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.

Living with Depression

While I don't feel qualified to make conclusions about happiness, I have spent most my life dealing with depression and anxiety. Over a year ago I wrote the following poem to my depression.


Hello Depression
by Amanda D. Barncord Doerr

Hello there.
I know, we've already met.
In fact, we've been together most of my life.
But I decided it was time for a formal introduction.

You see, I've been operating under a pretext,
The idea that I would one day be free of you.
All I had to do is find the right things to think,
And get the right type of help and support.

But you would just wait until I let my defenses down.
Ambushing me like a tiger in wait.
Giving me a double blow. Sending me into a spiral.
Causing me to doubt my abilities to deal with you.

I've finally accepted that you are a part of me.
That when I fail, it isn't because I am a loser.
It's because you are hard-wired into me.
Through genetics, trauma and happenstance.

Even though you are part of me--you are not me.
I just wanted to make that clear.
Those thoughts or doom and despair are not mine.
They are you speaking to me.

And that's all right.
You can speak to me.
Because when you speak,
I have forgotten something.

However, I have the final word.
Things are never as bad as you say they are.
I want to make sure you know that.
It is time I give you credit for your ideas.

So, here's the head up.
I'm not going to play your games.
We will have to work together instead.
Trust me. It's better this way.

People tell you that admitting the problem is half the battle. They're wrong. It's more like a quarter of the problem, assuming that you're admitting the right problem in the first place. After you've admitted there is a problem and determined what the problem is, you still have to learning how to deal with the problem for the long haul and know the quick fixes for the emergency relapses.

It's like living in neighborhood with a gunman around. Now, admitting you have a gunman around is going to keep you safer than pretending he's not there. You can keep a vigilent eye out for him and take evasive measures, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a homicidal creep with a deadly weapon around. There's always the chance that you will be caught by surprise. If that happens, there's still the chance that you might survive if you can get first aid and medical attention. But the only sure way to get rid of the gunman is to bring in authorities and change the dynamics of the neighborhood. And if the job is only partially done with no thought and effort beyond the immediate situation, there's no guarantee that the gunman won't return or another gunman won't show up. The solution must have awareness, emergency aid, policing, AND a change of the dynamics of the neighborhood itself through long term planning, which increases the social networking and bonding within the community itself.

Depression is a biological part of me that can only be managed like diabetes. That doesn't mean I am doomed to be depressed and anxious--only that I have to be aware that I am susceptible to it when I don't take care of myself. Realizing that part after attending a NAMI presentation made a very big difference for me, because it was then I realized that I was not a failure, but working under the false notion that I could cure myself from depression permanently.

Of the previous stated needs for a solution, I have the first two down pretty well. I have an amazing toolbox for stress emergency aid. What I don't have is a good social and economic network for myself. I'm not completely without a network, and many a time it has stood between me and total despair, but I am not firmly enmeshed in it, nor is it enough for my needs. What I have is an emergency network, something that is essential, but is more for saving my neck than keeping me from getting that bad in the first place. What I need is a preventative network - or more of one.

Building a preventative social network isn't easy for those of us who never really had one to begin with. The longest I've ever lived in one place is six years. Social networks take time to build. You need to be comfortable with the people around you and they need to feel comfortable with you - or at least not be uneasy around each other. You also have to know your neighborhood and be a part of your community. It's the little strings within the network that can often give us the strongest sense of belonging. Nothing says "you belong here" like being able to recognize local merchants and city workers, and running into church/association members in the checkout line. Being an introvert definitely impedes this process, but even an introvert over a period of time can still develop a strong social network.

A strange thing I've noticed over the past few years of being aware of my interaction with the social networks around me, you don't actually have to have everyone know your problems for it to have a positive affect on your sense of security. The restaurant owners near me have no idea of my daily struggle to keep depression at bay, yet that doesn't stop me from feeling valued as I visit their places and chitchat with them. Granted, I still need people I can talk to and confide in when things get bad and I have to deal honestly with people. Promoting a lie never helps mental health. But somehow when I make an effort to just be more visible within my community, things seem just a little less horrible.

Rereading this post, I realized that in my pride, I have neglected to mention/admit that I do need some policing in regards to my mental health. I spend a lot of time self-policing my thoughts, but it probably wouldn't hurt if I got some extra help as I had in the past. Nothing like having your words public to insure you re-evaluated yourself. In my defense, I am in the midst of improving the policing of my depressive behaviors. One thing I am doing is taking advantage of some of the online resources available for monitoring my moods. Another thing I am doing is being aware of all my moods and selectively talking to different friends when I am very disturbed by something in order to gain an understanding of the situation in positive ways.

Modern Artist Spotlight - Mike Larsen

The art of portraiture is alive and well in Oklahoma. The Chickasaw Nation has artist Mike Larsen among its members.



This painting and two of its subjects was part of the Mike Larsen Elders Exhibit for the Chickasaw nation.



This painting with its subject is part of the Mike Larsen Series II Elders installation. I wish I could give you more links to these series. Currently, there is a television spot showing some of the other paintings and it never fails to move me.

The Shift of Yin-Yang in View of Cultural Differences

"Whatever idea you may have, the opposite may also be true." - Derek Sivers

I love the idea of a doctor getting payed for keeping well versus getting paid for treating your illness. Of course, I know of hyprochondriacs who would be delighted to bankrupt a doctor like this. However, I suspect that part of the deal is that the patient is required to follow the doctor's orders, or find themselves in breach of contract. I do know of a case in Japan, where a woman was not told that she had bladder cancer because (at least at that time) Japanese doctors did not believe in disclosing such information to the patient. Instead, she was told she had gallstones. Her husband sued the doctor for malpractice, stating that had his wife known how serious the situation was, she would have gone through with the surgery. The doctor's defense was that had she followed his instructions, she would have lived longer. At the time, the court sided with the doctor.

In an individualistic culture, such apparently blind acceptance of another's judgment is considered by some to be nothing short of blasphemy. In a collectivist culture, it's considered a matter of respect and duty. And recent studies suggest that it might not be as blind as one might think. People in collectivist societies are more likely to read things that counter their personal beliefs than those in individualistic societies. A person in a collectivist society probably is more used to accepting ideas other than their own because they have to. They also have the security of a clearer social code than those in a society where individuality make the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors uncertain. In an individualistic society, the need to justify one's self to others is more constant.

The upshot of the study is that those in a collectivist societies are less likely to have confirmation baises. People in individualistic societies have a greater drive to "be right", which leads to a greater tendency to ignore information that might prove them wrong - which is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Ironically, I will have to admit that despite knowing all of this, I still have a hard time with the idea of accepting another's judgment in certain things. I am still very individualistic. However, even as I write this, I can think of areas of my life where I balance this out, of times when I will willingly defer to another's judgment without question. And I strongly suspect that most of us are this way. Individuality and collectivism is a continuum. Take individuality to an extreme and one runs the risk of being antisocial and/or egotistical. Take collectivism to an extreme and there is the possibility of becoming too dependent on and/or enmeshed with others. Look very close at people and you will find collectivism and individuality expressed in countless ways: like the rebel teen who wears the same clothes as their friends or the factory worker who has to alter his issued uniform.

Morals and Ethics Test Sites

YourMoral.org

This website is a collaboration among five social psychologists who study morality and politics. Our goal was to create a site that would be useful and interesting to users, particularly ethics classes and seminars, and that would also allow us to test a variety of theories about moral psychology. One of our main goals is to foster understanding across the political spectrum. Almost everyone cares about morality, and we want to understand --and to help others understand -- the many different ways that people care. - website's "About Us" page

My results for the Moral Foundations Questionnaire based on Haidt's research:
- On the harm avoidance scale, I'm higher than the average Liberal.
- On the fairness scale, I'm closer the to Liberal score than the Conservation one.
- On the loyalty sale, I'm between the two sides.
- On the authority scale, I'm closer to the Conservative one.
- On the purity scale, I'm higher than the average Conservative.

There are many other studies on the site you can participate in, each with the appropriate research disclosure statement at the start of them.



Ethical Personality Test

The concept for the test has been designed by Roger Steare, Visiting Professor of Organizational Ethics at Cass Business School. He is the author of the book “ethicability®” which describes a proven framework for making tough choices in life and work (www.ethicability.org). - website's "welcome" page

There is also this disclaimer: "The test results and report are for personal education purposes only. They are not designed to be relied on as a methodology for assessing the character of any individual and should not be used as such in any circumstances."

Unlike the other moral test above, the results are based on theory and not strict research. That is not to say that there isn't any research on the subject. It is baded on Kolhberg and Gillian's work and the author is more than willing to release a PDF of it if you contact him through the site. (Which I will do soon.) I would like to point out, however, that there are very valid critisms of Kolhberg's and Gilligan's work: the bias towards the researchers' own value systems and the focus on only the ethic of autonomy.


My results:

Judge
PRS Type Moral DNA

Judges believe that moral principle, or “virtue” is the most important ethical perspective. They ask “what would be the fair thing to do?” Then they’ll make sure that laws, rules and contracts have been complied with, although they’ll sometimes “interpret” a rule differently to be consistent with their principles. Finally they’ll consider the human dimension and the impact of their decisions on others. Judges are stubborn but good to have around when the going gets tough. About 17% of adults are Judges.

Strengths: Good at solving really challenging dilemmas.
Weaknesses: Could lack empathy with others in making tough decisions. May sometimes bend the rules if they believe a higher principle is at stake.


Other posts on this blog dealing with this subject:
http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/2009/10/theories-of-morality.html
http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/2005/02/kolhbergs-levels-of-morality.html
http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/2005/02/carol-gilligans-levels-of-moral.html

A.J. Jacobs: My Year of Living Biblically

This talk is more amusing than anything else, but he does make some good discoveries: such how changing your behavior, changes your mind; how giving thanks, changes your mood; the importance of reverence; and not stereotyping religious people. The only thing I find missing is the differentiation between the Law of Moses and the New Testament teachings that came from Christ. He did touch on it some, but seemed to miss the significance of the Sermon on the Mount.

Anyway, I'm sure most of you will enjoy it and everyone will take something different away from it.

Jerusalem and Stendhal Syndromes

Before we go any further, let me define the term syndrome as: A group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition. Or in other words, a syndrome is a reoccurring set of symptoms that suggest a disorder or disease. Whenever I see the term syndrome used, I usually keep in mind that it is a condition defined by symptomology and not a definite cause or overwhelming reaction. As far as I am concerned, a syndrome is what we used to define something until we can study it and get a better idea of what's going on.

So the whole notion of adding "some experts don't believe this actually exist" when discussing a syndrome, strikes me as unnecessary. If there was firmer data on it, then the condition usually gets renamed something else and the syndrome part dropped, because it is no longer being defined as "a group of symptoms". At the same time, vehemently denying a syndrome exists is luricrous. The groups of symptoms exist independently of what people believe, what is actually being debated is whether or not this grouping defines something specific or not. But that cannot be scientifically determined until we test it. And to do that, we need to identify the set of symptoms to be researched, thus the designation of a syndrome.

Yeah, I know. We can argue that this is just my interpretation of the matter, but since I am only going to throw out some extra ideas about these syndromes (after describing them) in this post, my interpretation works for the mental exercise ahead. I'll start by explaining that sometimes these syndromes are triggered in people with mental illnesses. However, there have been reports of people who didn't have a mental illness, who subcomed to the syndromes and then quickly recovered. Unfortunately, many of those refuse to talk about it after their recovery.

So what exactly are these syndromes and why are they connected?

These two syndromes are forms of culture shocks. The Jerusalem Syndrome centers around a religious or spiritual element. I bring it up because it actually has more case studies than the Stendhal (or Florence) Syndrome, while having many similarities. The major difference is that people with Stendhal Syndrome rarely begin to think that they are religious personages from the past. However, in the less severe stages of both syndromes, the sufferers feel the following symptoms: anxiety, agitation, nervousness and tension, plus other unspecified reactions. Both syndromes usually occur when the sufferer is separated from friends and family. They feel as is something had opened up inside them. Both groups of sufferers (if the syndrome is not occurring with other psychopathy) feel an extreme reluctance to discuss the experience. To quote Bar-El, in regards to the Jerusalem Syndrome: "Upon recovery, patients can usually recall every detail of their aberrant behaviour. They are inevitably ashamed of most of their actions, and feel that they have behaved foolishly or childishly."

While Jerusalem Syndrome deals with religious cultural experiences, Stendahl deals with being overwhelmed by art. Listen to Digital Flotsam 59 – Stendhal Syndrome by P. W. Fenton, as he recounts his encounter with Stendhal Syndrome. Like those of Jerusalem Syndrome, Stendahl sufferers also feel this shame of being physically overwhelmed, only by art. Quoting Bar-El again:

The condition most closely resembling the Jerusalem syndrome is the Stendhal syndrome identified by Magherini (1992), which describes a particular acute psychotic reaction arising among art-loving tourists visiting Florence. The syndrome is named after the French writer Stendhal, who described feelings of déjà vu and disquiet after looking at works of art in Florence. Magherini in her book Sindrome di Stendhal (1992) presented the statistical, socio-demographical, clinical and travel-related variables of 106 tourists who were admitted to hospital in Florence between 1977 and 1986. She described cases in which a small detail in a famous painting or sculpture evoked an outburst of anxiety, reaching psychotic dimensions. According to her, such reactions are usually associated with a latent mental or psychiatric disturbance that manifests itself as a reaction to paintings of battles or other masterpieces and culminates in the full-blown Florence or Stendhal syndrome.

In more recent news, a Russian woman threw a terra-cotta mug at the Mona Lisa last August. Based on the news article, severe Stendahl sufferers can just as violent as their Jerusalem Syndrome counterparts. While most of them appear to have the transcendent overwhelming of the body, I can think of reasons why the woman may have had a violent reaction to the Mona Lisa.

First possibility: she have become frightened by the bodily sensations of Stendalh Syndrome and went into fight mode to take control of the situation. I've almost done something similar during a panic attack, but being aware of what was going on, I was able to remove myself from the situation before I did harm to anything.

Second possibility: she was shocked by the reality of the Mona Lisa versus her mental image of it, and reacted violently to this disruption of her world view, coupled with the Stendahl Syndrome (or maybe not). I have never seen the real Mona Lisa, but according my art history professor, most people are shocked to see it smaller than then they thought. Often when we see depictions of it in movies, cartoons, and comics, it is often made to look much bigger than its actual 77 cm × 53 cm (30 in × 21 in) size. This article on the attack actually gives you a better sense of its size. Another possible surprise for those who haven't taken art history, the Mona Lisa is painted on wood, not canvas. I'm not sure how obvious that part is, but it is something most people don't know.

Third possibility: she made some personal connection to the painting and acted on that. The Guardian article suggests that possibility itself. Apparently, she was denied French nationality, according to some sources. However, as the Guardian pointed out, she could have easily picked another, unprotected, painting to attack. For all we know, Mona Lisa may remind her of someone she felt rejected her in life.

Learning from primitive cultures

In my last post, the second video I embedded by Gever Tulley mentioned how the Inuits taught their children how to use knives at a very young age, thus allowing them to gain better control of a basic tool of their life. In my foundations of sociology class, I had the opportunity to read and critique a wonderful article by Richard Sorenson on the Fore culture, which had some amazing cultural social stucture.

I like the TED.com talks, because they give me a way to share ideas without totally bogging people down with my wordiness. I had thought I had found an excellent talk about documenting endangered cultures; however, while the efforts shown are commendable, I truly feel that the speaker is missing out on the real lost of these cultures. It's good to know that there are other cultures and other ways of doing things, but we also need to save the lessons of life from these culture and learn from their social structure. We obvioiusly can't apply everything we learn and some of it we may not want to, but some cultures can give us wonderful examples on how to deal with others and life.

So, instead of treating you to a video (which you can find here on TED.com), I will instead give you my critique of Sorenson's article. Yes, I'm lazy when it comes to repeating information, but my friends already know that.

CRITIQUE
A Doerr
April 3, 2008

Growing Up as a Fore Is to Be “In Touch” and Free (from Readings for Sociology)

The thesis of Richard Sorenson is that the reduction of cultural diversity may rob us of some very important knowledge and influences. He bases this on his observations of the Fore people in Papua New Guinea. It is obvious that he considers their original cultural to be a utopia of human interaction and child rearing. His downplaying of the fact these people have patterns of settling and then migrating when the land no longer can support them shows a willingness to overlook the fact that if the survival rate of the people improved, they would have eventually developed like many other ancient cultures who found that with success comes an increase in structure.

However, his point that we would do well to record these cultures before they become “corrupted” by Westernization, is a very valid one. Knowledge and skill can just as easily be lost as gained when a culture changes. Art professors have commented that their students no longer have the fine skills the artists of previous generations did because they no longer have to do as much by hand. By knowing what we have lost, it is possible to perhaps relearn it or at least modify it to work to our own cultural benefit. In the case of the Fore, the most precious knowledge would be that on how to raise confident and wise children with few emotional problems.

Sorenson’s article also shows how quickly a culture can be changed when it is naturally inquisitive and opened to ideas. Indeed, he states that this was the downfall of the Fore culture. Something as simple as a road can make a great deal of difference. But his article shows a lot more than just that. It shows how people in primitive cultures actually have comparable intelligence and mental sophistication to be able to adapt to a more industrial way of life if they are open to the concept, belying the ideas of inferior races. It shows how rushed cultural changes can “toss the baby out with the bath water”, suggesting that we would do well to revisit our own cultural pasts to see what we have left behind.

This article is worth keeping in any family counselor’s personal library. While the Fore culture can never be regained in this world, there is enough there that may help us sort out dysfunctions in our own family relationships. In the end, Sorenson’s point about learning about primitive cultures before they are lost, is more than aptly made.


I know, it would probably be more helpful if I directly quoted from the article. If you are really curious, you can read some of Sorenson's work here. It's not the same article I critiqued, but it covers some of the same data.

Trying to understand world views

Devdutt Pattanaik, Chief Belief Officer of The Future Group, explains how the mythos of the East and West affect their business plans, art, and world view. I love how he illustrates the difference between "my world" and "the world", because no matter how much we want to believe that we are seeing "the world", we are still seeing it through "my world". This is why I have investigated perception in this blog--more specifically the perception of our basic senses and how they actually work, which is just as much subjective as it is objective. The truth is that our own physical natures, our mental biology and physiology are built around the idea of what is useful to our individual organism. As such, we, as living beings, can never truly escape the subjective side of our nature.

In fact, it has been my observation that the more we try to deny our subjectivity, the more likely it is that we will become a victim to it. It's like having a broken step in our staircase of thought and refusing to believe it is there. If you believe it's not there, then there is no reason not to step into the area . . . and then falling into the hole of your own biases. If you accept that the step is broken, then you can step over it, or step lightly on it; thus avoiding becoming stuck in your own subjectivity.

In psychology, the phenomenon of denying one part of one's nature and over-emphasizing its opposite is called suppression. It's great for short-term crisises (all coping mechanisms exist for a reason), but it's probably one of the greatest causes of neuroticism. Joseph Zinker in his book Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy, gives vivid examples on how "owning" one's suppressed characteristics can actually improve the desired one. As he states, "if I don't allow myself to be unkind, I can never be genuinely kind." (p 202) I know of several people who are so caught up with the notion of having to be nice, that they are actually more cruel because of their rigid beliefs in what nice should be. Some of them go even to the point of being domineering and controlling of others, chaining them to situations or solutions to the point that person being "helped" by these beliefs of "niceness" could conceivedly find death a less painful experience.

As hard as it is to believe, there are many case examples of people becoming more of what they desired, by accepting what they disdain in themselves. This doesn't mean becoming Mr Hyde. As Zinker points out, a healthy person may not always approve of their darkness, but acknowledging it allows them more freedom to be more effective with their lightness. John Bradshaw, in his book Healing the Shame that Binds You, likens suppression to hungry wolves at the door. It takes a lot of energy to starve and block out your dark side. When you let it in and feed it appropriately, several things happen. First, you usually find out that your dark side isn't as bad as you feared. Second, you have better control over your dark side. In fact, if you treat it more as a tool in your toolbox, than a demon to be banished, you can use it to your benefit. Instead of "giving in to the dark side" and letting it take over, you are truly taking the reigns and giving your darkness direction. You are the one in control of your desires. Also, you have more energy. By making your "wolves" work for you, you can get more done. Bradshaw has a wonderful exercise in his book, called "Making peace with all of your villagers". In it, not only do you identify the parts of yourself you are suppressing, but you find out how those parts, properly used, can help you in healthy and acceptable ways.

If you want another way to look at it, consider Viktor Frankl's theory on paradoxical expectations. My son has used it for years to control some of his more anxious behaviors. I don't know why it strikes such a chord with him, but it works better for him than me. I guess I'm not so convincing to myself.

So, tying this back to Pattanaik's talk: to understand people, it helps to understand what you are prizing in your world view and what they prize in their world view. I believe that each encounter between individuals has a cultural clash involved, which may or may not create misunderstanding. I was going to use a book I recently start reading to explore this, but as I began to analyze the differences in my world view and the author's, I discovered that what we really had was a congruency clash, not a cultural clash. Books I have culture clashes with do take longer to read, but I usually walked away with a better understanding of people, even if it doesn't transform my world view. Books I have congruency clashes with are another matter. I can more or less read anything non-fictional as long as the writer is congruent in his or her views. I may still disagree with them, but I can stick with their idea development. However, if they can't stick to their own idea development, I start to become agitated. If they can't stick to their own idea development AND start writing in a defensively persuasive way, I had to push the book away. As someone who is very skilled in defensive persuasion herself, I can spot when someone is writing out of a fear-based agenda, even if they are claiming to have the objectivity of a computer.

Anyway, I could try to force myself to continue reading the book out of an attempt to be open-minded, but these types of books tend to make me more narrow-minded because of their combativeness. Reading it out of principle would subvert that principle. So, I am going to put this book aside and see if I can find a book on the same subject written by someone who is less defensive.

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.

How the Internet Enables Intimacy

Stefana Broadbent's research shows how when given (or taking) the opportunity to communicate with other people, we usually spend around 80% or our time in contact with 2 to 4 specific people.

I had sort of a disturbance within myself when she pointed out how separating work and intimacy was an artificial construct from the industrial revolution, because I really do not believe that your home and work worlds should intersect . . . to a point. But as I thought it over, I realized that the things I had the most problems with and had seen the most disruption form, were situations where someone tried to force an intimacy that wasn't already there. Especially when managers or supervisors are involved. I've seen supervisors try to set up employees to date their children. I've had one supervisor who was actually very offended with me because, while I WAS AWAY FROM WORK, I called my family, instead of her, for a personal problem. And people there wondered why I was so hestitant to share what happened to me outside of work.

Then I considered the research done on "job spouses" and other intimate relationships that develop in the work place because people spend more time there than with their own families. I thought about how the cost of broken homes finds its way into the work place, despite management's thinking that it can dictact how a person spends their mental time. It seems to me that this need for having intimate emotional contact is so basic to the human spirit, that if it isn't met in some constant way, it will be met in another.

I think we need a study comparing the family stability and rates of individual stress in work places were management tries to strictly prohibit employees from talking with those they are emotionally intimate with and companies that do not. I suspect that if we remove those few people who spend an exceeding amount of time on personal drama, that the data will show that people are usually more productive and healthy, when they can send little messages to friends and family every so often.

Of course, certain businesses, such as the one I currently work for, cannot allow cell phones in the work area for sercurity reasons. However, we are allowed to step away to certain areas so we can text family and friends.

As for the personal business abusers, in my personal experience, most of those who are bad about spending lots of time on personal issues, usually will find some way to be just as disruptive when they can't talk to people outside the office. The two worst coworkers I had in this area had the impulsive need to interrupt the rest of the people in the office. In fact, there was a time when I almost went to HR and asked them to take the restriction off of one of them, because she was interferring with MY productivity so much with her neurotic need for attention.

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.

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.

Essay on the purpose and basics of rituals

Essay on the purpose and basics of rituals

A. Doerr

 

Based on the text: Rituals of Healing: Using Imagery for Health and Wellness by Jeanne Actherberg, Ph.D., Barbara Dossey, R.N., M.S., FAAN, & Leslie Kolkmeier, R.N., Med. 
 

 

For the intents and purposes of this essay, I will define a "ritual" as a planned set of symbolic actions.   Otherwise, I am going to end up writing a treatise and I don't want to.  As you will notice, I'm not being extremely scholarly about this essay, either.  If we're going to talk about the ways rituals help us, then I might as well explain the one I am performing right now.  One of my rituals is to take material that I read and see how it integrates into my already acquired knowledge and personal experiences.  I am what some call an "experiential learner".  My ritual of ingesting information by using it in the form of an original writing, organizing it in some way, or just finding a practical use for it in my own life, helps me to retain and understand the information better.  This is really the purpose of rituals--to help.  Whether by controlling anxiety through organization, recognizing achievement, dictating social actions to make things go smoother, or creating social bonds, rituals are usually established as a helpful mechanism for life's changes and challenges. 

 

In general, a ritual has three major phases to it--separation, transition and return.  I was first introduced to the structure of rituals when I was taking my bereavement class as an undergrad.  It fits for funerals, weddings, commencement ceremonies, inaugurations and even my little ritual here.  In all cases, a significant amount of planning is involved.

Separation can be either voluntary (such as becoming a graduate or a bride) or non-voluntary (such as a griever of a loved one who died).  In this phase, the major participants of the ritual become marked as different from the rest of society.  While mostly symbolic, this separation can also be a physical one.  In many cases physical separation serves a purpose.  Grieving, depressed and ill people need to conserve their energies to deal with their tribulation.  Graduates, engaged couples, presidents elect and students like myself need time to organize and plan without distractions. 

Transition is the formal part of the ritual where the participants change from their former lives to their new lives.  The grieving say goodbye to the deceased.  The bride and groom become wife and husband.  The undergrad becomes the graduate.  In other cultures, a child becomes and adult.  And I become more educated.

 

Return is the re-entry into daily life as dictated by the new social role.  In my case, it is the sharing of my knowledge with others.   However, my "re-entry" is atypical in its shortness.  For most rituals, the return to daily life can take a while as the person adjusts to their new life.

Healing rituals have a few other commonalities.  The first part if the "naming" of the problem.  Talk to any person who has finally gotten a diagnosis for an illness, and you will find that a sense of empowerment and relief often comes with it.  (I had a friend who used to tell me that I was the only person she knew, who was happy to find out I was clinically depressed.)  There are obviously some exceptions to this, but in general it is true.  However, the naming of the problem must come from someone the person trusts or it's not going to help at all.  (Like the fictional Dr. House who refuses to believe that he has lupus.)  In a way this is the medical part of the separation ritual.  By having a name for your problem, you become part of a definite and separate subgroup from the rest of society.  Part of the transistion phase of a healing ritual includes many common steps of recovery, helping the participant to live a healthier life.  Effective healing rituals help to create stronger support systems for the participant, making the return to daily life a more stable one.

Video Playlist of the Domestic Tension project

I wanted to set the videos up so one can watch how things progress from beginning to end.

Playlist: Wafaa Bilal's Paintball project

wafaabilal.com
Iraqi born artist Wafaa Bilal has become known for provocative interactive video installations. Many of Bilal's projects over the past few years have addressed the dichotomy of the virtual vs. the real. In Domestic Tension, viewers can log onto the internet to contact, or shoot, Bilal with paintball guns.

Domestic Tension

A performance art/experiment by Wafaa Bilal

But before you participate, you might want to check out the following first:

Interview with Wafaa Bilal - Lessons about dehumanization and technology from a man living under the gun

http://www.crudeoils.us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AkwY9g-iDA
And the rest at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mewafaa

Essay for Arts and Human Values

Thomas Moran’s The Lava Flows has always been my favorite piece of the permanent collection at the Oklahoma City Art Museum. This approximately 18 by 24 inch, oil on panel painting was done in 1889, as an illustration of the lava flows on Mount Etna for the Scribner’s children’s magazine St. Nicholas. The white glowing lava flows down the pitch black mountain and around jagged black rocks, unifying the painting in a river of light. It is a visually powerful piece, full of energy, despite its black and white color scheme, due to its high contrast and the motif of irregular, triangular shapes. Its main focal point is at lower left, third by third division point, and consists of a triad of triangular rock formations, creating another triangular unity through their proximity and similarities in form. Combining the triadic groups, with thirds placements and triangular forms gives a firm grounding to the jagged lines and other irregularities back lit by the glowing lava. It is to my great disappointment that prints are not available of this striking painting. While earlier issues of St. Nicholas magazine are available online through Project Gutenberg, the 1889 issues have yet to be added.

Viewing other examples of Moran’s works, it becomes obvious that this is an atypical piece for him for various reasons. First, it is not of an American landscape, but an European location, a slight departure of subject matter for a painter who was hailed as the “dean of American landscape painters” and “father of the National Parks”. Though Moran was well-traveled and did do the occasional painting of old world scenes, the main focus of his works was the New World his father emigrated to from Great Britain when Thomas was still a boy. However, considering that St. Nicholas was a magazine that aspired to bring the best of culture and knowledge to American children, it is quite understandable why Moran would agree to paint for it. Second, it is done in stark black and white, instead of the realistic colors of his other nature pieces. Other artists who show his ability with colors, often have difficulty bringing the same intensity and clarity into a monochromatic format. Third, it is more claustrophobic in its focus, unlike the panoramic views of the American West that Thomas Moran is more famous for.

The piece in its atypical nature is an excellent example of just how talented Moran was as an artist. His use of contrasting values demonstrated a deep understanding of printed works, probably developed from his early years as a wood engraver’s apprentice. The placement of his focal point and use of unifying factors exemplified one who was well-schooled in formal design and composition, which he likely learned from his elder brother, Edward Moran, a well-known marine painter, and other artists such as J. M. W. Turner. While others would probably prefer his masterpieces of Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon on display at the U.S. Capitol, I think this little painting is just as worthy of admiration.

A constitutional republic

I was sent an article from a major publication recently and it occurred to me for the umpteen hundredth time that most people slept through their US Government classes.

If you check out the US entry in the CIA World Factbook, you will see that we are listed as a Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Now, when this country was first created, it had thirteen former colonies that had very different cultures and ideals. None of these newly declared states wanted to totally give up their rights of self-government to a central government. They wanted to be able to decide certain things themselves. If those people on the other side of the state line wanted something different - more power to them.

But there were worries that a strong federal government might override the states' sovereignty by using the excuse of an emergency to come in and take control. And actually, JFK sort of did this in 1963 against Gov. George Wallace, ordering the governor's own National Guard to turn against him and forcibly integrate the University of Alabama. Of course that was to uphold a federal mandate. In the case of looters, who are breaking no evident federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 explicitly forbids using the military (unless a governor uses her National Guard under "state status") in a domestic police function.

What this means is that according to the law, the STATES are given the chance to solve the problem themselves FIRST. The federal government is not allowed to step in without the governor's permission. After all, the governor is supposed to have a better idea of what the citizens of his state are in need of than the feds in Washington D.C. Only when the state government cannot handle a crisis that the feds have the right to step in. Theorhetically, a president could get impeached for infringing on a state's sovereignty - that would indeed be seen as a move towards dictatorship.

This part of the reason I get so disgusted with the ignorant people make comments about any president having dictator-like powers. The state governors have powers that keeps this from happening. But if we keep insisting that the federal government fix everything immediately, then we weaken that check and balance. Of course, there is something in place when the governor does screw up and the president should step in then, but we shouldn't be so surprised when they don't step in immediately. Presidents who have done so in the past always get flack for doing it, no matter what their political party.

I'm not saying that everything worked like it should recently. In fact, I think there were major screw-ups on all levels and Brown deserved to be removed. I just don't want us to forget why we let the states ask for help from the feds, instead of the feds just moving in like an overbearing parent and making everything right. It's not supposed to be a parent/child relationship between the federal government and the state governments. They are supposed to be more of less equals. If you are a competant adult, you don't want someone else barging in when you have a problem unless it's an emergency you can't handle. That's true for the states too.

There is no blue or red - only green...

High court OKs personal property seizures

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Let's see. This is happening in Connecticut, which I thought was a Democratic party state. Several citizens are being forced off of their personal property "for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue."

That's right, people. If a major corporation decides they want to build on your land, they just need to convince your city government that it will generate revenue. Most of my Liberal friends are fond of telling me that it is the Republicans who care for corporate America more than the citizen. If so, the following doesn't make much sense:

Against
Sandra Day O'Connor - Republican nominated by Ronald Reagan
William H. Rehnquist - Republican nominated by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Republican nominated by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Republican nominated by George H. Bush

For
Stephen G. Breyer - Democrat nominated by Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Democrat nominated by Clinton
David H. Souter - Republican nominated by George H. Bush
Anthony Kennedy - Republican nominated by Ronald Reagan
John Paul Stevens - Republican nominated by Gerald Ford


Maybe it's 45% of Republicans who are in Corporate America's pockets, but how do you explain all the Democrats voting "yes" and the fact it's happening in a primarily Democratic region?

We need to send Zapp! books to the Supreme Court Justices and government officials in Connecticut. Or some of Deming's books. Crap like this is a short term gain that leads to a long term loss.