REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

About our brains

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, April 21, 2011 23:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2243
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This came today. The post is going to be long, but that’s because I wanted to provide EVERYTHING he talks about so you could make up your own mind. If you don’t like Morford, skip the first section and go from there. I found it interesting:
Quote:

Please step away from the fear
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Recently did my fine and ever-loving and yet slightly overworried parents, still married and flirty and sort of amazing after something like 147 years together -- and no, I have no idea how the hell they did it, so don't even ask -- forward on a terrifying hunk of email to me, full of sound and fury and unchecked socioeconomic gloom, signifying nothing.

It was an email, I quickly surmised, that had bounced around their group of retired, largely Republican friends and then commented on and fretted over a bit too much, all about what the hell is happening to the world, how dramatically things have changed, what can or cannot be done about it and, more than anything else, how they feel fearful for their kids -- which, for the purposes of this column, we'll call, me.

It was an email, simply put, about the end of the world. More specifically, the end of the American empire, of the United States as global economic superpower, primarily due to various and sundry "horrific" factors having to do with the threadbare American workforce, the staggering loss of manufacturing and factory jobs in this country, the spiraling debt, the shocking erosion of our industrial base, and so on.

"Facts About The De-industrialization Of America That Will Blow Your Mind" screamed the email's headline, instantly indicating its mad desire to be not the slightest bit tactful or reasonable. The piece then went on to list all manner of "horrifying" data about America's post-industrial implosion, from the mundane (a single Ford factory closing due to "globalization") to spurious forecasts about China, "rotting war zones" like Detroit, and how America's number one export is now, quite literally, garbage.

On it went, item after item, all context-free and gleefully myopic in its abject fearmongering and its intent to scare the unsuspecting reader out of his stock portfolio and into investing in gold bars. Unfortunately, I haven't the space here to list the most garish examples -- there are just so many -- but if you're so inclined, remove your pants, pray to Shiva, and click.

A quick Google side trip revealed the column's origins: a frighteningly Christian lad named Michael Snyder, shameless slinger of endless "shocking" doomsday scenarios via a site called "The Economic Collapse Blog," packed like a Jesus-clad fallout bunker with screeching headlines like "20 signs a horrific global food crisis is coming," "65 ways everything you now own is systematically being taken away from you" and "Armageddon for homeowners." So, you know, fun times at Michael's house.

Nothing new here, really. After all, Christian panic mongers like Snyder (and Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party, and the Tories, and nervous cavemen) have been trafficking in similar flagellation for eons. But thanks to the Net, the spiteful imp at the center of his list -- which is to say, fear -Ð now has far more fluid access to the brainstems of the unwary and the retired.

Now, right about here is where I would normally spin off and casually defy Snyder's Rapture-ready silliness, maybe something about how it goes without saying that for every overblown gloomsday factoid he spits forth, there is always, always a counterforce, an irrefutable sign of positive amazement, something to make you gasp and feel just a twinge, a glimmer of newfound hope for our perpetually doomed species.

But then, serendipity happened. Just after I sent my parents my "beware of viral email fundamentalist Christian fatalism spittle" speech, I stumbled across yet another new study that essentially reaffirms something you already suspected.

The study said: The brains of liberals and conservatives are wired differently. We respond to stimuli differently, process information differently, view the world through lenses unique to our political viewpoint. I know, shocking.

But then, the upshot: "Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear."

And then, "It's conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC [anterior cingulate cortex] have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views."

I realize you are not the slightest bit surprised by this. I realize, furthermore, it's a slightly specious generalization. After all, I know plenty of liberals who are quite terrified of the slightest bump in the karmic night. And I know a few conservatives -- not many, but some -- who have tremendous joie de vivre and see the world as a big mud puddle to be splashed around and loved well. They still don't want to fund the arts, help the poor or support universal single payer health care, however. Silly people.

But the fundamental truth remains. Fear equals conservatism (and vice-versa), which naturally leads to isolationism, protectionism, paranoia, religious dogma, surveillance cameras and wiretapping and Dick Cheney and guys like Snyder who write junk like "The Economic Collapse Blog" and aren't instantly stuck by lightning for being loudmouth heretics who traffic in the basest energy known to man, without shame.

And here are my otherwise fantastic and usually savvy parents, lured in by this overamped Christian, feeling increasingly powerless against the onslaught of his unfiltered "facts," the imp of fear driving them headlong into excess worry and despair. My father explained the emotional toll that such context-free information has on his group of friends, thusly:

"None of us work any longer, so there is no chance to rebuild -- we feel frustrated and helpless because there is nothing we can do (itals mine). Age does make you more conservative. I can well remember when our own world kept us so busy we did not have time to worry so much. Now we have time -- all of us, meaning our friends, are concerned about our kids and how you will survive."

This struck me as heart wrenching as it was revelatory. "Of course, there are a thousand things you can do," I thought. "Of course, while some anxiety is to be expected, most is just, well, poisonous." But then I recognized the conservative brain aswim in its element, overworking the fear synapse, seeing only frustration and the lack of power to return to some perceived previous glory, instead of engaging the more liberal mindset: seeking ways to invent a wildly new future.

This is what I told my fine folks: It's never too late. There are a million things you can do, are doing, right now, to improve the world. The products you buy, the foods you eat, the stores you patronize, the news sources you value, the politicos you vote for, the love you make, the information you choose to share, the stories you believe in -- every single choice, from coffee cup to charity donation, joke retold to tender human touch -- these are what make all the difference.

These are, cumulatively and collectively, what really make a great society. The jobs, the factories, the economics? These do not exist in a vacuum, independent of the daily churn. You don't have to be part of the active workforce to make an enormous difference.

But the very best and most important thing we can do to change the world? The single finest way to make your mind, your body, your nation healthier and stronger across the board? Do not buy into the fear. Defy the imp. And ignore flaming scrunchballs like Michael Snyder. I'm quite sure it's what Jesus would have wanted.

The study he speaks of costs $31 to download, so here is the synopsis:
Quote:

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

Ryota Kanai1, Tom Feilden2, Colin Firth2 and Geraint Rees1, 3
1 University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
2 BBC Radio 4, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ, UK
3 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK
Received 11 January 2011; revised 10 February 2011; accepted 4 March 2011. Published online: April 7, 2011. Available online 7 April 2011.

Summary

Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures [1]. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors [[2] and [3]]. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex [4]. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring [4] and recognition of emotional faces [5] by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [[4] and [6]] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.

Highlights

? Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure ? Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex ? Conservatism was associated with increased right amygdala size ? Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52J
V2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a


The above was to show you that it is an actual study published in Current Biology. The only way I can give what details I can get without paying the fee is the article in which the study was covered, in The Raw Story:
Quote:

Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study

Everyone knows that liberals and conservatives butt heads when it comes to world views, but scientists have now shown that their brains are actually built differently.

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.

"We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala," the study said.

Other research has shown greater brain activity in those areas, according to which political views a person holds, but this is the first study to show a physical difference in size in the same regions.

"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," said Ryota Kanai of the University College London, where the research took place.

"Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure."

The study was based on 90 "healthy young adults" who reported their political views on a scale of one to five from very liberal to very conservative, then agreed to have their brains scanned.

People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

Liberals are linked to larger anterior cingulate cortexes, a region that "monitor(s) uncertainty and conflicts," it said.

"Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views."

It remains unclear whether the structural differences cause the divergence in political views, or are the effect of them.

But the central issue in determining political views appears to revolve around fear and how it affects a person.

"Our findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty," the study said.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/brain-structure-differs-in-liber
als-conservatives-study
/

This, again, confirms the findings in The Authoritarians, in that conservatives are more likely to experience fear and more likely to experience it more strongly. Although he said his use of “RWA” wasn’t pointed specifically at conservatives, he also said that conservatives were most likely to exhibit the “authoritarian follower” pattern. This, to me, helps back that up.

I'm going to put the article Morford mentions in a separate thread, because it IS an issue worth discussing, if anyone else is interested.

I’m already aware some among us will find the study meaningless and dismiss it out of hand, but then facts are unimportant to them, no matter how logical or how well proven, anyway. I just thought the intelligent among us might find this interesting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:38 AM

BYTEMITE


...I have to put up with "women have less grey matter and smaller brains then men" already. The only thing I care about is if my brain works, not whether the brains of my political opponents are more irrational than mine.

Chicken and egg arguments about whether they had the structure that made them susceptible in the first place or whether it's a matter of how the brains grew in response to outside stimulus. Gah.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Good point. It's a simplistic study which (given what little I can glean from the summary which might be missing from the article about it) doesn't take other things into account. I just found it interesting, and thought "what the hell", since I've seen plenty of threads here pointing to liberal brains being fucked up.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Checking wikipedia, I see that this has already been put up on the page about the anterior cingulate cortex as of April 19. *sigh*

I dislike fad science. Sorry, Niki, nothing against you. Frankly, my recommendation is that you underestimate no one. Conservatives and liberals alike are quite capable of rational thought and organization, otherwise they wouldn't split the population almost 1/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative, and 1/3 independent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I try very hard not to underestimate anyone, believe me. I 'estimate' people I deal with personally on how they behave, what they say, only after communicating with them for some time (unless they make what I consider to be totally insane things immediately upon me meeting them!). It's been my observation (only speaking for myself) that the above holds true for the most part, so I find the article interesting. That's all. Certainly science never changes and is always evolving, and science isn't perfect. But then one gets down to what is and what isn't "fad science" and who determines the difference. I explained why I chose to start a thread on the issue, I take no ownership of it, although I think it has some validity.

I also don't think the 1/3-1/3-1/3 split means anything. What people tell someone their political affiliations are doesn't necessarily reflect fact; I'm an Independent, but I'm liberal, for example.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:34 AM

BYTEMITE


The reason I'm calling it fad science is that it usually doesn't spread so fast on the internet unless an agenda is pushing it. The fact that it's already on wikipedia when this is the first any of us have heard of it is telling.

Again, I'm sorry. I will give you that it's interesting, but by necessity I must find it very inconclusive, and I must find the explanations and handwaving given by the sources questionable.

You are by every means free to compile this into a personal collection about "what I've observed about conservatives and why this may be." But I happen to suspect the whole thing is poorly supported on both sides of the political spectrum.

Quote:

I also don't think the 1/3-1/3-1/3 split means anything. What people tell someone their political affiliations are doesn't necessarily reflect fact; I'm an Independent, but I'm liberal, for example.


The first article expressly calls out Republicans and equates them with conservatives. The tone of everything about the cited articles AND the study is very team-oriented. The fact that the study originated in London only means that there is a global ideological fight between people who identify with their country's conservative party and people who identify with their country's liberal party, even when those countries naming conventions for the ideologies are switched.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:36 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


My g/f told me about this study a month or so ago I think it was. An interesting finding, but too small of a sample for us to be jumping to any conclusions. It's a start perhaps, but until this study is repeated in greater numbers across several cultures and countries, we really can't be sure of anything other than 'these 90 people turned out this way.'

Far as facts are concerned, the only facts I see are the observable size difference between the ACC's and right Amygdala's. Anything beyond that sounds speculative.

Concerning Males, Females and grey matter, I've heard (but not read, so maybe I got this wrong) that while the female brain is smaller, their hemispheres are better connected, more synapses and the like between them or something. Bigger ain't always better.

EDIT: Was this just now published? Because my girlfriend told me of something in England that sounds exactly like this a little while back, but I get the impression this is supposed to be 'new.'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:41 AM

BYTEMITE


That would be white matter. Another unrelated pet-peeve of mine. Clearly both grey and white matter are essential to processing, and it's not entirely understood how they interact and how the processing itself comes about. And yet they ignore the whole "folds in the cerebrum" thing that's a major factor instead to measure men's brains and women's brains and go "nyah nyah."

It still bothers me when people try to attribute processes and function to brain structural differences when they're working with limited data and poor understanding of how the region effects the specific function/task. ESPECIALLY when the most likely explanation for the difference has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quantifier they're using, but rather brain growth and development.

EDIT: It's the England study. No worries, you're correct.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:56 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Agreed. I'm really just getting started in the psychology field (didn't realize child therapy could quite possibly be becoming my career) but I'm pretty sure I'm a Behaviorist. Also thinking about taking some classes while I accumulate 500 working hours and becoming a BCBA (Board Certified Behavioral Analyst.)

Anyways, I speculate (near baselessly and without any real evidence) that their political views and development influenced their brain architecture and not the other way around.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 8:10 AM

BYTEMITE


Most certainly.

It's true that I can think of a plausible mechanism for the difference in amygdala sizes in various people. Too much stress hormone can damage the areas processing it, which then allows more hormone through and a positive feedback of increasing stress. An enlarged amygdala may be a sign of this.

But the ACC? Hrm. Really aren't any mechanisms that come to mind. And the association with political alignment is a poor predictor in my estimation, as it is unlikely to be associated with the root cause, or even present in the majority of the population.

The political thing, to me, just seems tacked on. So it bothers me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Genetics load the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

Look at it from the other end - Perry, and now others, have conclusively proven that how you treat people when they are young, the environment they are raised in, makes a substantial, in some cases downright visible, difference in how the brain evolves, you understand ?

Thus as the bough is bent so grows the tree.

Causality in that case is pretty damn easy to determine, not to mention a path of least resistance - if someone grew up in an authoritarian household, they're likely to remain so, and vice-versa, outside of some life-changing event that fragments their personality and forces them to start anew on who they are and what they believe.

And sure, there's exceptions, like the Dark Spark, but they're pretty rare.(1)

So there's the egg for your chicken, right there, how you treat people determines in large part what they will become.

And that has consequences, in many ways.


As for the email in question, I've seen it, and it's more of the same - Waaah, waaah, the peons we exploited to live well are coming to take our stuff, oh no the masses have caught on, the peasants are revolting, yadda yadda, and you know, I smell a lot of GUILT coming off that.

But forwarding the debt onto future generations, many of those folk essentially ran the credit card of our economy deep into the red and then passed the responsibility for that debt onto future generations - that those future generations have realized this and are pissed about it is no surprise to me, in fact the only thing that is...

Happens to be that the bastards who did so feel guilt about it - but that sure didn't stop em did it, and it's a bit too fucking LATE for that.

Again - CONSEQUENCES - those responsible, will be held accountable.

-Frem
(1) Having read into the third book, Lizbeth Salander is not only a Dark Spark, but in fact about as perfectly stereotypical example as I've ever seen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:04 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I agree with Byte on this, doesn't really mean much to me.

Happy, I'm NOT a behaviorist. I can try and behave myself but I still feel horrid inside, no matter how I try to act so people can't tell how much emotional pain I'm in. I'm definitely not a Freudian either, I guess I didn't think people really used those terms anymore. But someone asked me if I was a Freudian or a Behaviorist and I said, uh, neither, are those really my only choices? I should hope not. But everyone's beliefs are based on their experience and I can see how working with little ones would lead you to being a behaviorist, it works better for kids than for grownups in my experience. But it seems to be working for you so that is fabulous.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:23 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Genetics load the gun, environment pulls the trigger.


Excellent, Frem. I might steal that sometime, it's evocative as well as accurate.


Anything relating to nervous system structure or chemistry fascinates me, which is why I'm basically settling in to study it long-term.
A follow-up study I would like to see would be a random sampling identified with numbers to eliminate any gender bias or whatever, with the brains looked at first, and then a well-designed test on political leanings. Match 'em up via unbiased computer and see if the theory holds water. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, maybe additional information would come out, but it would be interesting.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Rione, most stuff around psychology is based on Freudian thinking, it's just that it has evolved somewhat.

Behaviourism -
Quote:

also called the learning perspective (where any physical action is a behavior), is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things that organisms do—including acting, thinking and feeling—can and should be regarded as behaviors.[1] The behaviorist school of thought maintains that behaviors as such can be described scientifically without recourse either to internal physiological events or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind.[2] Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences between publicly observable processes (such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as thinking and feeling).[3]

From early psychology in the 19th century, the behaviorist school of thought ran concurrently and shared commonalities with the psychoanalytic and Gestalt movements in psychology into the 20th century; but also differed from the mental philosophy of the Gestalt psychologists in critical ways.[citation needed] Its main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated classical conditioning although he did not necessarily agree with Behaviorism or Behaviorists, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology to experimental methods, and B.F. Skinner who conducted research on operant conditioning.[3]

In the second half of the 20th century, behaviorism was largely eclipsed as a result of the cognitive revolution.[4][5] While behaviorism and cognitive schools of psychological thought may not agree theoretically, they have complemented each other in practical therapeutic applications, such as in cognitive–behavioral therapy that has demonstrable utility in treating certain pathologies, such as simple phobias, PTSD, and addiction. In addition, behaviorism sought to create a comprehensive model of the stream of behavior from the birth of the human to his death (see Behavior analysis of child development).



Kind of outdated theoretically speaking, being replaced by CBT, which also had its critics as a kind of stark form of therapy. It does have good outcomes though.
Quote:

Cognitive behavioral therapy (or cognitive behavioral therapies or CBT) is a psychotherapeutic approach, a talking therapy, that aims to solve problems concerning dysfunctional emotions, behaviors and cognitions through a goal-oriented, systematic procedure. The title is used in diverse ways to designate behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, and to refer to therapy based upon a combination of basic behavioral and cognitive research.[1]

There is empirical evidence that CBT is effective for the treatment of a variety of problems, including mood, anxiety, personality, eating, substance abuse, and psychotic disorders.[2][3] Treatment is often manualized, with specific technique-driven brief, direct, and time-limited treatments for specific psychological disorders. CBT is used in individual therapy as well as group settings, and the techniques are often adapted for self-help applications.
Some clinicians and researchers are more cognitive oriented (e.g. cognitive restructuring), while others are more behaviorally oriented (in vivo exposure therapy). Other interventions combine both (e.g. imaginal exposure therapy).[4][5]

CBT was primarily developed through a merging of behavior therapy with cognitive therapy. While rooted in rather different theories, these two traditions found common ground in focusing on the "here and now", and on alleviating symptoms.[6] Many CBT treatment programs for specific disorders have been evaluated for efficacy and effectiveness; the health-care trend of evidence-based treatment, where specific treatments for symptom-based diagnoses are recommended, has favored CBT over other approaches such as psychodynamic treatments.[5][7] In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends CBT as the treatment of choice for a number of mental health difficulties, including post-traumatic stress disorder, OCD, bulimia nervosa, and clinical depression.


Basically, I think it has found favour because it is a short term cheaper option than longer therapies, more psychanalytical in nature.

Current trends have moved towards Mindfulness as a way of managing lots of psychological problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_%28psychology%29 based on eastern philosophy. I can recommend.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:35 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

Happy, I'm NOT a behaviorist. I can try and behave myself but I still feel horrid inside, no matter how I try to act so people can't tell how much emotional pain I'm in.


Oh noes! Maybe I spoke before I fully understood what a behaviorist is... it didn't seem so bad to me from what I understood thus far. Or maybe being a behaviorist is like being a liberal or conservative. Yeah, I suppose I ain't making a great case for my competence here... but I'm new to this and still learning (on week 3). Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "I believe behavioral therapy can address most issues more safely and effectively than other approaches such as drugs." Of course, I work for ABS which provides Behavioral Therapy (via ABA and ABLES) to children with Autism, so I am more familiar and likely biased in that respect.

I feel I have a decent handle on how to help a person overcome a complication, learn a skill and basically 'do stuff' but I don't have a working knowledge on how the help people feel happier. I've only my gut and instincts there, and figure the best thing I can do is offer an ear, an arm, a shoulder or moral support while they see to themselves. But who knows where this new career and, very possibly, new education will take me? Maybe I'll find those answers too!

The kids I work with are always so happy (when not tantruming) but then again, so far I've only worked with smiling 3 year old non-verbals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Sing to them.

I mean that, even if you have the voice of a crow.
Try - you'll understand almost immediately why I told you to.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:33 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I think Happy does indeed sing to them, from what I hear he is a good singer. Little ones love to be sung to. When I was a little girl my mother had a song for everything practically, it was one of the only ways to get me to do things :)

No Happy, you didn't say anything wrong a chara, Its been a few years since I was in psychology class, and we studied those theories as more of historical things, leading to CBT etc. like Magon's said.

Magon's I know well what CBT involves and yes, for some people it can be very helpful and affective. There is a certain amount of people who don't benefit as much from it, but most do statistically. Mindfulness is also a good thing, grounding, focusing one's attention on something concretc. Mindfulness is something that pretty much anyone can do which is a good thing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:19 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Genetics load the gun, environment pulls the trigger.



Unless this is exactly upside-down. I find that many insane people are non-violent, and they share a non-violent past. Those that are violent or unstable always have a violent or unstable past. Genetics affects the chemical balance, though not nearly as much as the prenatal environment (esp. substance related) and this may affect the stability of the the person, though I think chemical events trigger the snap, even if they are psychosomatic ones, and I mean that in the literal sense, not the broad one, as in a situation that causes an actual chemical change, such as tryptamine imbalance, cortisol overload, adrenalin rush, etc.

I'm not sure that genetics, by itself, has a strong impact. But chemical changes do.

Part of it is that those who were born with a chemical imbalance, like those who were born disabled are more likely to be able to deal with that difference than those who acquire it suddenly, especially in the time directly after the change.

This "snap" event could be chemical or situational, but the radical actions that it spurs on have been built through the years, especially the early ones, as a system of coping mechanisms which are essentially environmental and psychological in origin and nature.

I know I'm speaking this heresy to a better informed user base on the subject than myself, but I am measuring the experience of myself and those I have known, and if I were to reconstruct a predictive model given about 60 seconds to think about it as I just did, this is what I would come up with.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:25 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Fine, genetics and prenatal factors load the gun and environment pulls the trigger then. I've told Frem I like this too, reasonable conclusion, I do indeed think that genetics can have a lot to do with it. But DT is right, that womb time and chemicals injested thusly can play a part too, as well of course as environment.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:53 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


You may be weighting prenatal factors too highly. Yeah, they exist, but as long as we're speaking from personal experience, my mother is and was the cleanest-living individual you could hope find; none of my issues could be attributed to issues with her womb. Can't really dismiss genetics when I have a weak pancreas and a serious tendency towards anxiety and depression, all of which seem to run in the family. There were certainly environmental triggers that brought out the worst in these traits, but I grew up with far fewer serious exposures to chemicals and toxins than most people. Even at my time of greatest sugar indulgence I ate way less than average, and yet my pancreas still started struggling. Point is, plenty of people are harder on their bodies than I ever was and don't have the same problems as me, because I have sensitivities that can not be blamed on the environment in which fetal me developed. They're genetic.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA


In case you were wondering about the origin of that quote, I initially heard it from both Dr Perry and Andrew Vachss, in the same context regarding shared issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_D._Perry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Vachss

But in fact it was initially offered by a nearly forgotten physician by the name of Elliot Joslin, some time back in the 1920s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_P._Joslin

The problem with committing medical or social heresy, is that while your accomplishments may endure, you will be demeaned and forgotten, much like Boris Sidis, who we're only now discovering was as right in his own way as those who bitterly opposed Versuch von der Erziehung und Unterweisung der Kinder written back in the 1750's, I think (the handbill/editorial I have flaming it isn't specific).

Which is ironic cause ole Boris *IS* relevant to this discussion cause just as I do, he thought ole Singular Fraud was fulla shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Sidis
Quote:

“As long as the child will be trained not by love, but by fear, so long will humanity live not by justice, but by force. As long as the child will be ruled by the educator’s threat and by the father’s rod, so long will mankind be dominated by the policeman’s club, by fear of jail, and by panic of invasion by armies and navies.”

Boris Sidis, from “A lecture on the abuse of the fear instinct in early education” in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919.


The research is already there, it has been since 1920, most of it - it's just that we've been plugging our ears and screaming denials for ninety years, attempting to stifle, silence and destroy truths we dared not agree with because it would mean questioning "The Establishment".

Only CITIVAS, via Doc Perry, became the scientific equivalent of a juggernaught, steamrollering that whole "Born Evil" concept right into the fucking ground, hopefully once and for all, and this was backed up on a social level by the now-departed Alice Miller.
http://www.childtrauma.org/
http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php

I might have come into this field ass backwards from a sideways angle, but once I realized HOW MUCH IT MATTERED, you better believe I chewed into it like a starving beast and consumed the knowledge within, so much as my background and education allow, and maybe a little over that on pure cleverness - most importantly, is knowing who does and doesn't know their shit.

Read Alice Miller, then go read that pyscho James Dobson - and ponder the fate of a child raised by either one, who would they be, what would they be like, what belief systems would they internalise and adapt ?

And then you will realize my blistering hatred for Dobson and all his kind has very valid reasons, because as the clipped image above visually represents - within the emotional destruction of a human being before they are capable of effectively resisting, lies the death of our entire fucking species.

Once you become aware of that, I mean really, really UNDERSTAND it, on a visceral, personal level - and then look around you, at our entertainment, our education, our economy...

It'll be like a bomb hit you, when it dawns.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwfulTruth
That choice, I leave to you.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:03 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

I think Happy does indeed sing to them, from what I hear he is a good singer. Little ones love to be sung to.


Thanks, and I do, but mostly during a break as sort of a 'reward' or as a tool to prompt vocalizations from the child.

With the little ones we take a lot of breaks over the 2-3 hour sessions. I'm doing pretty well if I can get 'em focused enough for 20 min on 20 min off. Of course, even during the break we do a little work, prompting vocalizations and the like, only during the break we follow the child and work off of whatever the child shows interest in and/or is playing with.

Quote:

“As long as the child will be trained not by love, but by fear, so long will humanity live not by justice, but by force. As long as the child will be ruled by the educator’s threat and by the father’s rod, so long will mankind be dominated by the policeman’s club, by fear of jail, and by panic of invasion by armies and navies.”

Boris Sidis, from “A lecture on the abuse of the fear instinct in early education” in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919.



Positive reinforcement and redirection has been the name of the game in education as long as I have been involved with the system (granted, I've been involved for only 2 1/2 years + college if you count that). Every new workshop or methodology seems to be treating the 'p' word (punishment) as a carnal sin. Mostly, this is alright because it focuses the education or whatever in a positive direction, 'this is what you can/should do' as opposed to 'these are all the things that you can't.'

But what if you have a behavior that really needs to end right now? I've asked this question during professional development while student teaching and received a smug non-answer 'ignore the negative behavior and redirect them back to the task.' By that logic should I ignore violence of one child beating up another and then go out of my way to positively reinforce the offender for stopping?

Punishment is a short term tool for addressing behavior, and not a great one, but it has it's uses and shouldn't be thrown out entirely. Working 1 on 1 it's easier to avoid punishment on account of them thriving on your attention which you can withhold during bad behavior and reward with during good behavior. In a classroom, however, the teacher doesn't have the luxury of being the only source of attention. They have their peers they can distract or gain that attention motivator from.

So yeah, fear as a motivator is a terrible long-term solution for anything and should never be the primary focus of... anything, but it does work fast and punishment in some scenarios I think is an unfortunate necessity. Still the be avoided if at all possible but not to be completely thrown out of the tool kit. Also, punishment does not have to be based in fear, though to a degree, I guess it would create 'fear of punishment' and on that note, I'm out of time. Gotta be on my way to my first appointment.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:12 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

You may be weighting prenatal factors too highly. Yeah, they exist, but as long as we're speaking from personal experience


Can't speak to your personal experience, but even if you share something with a parent, bear in mind that not everything inherited is genetic. Diet is a big one, but so are situational things. Stress is one, as is sexual repression. I grew up in a very repressed household and this had I would guess more impact on my chemistry than any of the other factors.

My mother was a chainsmoker, hers was an alcohol. I knew several growing up from pot smokers to simple habitual coffee drinkers who were taking enough of a substance to create a permanent receptor imbalance in a developing foetus.

IMHO, and based on experience, I think this is a stronger indicator than genetics. I don't think it trumps environment or personal drug use, but it does have an impact. Of the many children I've known with some sort of prenatal poisoning, all had abnormalities associated with it. But probably in part because they are born with these, they learn to cope with them much more.

I could easily anecdotally look at my own family and say "any quirk my mom has that I have are genetic" but I would have to be sure that those weren't passed on as habits, and that they weren't passed on as the side effects of habits such as diet, etc.

It would be harder to label any of her quirks as related to her mother's drinking, because by the time I met my mother, she had been smoking for many years, which had a profound impact on her neurochemistry. She would have to have those traits in common with other children of drinkers, and that would have to be distilled (no pun intended) from a list of other similarities, such as that her parents and many other alcoholics are negligent, psychology or physically abusive.

In my non-professional but fairly informed opinion, I have seen relatively few cases where the dominant chemical situation mirrored that of the parent due to pure genetic inheritance. I'm wracking my brain for one. I can think of three off hand where the parent and the child had a shared severe mental illness but all three were the result of radical drug abuses by the parents in question that those parents then handed down to their children long after they were born.

Any genetic differences of anomalies or genetic outliers would also have to show a trend of differences in genetic groups, the same as any other genetic condition trend. For example, blacks are more likely to have sickle cell anemia. Are they more likely or less likely to be schizophrenic (outside of something like a drug induced state)

Tracing this genetic link would be difficult, esp. after weeding out the pre-natal one, and developmental factors, as well as personal self-abuse of various types, including but not limited to substance abuse.

My main point here was that psychology seems to me to be a determinant of the path of action and changes of the "snapee" as it were, and whether someone snaps is largely chemical, even when induced by situation factors like stress, it's the cortisol overload causing some sections of the brain to become hyperactive and others to shut down.

I would weight the "chemical environment" factors as personal substance use > prenatal exposure > genetics as a descending pattern of influence on chemical state.

Psychology, I'd have to pass to Frem. I've only just started. I used to be a chemical determinist on this topic, and I've only recently begun to doubt that, in part because I cannot chemically predict the direction a person who snaps will take.


ETA: To some extend, sure, you can link compulsive gambling to a chemical situation, but you can't conclude that as the only factor with no psychological element because it's not behavior you can induce in everyone with the same drug. I don't think. Now I find myself wondering at what age Skinner put the rats into the gambling box. Age of the rats, not of Skinner ;)


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:01 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

You may be weighting prenatal factors too highly. Yeah, they exist, but as long as we're speaking from personal experience


Can't speak to your personal experience


Yeah, that's why I was. You talk about your personal experience and lay a bulk of blame for problems on prenatal toxins. I talk about mine and can lay no blame there, so I think you are overestimating. Also can't lay it on repression. My parents are in many ways very relaxed, they're Buddhists, and they didn't lay any guilt trips on me as a child. They also instilled good food habits. Excellent, even.
My 'quirks' by the way, are not necessarily shared with my parents, but often with theirs. My paternal grandmother has type 2 diabetes, so the weak pancreas likely came from her. Hell, so did the shape of my nose. My maternal grandfather had a great deal of intellectual activity, sometimes leading to anxiety or the inability to stop, so odds are my superhuman levels of dopamine come from him. My grandmother, on the other hand, was prone to the lethargy, the depression, etc. I got that from her, and my mom seemed to as well, though she reacted differently to it and has always been active.
Situations that were truly minor pushed those genetic buttons in me. Thousands of people raised as I was, with parents as healthy and clean-living as mine, would have no problems whatsoever. Mine came from genetic predispositions.
I'm not trying to discount toxic exposure. It is surely a culprit, but it isn't practical to lay as much blame on it as you appear to be doing. As the earlier quote said, environment is the trigger. If the gun hasn't been loaded, it won't matter if that trigger is pulled. Some things trigger everyone, or nearly so, but some things are very specific to genotype.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:14 AM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. Genetics is a possible cause, also potentially exposure to antibiotics at a young age may be a possible cause if you're sensitive to beta lactams, it's rare, but it happens. Might still be an issue of predisposition either way. Did you ever have seizures? You mentioned that you have been diagnosed with a pancreatic problem, is it insulin deficiency, do you have a reaction to carbohydrates, or do you crave carbohydrates in some way?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:49 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


No, no seizures. No antibiotics, either, and no vaccines. I'm not blowing smoke when I say my exposure to toxins has been extremely limited. Freakishly limited, considering the looks I've gotten from certain doctors and nurses. When I had dental surgery, the nurse there literally would not believe that I'd never had penicillin and couldn't know if I was allergic or not. I was twenty years old and she called my mother.
I have hyperinsulinism, which I suppose is a reaction to carbohydrates. My pancreas overreacts and produces far too much insulin. I know this doesn't sound like a weak pancreas, but my doctor assures me that it's a sign of one; if the pancreas is overwhelmed, it overcompensates. My cells started to become resistant to insulin as a side effect of this process, causing further spikes in pancreas activity that could have eventually burned it out and left me diabetic. We caught it early enough that there should be no permanent damage, I got it under control by cutting sugar completely. I really never ate that much of it, a fraction of average consumption, but apparently it was still too much.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:06 AM

BYTEMITE


Huh. Well, the tree I was barking up, because of your triad symptoms of depression, anxiety, and pancreatic/insulin stuff was a combination of:

Allergy to beta-lactam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysbiosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidiasis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hyperglycemia

Put together, it'll sometimes result in alterations of the brain chemistry (thus, depression and anxiety). Even with your Grandmother with diabetes, I was thinking at your age that the combination was a sure thing. Guess not.

Well, in any case, I'm glad that you're doing well on your dietary treatment program. And really, what they recommended for you, cutting out sugars, is the same thing that would have gotten you back "in balance" if you had any of the above I was thinking anyway.

I'd also have said maybe have some pro-biotics, but now I'm concerned your pancreas might have other problems, and pancreatitis wouldn't be good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:20 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Oh, probiotics are my friend. The doctor who took me off sugar also recommended a good probiotic and homemade kefir. It's been great. Did exactly what it was supposed to do, which was to help calm the sugar cravings that he theorized might be from an imbalance in my bacterial flora. High insulin, of course, also causes the cravings, but wasn't the sum of the problem. My energy and digestion has also improved.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Holy cow! You have a good doctor.

Now that I'm remembering, I think I recall hearing you mention he also had your neurochemistry tested. Very good!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:46 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


From what I can determine Phoenix, DT doesn't put much stock in the idea of faulty genetics. I tend to side with you on the matter myself, of course I also agree that toxins and prenatal conditions can cause stuff too, but I think that genetics are pretty important to the story.

I believe in punishments. Call me mean but I do. I also think its important for children to understand why they are being punished, why what they did isn't okay. If you punish them without explaining it to them then they don't understand why obedience is important beyond immediate consequences. Then when they get out into a place where there aren't immediate consequences they go hog wild because they aren't being punished. Then they wind up in jail or treating their friends bad or what have you because they didn't understand why they should or shouldn't do things.

My good friend has raised her daughter with very few negative consequences (aka punishments) I care a lot about Jasmine but she is a total brat to her mother, treats her snottily and gets away with it, and then her mom whinges about her never listening and being a meangirl.
So I think punishment in a proper and instructive form is a good thing for little ones if they are disobeying and need to learn to change that behavior. Of course I also think that positive reinforcement is important, if you don't do that then sure they'll know what they _aren't supposed to do, but will they understand what they _are supposed to do, so I think they are both necessary. Every kid is different too. I'm not a child psychologist by any means, I've just watched the raising of many children from baby hood to adulthood and the parts inbetween, so I don't know the technical things, all I know is what I see with kids in my life.
So I do not have all the answers by any means.



"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:48 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


He's an amazing doctor, my family and I are very fortunate to have found him. He's an endocrinologist, so he very much prefers to not treat anything without tests of hormone, neurochemistry, and nutrient levels. He says it eliminates a lot of the guesswork, and indeed it did. Three or four consults with him and all the problems I had really started getting under control, with no need for meds. Really showed me that problems can be effectively treated for quality of life instead of bandaged and left to fester, which was a huge problem I had with the medical establishment I'd encountered before him, all wanting to drug me and being annoyed that I would refuse. It's all his fault I want to get a degree in neuroscience and go to med school. I recommend him to everyone I know, but it can be troublesome as (1) he's very popular and booked all the time and (2) he doesn't kowtow to insurance companies, so you have to pay out of pocket. I think it was a small price considering how effective he is.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:01 PM

BYTEMITE


I think your doctor is my new hero.

That is awesome. Everything you say, even refusing to bow to the insurance industry. The man has his priorities straight AND he has brains!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:13 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think your doctor is my new hero.


He's certainly mine

Now this guy is not my doctor, but they do agree on most things and he has excellent info, sources, and priorities as well: http://www.drdavidwilliams.com (probably would be my doctor, if I lived in Texas) There are some good articles on his site here, and the newsletter is fantastic, I've learned a lot from it.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:52 PM

DREAMTROVE


You have a good doctor. I noticed that from when you first started talking about herbals. Most of them will just reject the idea, it's foreign and they don't understand it...

I studied genetic engineering for two years in college. I minored in it, because that was the most you could do. I was a genetic determinist. Field and real world experience has led me to believe that humans are damn near identical, genetically. There's very little going on there in terms of variations that would have a profound impact.

I hear what you're saying, and I don't have an answer. I could come up with lots of things which would explain it, but they would involve wild guesses about ground water toxins, or the use of potent herbals like ginseng, etc. Nothing that I have any reason to believe you're exposed to.

That said, I just had this disturbing experience at the shrinks.

I was in, chatting with the accountant, because she had to take over the receptionists job as the other woman was a no show, and so she was doing both jobs, and so we were shooting the breeze. There was a client there, who was in for his "fill" and I was wasting his time, by chatting, because she clearly needed to unwind and vent a little. Not a whole lot of time, like maybe 5 min. The guy eventually lost it, in a major way. I looked at him and had this sudden feeling that this was someone capable of killing someone. Not in self defense, just in a homicidal way. Then I thought "Oh, they do psychos here, that's right."

But it's a hazard of the job, and it made me think. I very seldom run into people I think are psycho, maybe a dozen times in my life, but so far, I've never been wrong. One guy hadn't tried to kill anyone at the time, but has since, but I digress. This guy wasn't like the troubled teens that someone like Frem or myself would deal with, but the sort of person that if you pushed him into conflict, would, I felt, actually kill you. He was a really scary guy.

The next thing that struck me about him was that his manner was very confident. He was sure that he was right, and that he was sane, and that people should have attended to him in a more timely fashion (this is a place you often wait for half an hour.) But some things were just slightly off.

1) People who make eye contact and never smile. The psycho, from my experience, is not really an eye-contact avoider, that's a shy person. Psychos are not shy. They're very confident. The guy Ayn Rand worships strikes me like this. Very sure that they have figured out how the world works: You are the one sentient being who possesses all the brain power and you exploit and manipulate all others to serve you.

2) They can't control their eye contact. They make eye contact obsessively, like you're a target or prey. They are agressive and want to make sure you respond. They can't dismissively look away, laugh, or take anything lightly: that might show a sign of weakness. It's a strange animal state.

3) Tone of voice, aggressive, demanding, not here to bargain, but here to order. Even petty and weak psychos who are not in control of the situation at all, or maybe even afraid, and not confident, still display this sort of attitude.

4) They're never off topic. They don't stray from their purpose. They communicate along their course of action and the points that apply to it, and never offer communication that does not relate to it.

This woman's office was filled with cat pictures. 100 of them. Little cat figures and postcards and cartoons. Even a regular certifiable non-functional lunatic would open with "I had a cat as a kid. Little yellow one. Clever fellow." That's not a high level of social skill, it's a core requirement for entering into the human race. I didn't comment on her cats because I knew why they were there, precisely because someone who never made it past a mental age of four could connect with that. I could relate to her situation, forced into doing two pretty stressful jobs on overtime, and she'd undoubtedly started the day that way at 9am, and should be home already.

so, 5) They relate to no one. He wanted something from this woman, but was not prepared to offer even recognition of her as a human being in order to get it. It was his, his right, and his due. I was in the way, that made me an obstacle, and enemy, and so he was very threatening. He knew that would get me out of the way.

That's all I got for now, I'll let the big brains weigh in on that one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 1:28 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm sorry you ran into someone that was scary DT, feeling unsafe like that isn't a good feeling to be sure. I've only twice been in a situation with a person that I felt helpless in, once at the beach at night with my best friend and a kid that wouldn't let us leave and second at NAMI this pissed off guy came into the office and I was all alone and he was really fighting angry. He left and I was okay, but an hour later he had checked himself into the hospital next door with homicidal ideation.

But both my situations turned out fine, I guess i'm a little skittish really, those situations probably weren't so very bad, but they sure felt scary at the time. But yeah, that guy you were stuck with in the waiting room sounds like he gave you an uncomfortableness as our man Jayne might say. I do believe in the bad seed theory, whether he is one or not I don't know. But I'm glad it all turned out.

Your doctor sounds pretty smart Phoenix.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

I'm sorry you ran into someone that was scary DT, feeling unsafe like that isn't a good feeling to be sure.


Sorry, I think you misunderstood my interest. I have many times had people put loaded guns to my head. I am not someone who is easily scared. Actually, it might be impossible. I thought he was a curious study in psychosis, I was posting the story because there are many people here who deal with the mentally ill, and it was a case study.

This sounds like someone that would be a serious problem in a group home, but there's nothing definitive that would justify kicking him out, just instinct. I was curious how other people might deal with him

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:06 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I doubt he would end up in my household (someday when I have it God willing) he doesn't really sound like the touched type. So you call it psychosis, were there hollucinations or dillusions that he was experiencing? Because that's what psychosis is, it isn't the same thing as a person acting like a psychopath, not the same thing. Just sayin'. But yeah, that sort, the antisocial personality disorder type which looks like what you were getting at, aren't the sort we'll take at R's G. Something tells me they wouldn't mesh well with my folk there :O

I guess its good that you weren't scared? I mean, its good, I just know that many people might have felt a little scared in that situation, good that you weren't though.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


I can't feel fear anyway, side effect of the treatments. Anyway, I have no idea what goes on inside his head. That's an interesting separation. Perhaps, I think that you could keep him out by sticking to teenage girls ;) I think that there is a danger, some crazy people are crazy in a dangerous way. They tend to be those that think they are sane. I don't think it's easily boxed in to a type, but I'm not sure. Anyway, thanks for the comments, that's what I was posting it for.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:56 - 4749 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:52 - 7472 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:47 - 1 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:36 - 12 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:28 - 941 posts
LOL @ Women's U.S. Soccer Team
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:20 - 119 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL