Project Implicit®

While writing the previous post on the fly, I touched on the concept of preconceived notions and it reminded me a bit of Harvard's research on hidden biases:

Project Implicit®
Project Implicit blends basic research and educational outreach in a virtual laboratory at which visitors can examine their own hidden biases. Project Implicit is the product of research by three scientists whose work produced a new approach to understanding of attitudes, biases, and stereotypes.

It really is a fascinating site to visit. Several friends and I have compared our results with each other with interesting results. Not to mention insightful conversations on why we got the results we did. It's been a few years since I've done some of these tests. I might have to go back and try them again.

Interested in the research on Happiness?

I'm sure that like me, many people find the research on happiness fascinating. I've done a post or two (three?) related to it in the past. I was about to do another one dealing with the newer research when I realized I was actually recovering territory already covered better by another blogger - Sandy Gauntam, writer of The Mouse Trap. The blog is practically dedicated to the subject of happiness at the moment. She does cover other topics there, though, too.

Here are a few of her posts on happiness research:
Am happy, will be selfish; Am sad, will be fair. Oh Really?!?
Happiness opposed to despair/ennui; sadness to anger/irritability
Am Happy, will talk more and deep; am Sad, will make small talk
Am happy, will seek novelty; am sad, will stick with familiar
Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?

Do I agree with all her conclusions? Of course not. I rarely, if ever, competely agree with someone's conclusions. I'm genetically onery and have a family tradition of being slightly rebellious to uphold. However, she does an excellent job presenting the research and to be honest, I haven't really made my mind up on the subject yet.

And for your additional perusal, more articles on the subject from other sites:

Happy, Enthusiastic People Less Likely To Develop Heart Disease
Emotions Interfere in Theory of Mind
The Proof’s in the Positive Thinking

Time

In his talk about compassion, Daniel Goleman mentions that the most important factor in determining whether or not someone will act like a good Samaritan is if whether or not they feel rushed. Along the same vein, Carl Honore's talks about the need to slow down in this world that is speeding towards the future:




But is slow always the answer? Too often people go from one extreme to another. Luckily, Philip Zimbardo gives us a healthy view on time:



The past gives us roots. The future gives us wings. The present gives us energy. The trick is to know which focus to use when.

Compassion from a Secular View

I may address compassion, using most of the TED talks from the Charter on Compassion, along with other sources in my religious journal during the holidays, but for now I'll just share these secular views of the evolution of compassion.


Couldn't find this video on YouTube. If you cannot see the embedded video, then go to http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/robert_wright_the_evolution_of_compassion.html

Covers the genetic reasons for the Golden Rule, Game Theory, and economic interdepencies. Also introduces the concept of "moral imagination", otherwise known as the age-old adage of putting yourself in another's shoes.


The next talk shares some of the science research dealing with the psychology of compassion. This is a very engaging talk and quite enjoyable.

(

It is interesting that the research Dr. Daniel Goleman shows that while we are all neurologically wired for compassion, what determines whether we will do a compassionate act or not is usually how hurried or pre-occupied we are.

I am also stuck by the fact that neurological studies show that the act of doing something for someone else, usually triggers the circuitry of compassion in the brain. I can give several quotes and truisms from my youth and religion, which attest to this phenomenon, that I have found to be very true myself. Likewise, he shares an insight gained from a serial killer, who once said, "If I had felt their distress, I could not have had done. I had to turn that part of me off."

To expand your vocabulary, Goleman shares the word "pizzled" - the emotion one experiences in that moment when someone suddenly answers their cell phone, iPhone, Blackberry, whatever, and acts as if the first person no longer exists.

While I agree that the act of noticing is a major step towards compassion, it takes more than just noticing to enact effective compassion. As they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." To give quality compassion, one needs to take a little more time to find the root cause and not just do bandage compassion all of the time. A bandaid in the wrong place can sometimes be worse than no bandage at all, but it doesn't need to happen if, along with noticing, you also listen. Then you will better know whether the bandage needs to be here or there, or if maybe you need to help the person get to a doctor instead.

When I was young, I thought I was a compassionate person, and in my defense, I did strive to be one. But as I experienced more of life's obstacles, I realized that some of the acts of my younger self were not really as compassionate as I thought they were. As Carl Rogers was fond of pointing out, the only person who really knows what is going on inside a person, is the person themselves. So, listen as well as see, and you will increase your changes of giving quality compassion.

Art and civilization

I was going to wait until I found the video clip I wanted for this, but I decided to go ahead and post it since it appears that I may have to snail mail someone to locate it.

I was very blessed when I was in high school to have Ms. Sylvia Butler as my Ancient World History teacher. She was significant in my life for two reasons. First, she was the only teacher that had all of my siblings and I take her class. Second, she taught us the history of early civilizations through their art. She not only showed us wonderful pictures that she had taken of art all over the world, but she made us draw some of it, as well as remember the verbal facts, on our tests. You can tell a lot of a civilization through the art it produces and praises.

Another teacher who taught me about the importance of art to a nation was my eigth grade Social Studies teacher, Dr. Demott. He preferred to go as "Mr. Demott" and he was a very soft-spoken guy, but while some teachers know how to present material, he knew what material to present. He used contemporary music and various film clips to underscore certain aspects of life in the 20th century.

One example was using Neil Diamond's "I am, I said" to show the alienation that occurs in a mobile society. Another example was using actual state-sponsored films from communist Russia to show us the power of propaganda. The visual imagery of this clips were so strong that there was no need to translate the Russian in them.

(hopefully, I can find an example)

Frankly, I'm surprised he was able to get away with showing us some of this stuff, but I am glad he did, because it showed us not only real propaganda (versus the weak stuff many people scream about these days), but showed us how powerful controlling the arts can be for those in power, no matter what their idealogy.

Where's the sweetness in your life?

Scrooge: "What right to you have to be happy? You're poor enough."
Fred: "What right do you have to be miserable? You're rich enough."
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens


"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." - The Princess Bride


You would be very hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't had some grief, pain or other misery in their life, but you can probably easily find examples of people who can be happy in spite of their poor circumstances and those who are miserable in spite of their riches.

My daughter is friends with one of the sweetest, most childlike (without being childish) people I know. Everything she draws has an aura of cuteness. To the casual observer, the only clue to the darkness in her is the fact that she likes really heavy metal. Her innocence is so precious that her friends will tell anyone who tries to destroy it to back off in now uncertain terms. For the past few years, she has lived with a good family that has legal guardianship over her. It has been through conversations with her foster mother that I have some idea what this young woman's early life was like. With most people, I can say that while I haven't been exactly where they are, I have been a few houses down or a block or two away. In her case, imagine living with the craziest relative you know, while in an active war zone - and you just might have some idea what her childhood was like. While I have personal familiarity with some of the architecture of her life, most of the rest of it I only have the familiarity of a war correspondant in comparison.

If anything, her sweetness is one of the main things that kept the misery of her life from totally destroying her. It is no wonder that my daughter and her other friends fight so hard to keep that sweetness alive. Because truth be told, while she may be innocent in many ways, she has experienced more evil than many who parade their "emo-ness" can even fanthom. Her sweetness is not an act of avoidence - it is an act of bravery.

To often we shy away from joy and innocence because others try shame us away from under the guise of calling it "childish", "quaint", "silly", "hokey", and various other snobbish comments. It takes bravery to embrace sweetness and joy, while living in a culture that praises negativity and jadedness. It's no wonder that many people have no clue how to turn Life's lemons into lemonade; most of us don't recognize Life's sweeteners even when they are labelled for us. And a lot of people expect the lemonade to be made and given to them, completely unaware of how much better lemonade is when it is sweetened by ourselves to our own individual tastes. And sometimes Life doesn't give us lemons; sometimes it gives us cream of wheat, medicine, treackle, habenaro peppers, or crabapples.

And there are many types of sweeteners in Life. Nature uses more than just sucrose (refined sugar). She uses glucose (honey), lactose (milk), fructose (fruit), and others.

So today I am going to share some of the musical sweeteners that are currently just right for my life at the moment:

• "I get ten thousand hugs from ten thousand lightning bugs." - Firefly by Owl City
  
• Looking out my backdoor by Creedance Clearwater Revival
  
• In My Wildest Dreams - Moody Blues
  
• Never Gonna to Give You Up by Rick Astley. Yes, Rickrolling doesn't annoy me - I actually enjoy it. 'Tis like trying to injure a volcano with a flame thrower or stopping a hurricane with a water cannon! FEAR ME, PUNY MORTALS!
  
• Dragostea Din Tei by O-Zone
  
• Run, Runaway by Slade
  
• I Don't Feel Like Dancing by Scissor Sisters
  

Youtube playlist for your convience.

Now, what sweetness exists in your life? Please feel free to share, so others not only learn of other sources of sweetness, but take courage enough from your example to embrace the sweetness in their lives.

Cross-posted to my other blog.

Happiness

While I do want to continue my series about the transformative power of art, I am currently awaiting some information that I really, really want for my next post on the subject. So, until then, back to the TED commentaries.

Nancy Etcoff discusses the science of happiness in the following talk:



Happiness is not the absence of misery. People can feel happy, even while feeling miserable. I have experienced this, being happy, even while in pain and under stress. It is also interesting to note that the pleasure and the reward pathways in the brain are not actually the same things.

Dan Gilbert gives a great talk about natural and synthesized happiness:



I find the free choice experiments very interesting, if not mind-blowing. There is another talk on TED about this, but I find this one more convincing.


The following talk is a more spiritual on the matter of happiness. At the very least, it has some beautiful images.

Art as a means of true social change

I've decided to talk a short break from sharing my favorite TED talks to share something that hit me while studying for an art history test 3 years ago. I have it posted it elsewhere, but I think it's time to share it here.




Take a look at this picture. Do you know why it is so important?

If you're an art student, you would probably answer with something like this:

One of the most admired frescos from the Arena Chapel done by Giotto, known as the "Father of Picturial Painting". It shows real emotion and human suffering. Uses focal points instead of symmetry, overlapping figures and shading. Done in Italo-Byzantine style, it breaks from the stylistic other-worldness of the Byzantine style of the Dark Ages, with its introduction of naturalism.


However, if you take into the account of the cultural and religious significance of this piece, it becomes so much more than the epitome of a style of painting.

To appreciate Giotto's work, you need to understand that in the Dark Ages, artists painted figures to look other-worldly to reflect the supernatural and unfathomableness of Christ and the saints. These were not persons who could be related to in a normal fashion. These were impersonal beings, who only interacted with we unworthy and insignificant humans out of supernatural mercy.

To this end, the populace were treated to paintings like the one to the left here. Faces that showed no emotions. Images that showed not connection to the things of this world. During the Dark Ages, God was not Love, but Power.

Look again at the Byzantine representation of Christ. Is the image a welcoming one? Does this look like someone who emanates love? Someone who had a personal interest in your salvation?

It doesn't to me.

On the other hand, look again at Giotto's Christ. Is there any doubt that the man lying there had a connection to those around him on a personal level? That they felt his love for them in their life?

To the best of my knowledge, Giotto was the first person to paint Christ in a personal way. Perhaps herding sheep as a child made Giotto feel a special kinship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps being chosen by the master painter Cimabue as a humble lad from the country, Giotto saw more of God's love in the world around him, instead of the power plays of rulers and religious leaders.

Whatever the reason, so moving and innovated was Giotto's works, that he was in high demand and other artists began to follow suit. Soon, many who could not read, much less have access to the Holy Scriptures, had a different insight into the nature of Christ - where they actually meant something to the universe and their Creator.


A description of Giotto from http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/giotto/

Giotto was short and homely, and he was a great wit and practical joker. He was married and left six children at his death. Unlike many of his fellow artists, he saved his money and was accounted a rich man. He was on familiar terms with the pope, and King Robert of Naples called him a good friend.



Rereading what I wrote, I realized that I need to explain that the rediscovery of humanism started at the same time that Giotto began his work. And, frankly, I think that his work was a main factor for its re-emergence.

What happens in a prison-like environment

I really should have added this to the post on brain damage and the environment, after Dr. Pinker's talk on violence, but I had temporarily forgotten it. This video shows how quickly normally good people can turn into monsters if the conditions are right, even if they don't have a genetic predisposition to do so. I have one very morbid friend who thinks the experiment should have been continued; however, there is no need for that. All one has to do is read up on prisons, and especially prisoners of war, to see where it would have led. We've always had tons of data on that front. The data missing was what type of people were the guards before they fell into this mindset. Once the mindset was achieved, there was nothing new to gain by continuing the experiment. (And, of course, it would have been extremely unethical.)

I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in some groups that use hazing. The only difference is that once the initiate lives through the hazing period, they get to become part of the "guards".

How We Read Each Other's Minds

I found out that the embed codes from the TED site doesn't work with my Google Reader, so I went back to the YouTube version.



Probably the most "stunning" part of Rebecca Saxe's talk is how moral judgments can be affected by magnetic fields. It decreases the desire to blame for intentional acts and increases the desire to blame in accidental acts. As she tried to explain, it takes a noticable magnetic field to actually do anything. Pay attention to the video excerpt, where she is zapped by the equipment - there is a physical and visual response. Let me repeat - there is a physical and visual response. And the effect is TEMPORARY. Of course, if you are attached to your tinfoil hat, far be it from me to deny you another reason to sport it.

Now the question is - what about those people who already put more blame for accidental acts? Obviously they aren't constantly affected by a magnetic field, so it is possible that some brain circuitry gone haywire. Of course, brain circuitry can often be affected by repetitive thoughts and actions.

Another interesting study shows that when the right hemisphere of the brain is similarly stimulated, there is a gender difference in how that stimulation is perceived. To quote my capstone paper: "The creativity of the left hemisphere is evident in how men and women perceive the over-stimulation of the right hemisphere differently. To men it will feel like an alien presence or a source outside of themselves. To women, who are more sensitive to the stimulation, it will most likely take the form of a physical manifestation (i.e. dizziness, spinning, spatial displacement, etc.) from a source inside them. (Persinger, 2003) It is interesting to note that the left hemisphere will also cause delusions to compensate for right hemisphere damage. (Wood, 2009)"

Persinger believes that this is an example of male egotism. Some may say it explains all religious experiences. However, the question is then - what is causing the stimulation of the right brain in those cases? Some we can account for. Others we can't. So while it may give some people warm fuzzies to learn of this, it still doesn't actually prove or disprove anything theological. There is just not enough research and data. Our physical senses can give us weird stuff that aren't accurate and yet most of what they give us is considered accurate. Many of us have hypnogognic hallucinations and delusions. It is not an indication of our sanity or lack thereof.

The following video from TED is about Charles Bonnett hallucinations:



In the cases of Charles Bonnett and hynagognic hallucinations, we know the stimulus sources. Perhaps one day we will know all sources, until then an analytical critical mind will have to be willing to accept abiguity on the matter and be willing to accept that a difference of opinion doesn't necessitate a judgment of insanity on the other person's part. (Insanity is a legal issue, not a medical issue, anyway.)






Persinger, M. (2003, January). The sensed presence within experimental settings: implications for the male and female concept of self. Journal of Psychology, 137(1), 5. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Woods, L. (2009, January). Association between delusions and consistent pattern of brain injury. Medical News Today. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135434.php

The Brain in Love

This video inspired the poem that follows it.



A Geek's Valentine Poem
by A. Doerr

I love you from the core of my lizard brain.
You are the addiction I can't contain.
Your eyes are gravity wells that captured my soul,
With a gentleness that warms me like anthracite coal.
Your brilliance with the magnitude of Sirius A,
Mesmerize me with the thoughts you display,
Expanding the fabric of my universe with the possibilities
Generated within the bounds of our theories.
You are the greatest collaborator a person can find--
So, my heart's desire, please be my Valentine.

Theories of Morality

I'm going to cheat on this TED talk and just give excepts from a class paper I did on moral development after the video.



. . . If finding out the early lives of Kohlberg and Gilligan is hard, finding information about someone as young as Jonathan Haidt is pretty much an exercise in futility. All that can be said for certain about his background is that he is a social psychologist who teaches at the University of Virginia and is currently a Research Fellow at the University of California Santa Barbara until the end of 2008. By all reports, he is an excellent teacher, who believes in positive psychology. (The Leigh Bureau, 2008) However, in an interview for Vox Day, a Christian libertarian opinion columnist (2007), Haidt states that he is an atheist, but one who believes that religion is an adaptation that generally works well in societies.

Well-versed in Kohlberg's and Gilligan's theories, Haidt notes that Kohlberg's cross-cultural research was focused on finding support for Kohlberg's own construct and did not address the local cultures' belief systems. Haidt and Craig Joseph desired to go beyond other moral theorists and search for the psychological systems that create moral codes. So instead of creating a moral theory based on the observation of a relatively homogeneous group of subjects and determining a cognitive development theory, they researched the moral codes and institutions of cultures across the world and through history to find constants. They also researched several moral theories, including Shweder's three ethics, which claims that Kohlberg's and Gilligan's theories only constituted one ethic--the ethic of autonomy--while ignoring the ethics of community and divinity. (Haidt, 2007) While Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory is not a developmental model, it does go beyond the Western Judeo-Christian value system, as well as the ethic of autonomy. The five psychological moral systems proposed by Haidt are listed on the Moral Foundations homepage as the following:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). (Haidt et al, 2008)

. . .

VI. Discussion

An observation made in the graduate level human development class, attended by the author of this paper, is the fact that hypothetical dilemmas cannot truly predict real life decisions. The lack of time, knowledge and resources may affect what someone might actually do in a situation. It was also pointed out that people will act at different moral stages depending on circumstances or priorities. Viktor Frankl's recollections from his imprisonment in Nazi concentration camps, in his book Man's Search for Meaning, is a perfect example of how people's moral can be changed by their circumstances. When people, due to external circumstances, physical illness or mental distress, are forced to a lower level of Maslow's hierarchies of needs, operating at a lower moral stage is to be expected. By linking morality to cognitive development, neither Kohlberg's and Gilligan's theories properly take into account this fluidity of moral decision making.

Based on Haidt's work, Kohlberg's and Gilligan's theories concentrate mostly on liberal values, setting some key conservative concerns at lower stages. Universities have long been considered bastions of liberalism, so this focus can hardly be a surprise. Unfortunately, as Haidt points out in his presentation at the 2008 TED conference, society cannot survive on liberalism alone. Both liberal and conservative forces are needed to keep a civilization viable. So to discount the conservative values in moral judgments is not only inaccurate, but creates unnecessary tension between different segments of society. While it is true that Haidt does not directly address the fluidity of moral decision making, his work does open the door by breaking down moral values into historic cross-cultural constants, instead using the moral preferences of the researchers. The main weak part of Haidt's research, based on the interviews done for this paper, is the belief that respondents will answer from their personal standards and not what they expect from others. Both Brett and the author of this paper share the belief that other people should not be held to their value system. The difference in their answers was based on the fact that while Brett answered as if judging other people, the author answered judging only herself. Haidt's questionnaire also doesn't take into account if someone considers resisting a particular value or two to be a high priority, as in the case of Elena, who is rebelling against the strict values of her adopted country and its religion-based government.


VI. Conclusion
Kohlberg's stages of morality, while still partially useful for most Westerners, is more accurate for liberal males than any other population. Even though Gilligan's theory mirrors Kohlberg's to some extent, it is difficult to use when there are no ethic of care considerations mentioned. Both theories lack real world moral predictive qualities, though they might give one an idea of a person's cognitive development. The idea that higher cognition leads to greater morality seems implausible when one considers that there are intelligent people with no morals at all, as well as very moral people with impaired cognition. Higher cognition may help make more effective moral choices, but it doesn't make a person more moral. That said, it is easy to see why someone who highly values education, like Kohlberg or Gilligan, would emphasize cognition. Indeed, it can be successfully argued that it is the duty of a moral person to check their facts and reasoning before making a decision. Such behavior falls under being prudent. Yet, as Haidt points out, a major percentage of people act like lawyers--making justifications for their actions after the fact, instead of considering the consequences before doing them. (Haidt, 2007)

Haidt's theory appears to be more predictive of behavior, since it focuses on types of values instead of a cognitive path or two of developing moral values. Possibly because of the biases of his predecessors, Haidt has been more vigilant in challenging his own biases and has worked to understand the "other side". It is not an easy thing to do, but the work of Haidt and of other theorists, such as Shweder, is a good start. Moral psychology and moral development theories still have a long ways to go before they can achieve the reliability of physical developmental models. Despite their shortcomings, however, these theories have provided frameworks on which moral thought can be discussed and studied.



Resources

Day, V. (2007). Interview with Jonathan Haidt. Retrieved on October 11, 2008 from http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/11/interview-with-jonathan-haidt.html

Haidt, J. (2008). The real difference between liberals and conservatives. TED 2008 Conference. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Haidt, J., Ditto, P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Joseph, C., Koleva, S., and Nosek, B. (2008). Moral Foundations Theory homepage. University of Virginia. Retrieved October 11, 2008 from http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007, March). When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116. Retrieved September 28, 2008, doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

The Leigh Bureau (2008). Jonathan Haidt - bio. Retrieved October 11, 2006 from http://www.leighbureau.com/speaker.asp?id=410

white paper - successful interventions

White Paper - Addictions

Amanda Doerr

KEYS TO A SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTION

When many lay people talk about having an intervention with someone about their behavior, they tend to bring up scenes of verbally abusive behavior that is expressly prohibited by the ethical guidelines of the APA. Obviously there must be something wrong with this idea of ambushing a person with their bad behavior and beating them over the head with their flaws. Such behavior sounds more destructive than therapeutic. And indeed, described that way it is, this model of intervention sounds far more satisfying to the participants than useful to the recipient.

But then why do we have interventions and confrontations still in use? The answer is that professional interventions have developed a great deal since the Synanon program and its "attack therapy" as developed by Chuck Dederich in 1958 (Polcin, 2003). At that time, it was believed that the release of emotional energy would release tension and break down denial, thereby allowing a more honest discussion about the addiction and the behavior that resulted from it. The goal at the end was to reaffirm the confronted person's importance to the group. However, many criticized this technique as a replication of the abuse many of these clients experienced in their past. The same criticism could be applied to the early therapeutic communities that use humiliation and punishment to change the addict's behavior. Faced with the alienation by the respected mental health professionals, some therapeutic communities began to use group feedback methods in the 1970s and 1980s. This moved the focus from "breaking down the denial" to confronting the dysfunctional behaviors caused by the addiction. Other factors that brought about this transformation in methodology were: the increasing number of dual-diagnoses of addiction and mental illness, the desire to be allied with 12-step programs, and the research showing that addictions were fueled by core emotional issues.

While there are still disagreements as to what one means by "confrontation", some researchers and program directors prefer to define it, more or less, as "someone being approached, in a realistic but not punitive way, that 'bad things' might happen if they don't make changes in regards to their addiction" (Polcin et al, 2006). Personal attacks are discouraged, as well as other forms of disruptive confrontation. Perhaps the term "therapeutic confrontation" should be used more often to distinguished from the more hostile versions of confrontation, such as the "beat them into submission" type.

Studies show that successful interventions usually generate gratitude and good feelings towards the confronters by the confronted (Polcin, 2006). Given the all too human reaction to be offended when someone tells us we're wrong, how is this created in a confrontation?

One element is the relationship of confronters to the client. The closer the relationship, the more successful the confrontation because the information given is seen as more valid (Malis & Roloff, 2007). Among not so close peers, a great deal of face work has to be done to create enough of a valid bond for their views to be considered. In fact, that bond often has to be there before a peer will even consider confronting someone with their addiction. With therapists, this would be the creation of a therapeutic alliance. While some practitioners claim that this is not necessary, research shows that is does help and never hurts. A study by Miller, Brown, Simpson, Handmaker, Bien, Luckie, Montgomery, Hester, and Tonigan found that there was a strong positive correlation between supportive and empathic approaches and positive outcomes (Polcin, 2003).

To up the odds of an effective confrontation, many current professional intervention programs first educate those of the confrontation team how to phrase their concerns in "a realistic but not punitive way". Alanon facilitation and Johnson Institute interventions are ways that this is done (Polcin, 2003). While the Johnson Invention has high relapse rates, it has a higher rate of getting clients into treatment and still retains clients (Loneck et al, 1996). A more effective training program for the family and friends of a client is the Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) program, which teaches behavioral change skills. According to Bob Poznanovich, CEO of Addiction Intervention Resources, they go even further and assess the situation of the family (Conan, 2008). In fact, Poznanovich claims that they work more with the family than with the addict, because family can often enable addictive behavior without realizing it. He calls it a "family illness" and points out that many people are given bad advice about how to deal with addiction, such as it is just a matter of will power or that there is nothing that can be done.

Another important element is the timing of the confrontation (Polcin, 2003). Light to moderate drinkers gain less from interventions than problem drinkers, probably because the concerns seem less valid. However, light to moderate drinkers do respond favorably to the more empathic therapies. Addicts with major cognitive impairment from the drug they're taking, respond better after a period of detox. Addicts already in being treated in a facility benefit more from a therapeutic confrontation after they have been there long enough to emotionally stabilize. Otherwise, they will flee or regress in response to the confrontation. In many programs, the client is educated about the positive role confrontation can play in their recovery. This preparation not only makes the confrontation less traumatic, but also puts the client in a mindset prepared to make the most of the information given to them during the confrontation.

It should be noted that some addicts, because of comorbid conditions, may not be good candidates for intervention. One cannot expect a paranoid or antisocial personality disorder to respond favorably to confrontations. Nor can one expect someone with diminished cognition to fully comprehend what they are being confronted with.

The most important element is the focus of the confrontation. According to a study by Polcin, Galloway, and Greenfield (2006), when the message was on the behaviors and potential problems, clients consistently said that they were more likely to have a positive experience with confrontations. Remarkably, the more frequent the confrontations, the more individuals involved, and the more sources involved, the more positive was the views of the confrontations. Thinking distortions can also be addressed as part of the confrontation.

An element of choice also makes an intervention more successful (Conan, 2008). When the addict is allowed the choice of whether to get better or suffer from their own behavior, and then chooses to get better, they are more committed to the change. Even if the addict chooses not to change at first, some will change their minds later as the "bad things" they had been warned about happen to them.

A skilled counselor should be directing the therapeutic confrontation, in case emotions run too high or a deep issue is triggered (Polcin, 2003). The counselor should be able to switch from a confrontive stance to a clinical exploration of the issues exposed. A far cry from the "beat them until they see the errors of their ways." Modern interventions are more about support for reducing dysfunctional behaviors, than they are about making the recipient admit that they are an addict.

In summary, a successful intervention requires: a trusting and supportive relationship between the client and the intervening group; focusing on the dysfunctional behaviors and possible bad outcomes from the addiction; the client and interveners to be prepared to make the most of the situation; and a facilitator to handle any problems. Education for the family, friends, and client increases the chances that the intervention will be more effective as does the number of confronters and interventions. While old fashion interventions might make for great television drama, forcing the client to admit that they are an addict or otherwise personally attacking them, is more likely to impede than to help the situation.

Resources

Conan, N. (2008). Addicted Loved Ones: When to Intervene?. Talk of the Nation (NPR), Retrieved April 17, 2009, from Newspaper Source database.

Loneck B; Garrett JA; et al (1996). The Johnson Intervention and relapse during outpatient treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 22(3):363-375. Retrieved April 17, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Malis, R., & Roloff, M. (2007, January). The effect of legitimacy and intimacy on peer interventions into alcohol abuse. Western Journal of Communication, 71(1), 49-68. Retrieved April 17, 2009, doi:10.1080/10570310701199186

Polcin, D. (2003, January 15). Rethinking Confrontation in Alcohol and Drug Treatment: Consideration of the Clinical Context. Substance Use & Misuse, 38(2), 165. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Polcin, D., Galloway, G., & Greenfield, T. (2006, February). Measuring Confrontation During Recovery From Addiction. Substance Use & Misuse, 41(3), 369-392. Retrieved April 20, 2009, doi:10.1080/10826080500409118

The Helping Environment

A Helping Relationship

 

For those who haven't heard of Carl Rogers, here's a summary of what research has found to be of the most help in counseling: That the client feels that his/her therapist is trustworthy, that the therapist tries to understand them, and that the therapist is being genuine with them.

Techniques and teaching methods alone do not bring about improvement. It's hard to trust the process, if you don't have faith in the person putting you through it. This is true for most relationships, even those that you may not consider personal. Take calling up customer service for help, for instance. If the representative doesn't seem to care about your problem or doesn't seem to understand, you're not likely to have much faith in what they tell you--especially, if like me, you normally find that this type of customer service representative is far more likely to tell you something that causes more harm than good. Not getting enough data will give diagnoses that may be very wrong and don't fit in with the other things the client is experiencing. It's hard to give sensitive information to someone whom you don't trust, even if you know intellectually you should. It's a matter of self-preservation.

But if one has the knowledge, they can tell you what's wrong. And knowing what's wrong is half the battle, right? To such a question, I answer, "Only if the diagnosis makes sense to the one it's being applied to." Though to be honest, I still believe that a diagnostician who doesn't have the client's trust is working under a handicap. Anyway, no diagnosis will help a client to make any significant change to their lifestyle if they don't comprehend it. I can't find my book right now, but I believe it is in John Bradshaw's Healing the Shame that Binds You where the author gives the example of a preschooler being reprimanded for riding their tricycle beyond the corner, after being told several times not to. While the parent was engage in rage, the terrified child looked up and asked, "What is a corner?" No one can follow instructions they can't understand.

Another situation that many people are probably more familiar with: someone is in a very abusive relationship, who really should leave, but doesn't--or if they do leave, they return to it after a while. Most people who have been on the outside looking in, often give up on the person, saying things like, "They want the abuse." "They're idiots." "They're just hopeless." However, what often happens is these people don't leave because they really cannot comprehend how to live differently. Sometimes financial or cultural issues keep them there. Sometimes they don't understand the help they can receive. However, some of them stay because of beliefs that the relationship will change if they just work hard enough at it, or love the person more, or that they are the ones at fault. These people can be pressured into leaving their abusive significant other, but they do it to please those pressuring them, not because they themselves believe the abuser is horrible. In fact, being insulting about the abuser is more than likely to bring out the protective response in them. As long as they see some hope in the relationship, they won't give it up easily. Only they can make that decision and make it stick. After all, if you are demanding them to get out of the relationship, you might appear just as bad as the abuser they are dealing with. That's not to say that you shouldn't tell them that there is something wrong, if they appear open to it. Nor am I saying that you shouldn't interfere if it becomes a matter of life and death. However, when all is said and done, only the person can finally cut those ties.

What has worked the best for me when in such a situation is to emotionally support the person in their decisions and let them know that I am there for them, even though I don't agree with them. Usually when they no longer feel pressured to defend the abuser or the relationship, they are able to make the decisions necessary for their own happiness and there are no "What if I had tried this or that?" regrets to contend with. When all is said and done, they need the support more than they need the problem labelled, though the label can help them to address the problem.

Grossly simplified: diagnosis is not the same as therapy. This is a particularly sore spot for me because as someone who intends to become certified as an art therapist, one of the greatest frustrations I have is getting people to understand that when I speak of doing art therapy, I am not talking about using the client's art to see what's wrong with them--I'm talking about the client using their art, especially the process of making it, as a means towards self-understanding and growth. Yes, it is possible to diagnose certain conditions through artwork. Studies have shown that schizophrenics often draw in a certain manner and that sexually abused children will often exaggerate certain body parts when drawing people. However, studies have also shown that it is what an individual personally attaches to an image that matters when it comes to a therapuetic art process. And non-directive therapuetic artmaking works better in most cases than telling the client what to draw, even though directive artmaking is not without some benefit.

The research on Carl Rogers' person-center therapy has been so convincing and thorough that almost all schools of therapy promote using it in addition to their methods and philosophies. But how does one foster this trusting and safe environment with a client? Not without a lot of soul searching on the part of therapist. To be able to provide a safe environment to allow the client to explore the dark and scary parts of their own psyche, the therapist has to be able to not only deal calmly with the client's fears and anger, but their own. We are never truly as good about hiding things as we often belief we are. Things slip out at times and if we do not handle those feelings with genuiness, then we give our clients very good reasons to feel at least a little unsafe around us. They will hold back telling us about certain feelings and thoughts to keep the therapist from reacting badly. However, if the therapist also has shown that they believe in the client's abilities to grow and be stronger, then the relationship has another mooring to keep it in place. Likewise, an understanding of the problem as the client experiences it creates yet another mooring.

In a way, the therapuetic relationship is like scaling a cliff with the therapist as a guide and safety line. Both therapist and client has some treacherous terrain and loose rocks to look out for, but a skilled therapist, like a mountain guide, makes sure the safety lines are in place and knows not only how to handle the situation when the client slips, but what to do in the hopefully uncommon situations when both do.

 

A pioneer in health care

Gesundheit! Institute
The official website of Patch Adams, MD.

You might remember Robin Williams playing him in the movie Patch Adams.

Hunter ‘Patch’ Adams was criticized in his official medical school record for "excessive happiness" and was once told by a faculty advisor, "If you want to be a clown, join the circus."

Patch did, in fact, want to be a clown. But he also wanted to be a physician. Combining vastly different sides of his personality, he became both. Patch’s remarkable story, which includes having been a patient and a doctor at a mental institute, celebrates the triumph of spirited individualism and the unending pursuit of idealism.

Abstract - Family Integrity in Later Life

My professor thought this one was great.



Author: King, D. A.& Wynne, L. C. (2004). The Emergence of “Family Integrity” in Later Life. Family Process; Mar2004, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p7.

Purpose: To introduce the concept of ‘‘family integrity’’ as a normal developmental challenge that is fundamental to the well being of elders and influenced heavily by family systems factors.

Subjects: Seven case studies of elderly adults of differing genders and ethnicity. No numbers given for other cited research.

Procedure: Comparison of case studies and other theories.

Results: Most theoretical accounts of adult development fail to address adequately the rich interplay between individual and family processes in later-life. An elder’s ability to achieve family integrity depends on three vital functions or competencies of the family system: (a) the transformation of relationships across time in a manner that is dynamic and responsive to the changing life cycle needs of family members; (b) the resolution or acceptance of past losses, disappointments, or conflicts with the dead as well as with the living; and (c) the creation of meaning by sharing stories, themes, and family rituals within and across generations. Characterized by increased wisdom and an ability to experience impartial concern for a wider social sphere that includes, but is not limited to, one’s extended family. Mutuality is attained only when prior basic relational functions. Attachment or caregiving, communication, and shared problem solving. Reflecting a type of intergenerational mutuality, filial maturity is attained when adult offspring grow in the caring support given to aging parents, and aging parents, in reciprocal fashion, become more able and willing to accept input and help from their children. The second major building block of family integrity is the ability of the elder and family to confront and ‘‘work through’’ losses or relational conflicts. The third component of family integrity involves the coherent integration of personal life stories and familial themes so that elders maintain a meaningful sense of their own place in a connected and continuous multigenerational family. This is accomplished through family story telling; the passing on of shared interests, life themes, and values; and involvement in shared family activities and rituals. Some ethnocultural groups may be more challenged than others to maintain meaningful connections within and across generations. As a clinically derived construct, the conceptualization of family integrity presented here is shaped by the authors’ culturally bound personal and professional experiences, including racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, age, and cohort biases.

Conclusions: It remains to be seen whether family integrity as described here involves primarily those who are related biologically and/or legally, or whether it includes ‘‘fictive kin’’ who are related emotionally. Further work is needed to develop a standardized measure of the construct and to test its validity across cultural and socioeconomic groups.

Remarks: I have to wonder why the authors of this article sought to publish their ideas before actually doing the research. It appears that all they did was find case studies that supported their theory and then plead for everyone else to do the real research. Though it sounds like they might have something, it calls into question their work ethic and ability to analyze research.

Sharon Begley: How Mirror Neurons Help Us to Empathize, Really Feel Others' Pain

Thanks to Rob Carlson for
bringing it my attention.

From the Wall Street Journal --
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110989327130070064,00.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace

SCIENCE JOURNAL
How Mirror Neurons Help Us to Empathize,
Really Feel Others' Pain
by Sharon Begley

As the argument at the bar grows more heated, you notice that
you're right in the flight path should the ranting man decide
to turn glassware into missiles. You watch tensely as he
clasps and unclasps the tumbler in front of him, and then
suddenly his grip changes. Is he about to take a gulp ... or
fire the glass in your direction?

If you duck just as it sails over your head, you can thank a
cluster of neurons whose existence scientists didn't even know
about a few years ago: mirror neurons.

Their modest name reflects their most obvious function but
hardly does justice to their talents, which neuroscientists
seem to uncover more of every time they look -- from intuiting
other people's intentions to feeling their pain. Literally.

"Mirror neurons promise to do for neuroscience what DNA did
for biology," neurobiologist V.S. Ramachandran of the
University of California, San Diego, has written, explaining
"a host of mental abilities that have remained mysterious."

In 1992, biologists at the University of Parma, Italy, were
probing the brains of macaque monkeys when they made a curious
discovery. It had been known for years that brain cells in the
premotor cortex, the area that plans movements, fire right
before the monkey grasps, manipulates or reaches for something
such as fruit. But it turns out that these specialized neurons
also fire when the monkey sees someone else (monkey or human)
do so. Whether planning a movement or seeing one, mirror
neurons fire the same way: The firing pattern that precedes,
say, the monkey's lifting a raisin to its mouth is identical
to the pattern when it sees someone else doing that.

The human brain has mirror neurons, too, and recently
neuroscientists have been behaving like Egyptologists after
the discovery of the Rosetta Stone: using mirror neurons to
explain a backlog of enigmas.

For one thing, mirror neurons may be how we understand the
intentions of other people, a crucial social skill whether or
not you frequent fight-prone bars. In a new study,
neuroscientists scanned the brains of volunteers while they
watched videos of a hand reaching for a mug. In one clip, the
mug sat in a neat arrangement of teapot, mug, pitcher of milk
and plate of cookies; in another, it sat amid a knocked-over
pitcher, used napkin and cookie crumbs; in a third the mug sat
alone.

If the only thing mirror neurons do is fire when they see
someone perform a movement, the volunteers' brains should have
shown the same activity whether the hand was reaching for the
mug as if to drink, in the first scene, to clean up in the
messy scene or with no context. But that's not what happened.
As Marco Iacoboni of UCLA and colleagues report in the March
issue of PLoS Biology, mirror neurons were only a little
active when the hand grasped the lone mug. But they perked up
when the hand reached for the cup as if to drink from it (in
preparty mode) or to wash it (post party).

"This suggests that mirror neurons do not simply recognize
actions but are also involved in decoding people's
intentions," says Prof. Iacoboni. "People seem to have
specific neurons that code the 'why' of some action,
predicting the behavior of others."

And that makes social interactions possible. At the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science last month, researchers said that because these
neurons fire both when we see someone move as when we move
ourselves, they make equivalent "what others do and feel and
what we do and feel." We do not just see an action; we also
experience what it feels like to someone else.

Mirror neurons "re-create the experience of others within
ourselves," as UCLA's Mark Thompson put it in his AAAS
remarks. They "allow us to put ourselves in the shoes of
another." That makes them the neural basis of empathy.

"To function well with other people, we need to understand
where they're coming from so as not to misread their
intentions," says Regina Pally, a psychotherapist in Los
Angeles and a clinical professor at UCLA. "Mirror neurons are
what let us understand others' emotions." In fact, mirror
neurons in people are connected to the brain's emotion region,
the limbic system: When your mirror neurons fire in a
reflection of someone else's, it triggers empathic emotions.

Mirror neurons also let us feel another person's pain. The
same cortical neurons that process the sense of touch also
fire when you see someone else touched. And a region that
registers disgust that you feel directly also fires when you
see expressions of disgust on others (hence the visceral
wallop of "Fear Factor").

Instead of merely seeing what other people do and feel, said
Christian Keysers of the University of Groningen, the
Netherlands, "we start to feel their actions and sensations in
our own cortex as if we would be doing these actions and
having those sensations."

Except when we don't. In children with autism, "there may be a
deficit in the mirror-neuron system," says Prof. Iacoboni,
which may explain why they are unable to infer the mental
state and intentions of others. Without mirror neurons to
serve as bridges between minds, everyone seems like a cipher.

You can e-mail me at sciencejournal@wsj.com1.

Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Kohlberg and Gilligan

Even though I find the results of their theories interesting, after reading some of their base assumptions, I think both of them were/are guided by some prejudices I can't agree with. Both of them seemed to want to see themselves as very moral people.

That's not to say that they don't have some truths in their levels - I just think that they may have blinded themselves to certain things for their own sense of security.

Carol Gilligan's Levels of Moral Development in Women

Gilligan felt that Kolhberg's levels were flawed. "This was based on two things. First, he only studied privileged, white men and boys. She felt that this caused a biased opinion against women. Secondly, in his stage theory of moral development, the male view of individual rights and rules was considered a higher stage than women's point of view of development in terms of its caring effect on human relationships." (from http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gilligan.html)

The main difference between herself and Kolhberg:

Gilligan argues that for most women, progress toward moral maturity is marked by changes in the focus of caring, not by the development of the abstract, impersonal principles that Kohlberg proposes. . .

Gilligan admits, however, that both perspectives are valid, in fact complementary. She argues that "a shift in the focus of attention from concerns about justice to concerns about care changes the definition of what constitutes a moral problem, and leads the same situation to be seen in different ways.

(from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n1/men.html)

Ironically, her own work receives critism to what she said of Kolhberg's research - "the most criticized element to her theory is that it follows the stereotype of women as nurturing, men as logical. The participants of Gilligan’s research are limited to mostly white, middle class children and adults..." (from http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Gilligan.htm

Her levels for women:

Level 1 - Orientation of individual survival. The only obligation is to one's own survival.

Transition 1 - Going from selfishness to responsibility. Realizes one is part of a group and makes decisions based on how these actions affect others.

Level 2 - Goodness as self-sacrifice. Morality is defined by meeting the expectations of others and being submissive to the norms of society. Guilt is a powerful tool here.

Transition 2 - From goodness to truth. Truth and honesty are more important than the reactions of others. She starts considering her own needs again.

Level 3 - Morality of nonviolence. The emphasis is on not hurting people, including oneself.

Kolhberg's Levels of Morality

Level 1 - Preconventional morality: Brought into place by external controls. People obey the rules to get rewards or escape punishment or act out of self-interest. This level is typical of children ages 4 to 10. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 1 - Orientation toward punishment and obedience - "What will happen to me?"
Stage 2 - Instrumental purpose and exchange - "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

Level 2 - Conventional morality: People have internalized the standards of authority figures. They are concerned with being good, pleasing others and keeping the social order. Many do not grow out of this even in adulthood. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 3 - The Golden Rule - or maintaining mutual relationships
Stage 4 - Social concern and conscience - "What if everybody did it?"

Level 3 - Postconventional morality: People now recognize conflicts between moral standards and make their own judgments on the basis of principles of right fairness and justice. If reached at all, it will usually come in early adulthood. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 5 - Morality of contract, of individual rights and of democratically accepted law - valuing the will of the majority and the welfare of society.
Stage 6 - Morality of universal ethical principles - they act in accordance with internal standards, knowing that they would condemn themselves if they did not.

Kolhberg later added a seventh stage of “Why be moral?" where the person questions the existance of morals in the first place. The person starts to see morality from a meta-perspective.