic this week is the irrationality of human decision making.  As philosophers,   I’m sure that John and I would like to believe that we make  decisions in a perfectly rational way.   Indeed, I’m sure that most people think of themselves as pretty rational decision makers.   How would thoroughly rational decision making go?  Well, first, you’d  decide what things you want, and how much you  really want them.   Second, you’d survey your options for getting what you want.  Third, you would assess the upside benefits and downside costs of each alternative.  And last but certainly not least,  you’d choose the alternative that has either the greatest upside or the least downside, depending on whether you were risk-averse or risk seeking. It’s pretty simple really.

 Decades of psychological research has shown, thought,  that although philosophers may be paragons of rationality  --  ahem, ahen – in fact most people  (and probably most philosophers too)  are pretty irrational in their decision-making.   People go wrong at every turn.  We aren’t so good at figuring out what we want.  Our preferences aren’t very stable or coherent.  We’re bad at assessing risks and reward.   You name it, when it comes to decision making, we’re bad at it. 

Here’s a little game you can play with a partner that helps illustrate how irrational we can be. Let’s call it Sellers and Choosers.  If you’re reading this alone and you want to play along,  go get a partner now and let’s play the game together.  I’ll be the referee. I’ve got two mugs – one for you, one for your partner.  The mugs are exactly alike.  I’m just going to flat out give you one of the mugs.   (I can’t really do that over the internet just yet.  But use your imagination and play along.)  Anyway, the mug is  yours to keep.  It’s a really beautiful mug and very well made.  Or, if you like, you can sell it.   No doubt you’d be willing to sell the mug for the right price.  So go ahead,  write down the price at which you’d be willing to sell your lovely little mug. 

Now as for your partner.   I’m going to offer your partner a choice.  I’m not going to flat out give her (or him) the identical mug.  She or he has to choose.   She has to choose between an identical mug and a sum of money.  How much money, you ask?    Well, I’ve written an amount of money on the bottom of the mug.   She doesn’t get to see it.    Instead what she has to do is write down an amount of money such that if she had a choice between the mug and the money, the choice between the two would be a wash.   She gets the mug only if the price she writes down as a fair price for the mug is higher than price I’ve written on the bottom of the mug.  

You may be wondering going with this and what it has to do with irrational decision-making.  Don’t worry, the punch line is about to come.   Here’s the thing,  suppose we run this little experiment thousands of times and put people in different roles – sometimes the role of Seller and sometimes in the role of a Chooser.  You know what we find?    Well we find that people in the role of the seller place a significantly higher price – like more than twice the price -- on the mug than people in the role of the chooser do.    What that means is that if  the mug is already yours (and you have to set a sell price)  you’ll think it’s worth a lot more than a similar mug that isn’t yet yours  (on which you have to place a “willing to purchase it” price.)  

One way to think of this is as an instance of loss aversion.  You’ve got your precious mug in hand and you don’t want to lose it.  It means a lot to you.   And so you set a very high price on it.  That is,  people tend to value things they already have and might lose, much more highly than things they don’t have, but could get.

That seems pretty irrational, doesn’t it? Go back to what I was saying earlier about calculating upside benefits and downside costs.  It looks like those calculations are highly skewed, depending on whether we’re talking about gains or losses.  That doesn’t make any sense.

We’ve looked at just one tiny little example of apparent human irrationality.  There are literally hundreds of experiments that demonstrate that people are massively irrational in the way we make decisions.   And luckily for us, we’ve got one of the world’s leading investigators of human irrationality as our guest this week. Dan Ariely, author of the bestselling Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.    

By the way,  Ariely has a follow up book out – The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home.  We’d love to have him back on the show to talk about the new book.  This week’s episode, though,  is less about the upside of irrationality than the downside.  But I think one can get a glimmer of how irrationality might have an upside by considering last week’s topic – loyalty.  From pure self-centered cost-benefit analysis, it can be hard to make sense of loyalty.   You might even call loyalty a form of irrationality.  But without loyalty (and trust)  all kinds of relationships wouldn’t be possible.   So if loyalty is a form of irrationality,  it may be a darned good thing that we are irrational in that way.   But that’s a topic for another show.  

Optical illusions occur as a result of perception. Essentially, visual perception involves a three step process. 1) The eyes see 2)The information received is relayed to the brain 3)The mind reasons it all out.

Sometimes, though, what we see isn't what's really there. Below are three static, non-moving pictures from Mighty Optical Illusions. Take a look at how they "move" and "float" despite being fixed objects. This is a great lesson in learning how perception is not always an accurate experience. Gives new meaning to "seeing is believing", doesn't it?

For more on illusions link here

Inception is the cinematic blockbuster from writer/director Christopher Nolan about the power of dream states. I've been waiting a long time to see this finished project, having read about it years ago.

Essentially, the movie is a psychological thriller about the intricacies of the psyche, especially the Alpha state of the subconscious mind. Dreams are validated as real experiences, holding secrets, meaning and power if we can bring them into awareness.

The movie's star, Leonardo DiCaprio, said he prepared for the role by reading Sigmund Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams". Oh, Leo, you could've called me to help you. I would've let you borrow my Interpretation of Dreams collector edition. . . maybe do a session or two on the couch.

Brain Wave States
There are four brain wave states that take our mind to different places. First is Beta wave, where we are awake, alert and oriented to all things. Our mind is active and in a conscious state.

The second is Alpha wave, where we are relaxed, perhaps daydreaming, cat napping, meditating or enjoying a blissful calm. We are not asleep, but we are barely there. Our minds dimly register what's currently going on - and have greater access to subconscious thoughts.

The third is Theta wave, where we become drowsy and fall into light sleep.

Deep sleep is Delta Wave, where we are out for the count. The movement between Delta and Theta waves is the zone where we dream, and where REM sleep can be measured.

If you want to develop your mind to access subconscious thoughts, sharpen your Alpha waves by meditating, daydreaming or taking a cat nap and see where things take you.

Note: Thanks to Xmichra for reminding me that Alpha waves, which spur subconscious thoughts, can also cause triggers.

posted  by Ken Taylor

Our topic this week is loyalty.  Loyalty binds people together.  Friendships, marriages, even nations are built on loyalty.  Try imagining a person who has no loyalty whatsoever to anything or anyone.   Such a person would be friendless, loveless, nationless.  She would feel no devotion to any higher cause or principle – like truth or justice.   She would not even be a fan of any sports team.   A life like that would be empty, devoid of many of the things that make us fully human.

Of course, loyalties are not all created equal though.   Loyalty to a sports team is a shallow form of loyalty.  Loyalty to a nation can sometimes demand too much.  Or think of the loyalty that some battered wives display to their abusive husbands.   There’s a misplaced loyalty if there ever was one. 

Loyalty goes hand in hand with trustworthiness.   If you can’t trust your spouse not to beat you or cheat on you, then your spouse doesn’t deserve your loyalty.  If you can’t trust your government not to send young men off to fight in fruitless, forlorn wars, then your government doesn’t deserve your loyalty.

That’s connected to something else.  Earlier I  said that loyalty unites and that’s a good thing.  But loyalty also divides. And that’s a bad thing.  For example, soldiers at war are driven to kill each other by their competing loyalties.   Or think of a parent who lavishes more toys on his/her children than they really need, out of a sense of loyalty and devotion, while entirely ignoring the needs of poor, abused, malnourished children around the world.  If he would just spend a little bit of his wealth elsewhere, he could do a tremendous amount of good.  But his loyalty has blinded him to the needs of others.

Loyalties can also divide a person from herself.   Loyalty and devotion to your family, for example, can pull in one direction, while loyalty to  an employer can pull you in an entirely different direction. Managing such conflicting loyalties is no easy task. 

You could think that you just have to decide.  You have to decide where your highest loyalty lies.  Do you most  want to be a better parent or a better philosophy professor and radio host? 

But it doesn’t seem quite right to me that choosing between conflicting loyalties is a brute decision, a matter of simply deciding for yourself to whom or what you owe the higher allegiance.   There must be some principles --  some moral principles --  that tell you who and what you owe loyalty to and to what degree you owe loyalty.  Such moral principles should  help you resolve such conflicts on an objective moral basis. 

Speaking of abstract moral principles, though,  depending on your  moral outlook, the very idea of loyalty can seem morally problematic. Take utilitarianism, for example.   Its highest principle is that you should always act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.    But it’s  actually pretty hard to make sense of the very idea of loyalty if you are a utilitarian – at least if you are a crude act utilitarian. 

To see why think about two people drowning.  You’re in a boat and can save only one of them.  One of them happens to be a Nobel Laureate who has discovered a cure for cancer.  The other happens to be your spouse.  Which one do you save? 

The obvious answer to me is that I’d save my wife.  But you’d have a hard time justifying that answer on utilitarian grounds.  That’s because utilitarian morality has a hard time justifying giving the kind of special weight to one’s wife that loyalty demands.  In deciding what to do, her well-being should count, to be sure, but  no more, and no less, in your calculations than the well being of any arbitrary person. 

That seems wrong to me.  But I have to admit that I have hard time putting my finger on just why.  My wife means a whole lot more to me than just any arbitrary other person.  But does my loyalty and devotion really morally obligate or entitle me to give more weight to her well-being than to the well-being other people? 

Consider a further test of just how much added moral weight loyalty endows my wife’s well being with.  Suppose it was a matter of saving my wife, while letting two other people or three or four other people drown.  Would I still be inclined to save her and let the others drown?

Here I feel something of a quandary – perhaps divided loyalties are tugging at me. On balance loyalty, and the special concern that goes with it, seem to me like very good things.  But loyalty can be taken too far and can demand too much.    And drawing the line is a tricky matter. 

Clearly,  we need some help sorting this all out.   And luckily for us, help is on the way, in the form of our guest, poet and philosopher, Troy Jollimore.  Troy has thought long and hard about loyalty, love, friendship and morality.   So it should be a fun episode.   If you’ve got the time,  give a listen.  Maybe even call in. 

1. Learn to Relax
Allow yourself to let go of inner tensions by giving yourself a “mini vacation.” Give your mind a break by becoming engrossed in a good book, watching a movie, listening to music, taking a walk, working on a hobby, meditating or similar activity that is relaxing for you.

2. Be Kind To Yourself
People are frequently too hard on themselves when things don’t go right. Tune into your self talk, and counteract your negative thoughts about yourself with positive statements.

3. Eat Properly
Nutrition has a direct impact on feeling mentally positive. Limit your intake of sugar, fat, salt, caffeine and alcohol and help yourself stay mentally fit.

4. Find A Friend
Friendships are very important to mental fitness. Working on developing and maintaining friendships is one of the best ways to continue growing as a person. Expressing feelings and ideas to another person can help us clarify what’s truly important to ourselves.

5. Learn to Say “No”
Often people feel the need to respond immediately when a friend or family member make a request. Help yourself set limits by avoiding the quick “knee jerk” response in the affirmative. Instead, let them know you will get back to them shortly. Then do a check of your schedule; ask yourself if you really want to add to your load. Give yourself permission to say “No” when you are too busy to take on additional commitments of your time or energy.

6. Exercise
Check with your doctor about what level is best for you. Even a brisk 15-minute walk, three times a week does wonders for how you think and feel.

7. Do It Now
Procrastination can lead to negative feelings about yourself. One doesn’t have to go to extremes, but it can feel very satisfying at the end of the day to have accomplished a hard task or met a difficult situation head-on.

8. Adapt To Rather Than Resist Change
Change is inevitable and is a necessary part of life. The important thing is to be patient with yourself when you are going through change, and to give yourself time to go through the phases of transition. Realize it takes time to let go of the old and embrace the new.

9. Test Your Assumptions
Sometimes in our interactions with other people, we make the most incredible assumptions and act as if they are true. Rather than assuming, it might be worth the risk to ask directly what was meant.

10. Express Your Feelings
Emotions are a natural response to life. It is important to find ways to express your feelings. Journaling your thoughts is one way that can help you clarify what you are feeling. Once you have identified your feelings, you may find it easier to share them with others.

11. Grieve Losses
Sadness and grief are natural and appropriate responses to the losses which we all experience. Grief over the loss of a love one can be very painful and may last for some time. By being kind and allowing ourselves the time to grieve, we have the potential to be stronger than ever

12. Rest
Get a good night’s sleep. Not everyone needs the same amount of sleep, but it should be restful sleep. There are many techniques available to help promote relaxation; or, you might want to check with your doctor rather than assuming your restless sleep is simply something you have to live with.

13. Review Your “Shoulds”
If you feel stuck by some things you “Should” be doing and aren’t, set a time limit by which you will either have them done or get rid of them. Staying stuck in the middle is a good way to punish yourself and cause mental anguish and stress.

14. Have A Laugh
Nurture your sense of humor, especially about yourself. Trying to see the humorous side of things makes even the most difficult situations easier to bear. Laughter is good medicine. Being too serious limits your ability to enjoy life.

15. Ask For Help
If you need emotional support or just someone to talk to, don’t be afraid to ask for it. There are times in life when everyone must look outside themselves for comfort and advice. If friends can do the job, ask them to help. If not, be assured that professional help is available through your employee assistance program.

Warm

You are very interested in other people. You have great deal of sympathy and compassion. You are a confident person, and you're aware of the image you project. You act like you're in control even when you're not. You are very comfortable around people, and you enjoy talking with strangers. You are approachable. You are engaged and paying attention to the world. You are a good listener.

These eight year old girls are great dancers. But the question is....does dressing and dancing like this make their performance cute or concerning?

According to study by the American Psychological Association, early sexualization of girls can lead to the following:

"Cognitive and Emotional Consequences: Sexualization and objectification undermine a person’s confidence in and comfort with her own body, leading to emotional and self-image problems, such as shame and anxiety.

Mental and Physical Health: Research links sexualization with three of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in girls and women—eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed mood.

Sexual Development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls’ ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image."

It is clear that these young girls are talented and confident, but this kind of dancing and exposure is likely to lead to more serious concerns.

DeAngelis, T. (2007). APA task force report decries culture's sexualization of girls. Monitor on Psychology,38(4), 51-52.

* The human brain produces 100,000 chemicals reactions per second.

I wonder if this little girl is available for Life Coaching?

Enjoy.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month. Research shows that the number one obstacle in seeking treatment for mental illness is stigma. Negative stereotypes and improper understanding of mental illness keep spinning the vicious circle of stigma. To counter this paradox, professional and grassroots organizations, schools, communities, hospitals and even media outlets have joined together in an effort to raise the awareness about mental health.

On the media front, Discovery Health Channel is broadcasting PsychWeek: Six Nights of Understanding. This series takes you into the world of people who experience Anxiety, Rage, Dissociative Disorder, Schizophrenia, Addiction, Bipolar Disorder, Hoarding, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. These individuals and their families give us a glimpse of their life, of their struggles and triumphs. Their courage will help educate about mental illness - and chip away at the stigma that surrounds it as well.

This is what I call "Appointment Television". So clear your schedule or set your DVR. This promises to be a very important series. Click here for complete programming.

If you, or someone you know is struggling, remember, there's no shame in having a mental illness.

Byrne, P. (2010). Challenging healthcare discrimination: COMMENTARY ON ... DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 16 (1), 60-62 DOI: 10.1192/apt.bp.108.006106

Each April since 1981, the United States Office of Victims of Crimes (OVC) has helped lead communities throughout the country in their annual observances of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week (NCVRW) by promoting victims’ rights and honoring crime victims - and those who advocate on their behalf.

Research states that only a small fraction of crime victims seek help from formal support networks. This may occur because many victims are unaware of the services available. If you have been a victim of a crime, you can have access to legal, medical and psychological services - many of which are free of charge or may be subsidized by your county or state. For more, link here

It's good to educate yourself in how to limit your chances for being a crime victim, but even if you do all of the right things, crime can still happen. Don't let the trauma of interpersonal violence keep you from getting the help you need.

McCart, M., Smith, D., & Sawyer, G. (2010). Help seeking among victims of crime: A review of the empirical literature Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI: 10.1002/jts.20509

People who experience Alexithymia are unable to recognize emotions and their subtleties and to understand or describe thoughts and feelings. Sometimes Alexithymia makes it hard for them to tell a story or understand the emotional experience of others.

Alexithymia was coined from the Greek word LEXIS, (word) and THYMOS (feelings), and literally means "a lack of words for feelings". Alexithymia is not a disorder, but is seen as a trait. Some characteristics are:

*Difficulty identifying different types of feelings

*Difficulty distinguishing between emotional feelings and bodily feelings

* Limited understanding of what caused the feelings

* Difficulty verbalizing feelings

* Limited imagination

* Functional, constricted style of thinking

* Physical complaints

* Lack of enjoyment and pleasure-seeking

* Stiffened posture and/or facial expressions

Many individuals who have Alexithymia engage in counterproductive non-verbal activities to communicate their feelings. Activities like cutting, or breaking things, drinking or dabbling in drug use, for example. Learning to recognize feelings, verbalize and communicate them is the goal here. Alexithymia has a strong involvement in mental illness and personality development - but it's not something to be afraid of. If you experience Alexithymia, or know someone who does, there are ways to learn how to strengthen skills.

Psychotherapy can help to show you the way.

Lee, Y. et al. (2010). Direct and indirect effects of the temperament and character on alexithymia: A pathway analysis with mood and anxiety Comprehensive Psychiatry, 51 (2), 201-206 DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2009.06.001

Avvannavar, M., Kumar, N.S., Shrihari, S., & Babu Are, R. (2008). Mobile Phones: An Anthropological Review of Its Evolutionary Impact The Journal of International Social Research, 1 (5), 81-103

You Act Like You Are 31 Years Old

You are a thirty-something at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! You're responsible, wise, and have enough experience to understand a lot of the world. You're at the point in your life where you understand yourself pretty well. You are figuring out what you want... and how to get it!

In honor of today's Mental Health Blog Party hosted at the American Psychological Association here are some quotes on the benefits of psychotherapy. So, read on and let's stomp the stigma!

"I've seen psychiatrists in my time, so songwriting hasn't always worked. It's not a bad idea to have someone to talk to." ~ Musician, Sir Paul McCartney

"Counselling saved Bill and me." ~ Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

"Talk therapy and antidepressants jump-started me out of my blackness." ~ Musician, Sheryl Crow

"Talking matters." ~ Political Journalist, George Stephanopoulos

“I believe in therapy. I think it’s an incredible tool in educating the self on the self.” ~ Actor, Jennifer Aniston

"I love being in therapy. It's just constantly fulfilling for me. " ~ Actor, Jennifer Jason Leigh

"You know, I think that going into therapy is a very positive thing, and talking about it is really helpful, because the more you talk the more your fears fade, because you get it out. " ~ Actor, Fran Drescher

"Therapy saved my life. " ~ Actor, Mickey Rourke

“I’m big on therapy." ~ Actor, Eva Mendes

"I know a lot of people think therapy is about sitting around staring at your own navel - but it's staring at your own navel with a goal. And the goal is to one day to see the world in a better way and treat your loved ones with more kindness and have more to give." ~ Actor, Hugh Laurie

"I've been in group therapy. I'm always keeping my mental health in check." ~ Actor, Halle Berry.

"I was almost 50 before I felt able to face the things that lay at the heart of my [troubles], but all the therapy I've had subsequently has been of help." ~ Musician, Joan Baez

"Go talk to a psychiatrist. And when you get the help you need, you're going to wonder why you didn't do it a long time ago." ~ NFL Football Player, Terry Bradshaw.

"My dreams are pretty vivid. I talk about them in therapy." ~ Actor, Robin Williams

“Therapy is great, therapy just works. " ~ Actor, Robert Downey, Jr.

May is Mental Health Month.

Across the country the National Alliance on Mental Illness will be hosting walks and other events to address the need for an improved mental health treatment program.

...

Read Full Post

I just ordered the movie No Kidding Me Too that addresses mental illness and stigma. I think it will be a great teaching tool for my graduate students.

Taking the stigma out of mental illness is so important. Thanks to actor Joe Pantoliano for this wonderful and important documentary.

Five years ago today, we made the first post that would eventually make its way onto a blog called Cognitive Daily. We thought we were keeping notes for a book, but in reality we were helping build a network that represented a new way of sharing psychology with the world. Cognitive Daily wasn't the first psychology blog, but clearly it filled an important niche, because within a year, we were receiving over 30,000 page views a month. Now we often get over 100,000 page views a month, and we've totaled over four million. We reach many more people than would ever have bought our book, and we've made many people aware that psychology is much more than Sigmund Freud.

Now, it's time to say goodbye to that. We are permanently closing Cognitive Daily, and this will be our last post.

While we won't be here, we've seen a number of exceptional psychology blogs join us in sharing the science of psychology with the world, and we encourage you to visit them. Rather than single any of these blogs out, we ask that you visit Dave's ongoing project, ResearchBlogging.org. There, by clicking on the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" channels, you can find nearly 100 blogs that regularly discuss peer-reviewed research in the same fields we've been covering here. You can also follow dedicated psychology and neuroscience RSS feeds, or the @researchblogs twitter feed, to get an even broader view of what's going on in the world of science.

We're grateful to many, many people who have helped make Cognitive Daily great. There are too many to mention by name, but without the many scientists who provided the raw materials, the bloggers who've helped share ideas, and the administrators and techies who've made it all work, this blog simply couldn't exist. And, of course, without our readers and commenters, Cognitive Daily probably wouldn't have been around for more than a few months. You've inspired us, motivated us, corrected us, disputed us, informed us, and responded to more polls and surveys than we ever imagined possible. We hope you'll continue to find Cognitive Daily useful; the archives will remain here for all to see.

What will we do with all that time we've freed up? Greta plans to continue her work as Professor of Psychology at Davidson College, teaching and mentoring students, conducting research, and sharing her love of music, literature, and art. Dave will continue as editor of ResearchBlogging.org and weekly columnist for SEEDMAGAZINE.COM, and he'll maintain his personal blog, Word Munger and his obsessively-updated Twitter account. In addition, Dave's planning a new project, to be unveiled within the next few weeks. Look for more information about it on Twitter and Word Munger. In addition, Dave's now launched a new blog, The Daily Monthly. Check there for a new post every day, a new topic each month.

Thanks again for being a part of Cognitive Daily. It's been an amazing ride.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Take a listen to this brief audio clip of "Unforgettable."

Aside from the fact that it's a computer-generated MIDI performance, do you hear anything unusual?

If you're a non-musician like me, you might not have noticed anything. It sounds basically like the familiar song, even though the synthesized sax isn't nearly as pleasing as the familiar Nat King Cole version of the song. But most trained musicians can't listen to a song like this without cringing. Why? Because the music has been made "bitonal" by moving the accompanying piano part up two semitones (a semitone is the difference between a "natural" note and a sharp or flat). Here's the original, unaltered piece:

Can you tell the difference? A 2000 study led by R.S. Wolpert found that non-musicians couldn't distinguish between monotonal and bitonal music played side-by-side. Meanwhile musicians found artificially-created bitonal music to be almost unlistenable. For most non-musicians, if they heard anything wrong with the clips, they typically said they were being played too fast, or mentioned some other unrelated concept.

But Mayumi Hamamoto, Mauro Bothelo, and Margaret Munger (AKA Greta) wondered if years of musical training were really necessary for non-musicians to hear bitonal music. Bitonality is actually a bit controversial in the world of music, and it can be a little hard to define. In principle, there's a difference between bitonality and just playing or singing off-key, but in practice, the difference may not even exist. Advocates of bitonality like to point to the works of composers like Milhaud, Bartók, Prokofiev, and Strauss. These composers deliberately wrote in two different musical keys. But how is that different from occasionally or regularly writing dissonant chords? After all, all the same notes can be written using any musical key. To be truly bitonal, advocates say the two separate parts must unfold independently in different keys. This results in a distinctive "crunch" when the music is played. The separate question is, is this noticeable? Wolpert's work shows that it is, at least for trained musicians.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Thirteen people were killed and several more wounded in a shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, on Thursday.

...

Read Full Post