TED Blog:Jonathan Haidt on how our moral roots skew our reasoning

Our Righteous Minds were designed to unite us into teams, divide us against others, & blind us to the truth -Jon Haidt http://bit.ly/9N7TyU

This is the third in a series of articles on emotional intelligence for personal growth.

Self-awareness is one of the most important benefits we get from spending time in a mindful state. The longer we are able to stay mindful, the more we learn about our selves. We come to recognize the ebb and flow of our thoughts, moods, emotions and impulses. We begin to see relationships between our thoughts and feelings and external events.

Image via Wikipedia

One thing we notice is that our thoughts and feelings often contradict each other. Our emotional selves and our rational selves often have conflicting memories, perspectives, and motivations. On the surface, positive emotions seem helpful, and negative emotions seem to be destructive.

There is an old Cherokee folk tale called the "Wolves Within".

An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice, "Let me tell you a story.

I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do.

But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him, and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger,for his anger will change nothing.

Sometimes, it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."

Likewise, many of us grow up with messages that discourage us from expressing anger and other negative emotions. We often learn very young to suppress our anger because it is seen as disrespectful to our parents. There also appears to be a common belief that strong emotions can control our behavior. Indeed, we often hear about people who have a "bad temper" and anger management programs proliferate to treat mostly men who can't seem to manage their anger.

Sadness is another negative feeling that has had a bad rap. Many people feel horribly shameful for crying in front of someone else. The word "depressed" is often used interchangibly with sadness to describe the feeling. This serves to further pathologize normal feelings. Many people I've treated fear becoming sad as the first step of becoming depressed again.

Sadness is a feelling commonly felt whenever someone experiences a loss. Depression is a mental illness characterized by prolonged sadness and impaired function. Depression goes well beyond simple sadness to where the body has begun to shutdown. Symptoms include what is called neuro-vegetative signs that cause interruption of natural sleep and eating patterns as well impairment in concentration, memory, and decision-making.

I've found it useful to conceive of the mind as having two main parts. One part is largely made up by the cortex, or the evolutionary most recently developed brain structure. It's this part of the brain that is largely responsible for manipulating symbols, interpreting and remembering patterns of perceptions, and self-awareness and self-monitoring.

The cortex overlies a phylogenically older part of the brain that largely makes up the autonomic nervous system. [Its sometimes referred to as the "Lizard Brain" because even reptiles have equivalient brain structures.] In this part of the brain, the body functions largely "automatically". Here the heart is stimulated to beat, breath is maintained, pain sensors are monitored, Automatic behaviors like walking and steering a car are monitored, largely without conscious awareness. Here is also the roots of our emotions, the biochemical and hormonal precursors to the thoughts whose symbolic representations we create to understand our emotions.

Roughly speaking, the cortex is the thinking part of the brain, the autonomic nervous system is the emotional and functionally analogic part of the brain. That part of us we imagine as "rational" or "logical" largely resides in the cortex. Those parts of us that are instantly compelled to act out of sheer emotion reside in the autonomic brain. Virtually all of our behavior is in fact the result of BOTH parts of the brain. The cortex retains a veto on most emotionally inspired behaviors beyond basic instinct. So we duck when we hear a loud noise, but we consciously retain the decision whether to run or not. It is equally inaccurate to call our behaviors as rational manifestations or solely emotionally based. Our behavior is largely the result of both parts of us.

Why would we have both kinds of emotions if we didn't need them? Whether your put your faith in natural selection or God, would we expend so much negative energy if we didn't need it? I think it's more useful to think of the body as a functional whole that emerged from generations of development into a amazingly effective organism. We seem to naturally have an amazing ability to heal ourselves.

So which is true, are negative emotions the scourge of our existence? Or do we need both kinds of emotion to make us complete? Are negative emotions always evil, inspiring only the most despicable manifestations of our behavior? Or does the negative serve to differentiate, elaborate and balance the positive?

Our motivations are largely emotionally driven. Negative emotions push us to face and act on those things that make us most uncomfortable. Positive emotions allow us to enjoy success and give us energy to meet new challenges. But negative emotions inspire us to make changes. Misery is perhaps the most creative force in our lives. Seldom do we make major changes in our lives without considerable emotional pain. Each negative emotion comes complete with an intuitive guide to action. Anger pushes us to stand up for ourselves and speak up when we've been treated with disrespect. Fear makes us hyper-vigilant to potential danger and readies us to duck or run away if needed. Sadness makes us review over and over again what we've lost. That ruminative search is for the knowledge to compensate for our loss and meaning and wisdom to understand our lives from a new perspective. Guilt reminds us of our responsibility in the errors we make and motivates us to work to understand our mistakes and learn how to avoid repeating them.

Therefore, ALL parts of us are as necessary to survival as any one. On an experiential basis, this requires a leap of faith. Strong negative emotion or even ambivalence is an uncomfortable condition. Our mind is known to create all sorts of convenient fictional explanations of motives and their behavioral manifestations in attempt to maintain an illusion of rationality. One such example is cognitive dissonance.

In order to make use of our incredibly effective brain, we must be aware of as many of it's manifestations as is possible. We must recognize and be able to put into words emotions as complex and varied as our thoughts. We must also accept the fact that our thoughts and emotions OFTEN contradict each other, but in a real and very personal sense, both are right. Both parts of the brain have learned their reactions over years of experience. Both points of view require consideration for a good decision about what must be done. Our rational mind can consider all options, develop all needed strategies, but when it comes to deciding what is best, what is most important and what is the right thing to do, our emotional side steps in to make the final call.

Cognitive learning is the most available for change. We think, therefore we do. If we change how we think, we change what we do. However, everyone knows from their last New Year's resolution that it's not that simple for the many behaviors we want to change. Changing emotional learning is much more difficult. Our emotional side learns by repetition or by another intense emotional experience.

To become truly self-aware, we must understand both parts of us, the rational and the largely hidden emotional part. Each part of us is just as needed as the other part. Once we embrace the notion that all feelings are necessary, we can search for their meaning and purpose. Then we harness them to motivate ourselves and we are pushed in the direction we need to go.

Next time you feel overwhelmed by vile emotions and thoughts, sit with them; make sense of them. Trace them to their origins; understand what they might mean for you today. Then, make a reasoned decision what should be done. As hard as it is to sit with a foul emotion, you will find it an amazingly creative force for change.

To be continued...

This is the second in a series of articles on emotional intelligence for personal growth. The first part is here.

Mindfulness is a non-judgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises is acknowledged and accepted as it is. It is a skill that is learned by committed practice. The object is to focus one's attention on thoughts, feelings and events in the present moment while remaining curious, open, and accepting whatever occurs.

The idea is to take on the role of an observer of your own mind. Notice everything that happens without holding onto anything, having a "Teflon Mind". An important part of observing is putting words to the experience. The effect of naming the experience effectively separates you from it. Thoughts are just thoughts, feelings just feelings, all transient experiences that are not necessarily a part of or define who we are.

True mindfulness involves immersing yourself in your experiences so that you actually forget yourself. The idea here is to stop the conversation you have with yourself, or as Eastern traditions put it, letting go of ego. This internal dialogue, while an important skill in the right circumstances, can become a major distraction. Imagine yourself walking through a beautiful park muttering to yourself. Would you remember what you saw in the park? You'd probably remember more about what you were muttering to yourself!

One way to do this is to focus on what is at hand. "See the job, do the job." The idea is NOT to always stay busy, ut to invest all of yourself in everything you do. "Smell the roses." Another thing to watch while doing things judging if this should have happened or whether it's fair, just, or right or wrong. It IS, the only value in questioning why is avoiding a problem in the future. Anything more than that is a waste time and emotional energy. See what you are doing, but don't evaluate it. Focus on the facts without evaluating it. Count on your intuitive self to react appropriately, changing the harmful situation or changing your harmful reaction to the situation.

Another distraction to your experiences is multi-tasking. Doing more than one thing at a time spreads your skills thin so that your product becomes sub-optimal, perhaps even mediocre. If you multi-task regularly, you actually train yourself to be easily distracted. There is some research that suggests that this subtle distraction training contributes significantly to attention deficits that impair your concentration. Research also suggests that training persons with Attention Deficit Disorder with mindfulness techniques can be an effective treatment!

The idea is to keep your mind's eye on the objectives until the task is done having faith that you will do the best job your can and react appropriately should something go wrong. Think about it, if you are preoccupied with what might go wrong while doing something, will your focus be on the job or the fear of what might happen? If you are distracted by fear, how good a job can you do?

Most of us, when not structured and focused on a task at hand, are thinking about past and future events. We either review previous experiences looking for new learnings we might have missed or planning our reactions to anticipated events. We focus on the moment only when there is something immediately presenting that requires a response. Our focus is often divided between what is happening in the moment and the thoughts on which we are focused.

For those of us that have more than our share of regrets and/or worries, being focused on the past or the future becomes a nearly full time job! This is not good. Without your full participation in the moment you are in, you are distracted, your reactions are primed with the emotions of the worry or regret. That means your judgment and decision making ability is impaired by emotionally distorted judgments! Have you ever been startled by someone while preoccupied with regrets or worries? Did you react with an emotion not meant for the other person? Most people have had that experience. It is likely we have all experienced spilling our internal emotion on an unintended other. And if that person was paying attention, he or she probably noticed your emotion and wondered if you were upset with them!

Few of us have the ability to be focused on the moment at will. It is a skill that takes a lot practice and a commitment to follow through. The eventual reward is an incredible feeling of peacefulness, acceptance, and centeredness combined with heightened concentration. You see, a mind uncluttered by regrets or worries has only the moment to focus on. Self-consciousness dissolves into the experience of the moment. Instead our focus is on our senses, our perceptions, punctuated by the thoughts and feelings flowing through our minds. The ultimate state of mindfulness is what is called flow.

Flow is the state in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing with a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and an expectation of success. Flow could be conceived of as being completely focused and motivated in a single-minded immersion. Emotions and thoughts are synchronized in the service of performing and learning. In flow, the emotions are not just contained and channeled, but positive, energized, and aligned with the task at hand. While in flow, we feel a clear sense of direction, confidence, intense concentration, and personal control. We feel a natural and continuous intrinsic reward. Time seems altered, slowed or moving quickly. Feedback for one's actions and focused redirection come easily and painlessly so that action and awareness seem to merge.

One does not have to reach the ultimate form of mindfulness to benefit. With each strengthening of the skill comes with incredible benefits in quality of life. There are many tools available to us that will help us learn. Check out the resources here.

Continued here.

This is the first in a series of articles on the topic of emotional intelligence for personal growth.

I got this quote in one of those anonymous emails that has been forwarded through thousands of inboxes all over the planet:

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting '..holy sh*t ....what a ride!' Enjoy the ride. There is no return ticket.

Image via Wikipedia

I had heard something like this decades ago and remember that it had a profound effect on me. It was one of those "Aha!" moments we all have from time to time. I had always been a cautious man and taken great pains to avoid unnecessary risks on my way to building a career.

While this new perspective didn't change a lot about what I did, it did change how I thought of myself. I had been holding myself back, reviewing everything I was about to say or do before I considered acting. I'd also review everything I had done over and over again hoping to pull one more insight from each act in my past. It was exhausting! I was focused totally on the past and the future and I was often miserable with self-imposed anxiety. And my life was passing me by. I experienced a shortage of joy. My only fun was in many escapist activities I engaged in, luckily none were particularly self-destructive. My life had become driven by regret, worry and escape. This little saying made me acutely aware that I was living life all wrong. I was totally focused on going somewhere and never stopping to enjoy where I was. It took a number of years to figure out just what I had to do to change things. New understanding of this task still comes to me every day.

"Full Impact Living℠" is what I call my life philosophy. It's a set of key concepts that I have developed over the more than thirty years I've practiced as a psychotherapist and manager of mental health programs and applying those concepts to my own life.

The term "full impact" is borrowed from the concept of full impact aerobics or karate. Life is not something that should be lived in a restricted and totally safe manner. Life is designed to be spent liberally until you are done. You can't take any savings through over-done caution with you or will it to your children. Life can involve going for the gusto in a way beer could never do for you. Full Impact Living℠ is about living life with passion, relishing the entire experience from beginning to end, the good, the bad, the ugly and the beautiful.

Each concept of Full Impact Living℠ builds on the previous one in a step by step developmental process. We all travel through these steps many times in our lives. But without our awareness and proactive participation, the full benefit of the process can never be realized. Each skill builds on the other. Each new mastery of knowledge feeds the basic skills with new forms of awareness and the process of further development begins anew.

Mindfulness is the basic skill. Awareness of the flow of thoughts and feelings through ones mind is critical to self-awareness. Careful observation of one's internal awareness matched with observing the environment and one's behavior leads to self-knowledge. Self-knowledge applied to life's challenges leads to experience and wisdom. The wisdom of experience allows one to build meaning for one's life that manifests in a focus on creating one's legacy based on one's basic values. Balance ensures that every manifestations of one's life receives its due investment of time, effort and focus. Then each new insight is fed back into the learning process by mindful awareness.

Continued here.

I really enjoy reading the blog Kellevision.com. She says it like it is and seldom misses the point of what she's writing about. She identifies a problem in programming for homelessness and proposes a set of concepts to help clarify the situation.

Image via Wikipedia

Many of the "barriers" faced by the chronically homeless are not external. They are self-inflicted. Repeatedly failing to pay one's utility bills is not a barrier. It is a behavior. Repeatedly getting into relationships with drug addicts and being evicted because you have allowed your new girlfriend to turn your affordable housing into a crack house is not a barrier. It is a behavior. Choosing to pay your boyfriend's bail instead of the rent is not a barrier, it is a behavior. Consistently refusing to hold down steady employment and being evicted for not being able to pay the rent is not a barrier, it is a behavior.

[..]Lastly, how we label the problem determines how we approach solving it. True social barriers need to be addressed by social services. Better programs need to be designed to specifically address the needs of the mentally ill population. Programs designed to assist the medically disabled need to be accessed. But behaviors require a clinical intervention - therapy. Clients who demonstrate patterns of behavior which result in repeated instances of homelessness need counseling, not social services. The problem is not a social problem. It is an individual problem which requires an individual intervention.

I think it's much more complicated than that. Our world has always had an underclass, a group of individuals who have been largely invisible in the US except during the Depression. These people largely function outside the visible society and economy. They share housing with family and friends, squat in abandoned buildings, and sometimes live under bridges. They live off their housemates or family, work for temp job agencies, borrow, steal, deal drugs, and even engage in formal criminal enterprise. Given our recent policies that have reversed the tax-based redistribution of wealth since FDR, the stagnant wages, disappearing jobs, and ever increasing cost of living, that underclass has become so large it is again visible.

They are chronically under or unemployment and are not collecting Social Security, either because they don't qualify, try though they may to apply, or they haven't the where-with-all to get themselves qualified. This chronic underclass is best described as a sub-culture. They are structurally built into the economy. "Full employment" doesn't include them. Because they have given up on finding work, they no longer register with unemployment offices and so are not counted among the unemployed. Those who are chronically homeless are a sub-group of this sub-culture, and probably represents some of its most dysfunctional members.

By describing the chronically homeless, Kellevision describes most of the common attributes of this subculture.

For the majority of the [chronically] homeless population, homelessness is a lifestyle, not an event.

[..]My purpose here is not to blame the victim, but to talk openly about the severe dysfunction I see in chronically homeless families. Unless we identify the true problem, we will not be able to form a lucid solution. Homeless families typically do not function well on any level. Children are frequently truant from school and display numerous behavior and developmental problems. Dorm rules are constantly broken and there is constant turmoil between the families on the dorm. Relationships are fleeting, intense and severely dysfunctional including domestic violence, substance abuse and exploitative. Interactions with other people are inappropriate or dysfunctional. Most homeless families have burnt all their bridges with every social service agency and with their own families because of their severe dysfunction. Shelter staff often feel like we are running a middle school rather than a homeless shelter. This behavior is what needs to be addressed rather than giving them more money or building more homes.

[..]What are the elements of the homeless mindset? I'm still trying to work this out in my mind, but here are some of them which I see frequently:

• An external locus of control
• the belief that they have no control or responsibility for their choices, actions or behaviors but they are the victim of circumstances
• the belief that the causes for good or bad events in your life are totally outside your control or responsibility
• Sense of entitlement
• the belief that the worlds owes them something and they should be able to collect immediately
• the belief that they should be taken care of by others, by the government or by social service agencies
• the belief that they should be given things they have not earned (i.e. free housing, clothing, food, etc.)
• the belief that others should "help" them (i.e. by paying their unpaid bills or appealing their housing denial)
• Impulsivity
• Poor boundaries
• Emotional immaturity
• Need for instant gratification
• Dependency issues
• Predatory/antisocial behaviors
• Pathological relationships

Certainly, not every member of what I'll call the "underclass sub-culture" share all of these attributes. Each and every person has a story behind their situation. A careful account of their histories, something they usually reluctantly give, chronicles the development of these problems. It's important to discourage a prejudice developing against a whole group of people who are already stigmatized along with the "welfare mother" of the AFDC era. But we are not going to get to a more complete solution without understanding the problem. I suspect that why there is little commentary on this topic.

Kellevision hits on what I believe to be one of the most common roots of dysfunction, repeated traumas throughout their life.

A vast majority of our clients seem to have endured some sort of trauma(s) during their childhood which has(have) halted their emotional development. The result is immaturity, impulsivity, dependency, a sense of entitlement (that someone should take care of them rather than being responsible for themselves), an external locus of control (seeing problems as existing outside of themselves and therefore being outside of their control and/or responsibility), immature relationships and emotional lability. These factors result in behavior which appears erratic and irresponsible.

"Arrested development" is what Kellevision calls it. Indeed, this problem is pervasive and most often multi-generational. There are most often one or more of the following in the family history:

• lifelong repeated exposure to trauma:
  
  
  
  • child abuse and neglect
  
  
  • incest
  
  
  • domestic assault
  
  
  • gang or drug related violence
  
  
  • repeated exposure as a crime victim including assault, rape, and drive by shootings
  
  
  • inconsistent parenting ranging from abusive to no supervision
  
  
  • one or more family member who was murdered
  
  
  
  
• poor performance/attendance at school


• high school drop-out


• parenthood started by mid-teens


• by their twenties, they have several kids with mostly different partners


• sporadic work history and chronic unemployment


• efforts to qualify for Social Security


• family members relying on other families income, so no family member is able to break the pattern of poverty


• chemical abuse


• drug dealing to support a habit


• mental illness


• parents, spouses, brothers, sisters in prison


• criminal activity as income


• crime as a family enterprise

Persons who are members of the underclass see dysfunction as normal. They've never known any different. Many think this is how everyone lives. While they may dream of a good job, they appear to not have the self-discipline to keep a good job. Many of this group might be diagnosed with an anti-social personality DO. Personally, I think this diagnosis is misleading at best. A person earns this diagnosis if their history includes sufficient "anti-social" behavior. This doesn't account for family cultures that teach a confusing mix of conventional and anti-social values. Thus we have neighborhoods that have no constructive relationships with police, believe that justice is against them and label anyone reporting a crime as an informant and not to be trusted. This of course contributes to the chaos in the neighborhood.

In my experience people who get diagnosed anti-social are the ones the clinician don't trust or believe. The whole underclass culture tries to keep their business to themselves. Lying to protect one's family's reputation is encouraged. I suspect while there may be a few classic psychopaths out there, most of those folks who populate our jails are drug abusing, impulsive, underclass members with shut down emotional systems due to repeated chaos and trauma. These folks won't tell you the truth unless they are desperate and already feel they are the lowest of the low. Their judgment is so impaired that they see fear as a weakness they must squelch out. Danger in their world is everywhere and it must be faced, not avoided.

I have worked with some persons of the underclass who have a clinical presentation of PTSD after many years of participation in gang violence. They know what conventional values are, but they also know what is the law of streets. They are scared and tired of living a nightmare, and want a stable peaceful life but are tortured about what they've seen and what they've done to others over the years. Just seeing a gun sets off flashbacks. They describe their younger years as being "shut off" emotionally, and "not caring" about anyone or anything but money. But now in my office, they are presenting a mostly full range of emotion and a guilty conscience that suggests conventional values. Has their impulsive, "immature brain", associated with anti-social acts, matured into a more conventional pattern? Or is it more accurate to describe them as a product of an anti-social sub-culture? I suspect the latter is more accurate.

Returning to the homeless and Kellevision, she notes the major problem with relationships is homeless people's "picker is broken".

For every person in a homeless shelter with dependency issues we seem to have an predator waiting for them. Half the population seems to be working or receiving some form of assistance and the other half seem to be trying to hook up with them to take advantage of that income....

It is important to realize that single parents contribute to the problem of picking the wrong partner with their own pathology. The single mothers in the family dorm are not simply victims of the men they pick out. There seems to be a predominant attitude of these women that the man should "take care of them". They believe it is just a matter of picking out the right one. The first problem is that their "picker" is broken. They do not pick out a good one. They usually pick out one of the predators roaming the alley behind the shelter. The second problem is that you cannot sit at home expecting to be taken care of in our modern economy. That might have worked in the 1950's, even in the 1970's, but June Cleaver is no more. The modern American household takes two paychecks. Two full-time paychecks. The third problem presents it self when the man expects to be supported by the woman. Even if the woman is working full-time and picks out a man who wants to live off of her, women traditionally earn much lower wages than men. So the family's financial stability is even more shaky.

This predatory - dependent dyad seems to play out in most of their relationships and I wonder if it is not the source of their alienation from their families of origin. A person who constantly expects to be taken care of can be quite tiring. By contrast, a person who is constantly preying on others also becomes quite tiring.

Having grown up in a chaotic home and living a chaotic lifestyle, repeated trauma has numbed their emotions to the point that they are unable to make proper judgments about who is worthy of trust. The predator-prey dyad began in their family of origin where parents exploited the children when they were young, and when the children grow up, they exploit their vulnerable elderly parents. Recently, in my therapy group, one male member admonished a older woman for setting limits with her adult children because they were tacitly supporting her grandchildren for default on a loan she'd co-signed. He felt family was entitled to lean on, effectively use, each other.

Mental illness is often cited as a factor in homelessness. A significant number of homeless clients suffer from debilitating mental illnesses and many researchers sight the high numbers of mental illness in the population. However, each researcher seems to define it in their own way. Some include only the big three Axis I diagnoses (Schizophrenia, Bipolar I and Major Depression). Others include substance abuse (since it is an Axis I diagnosis in the DSM IV) which dramatically inflates the numbers of the "mentally ill". Others include Axis II personality disorders, but only some of them, usually Antisocial Personality Disorder. Still others include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In my experience, mental illness is a factor in about 10-20% of our homelessness clients and it is a serious problem. However, it does not explain the other 80%. These 80% use an unusually high percentage of services and monies devoted to the homeless and they are repeat customers.

Here I have to disagree with Kellevision. Everyone I've counseled with substance abuse were running from their feelings about themselves and/or their past. I have found Bipolar DO in significant numbers behind petty criminal activity, gambling addiction, alcoholism, sexual addiction, exotic dancing and prostitution. I participated in a local county survey that identified their most expensive clients. The general profile was bipolar chemically abusive who revolved in and out of the hospital, placements and jail. Personality disorders are mental illness. While many may think the rest of the world is the problem and are not willing to take responsibility, many others are desperate for relief from a horribly chaotic and often traumatic life.

There is a very high incidence of traumatic histories in the homeless community, even before they became homeless, usually during childhood. I believe that a majority of the substance abuse problem in this population is an effort to treat trauma symptoms. However, this can be said of other populations as well, including the substance abuse community. Most trauma survivors manage to maintain housing despite their trauma symptoms. Though trauma symptoms may play a factor in homelessness, I do not believe they are the sole cause.

Sole cause, no, it's the multi-generational underclass sub-culture with it's accompanied fractured families, drug abuse, trauma, predator/prey cycle, and chaotic lifestyles. Trauma comes in forms that are not readily identified. Chaotic events in close proximity in time give the victim the impression they have no control of their fate and so they scramble for every edge in the moment, and anxiously await for the next disaster to strike. Those in the underclass go way out of their way to withhold their histories of trauma and chaos, insisting that they can handle their own problems, and it's none of anyone's business. Or is this simply the accepted cultural method to deal with the shame of their past?

Most homeless clients do not have family support systems. If they did, the family would take them in and they would not be homeless. Many homeless clients come from families who are themselves very nomadic and teetering on homelessness. Some come from families rife with substance abuse, sexual abuse or domestic violence. Others have been rejected by their families for various reasons. These reasons often involve their dependent and/or dysfunctional behaviors.

Underclass families exploit each other until the resources are gone, or the member with resources cut off the leech. Once the underclass has used up their family resources, they become at risk for homelessness. Many have family who died young living violent or drug infested lifestyles, or who are in prison. By this time, they've burned out most of their friends as well. All they can do and meet new vulnerable people and continue a new predictor/prey dynamic.

So what solutions are there for healing the cultural divide? The problem is mostly economic. The underclass lacks a realistic chance for escaping their plight. Oh, sure a few make it, usually through advanced education. But many will hit a ceiling in achievement when they rely too heavily on "temporary feel good" behavior that provides relief from stress, but self-destructively complicates their lives and increases the chances they will fall out of their newly found middle-class status.

The middle-class in America is shrinking, many of the hard working blue collar workers are falling into the underclass from where with a floundering economy, escape will be difficult. Jobs programs, affordable housing, and counseling are sorely needed but remains largely unfunded. What infrastructure is present is actually shrinking with government tax dollars.

Too often the only role models for success are the gang members, drug dealers or pimps who drive fancy cars and flash wads of money. Too many get lost in this dream turn nightmare. But my experiences working with recovering gang members is that many are retrievable when they get desperate enough to escape with the right kind of treatment and patience with their guarded presentations. I work in a Partial Hospital Program (PHP) at an inner city public hospital that is designed to intervene with persons with personality disorders. It's largely based on the Crisis Intervention model that relies on the desperation of the client to inspire commitment, insight and behavior change in therapy. The PHP format is ideal for persons who are suffering from acute exacerbation of substance abuse, PTSD or personality disorder. I call it "mental health boot camp". We have a satisfaction rate of over 90%.

Kellevision lists a number of problems within the system.

In my humble opinion, our current social services system and is a major factor contributing to the homeless mindset. This is a complicated element to explain. But I think it is important to make an attempt.

I see two major problems with the social services system: 1) the system itself - how benefits are applied and eligibility determined and 2) the people working within the system - the mindset of caseworkers and social workers working with the homeless population.

• The social services system seems to be designed to punish attempts by the poor to achieve independence. Assistance programs penalize people for working "too much" by cutting off benefits when assets accrue. These systems often reinforce irresponsibility and impulsivity while punishing people who try to work and plan ahead.
• Many social services programs seem to "teach" clients to wait until the last minute then create a dramatic "emergency" in order to get help. This fosters the emotionally immature and histrionic displays in emergency rooms.
• Our current welfare system does not allow exchanging work for benefits. Benefits are given away free.
• Caseworkers and social workers have a bad habit of doing things for clients, rather than expecting the client to do it or teaching them how.
• So what have clients learned so far?
  • Don't work too much.
  • Don't plan ahead.
  • Expect someone else to provide you with what you need.
  • Don't take responsibility. Someone else will fix it for you.

The welfare system is complex, cumbersome, and difficult to change into a working entity. The major problem is that it is designed not to serve the poor, but to mollify the political needs of the tax payer. That makes it inherently punitive. As we know from behavioral science, punishment doesn't change behavior. I believe it in fact feeds the cycle similar to the one Kellevision describes above. As long as we put political considerations ahead of evidence-based methods, we'll have a broken system.

Kellevision proposes ideas that I think have significant merit.

I think counseling should be provided liberally. Teach people how to fish. Teach them how their maladaptive behaviors impair their ability to function. Stop rewarding bad behavior. Stop giving away money. Stop cleaning up their messes for them. Stop giving away free stuff.

Once homeless clients are assigned jobs, they would be provided with counseling to address the behavior problems that interfered with their ability to maintain employment. If they failed to come to work due to a poor work ethic, substance abuse problems, domestic violence or other relationship issues, etc. instead of getting fired - again - and having another black mark on their work history, they would be required to participate in counseling or group work to address it.

Image via Wikipedia

I very much enjoyed recent exchange on Psychotherapy Brown Bag. I find myself frequently thinking of the implications of our approach to research and how it contributes to our understanding of psychology.

Intuition is, by no means, useless. A half-century ago, Karl Popper (1959) gave an answer to this that today remains powerfully compelling. Intuition, inductive reasoning, and philosophical theories are extremely valuable as the first step of a multi-step process. He termed this step the "context of discovery." His point was that we need creative thought, outside-the-box thinking, and alternative perspectives in order to drive progress, but that our thoughts, no matter how elegant, can not be the end point. We need to follow up this stage with deductive reasoning - testing our theories to see which ones are backed up by facts and which ones are clouded by flawed reasoning.

In this sense, science becomes a series of competing theories, each of which builds upon the past and corrects a variety of prior errors. No theory is pefect, most if not all are eventually overturned by others, and progress continues. Our progress, however, is marked by the evidence supporting our claims, not by the strength of our beliefs in our cause without reflection upon the evidence for its validity.

Not only can our interpretations effect how we see and use a research finding, but the assumptions we bring to the research effects our choice of hypothesis and measurement target. Wood et al.(2009) pre-publication manuscript has gotten much press inappropriately proclaiming that positive affirmations may in fact harm those those most in need, those with low self-esteem. As I stated in an article I wrote about these conclusions, there was I believe an error in one of the basic assumptions of the research. Wood and her colleagues assumed negative feelings after affirmations demonstrated harm. A review of basic theory might have captured what I believe was actually happening, the subjects were beginning a process of extinguishing their conditioned negative emotional response.

It seems researchers have drifted away from embedding their investigations in theory. Few authors seem willing to delve into the grand theoretical formulations as a basis for their research. For that reason, it's difficult to apply the results to much more than the specifics of the research setting. You've been discussing intuition as it impacts research. I think theory serves as a check on intuition.

I think one of the most important recent grand psychological theories was Henriques "Tree of Knowledge", yet I've caught little written about it since 2003 other than my humble attempt. I think this model provides us with a framework for these sorts of discussions. The link between psychology's investigation of the mind and interpreting the meaning of behavior (The Justification Hypothesis) is where data meets intuition, where research interfaces with theory. Ever since studying psychometrics I've integrated the concept of validity and reliability into my thinking about the theoretical interpretation of data. Reliable data that that is consistent wwith the hypothesis of the study, (predictive validity) set in a meaningful context (content and construct validity), give us an opportunity to further our understanding of the meaning of human behavior in it's cultural context (construct validity). Yet I've never seen the concepts applied outside of psychometrics where they certainly seem to belong. Perhaps its again related to researchers reluctance to bringing a theoretical discussion to their research.

Image via Wikipedia

I caught this article at Psychcentral.com, Positive Thoughts Make Things Worse for Poor Self-Esteem . It struck me as a counter-intuitive finding for a research study. I've been helping clients build self-esteem for over 30 years and while positive thoughts is not a short road to better self-esteem, it certainly does work over the long run. I'd estimate that at least six months is required to make significant progress with self-esteem from solely refocusing on the positive, and some people require much more time. Several things jumped at me as I read the article. First of all, Dr. Grohol quoted an article from the The Economist of all places. Both articles stated the research was published in this month's Psychology Research and authored by Wood et al (2009). A review of the past three months of that journal produced no article.

So I went to the old reliable, I googled the lead author, Joanne Wood. I came up with several mentions of her at academic institutions and emailed the author for a reprint. I also found another review of the same article by Ed Yong writer for the Science Blog Not Exactly Rocket Science dated May 15th.

The next day, the article arrived in my email with a short note from the author saying it hadn't been published yet! Apparently, there have been some pre-publication prints floating about likely for publicity purposes. This is one of my pet peeves. Articles submitted to peer reviewed journals are intended to inform the academic community and allow scholarly review and comment. The object of repeated review is to ensure the research is sound and is appropriately interpreted. When it appears first in lay publications, the writers who are not scientists often inadvertently distort the interpretation of the research, as I've noted before. That really didn't happen this time. Both the Psychcentral.com and The Economist got the research mostly right. But Ed Yong did a much better job of explaining the fine points.

This time, it's the researchers that make a subtle but major error in an assumption involving an interpretation of a key measurement. Its subtle because it's endemic in our culture. It seems like everyone assumes that negative feelings are harmful. In this case, Wood et al (2009) found that their subjects who had low self-esteem, immediately reported a lower mood and self-esteem after telling themselves sixteen times they are a "lovable person." Interestingly, persons with high self-esteem report only slight, non-significant improvement in self-esteem.

I decided to do an anecdotal demonstration of the "intervention" for my own understanding. After saying to my self 16 times "I am a loveable person", I felt annoyed, a little silly, embarrassed, and was reminded of quite a few traits which make me not always so lovable. But I can't imagine how this would have any long term effect on my self-esteem either way.

An even bigger problem is one that I talked about before and called it Dust Bowl Empiricism. Researchers are so enamored with their professional activities, they demonstrate their preference for inductive research. Wood et al. reviewed all the relevant research on their topic quite satisfactorily, but then failed to do a sufficient review of related theory. In previous post, I quoted Michael Schermer, a columnist with Scientific American, who eloquently asserted that the really valuable research, the kind of research that can fairly readily be used to educate the public, "higher-order works of science that synthesize and coalesce primary sources into a unifying whole toward the purpose of testing a general theory or answering a grand question." To be fair, few researchers venture into grand theory, perhaps because of the dearth of recent reviews, and perhaps because of the few notable exceptions have been eviscerated by their colleagues for their efforts. Sigmund Freud comes to mind. I have sometimes wondered if psychology's love-hate relationship with Freud resulted in an over-emphasis on induction and de-emphasis of deduction and construct validity.

Wood et al. appears to be testing a specific intervention using Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). CBT purports to change feelings by changing thoughts.

While I prefer more psychodynamic conceptualizations, lets approach this issue of negative feelings from cognitive-behavioral point of view for purposes of demonstrating how relevent theory would aide in the interpretation of research. There is conceivable explanation of low self-esteem and associated negative emotion in the concept of "conditioned emotional response" or CER. A person may learn they are not valuable or important by, for example, an invalidating experience. That invalidating experience is remembered in at least two ways, by the facts of the event and by the associated emotions. According to current understanding of neurophysiology, memories of facts and emotions are kept in different part of the brain, presumably by different methods of storage with different processes of recall. The hippocampus and medial temporal lobe are involved in verbalized memories. Emotional memories involve the amygdala.

Sufficient invalidating experiences may lead to low self-esteem. Whenever a sufferer of low self-esteem remembers an invalidating experience or experiences a new one, she is likely to remember the event and feel the emotion associated with the experience.

In the Wood et al. experiment, the lowered mood and self-esteem are experienced after a validating experience. The subject feels the emotions associated with the original invalidating experience of invalidation perhaps because the positive self-talk controdicts the perception of the subject. Wood et al. makes that point. However, what she misses is that the subject is under going extinction of the conditioned emotional response. The subject is experiencing the emotion without the triggering invalidating experience. According to the theory of Classical Conditioning, repeated exposures to the emotion without the associated invalidation will eventually weaken the conditioning. Perhaps this process is complicated by the fact that the alternative experience, validation, is a close opposite to the conditioning stimulus, triggering a strong emotional response.

In my experience, this triggering of a strong negative emotional response associated with past destructive learning without the presence of the negative stimulus actually quickens the de-conditioning. What this experience amounts to is an abreaction, an emotional re-experiencing of the past event in a supportive and nurturing environment.

One point of the research is well taken. A person with an abysmal self-esteem reading a self-help book will find herself ruminating about how wrong it is that she could be so lovable. Such a person, supported only by herself, is not receiving the necessary nurturing due to her low self-esteem. She is likely re-conditioning the CER with more invalidating self-talk.

The reviews of this article did a fair job of presenting the study. However, there is risk in presenting research to a lay audience. The well written review by Yong had unintended consequences. The comments below the article contained some anquished and angry responses:

As a person with very low self-esteem who has been encouraged to think positively and love myself throughout my life, I can only thank Joanne Wood for publishing this study. Packaged one-size-fits-all programs promoting the personal pep talk only serve to make those people already in touch with their mediocre side more acutely aware of their non-value within society.

And when I feel unloved by one person even i feel like no one at all loves me or values me. How can I value myself when i feel like that. and after going thru a marriage where my ex always devalued me and everything i did if he did not approve of it. being abusive, verbally, mentally, emotionally, and physically... and even tho i have come a long way past this experience, it haunts me and i feel lower then dirt. no positive self talk makes me feel better, only makes me feel worse, cuz i figure if i don't actually believe what i am saying or thinking how can it possibly be true?

Unfortunately, some people with very low self-esteem have been reinforced in their belief that positive thinking can't help. Self-help is best read by the worried well. People with long standing issues with low self-esteem need psychotherapy. Both the authors, Wood et al., and reviewer, Yong, stated this clearly, the other two articles did not. Even so, this knowledge proved harmful to a few. I certainly do not fault the authors for this problem. Yong especially did a great job. One can't ensure everyone reads the entire article or even correctly understands it.

I believe we as professionals who write about mental health have a duty to be as clear and thorough as possible in an attempt to avoid confusion and inadvertant harm. But knowledge is powerful. Sometimes, knowledge mishandled can lead to worsening of symptoms that hopefully brings those in need to help.

Reference: Wood, J., Perunovic, W. Elaine, & Lee, J. (2009). Positive Self-Statements: Power for Some, Peril for Others Psychological Science DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02370.x

Update 7/15/09: Joanne V. Wood, PhD responds to all the media hype about her research.

Image via Wikipedia

Recently, I exchanged messages with Michele Rosenthal, author of the blog, Parasites of the Mind. She asked me a very good question, one that is so much a part of my everyday work, a good long contemplation was needed just to tease out a good answer.

Speaking of inspiring, how do you inspire a client to believe in what he/she is doing? It's so difficult to believe in anything when PTSD has settled its big black cloud on your head.

Any general rules of the game for (self) empowering belief?

Another therapist, Mary Redoutey, joined our discussion and attempted to answer this question. She took the conventional route.

All therapy in essence is self empowered therapy.... The therapist is the partner in the process. I can sit in the chair in my office, can make suggestions, can teach, can do anything as much as I want... and nothing different will happen unless of course the client is present, listens somewhat attentively, suspends negativity long enough to experience a shift in feeling state and/or thoughts or actions.... And the work in the session does not transfer into the client's life unless the client chooses to make the necessary changes.

Essentially, Mary says that therapists don't change people, people can only change themselves. I have commented on a release for a new book that made this point as well. While it is true that what a client brings to therapy may account for much of the effectiveness of therapy, I don't think this is the core of Michelle's question. As I understand her question, she wants to know what the therapist brings to the therapy room.

My first attempt at replying was rooted in my daily routine. I'm always helping people understand how their past experience impinges on their current symptoms.

Consider what happens between mother and child. A child develops their self-concept initially based on how they are treated by their mother. In therapy, the therapist communicates his belief in the client. And if the connection already exists, a seed is planted. But as an adult, only the client can nurture the seed to germination and growth. The therapist can only teach them how.

Generally, when I take this tact, which is common with the childhood trauma survivors I see, I am helping them see the importance of exploring their childhood history and their relationships with their caregivers as a way to understand the origins of their symptoms. This is a much more specific answer that still only partly answers Michelle's question.

I think Michelle wants to know what is the therapists role in motivating a client in each and every step through therapy. In other words, what is the client getting from paid expert advice they can't get from a book? From Michelle's point of view, perceptions of her options are clouded by the rollercoaster existence that accompanies PTSD.

There has been extensive research on this topic. Most recently, much of this research has taken on a ideological fervor endorsing Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). I've written often about my opinion CBT. Suffice it to say, CBT may be the core methodology in helping a client manage their thoughts and building treatment plans, but there is much more to behavior change than changing thoughts. One of CBT's central assumptions is patently false. Not all feelings are produced by or changable by thoughts. Much of our earliest learning occurs before thoughts begin to play a major role in our learning around the age of 8.

Patterson (1989) identified common specific factors recognized by virtually all schools of psychotherapy. He included therapist acceptance, permissiveness, warmth, respect, nonjudgmentalism, honesty, genuineness, and empathy or empathic understanding. Three of these, warmth, empathy, and genuineness have considerable research backing. In a previous article, Patterson (1984) points out:

There are few things in the field of psychology for which the evidence is so strong. The evidence for the necessity, if not the sufficiency, of the therapist conditions of accurate empathy, respect, or warmth, and therapeutic genuineness in incontrovertible.... The fact that specific change occurs in a therapeutic relationship without the addition of so-called specific techniques, such as interpretation, suggestion, instruction, etc., is also evidence of the sufficiency of the relationship by itself.

More recent research has found the competence of the therapist is critical. Verhofstadt et al. 2008, in their article about the value of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy in support giving with couples. They cite:

...mounting evidence that unskilled support can be ineffective or even harmful to the support recipient.... In summary, whereas matching the partner's emotion during a support-seeking interaction may provide a sufficient basis for understanding the partner's current affective state(s) and responding with appropriate emotional support and consolation, understanding the partner's specific thoughts and feelings during a support-seeking interaction may provide a sufficient basis for understanding what kind(s) of help the partner desires and how to provide such help in an acceptable way.

Successful therapists must be able to adapt to their clients' emotional uniqueness and to accurately perceive their thoughts and feelings to provide appropriate support in an acceptable way. Perhaps even more important, therapists must be perceptive and adaptive enough to understand the clients complaint that brought them to therapy and the nature of their quandary beyond the clients' own understanding, or the underlying problems. And having discovered what must be done, therapists must be able to provide the clients insight into their dilemma, provide a rationale for a course of action, and persuade their clients to make changes they are unlikely to find easy or achieve without significant discomfort. Initially, clients are often unable to understand the significance of their problems or nature and potential benefit of the required changes. If they did they wouldn't need therapy!

There is only one experience that I find cuts through virtually any dark cloud, and that is the touch of human empathy. When people who are overwhelmed by pain suddenly find someone who seems to understand how they feel, they no longer feel alone and abandoned by the world. A skilled therapist can provide more than the usual kind of empathy. After years of exploring the human condition, the therapist reaches within the client's experience that at least begins to provide some meaning to explain and place in context her experience.

Preston and de Waal (2002) describes the nature of human interaction as involving an exchange of complementary emotional and thought messages. These shared representations allow people to adjust their responses based on the communicated states of others suited to relieve each others' distress. (Cited in Gruhn et al., 2008)

Grillion et al. (2008) describe the emotional exchange between client and therapist and the unique skills required of the therapist.

When the context becomes safe enough for the client to lower his or her defenses, the alteration of regulatory structures becomes possible. The therapist's own self-regulatory movements reveal his or her inner states to the client. Much like the "good enough mother", the therapist's efforts to regulate his or her own inner states show the client that he or she is in contact with the client. Personal therapy for therapists helps to extend the range of experience that they can draw upon in their work with clients (Schore, 2006, cited in Grillion et al. (2008). According to Amini et al. (1996) the most effective interventions are based on the therapist's awareness of his or her own physical, emotional, and ideational responses to the client's veiled messages.

Accordingly, when the therapist has increasingly expanded self-integration and awareness in regard to his or her state of mind with respect to attachment, then he or she has a larger capacity for assisting clients to achieve integration and awareness. This understanding derives from the primary attachment relationship within the developmental psychobiological perspective in which parents who have secure or "earned" secure states of mind with respect to attachment function in certain ways (including attunement and sensitivity) with their infants that result in attachment security in their children. Therefore, from an attachment point of view, the more secure the therapist is, the greater the likelihood is that he or she can assist clients with achieving greater security (Beebe, 1998, cited in Grillion et al. (2008). Therapist self-awareness broadens "clinical intuition", which is referred to as the art of psychotherapy (Bugental, 1987; Schore, 2006; cited in Grillion et al. (2008).

Thus the relationship of between therapist and client is perhaps the second most important aspect therapy, right behind client characteristics and motivation. So it is critically important that the client has a good relationship with the therapist. Clients must be willing to shop around to make sure there is a good match. Cooper (2008, quoted in Croft, 2008) makes research based recommendations for finding the right therapist.

Think about choosing a therapist who can help you build on your strengths - for instance, if you are good at understanding why you do the things you do, a therapist who can help you develop these reflective skills may be more use to you than a therapist who wants to focus mainly on your behaviour or emotions. Ask potential therapists what thoughts they might have on why you are facing the difficulties you are and what they think might help. If these are radically different from your own understandings, it may be more difficult to establish a good working relationship. Ask yourself whether you like your therapist and feel respected by them - the quality of your relationship, early on in therapy, will be one of the best indicators of eventual outcomes, so don't put up with a bad relationship. Remember that probably the best predictor of the outcomes of therapy will be the extent to which you actively involve yourself in the process.

References

Croft, Alison. (2008, October 17). Clients, Not Practitioners, Make Therapy Work. Press release by the British Association For Counselling & Psychotherapy on a new book Cooper, Mick (2008). Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Facts are Friendly. In Medical News Today. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/125815.php.

Grillon, C., Pine, D., Lissek, S., Rabin, S., & Vythilingam, M. (2009). Increased Anxiety During Anticipation of Unpredictable Aversive Stimuli in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder but not in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Biological Psychiatry DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.12.028

Grühn, D., Rebucal, K., Diehl, M., Lumley, M., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2008). Empathy across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal and experience-sampling findings. Emotion, 8 (6), 753-765 DOI: 10.1037/a0014123

Patterson, C. H. (1984). Empathy Warmth And Genuiness In Psychotherapy: A Review Of Reviews. Psychotherapy, 21, 431-438

Patterson, C. H. (1986). Foundations For A Systematic Eclectic Psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 29, 427-435

Verhofstadt, L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., Davis, M., & Devoldre, I. (2008). Support provision in marriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion, 8 (6), 792-802 DOI: 10.1037/a0013976

Image via Wikipedia

We have become a medicating culture. If we don't like how we feel, we can take a pill to feel better.

Kellen Von Houser, MA, LPC, in her blog Kellevision says it boldly.

My concern is for people who are actually experiencing the normal emotions of life, labeling them "mood swings" and trying to medicate their discomfort away. My concern is for doctors who participate in this and validate it. My concern is for teaching people that emotions can be "negative" and undesirable. That they are "bad" in some way and should be eliminated, by chemical intervention or any other means. This is not a message we want to send. Emotions are what make us human. And expressing them is what keeps us sane.

In this world, shrewd advertisers manipulate our moods to overwhelm our self-control so that we buy their products.

Jeremy Dean in his blog PsyBlog documents the research findings:

New perspectives on how our self-control interacts with our spending see a battle between impulsive, emotional processes and far-sighted planning processes. One part of us is saying: "Buy it, you'll feel real good!" and another part is saying: "No, we need that money to pay the rent!"

Findings from this type of research are only just starting to emerge, but here are some fascinating highlights on how our self-control works:

• Increased cognitive load decreases self-control. This is something marketers are well-aware of: distracted people are more likely to spend money. Most shops are filled with shiny, complicated distractions - bright colours, music and 'incredible offers' - designed to confuse us and open our wallets.
• Our supply of self-control is limited. Studies show that our self-control is actually sapped each time we use it (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003). It's also sapped, predictably, by alcohol, lack of sleep and stress.

Cultural explanations about how we managing our emotions carry almost a mythological quality. "Will Power" is that elusive asset that drives our self-control. But ask someone what "will power" is? Few people have a satisfactory answer. Many will attribute it to a quality within another ill defined concept called "character". "Strength of character" gives one self-control. But what is "strength of character"? Some say its a product of parenting. Others see it as something that is passed down in the bloodlines. According to the genetic hypothesis, certain families are best suited to lead by example. So many cultures have "blue bloods", families of entitled "royals" who serve sometimes as mere figureheads (e.g. Britain), sometimes as actual political rulers (e.g. recently in Nepal).

Psychology sees "will power" as motivation, a biochemical energy that drives humans to act. That role seems for us to be played by emotion. Again from PsyBlog.

Sadness makes us want a change (any change). Sadness may well increase the chance we want to spend. One study found that those who are sad are more likely to want to sell at a lower price and buy at a higher price (Lerner, Small & Loewenstein, 2004).

So does sadness make us devalue what we have and seek something better? There certainly could be some truth to that. Sadness may be the primary feeling state induced by loss of something we value. Indeed, we may feel the need to shed old priorities and invest in major change. But that seemed to hardly translate into selling low and buying high. That seems more like an escapist approach to grief.

But indeed, everything about our medicating culture is about escaping from how we feel.

Disgust makes us want to get rid of everything. When we're disgusted we want to get rid of the things we have and don't want to buy anything.

In research settings, disgust is often broken up into disgust of actions (guilt) and disgust of self (shame). Getting rid of things and avoiding buying would seem like a form of self-deprivation or punishment. We know from research that punishment is not effective, in fact, it may provide add incentive to do whatever for which one is punished. A sign "Don't pull this cord!", as the cartoon goes, induces the inevitable response. So again, without contemplation, our emotional impulses provide us with at best a temporary escape, but the consequences of our actions are waiting for us in the next moment.

Anxiety makes us want to reduce uncertainty. Anxiety makes us prefer low-risk options (Raghunathan & Pham, 1999).

But if we follow the impulse, avoiding the risk, will actually make what we avoided even more anxiety provoking the next time. People who suffer from anxiety disorders find their world ever shrinking, sometimes to the point where they are afraid to leave their home! The treatment is to gradually face the fear and restart one's life. Sounds simple, but for many it's terrifying to contemplate. In fact, the very act of thinking about it induces intolerable anxiety, making withdrawal appear highly inviting.

So, in a nut shell, emotions are our motivations. But if we act on impulse, we will prolong our misery and inevitably face the same situation again, with more intense emotion. So it's not enough to recognize what our initial impulse is when we are highly motivated. We have to apply sound judgment as well. We must think about our situation and apply the motivation judiciously.

So, as it applies to make better decisions with money:

• Self-imposed limits. Research by Professor Dan Ariely (reported in his book Predicatably Irrational) suggests that self-imposed limits can help to increase self-control. Telling other people about these limits will tend to increase our adherence to them. Professor Ariely even suggests a special credit card which only lets you spend money on certain categories of goods (e.g. groceries) up to a certain pre-set limit, then it warns of overspending. Unsurprisingly credit card companies haven't taken up the idea, good though it is.


• Cooling-off periods. Take time to decide about a purchase, especially anything expensive. Not just a few minutes - more like a few hours or days. Many people already do this and it's an extremely effective method of financial decision-making....


• Monitor your self-control. The fact that self-control seems to run-down with use suggests we need to monitor its levels. Have you used a lot of self-control recently? Are you tired? Are you about to snap? Again, it might be better to wait until your self-control tank is refilled.

Another good option is to consult with someone you trust about your decision, someone who isn't similarly invested in the decision or depleted of "self-control".

Horwitz and Wakefield (2007) in their book, The Loss of Sadness, make the provocative proposal that psychiatry have transformed normal sadness into clinical depression. With the 1980 publication of the DSMIII, depression was defined as a set of symptoms without considering the context in which the symptoms occurred. Their central thesis is that much of what is now diagnosed as clinical depression is in fact a normal emotion of sadness that has resulted from major loss.

But it's not just psychiatry that has things confused, our entire culture contributes to the problem by not educating our children about emotion in any consistent way. How our children deal emotionally with school and social relationships have more to do with success as adults than any other reason. People who visit my office were wounded in childhood by emotionally ignorant parents. Without psychotherapy and education, these now grown up children are predestined to repeat many of their parents mistakes raising their own children.

Image via Wikipedia

Even in our high-tech world, our understanding of emotions is dominated by culture.

FirstPeople.us

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Negative emotion is thought of as evil, perhaps even the embodiment of Lucifer's influence upon us. Positive emotions are considered good, for some, the manifestation of God's will. Could it be that simple? Recall one of our 20th Century morality dramas, Star Trek, the episode, The Enemy Within.

Image via Wikipedia

While orbiting the planet Alfa 177, the U.S.S. Enterprise experiences a transporter malfunction.... Captain Kirk beams aboard. Kirk leaves with his officers and when the transporter room is deserted, a second Kirk materializes on the pad.

When a space animal is beamed aboard the starship and splits into two entities; one tame and one vicious, it is discovered that the same thing has happened to Kirk. While one Kirk is good and honorable, the other is evil and runs amok on his ship, committing violent acts, including the attempted assault of Yeoman Janice Rand.

[...]As time passes, the "good" Kirk is weakening, losing his ability to make decisions, while his "evil" half is dying. Neither Kirk can survive without his other half.

[...]Scotty effects repairs on the transporter, but there's no time to test it. McCoy is fearful because the "space dog" which had been split earlier, had gone through the repaired transporter and, while joined into one animal, was dead. Kirk takes the chance and beams down with his counterpart and returns to the U.S.S. Enterprise whole and alive.

So which is true, are negative emotions the scourge of our existence? Or do we need both kinds of emotion to make us complete? Are negative emotions always evil, inspiring only the most despicable manifestations of our behavior? Or does the negative serve to differentiate, elaborate and balance the positive?

Why would we have both kinds of emotions if we didn't need them? Whether your put your faith in natural selection or God, would we expend so much negative energy if we didn't need it?

Contrary to popular belief, Will Power is a Indy car driver and he has nothing to do with motivation. Our motivations are largely emotionally driven. Negative emotions push us to face and act on those things that make us most uncomfortable. Positive emotions allow us to enjoy success and give us energy to meet new challenges. But negative emotions inspire us to make changes.

Misery is perhaps the most creative force in our lives. Seldom do we make major changes in our lives without considerable emotional pain. Each negative emotion comes complete with an intuitive guide to action. Anger pushes us to stand up for ourselves and speak up when we've been treated with disrespect. Fear makes us hyper-vigilant to potential danger and readies us to duck or run away if needed. Sadness makes us review over and over again what we've lost. That ruminative search is for the knowledge to compensate for our loss and meaning and wisdom to understand our lives from a new perspective. Guilt reminds us of our responsibility in the errors we make and motivates us to work to understand our mistakes and learn how to avoid repeating them.

So next time you feel overwhelmed by vile emotions and thoughts, sit with them; make sense of them. Trace them to their origins; understand what they might mean for you today. Then, make a reasoned decision what should be done. As hard as it is to sit with a foul emotion, you will find it an amazingly creative force for change.

Image by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

With elections just around the corner, I thought we could all use a reminder about just how easily we are influenced beyond our awareness by election campaigns.

The Frontal Cortex

In reality, we voters -- all of us -- make emotional, intuitive decisions about who we prefer, and then come up with post-hoc rationalizations to explain the choices that were already made beneath conscious awareness. "People often act without knowing why they do what they do," Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, noted in an e-mail message to me this week. "The fashion of political writing this year is to suggest that people choose their candidate by their stand on the issues, but this strikes me as highly implausible."

...we're really an emotional animal, guided, for the most part, by our adaptive limbic system. At any given moment, our political beliefs emerge from the quarrel inside our head, as different brain areas are triggered by different cues. Instead of basing our votes on a careful analysis of the issues, we make political choices via emotion and intuition, which leaves us vulnerable to all sorts of biases, frames and fleeting associations.

This is not to say that we can't make a reasonable decision without bias about our candidate. The best way to be sure we are at our best is self-knowledge. Know how we react emotionally to our hot button topics, and be aware of how campaign ads can influence us.

PsycPORT.com

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls. Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.

In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.

Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.

In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.

Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke - or about a presidential candidate. Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to "stop the smears," the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.

Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students' impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs. In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.

Here is a concrete way to consider what you hear. Consider what you hear may not be true. Consider the implications if you believe what is false. Now reconsider this information in view of your new perspective.

I don't believe humans are capable of being objective. Our culture encourages us to believe otherwise and this opens us up to undue influence by disreputable information sources. It's better for all of us to assume we are fallible and biased. Frankly, I don't see any reason why we can't enjoy our biases, as long as we know they just that. We also have hot button issues that will evoke strong emotions from us. It's good to remember that our initial emotional response should have the benefit of time and thought to digest.

Image via Wikipedia

Horwitz and Wakefield (2007) have released what may prove to be a highly influencial book titled The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder. The title implies that psychiatry transformed sadness into depression. It's an unfortunate catchy title that misleads the uninformed reader. Instead, the book explores in a scholarly way a fundamental principle upon which The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) was developed.

A review of Horwitz and Wakefield (2007) by Andreea L. Seritan appeared in Am J Psychiatry 164 (11): 1764.

The central thesis of this book is a persuasive argument that contemporary psychiatry confuses normal sadness with depressive mental disorder because it ignores the relationship between symptoms and the context from which they emerge. Although he remains cautious about the possibility of incorporating situational context into diagnostic criteria, Dr. Spitzer encourages psychiatrists to place this issue on the agenda for the upcoming formulation of DSM-V.

The book's title is a reminder of the central role of loss as a potentially severe life stressor leading to depression, as well as of how modern psychiatry is being blindsided into extrapolating most states of sadness into depression. In the first chapter, "The Concept of Depression," Drs. Horwitz and Wakefield address the move toward using descriptive criteria in diagnosing mental illness. In response to criticisms during the 1960s and 1970s about the lack of reliability of psychiatric diagnoses, DSM-III started using lists of symptoms to establish clear definitions for each disorder. The authors argue that this approach, while greatly increasing diagnostic reliability, has created new validity problems (p. 8). In the definition of major depressive disorder, DSM-III "fails to take into account the context of the symptoms and thus fails to exclude from the disorder category intense sadness, other than in reaction to death of a loved one, that arises from the way human beings naturally respond to major losses" (p. 14).

Chapter 2, "The Anatomy of Normal Sadness," discusses biologically based nonverbal expressions of grief, with emphasis on their universality across cultures and their presence in nonhuman primates and human infants prior to socialization into cultural emotional scripts (p. 39). Besides grief at the loss of a loved one, loss of meaningful relationships, loss of job or status, chronic stress, and disasters are listed as additional factors to be taken into account. Chapters 3 and 4, "Sadness With and Without Cause" and "Depression in the Twentieth Century" are a historical review of descriptions of depressive states from ancient times to the present. Disordered sadness is considered "without cause" (or "endogenous" in later terminology), as opposed to sadness "with cause" (or "reactive" sadness), which arises in people who suffer losses. Robert Burton's classic work The Anatomy of Melancholy, published in 1621, was the first to describe the three major components of depression--mood, cognition, and physical symptoms--that are still viewed as its distinguishing features. In his seminal paper Mourning and Melancholia (1917), Freud made the same distinction between mourning due to conscious losses and melancholia due to the experience of unconscious losses. DSM-III eliminated psychodynamic etiologies, instead focusing on symptoms. In large epidemiological studies, such as the Epidemiologic Catchment Area study in the early 1980s, diagnosis was based on structured tools administered by trained nonpsychiatric interviewers. The authors argue that prevalence data was skewed and advocate for a more specific screening process, as well as careful use of subthreshold diagnoses, such as minor depression.

Thoroughly documented, the first chapters caution readers about the limitations of psychiatric diagnosis. However, momentum is lost in the second half of the book. Chapter 7, "The Surveillance of Sadness," makes assumptions about psychiatric treatment that are not supported by the literature. For example, it is suggested that in primary care, "diagnosis of a depressive disorder tends to quickly foreclose...discussions in the direction of medication" (p. 156). The recent avalanche of data from the Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) study suggests not only that depressed primary care patients prefer psychotherapy to medication when offered (1) but that therapy is successfully delivered in this setting, along with pharmacologic management (2). In Chapter 8, "The DSM and Biological Research About Depression," the authors again overreach, selectively analyzing individual cardinal papers and doubting their "range of applicability" without turning to the multiple evidence- based studies available in the literature (p. 176).

Although a poignant reflection on how the misapplication of psychiatric knowledge can decontextualize the lives of its patients, this book seems to miss the point that psychiatric care is a great deal more than diagnostic labeling. In practice, mental health professionals who do not rely exclusively on DSM-IV-TR use biopsychosocial formulations, viewing the individual in his or her context. Thus for many psychiatrists, treatment planning is informed by this comprehensive understanding of the person, and not solely by the description and duration of their symptoms.

Seritan has a point that many clinicians do not rely exclusively on the DSM for diagnosis. However, the classification model considered the gold standard for diagnosis DOES decontextualize diagnosis. That is a concern for training and continuing education. Given all the incentives in practice to base treatment on measurable criteria from malpractice claims, insurance payors and accreditation agencies, its very easy to slip into a comfortable criteria based practice that requires little emotional investment.

Mulder wrote an article on an even more important point about diagnosis, titled An epidemic of depression or the medicalization of distress in Perspect Biol Med. 2008 Spring;51(2):238-50.

The syndrome of major depression is widely regarded as a specific mental illness that has increased to the point where it will be second in the International Burden of Disease ranking by 2020. This article examines the assumption that major depression is a specific illness, that it is rapidly increasing, and that a medical response is justified. I argue that major depression is not a natural entity and does not identify a homogenous group of patients. The apparent increase in major depression results from: confusing those who are ill with those who share their symptoms; the surveying of symptoms out of context; the benefits that accrue from such a diagnosis to drug companies, researchers, and clinicians; and changing social constructions around sadness and distress. Standardized medical treatment of all these individuals is neither possible nor desirable. The major depression category should be replaced by a clinical staging strategy that acknowledges the continuous distribution of depressive symptoms. Trials that test social and lifestyle treatments as well as drugs and cognitive behavioral therapy across different levels of severity, chronicity, and symptom patterns might lead to the development of a coherent evidence-based stepped treatment model.

Mulder's point is that diagnosis is a academic exercise designed to communicate a cluster of symptoms among professional colleagues. It's a model of communication. The syndromes described have acquired meaning well beyond communication. Diagnostic labels have been elevated from theoretical constructs into real phenomena. Major depression includes a cluster of symptoms that is shared by many people who are not depressed.

Wade Schuette expresses the apparent paradox of diagnosis as a prerequisite for treatment.

If depression is largely an internal phenomenon, caused by genetics and bad wiring in the brain, that leads to one type of intervention - drugs and CBT. If depression is largely a social phenomenon, related to the well-documented collapse in social interaction documented by Putnam and the group at Duke, then personal intervention will simply deal with symptoms, and result in an ever growing prevalence of drug-dependent victims of social dysfunction - precisely the observation we find about the USA today.

The truth is all of these viewpoints have merit. Major Depression can be conceptualized and described in many ways, none of which are sufficient to explain the phenomena without considering all other viewpoints. Diagnostic categories are scientific models for communication. They are not readily amenable to measurable criteria because the concepts are complex and largely abstract constructs that fit a theory.

Sadness is an abstract concept designed to communicate a common human experience associated with grief and loss. I believe sadness is an emotion that is a critical component of a productive grief process that helps us survive and adapt to major loss. Sadness is normal and healthy. Major Depression may include sadness, maybe associated with loss, but it is a clinical syndrome that includes significant functional impairment, a loss of survival skills. Sadness is an emotional motivation that ENHANCES survival.

Recently, the NYTimes.com had an article about a malicious sort of on-line anti-social behavior called Trolling. One of the people the author interviewed was Jason Fortuny, a thirty-two year old web programmer, who's passion is trolling.

Today the Internet is much more than esoteric discussion forums. It is a mass medium for defining who we are to ourselves and to others. Teenagers groom their MySpace profiles as intensely as their hair; escapists clock 50-hour weeks in virtual worlds, accumulating gold for their online avatars. Anyone seeking work or love can expect to be Googled. As our emotional investment in the Internet has grown, the stakes for trolling -- for provoking strangers online -- have risen. Trolling has evolved from ironic solo skit to vicious group hunt.

"Lulz" is how trolls keep score. A corruption of "LOL" or "laugh out loud," "lulz" means the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium. "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," said one ex-troll who, like many people I contacted, refused to disclose his legal identity.

Another troll explained the lulz as a quasi-thermodynamic exchange between the sensitive and the cruel: "You look for someone who is full of it, a real blowhard. Then you exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz. Rules would be simple: 1. Do whatever it takes to get lulz. 2. Make sure the lulz is widely distributed. This will allow for more lulz to be made. 3. The game is never over until all the lulz have been had."

Trolling for lulz inspired a number of malcontents to harass a family who's son committed suicide. Then when Lori Drew, a suburban wife, tormented a former friend of her daughter to suicide, she drew a counter attack from trolls.

Their personal information -- e-mail addresses, satellite images of their home, phone numbers -- spread across the Internet. One of the numbers led to a voice-mail greeting with the gleeful words "I did it for the lulz." Anonymous malefactors made death threats and hurled a brick through the kitchen window. Then came the Megan Had It Coming blog. Supposedly written by one of Megan's classmates, the blog called Megan a "drama queen," so unstable that Drew could not be blamed for her death. "Killing yourself over a MySpace boy? Come on!!! I mean yeah your fat so you have to take what you can get but still nobody should kill themselves over it." In the third post the author revealed herself as Lori Drew.

This post received more than 3,600 comments. Fox and CNN debated its authenticity. But the Drew identity was another mask. In fact, Megan Had It Coming was another Jason Fortuny experiment. He, not Lori Drew, Fortuny told me, was the blog's author. After watching him log onto the site and add a post, I believed him. The blog was intended, he says, to question the public's hunger for remorse and to challenge the enforceability of cyberharassment laws like the one passed by Megan's town after her death. Fortuny concluded that they were unenforceable. The county sheriff's department announced it was investigating the identity of the fake Lori Drew, but it never found Fortuny, who is not especially worried about coming out now. "What's he going to sue me for?" he asked. "Leading on confused people? Why don't people fact-check who this stuff is coming from? Why do they assume it's true?" [..] The willingness of trolling "victims" to be hurt by words, Fortuny argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.

What inspires people to be malicious to strangers? The question has as many answers as their are trolls. However, in this story, Fortuny demonstrated a principle I've seen demonstrated in clinical practice. Many with anti-social histories also had a history of being victimized.

"Am I the bad guy? Am I the big horrible person who shattered someone's life with some information? No! This is life. Welcome to life. Everyone goes through it. I've been through horrible stuff, too."

"Like what?" I asked. Sexual abuse, Fortuny said. When Jason was 5, he said, he was molested by his grandfather and three other relatives. Jason's mother later told me, too, that he was molested by his grandfather. The last she heard from Jason was a letter telling her to kill herself. "Jason is a young man in a great deal of emotional pain," she said, crying as she spoke. "Don't be too harsh. He's still my son."

No, his past abuse doesn't "excuse" his behavior towards others, but it explains a lot.

The initial trolling impulse... seems to spring from something ugly -- a destructive human urge that many feel but few act upon, the ambient misanthropy that's a frequent ingredient of art, politics and, most of all, jokes. There's a lot of hate out there, and a lot to hate as well. [..] I asked Fortuny whether a person is obliged to give food to a starving stranger. No, Fortuny argued; no one is entitled to our sympathy or empathy. We can choose to give or withhold them as we see fit. "I can't push you into the fire," he explained, "but I can look at you while you're burning in the fire and not be required to help." Weeks later, after talking to his friend Zach, Fortuny began considering the deeper emotional forces that drove him to troll. The theory of the green hair, he said, "allows me to find people who do stupid things and turn them around. Zach asked if I thought I could turn my parents around. I almost broke down. The idea of them learning from their mistakes and becoming people that I could actually be proud of . . . it was overwhelming." He continued: "It's not that I do this because I hate them. I do this because I'm trying to save them."

Some victims identify with the abuser, and employ power and intimidation tactics as if they are "pre-emptive", a way to strike first before they are victimized again. Feeling so ashamed of their own victimization, they strike out in what they see as less malicious ways and then explain their behavior as a way to "toughen" those around them so they won't feel as victimized as they did so long ago. They learn to react to fear with rage.

I've heard convicted child abusers talk about how despicable their victims were when they cowered before them, that they beat them harder to inspired them to stand up to their abuser. How many of us have heard, "I'll give you something to cry about"?

Others suppress this angry response and feel chronically powerless, prone to anxiety and depression. Still others somehow find a middle ground where they are able to live a reasonably adjusted lifestyle. There is no good explanations why people adjust so differently.

I have yet to treat a person with an anti-social past that didn't also experience chaos, repeated trauma and abuse as a child. It seems as if their own rejection of themselves as victims drives their abusiveness, as if demonstrating their own abusive power allows them to forget their past weakness.

Thats not to say that all people with anti-social histories fit this pattern. It's pretty clear their are those who never come to treatment that don't want to understand themselves. I can only begin to imagine their motivations.

Knoxville Police Chief sheds a little more light on the motivation of Adkisson's murderous tirade. He blamed liberals from keeping him from a job.

CBS News

"He felt he was being kept out of the loop because of his age and because he was not liberal."

It seems unlikely that this belief has any basis in rationality. The thought would probably qualify as a paranoid delusion. I have found it quite common for themes of religion and sex in delusional thinking. I suspect because both of these topics inspire considerable passion in most people. A person prone to paranoia, down on his luck, will look for someone to blame around him, a victimizer who has it out to get him. Adkisson demonstrated the essence of paranoid projection. He was the one with aggressive intent towards liberals and gays. The "liberals" presented no identifiable threat to him.

Elizabeth Raney Burman in her blog Almostgotit.com may well have summed up a major principle about how alienation that inspires violence. Both Adkisson and Cho, the VA Tech shooter clearly were mentally unstable and tragically alienated and angry. The NIU and Omaha shooters clearly were mentally unstable and, given their life circumstances, may have experienced alienation as well. One of the common contributors to alienation is feeling invalidated, feeling that one's personhood, perspective, and value as a human being is being attacked.

Yesterday morning, two miles away from my house, a man named Jim Adkisson burst into a church and started shooting people. Today we found out that Mr. Adkisson has not been able to find a job, and that he'd hoped to die in the shooting, too.

Last Friday, another man named Randy Pausch did die, after first inspiring an entire nation with his positive approach to life even as he was battling terminal cancer.
[..]
Telling a hurting, rejected person that he needs to stop feeling what he feels and feel something else instead ("stop wallowing," etc.) is like rejecting that person all over again. We are a seriously repressed people, and we repress each other, too. I think most of us are afraid that being angry and upset, or even showing that we are angry and upset, metaphorically may be the same as killing people in a church. It is not.

In my clinical practice, I've worked with many people with anger control problems and histories of violence. With perhaps the exception of those who relish how anger intimidates those around them, people with anger problems I've met were afraid of their anger. They have witness and sometimes experienced the results of violent anger and learned that anger is controlling, vengeful and dangerous. Effectively, they learned that their anger controlled them, would compel them to revenge and violence. In a dramatic example of a self-fulfilling prophesy, they lived their lives allowing their anger to make certain decisions for them with predictable results.

Being angry is not bad, evil, awful or even unfortunate. It is in fact an opportunity. Some of the most creative people in the world are also very angry. Anger is one of the most powerful motivators in our lives. It gives us the power to pick ourselves up from the perception of defeat and try again and again until we are successful. Anger allows us to find the value in our lives.

Randy Pausch, who died last Friday from pancreatic cancer certainly understood the value of his life. Here is his last lecture.

To Randy, chasing his childhood dreams valued his life, especially the dreams he didn't reach.

Greg McKendry understood his value in life. In a fleeting moment before Adkisson shot into the crowd that included children. Greg faced the shotgun and died so many other's could live, allowing other parishioners to wrestle the gunman to the floor.

CBS News

"Greg McKendry stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us," Barbara Kemper said. McKendry's foster son Taylor Bessette watched it happen. "He stood in front of the bullets between the child and the gunman and actually took the bullets to save the child," said Bessette.

Barbara Kemper and Taylor Bessette and 200 others in that church will be changed forever by these events. Unfortunately, I know from experience, not all of them will find meaning and purpose in their experience. Finding meaning and purpose is the only way to go forward positively.

Another UU congregation summed up what might have prevented Adkisson and Cho from their fate if it had come early enough and often enough in their life.

Kitsap Sun

With their fingers touching and shoulders pressed, about 60 people bowed their heads in downtown Winslow to affirm that the violence that tore through a Tennessee church can be overcome, one pair of joined hands at time.

"Feeling the touch of another person who is not going to hurt you and who is going to care for you, we pray that the compassion here will spread into the world," said Cedars Unitarian Universalist Church co-minister Barbara ten Hove at the City Hall plaza Tuesday evening. "It's a baby step, but it is important."
[..]
Even more dangerous is the hatred that pulled the trigger, he said. "We wonder what taught him to hate a religion that for 400 years has preached love, acceptance and hope," he said. "Sadly, there are those in our culture who do teach hate, even if indirectly." Hove urged his congregation to meet hate with love, even for those that open fire in churches.

PsyBlog reviewed interesting research this week. We all know how hard it is for many of us to ask for help. Our culture so values our individuality, openly acknowledging we might need other's help may be thought to show weakness by some. We may also have to bear the implication of rejection if we are refused.

But if we dared ask for help, we are likely to be surprised with the answer. As usual, emotions carry a message as well as a consequence, many of us are too often unwilling to face. The blush of embarrassment feels much more intense than the anxiety of anticipation. But we misinterpret the message of the emotion if we automatically withdraw from the challenge. Emotions warn us of risks that might not be so obvious to detect otherwise. But risks often accompany rewards well worth the risk.

In a series of studies Francis Flynn and Vanessa Lake of Columbia University tested people's estimation of how likely others were to help them out. They got people to ask others to fill in questionnaires, to borrow cell phones and to escort them to the gym.

Across these studies they found that people underestimated how likely others were to help them by as much as 100%. This is such a high figure that it demands an explanation - what's going on here?

Part of the answer is our egocentric bias - we find it difficult to understand what others are thinking and feeling because we are stuck inside our own heads.

But it's more than just that, argue Flynn and Lake, it's also the fact that we underestimate just how much social pressure there is on other people to say yes. In effect, when you ask someone to help you, it's much more awkward and embarrassing for them to say 'no' than you might think.

In two further studies Flynn and Lake supported this intuition by asking participants to put themselves in either the role of someone asking for help, or someone being asked for help.

They found that when people were help-seekers they reliably played down the social costs of saying no. But when they were the potential helper they realised how difficult it was to say no.

Ask for help, but don't ask for too much. There's two very practical messages coming out of this research:

1. If you want help, just ask. People are much more likely to help than you think, especially if the request is relatively small. Most people take pleasure in helping others out from time-to-time.
2. Make it easy for others to say no. The other side of the coin is that most of us don't realize just how hard it is to say no to a request for help. Other people feel much more pressure to say yes to our requests than we realize. If the help you need is likely to be burdensome then think about ways of making it easier to say no.

The inhibition to ask is matched by an inhibition to say no. We have a built in mechanism that favors a cooperative spirit that promotes interdependence. Mutual cooperation enhances the survival of the entire community.