The Body in Body-Mind-Soul-Spirit

Michael J. Formica — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:08:32 -0700

We strengthen the body to still the mind -- and we still the mind so as to free the spirit. The power of this intention is often lost in the pseudo-spiritual gesturing that has regrettably become the hallmark of ‘New Age' teaching. What it really boils down to is be the best you can be with the resources that you have available to you because what you have available to you heralds its own sort of perfection.

The body is the only house that we ever truly own, and, even then, it is something of a rental. It is vitally important that we care for this house in the same manner that we attend to the not-so-necessary "necessary objects" of our daily lives. Rather than letting the body sit around and get flabby, fill it with poisons or drive it mercilessly away from rest, taking the time to invest in this fragile vessel provides us with a tangible vehicle to do the work of mind, soul and spirit.

Investing in ourselves means investing in a lifestyle, and developing a personal culture that thrives on holistic health and wellness. That investment will look different for each of us, and the degree of diversification in that investment will depend on the resources, in this case physical resources, that we can muster.

Some of us may lift weights, while others jog or row. Some practice Yoga, Tai Chi or the martial arts. We may swim, walk or climb mountains. The point is that we do something, and we do a something with which we connect on a very primal level.

Attention to the physical component of the "body-mind-soul-spirit" continuum is essential for wholistic human development and the realization of our potential. It is through this that we build a bridge from our exterior world of experience into our interior life and landscape.

Each of us has a complex of dormant archetypes or templates that have the potential, when activated, to inform who we are and how we operate in the world. It is in choosing this path of personal culture that we can activate the Warrior archetype. Without activating the Warrior through a physical practice of some sort, we will not develop the internal temerity to get things done. Just as the Alchemist is our creative and transformational template, the Lover our template for social interaction and the King/Queen the template for our divine nature, the Warrior is our doer. So, go do something.

Once we have satisfied the demands of the body principle, our task becomes a matter of ‘taming the wild horses of the mind', which we will consider next...

Are We Born to be Afraid?

Robert L. Leahy, Ph.D. — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:19:33 -0700

Are you afraid of heights? Or closed spaces? Or snakes, bugs, and rats? Are you afraid of the water?

Well, you’re not alone. Our prehistoric ancestors had the very same fears—which is why you are alive today.

What are the most common fears that we have?

Our most common fears are of snakes, bugs, mice, bats, heights and water. What do these have in common? They are dangerous.

Let’s imagine that you are the evolutionary designer of a human being. Now, you are going to design a human who can survive in a primitive environment where there are tigers, lions, wolves, and poisonous snakes and bugs. It’s an environment where starvation is the general rule. What will you build into the software in the primitive brain?

You will build in FEAR.

Fear is adaptive because it protects us. More importantly, it protected our ancestors. Our distant ancestors who were afraid of heights didn’t fall off cliffs, those that feared wild animals didn’t get eaten by a tiger, those that ran the fastest left the rest behind---and they survived. So, it is natural to be afraid of many of the things that we are afraid of. It’s natural to have a fear of water---especially if you are a child---because you can drown.

In one study, 77 % of mothers of children who were afraid of water said their children were frightened the very first time they were confronted with a pool or lake water. In fact, the farther away from the ocean you live, the more likely you are to fear water. In another study, they tested kids over and over for years to determine what kinds of fears they had and what happened to them later. They found that kids who had fears of heights when they were younger---were less likely to fall and get injured later. That’s because the fear that was built in protected the kids from falling.

Now this may not seem like news to you, but most psychologists have believed that fears are learned. Some might be learned---but many fears are built in and they protect us. Kids didn’t have a fear of heights because they had fallen. No---they didn’t fall because they had a fear of heights to begin with.

Let’s take a closer look at fear of heights. A classic study, done many years ago, involved the following. Psychologists had a young infant on a table. Between two tables was a transparent plexiglass platform. Now, the baby could easily crawl across this plexiglass---but almost all the kids refused. That’s because the plexiglass gave the impression that they could fall. They had a natural fear of heights.

They also tried to get kittens to cross. They were afraid and they huddled on one side. Then they tried baby ducks. Guess what? The ducks walked across. Not a quack of protest. Why? Because ducks can fly. What’s to be afraid of?

Our fears have been built into us to keep us from getting killed—or from starving. In fact, research suggests that our genes can affect our ability to learn to be afraid.

But you might say, “I didn’t have a fear of heights until last year. And I’m 25? If these fears are innate, then why wasn’t I afraid before?”

Good question. One way to look at fears is that there is a “threshold effect”. Some of your fears won’t come out—won’t be manifested---until your brain has matured, certain hormones kick in, and you’ve accumulated enough stress. This is why panic disorder and agoraphobia generally don’t appear until early adulthood.

One “fear” that is very adaptive is to quickly learn to avoid poisonous foods. Rats and humans learn this after one experience. The research shows that we (rats or humans) almost immediately learn that the reason that we get sick is because of something that we ate---and then we avoid it forever. This is called “one-trial learning” for poison avoidance. We don’t have to “practice” this. If we eat some mushrooms and we get sick, we immediately learn to avoid mushrooms in the future. In fact, many of the changing food preferences for pregnant women are related to the potential toxicity of the foods. Nature doesn’t gamble with pregnancies.

Wouldn’t it make sense to have a fear of starvation? We do. That’s why ---when we are really hungry that we binge. Our ancient ancestors were scavengers---before they were hunters. They would wait for a tiger to kill an animal, eat its meal and then walk away stuffed. Then our ancient ancestors would scurry over, binge on as much of the meat as it could and run away at the first sight of another wild animal. But binge eating made a lot of sense. That’s why our emotional brain kicks in when we are really hungry and we eat quickly—and we eat a lot. It’s also why we often have a preference for sweet or high-calorie foods or carbohydrates. It’s also why some people hoard food. In a primitive environment, it made sense to save excess food—for the long periods of deprivation.

Because of fears of not eating enough—and our natural tendency to overeat given the opportunity--- we are prone to excessive weight gain. Ironically, it would be adaptive for our ancestors to have a slower metabolism---in order to keep on whatever weight they had. The primitive man who had a fast metabolism and just burned off calories---starved to death. People who are overweight today had the most adaptive ancestors---they didn’t need a lot of calories to gain weight. The problem is that we live in a world with what seems like an infinite number of calories available all the time. That’s why our “starving emotional brain” makes us binge when we go a few hours with nothing to eat.

How about fears of open spaces? People who have “agoraphobia” know what this is like. “Agora” means “marketplace” in Greek---but people with this phobia often fear being out in the open---like walking down the street or across a field or in a shopping mall. Why would walking across an open field be frightening? Well, to our ancestors, walking across an open field (especially during the day) meant that any tiger out there could see you. Better to stay in the bushes and hide.

It’s interesting that rats have a fear of open fields and spaces. When they cross a room they prefer staying close to the walls—or under the furniture. This is true outside, too. That’s because when they are outside they are vulnerable to being attacked by cats—or, from the air, by owls and hawks. So, having a natural fear of open spaces makes sense.

How about the fear of closed spaces? Many people fear getting into an elevator---not because the elevator will crash—but because they fear getting “stuck”. Some people fear having the door closed in their bedroom at night. Why would a closed space be so frightening? There are three reasons. First, our ancient ancestors who lived in caves realized that caves are not safe. Imagine you are huddled in a cave at night, you hear the call of the wild outside---- wolves howling. It was very simple for wolves or tigers to go into a cave and kill and eat all the humans. So caves could be dangerous. Second, in a closed space there may not be any means of escape. You are vulnerable to attack by predators and by other humans. That’s why people with agoraphobia are always looking for the exit. When they sit in a movie theatre, they want to sit at the aisle seat—and close to an exit. “I want to be able to get out quickly”. Third, many people with a fear of closed spaces feel they won’t be able to breathe. And, again, this also makes sense. Spaces that are closed can cut off air and suffocate you. That’s why so many people with panic and agoraphobia hyperventilate. Their brain is telling them that they will suffocate---so they gasp for air.

Children have a lot of fears that adults often do not have. Would it make sense for evolution to build certain fears into young children? Yes. Infants have a fear of being left by their parents---especially by mom. Toward the end of the first year of life, this fear gets stronger. And his fear of strangers gets greater. When mom leaves the room the baby cries. If the baby can move, he tries to follow after mom. The baby clings to mom. Why would a fear of mom leaving the room be adaptive? Well, this fear keeps mom close to the child---and mom can not only feed the baby, but protect him from other dangers---such as animals or other people. So babies have a natural fear of being left alone—and fears of the dark. And mothers and fathers have a built-in ability to respond to the baby’s crying by going to the baby and holding it. The baby’s crying is annoying to the mother---and it’s a good thing it is. It assures that the mother will quickly go to the baby to comfort him.The most effective way to calm a baby is to hold it and feed it. And that is the most protective way to relate to the baby. Evolution is smart.

Think about some of your specific phobias. Are you afraid of heights, closed spaces, flying 35,000 feet up in the air, animals, bugs, snakes, rats? Are you afraid of strangers? Are you afraid of walking into a forest at night---alone? How do your fears make sense from an evolutionary point of view?

How could your fears have kept your ancestors alive?

Think about your fears as the right response at the wrong time. The fear worked 50,000 years ago. It’s simply out of date. You’re using outdated software in your brain.

Fantasy Weddings Can Hurt More Than Your Wallet

Daisy Grewal, Ph.D. — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:35:21 -0700

Brides-to-be are told they are allowed to be a princess for day. Besides making a dent in the bridal pocketbook, does wanting to be a princess undermine women’s power?

Marriage in this country might be about a man and a woman, but planning a wedding is really about the bride. This is more than just tradition—it’s a capitalist driven idea that has managed to create a huge economic windfall for wedding vendors. It’s a fact that as the divorce rate has continued the increase, the annual cost of an American wedding has also increased. The estimated average cost ranges from $19,000 - $30,000.

Now the price wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t laced with so much fairytale propaganda. Advertisers are no dummies, and they know how to make even the most secure woman feel cheap for not wanting to spend more than $1,000 on a dress she’ll wear only once in her lifetime.

A casual flip through a bridal magazine found me face to face with an ad in which a young bride-to-be was sitting on a throne in a shaded forest. In front of her, down one knee, was her groom, or rather “prince charming” by the way he was dressed. The ad was brilliant because it captured just what advertisers would love for women to believe – that a wedding is a temporary suspension of disbelief in fairytales and that a bride is in fact a princess. After all, princesses are unlikely to be found shopping in the bargain bin.

And what’s wrong with that you might ask? Besides unloading your hard-earned cash, is there any real problem with the idea that a bride ought to be treated like a princess? Is there really any harm for wanting to be Cinderella for a day?

I recently came across a study that attempted to provide a partial answer to these questions. Dr. Laurie Rudman at Rutgers University was interested in finding out the effects of romantic fantasies on women’s psyches. She measured women’s implicit, i.e. subconscious, endorsement of romantic fantasies. She also measured their conscious endorsement of the same romantic fantasies, i.e. how much they actually said they believed in them. Rudman’s first finding was that there was a large divergence between what women reported desiring and their subconscious feelings.

Her second finding was that only women’s subconscious endorsement of romantic fantasies predicted their interest in achieving personal power. Women who subconsciously endorsed romantic fantasies reported a lower desire for personal power.

It’s only one study, I know, but I offer it as some food for thought as to the effect of romantic fantasies on women. A desire for personal power need not be exploitive – it could also denote a desire to achieve, to lead, or to make an impact on others.

Regardless of their possible negative effects, romantic fantasies aren’t going away. Not only do they make for good movie plotlines, they are something that society – especially advertisers – would hate to lose.

Source: Rudman, L. A. & Heppen, J. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women's interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357-1370.

Where there's a will, there's a . . .

Timothy A. Pychyl, Ph.D. — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:57:26 -0700

. . . human being. The recent emphasis about will being merely an illusion is another example of the "baby being thrown out with the bath water." At the least, it's a misunderstanding of the definition of conscious will. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I . . .

A recent graduate from our psychology program, emailed me the other day to say that he'd been reading my blogs, and although he agreed with the various perspectives about why we might procrastinate, he wanted to remind me that procrastination can also be understood as a habit. He's right, of course. Certainly John Bargh would agree. As Bargh and his colleagues argue clearly in their work, we don't need conscious processing to act or make choices. If we make the same decisions or choices in the same circumstances, the process becomes routinized and signaled by the circumstances. In fact, we depend on this process as part of learning. All skills develop this way, as less conscious attention is required for action to be carried out successfully. I depend on this unconscious process now as I type. I don't look at the keyboard, as long hours of practice at a typewriter in high school (and many years since on the computer keyboard) has provided me with an unconscious ability to process thoughts into keystrokes. I also depend on this type of automatic process on the highway every day (perhaps too often at times!).

Bargh, and others (for a review see Chartrand & Bargh, 2002 referenced below), have also argued that this automatic activation is related to goal pursuit. Nonconscious goal pursuit is typical and has the same qualities as conscious goal pursuit in terms of the tendency (or not) of resuming and completing interrupted goals, the mood effects of goal pursuit (e.g., happiness on the successful pursuit), etc., even when we're not really aware of having the goal. Again, we depend on these processes. We're cognitive misers, and our brains are adapted to finding patterns, making meaning and making things automatic. This frees up the limited resources of attention for other tasks.

In this sense, yes, procrastination can be a habit associated with our goal pursuit. Given that this notion of habit is the unconscious routinized behavior signaled by the circumstances (certainly the behaviorists have argued this for years), what does it take to break the procrastination habit? (as popular book titles admonish) Conscious attention and will. But wait, isn't will an illusion? It's certainly a notion that was first rejected in the early 1900's as psychology began its slow birth as a science, and it has been again rejected most vehemently as the remnants of dualistic thought.

Daniel Wegner and colleagues argue that conscious will is an illusion (see references below). In short, neuroscientific evidence (by Benjamin Libet and others) demonstrates that the brain sends signals for action (a "readiness potential") before the individual is conscious of the action that is about to take place. Hence, the later conscious activation is an "effort after meaning" that explains the event in terms of the mental event and will. We can be fooled like this, and in many other ways, all of the time it seems.

But all of this assumes that we define "will" with the notion that our thought is the cause of our action. This is problematic given the unconscious processes of learning that I presented above, and it sets up any notion of will to collapse under the weight of such a definition. Instead, I agree with Richard Ryan & Edward Deci who suggest instead that ". . . the exercise of will and autonomy is different from being an initial cause or stimulus to action. It rather concerns the capacity to effectively evaluate the meaning and fit of potential actions with one's overarching values, needs, and interests" (2004, p. 468).

Will is bringing conscious attention to our action or potential action and taking stock of it in relation to our values, needs and interests. It is facilitated by being mindful, being aware of what is occurring in the moment (see my earlier blog on Mindfulness and procrastination). Bargh agrees, in principle, arguing that becoming aware of the automatic cognitions that trigger or prompt action can be a first step in gaining control over automatic processes. Automatic processes are habitual, efficient and adaptive, but they are not immutable.

Mindful attention is the first step to gaining control, to exercising one's will per se. Baumeister and Heatherton argue the same thing in relation to self-control processes. The self-regulatory processes provide the potential for transcending the immediate situation to make a conscious choice as opposed to enacting the habitual, unconscious choice. Transcending the momentary desire to eat dessert is possible, for example, if one takes a moment to reflect on the consumption of dessert in relation to the goal of weight control or a healthy diet. Without this transcendence, which lies at the heart of the existential definition of the will, we certainly act out automatic processes programmed by a long evolutionary history ("sweet foods are best"), personal history ("this is my comfort food") and automatic processes ("I always eat dessert").

Ah, this is a blog and not a philosophical treatise, so my treatment of these important ideas is a little "light fingered" and cursory, I know, but my comments are true to the basic ideas of the arguments. My point is, conscious will is an essence of being human. Some argue that is it THE essence, but I need not limit myself to this narrower definition in order to underscore the importance of understanding will as the application of conscious attention to my decisions, choices and actions.

Certainly it can be easier to remain on automatic pilot with learned behaviors and scripts for our lives. However, for many of us, these unconscious processes get us into trouble. Any athlete knows this. Practice makes permanent, not perfect. So, to improve our performance, we have to consciously make changes to our stroke or approach, whatever the game entails.

For procrastination, it's the same thing. We can, as my student noted, follow our habits. Alternatively, we can bring conscious attention to our choice to needlessly delay a task and examine this honestly in relation to our values, needs and goals.

Unfortunately, conscious attention is not a panacea, because self-deception looms large. That's why I wrote "honest" examination of our choices in relation to our values. It's quite easy to rationalize our current choice, to make what existentialists call an inauthentic choice, because change of an automatic process is difficult, even scary. Our learned behaviour has served us well in a variety of ways so far, hasn't it?

Again, much like changing your approach to a backhand on the tennis court or your golf swing, old habits die hard, change is difficult, and conscious attentive practice is required. That also means work, and faith in the efficacy of the change. This is part of the human condition, our existence. Not only does it take conscious attention, it takes the courage to follow your values and work for change.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Corny? Perhaps, but true.

Here's another, perhaps corny, way to think of it.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference." Robert Frost (1874-1963).

Your guess as to what I think is the road less traveled. Habits make deep ruts in the trail, that's for sure.

References
Baumeister, R.F,, & Heatherton, T.F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1-15.

Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (2002). Nonconscious motivations: Their activation, operation, and consequences. In A. Tesser, D.A. Stapel, & J.V. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation; Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 13-41). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness and will. In J. Greenberg, S.L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449-479). New York: The Guilford Press.

Wegner, D.M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wegner, D.M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54, 480-491.

All stereotypes are true, except...V: "All extremely handsome men are gay"

Satoshi Kanazawa — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:27:30 -0700

Another common stereotype about physical appearance is that extremely handsome men are likely to be homosexual. In one experiment, women rate pictures of men as more attractive if they thought that the men were homosexual than if they thought that they were heterosexual, while men do not exhibit the same tendency in judging the attractiveness of women. Extremely handsome celebrities, such as Tom Cruise, have long been dogged with rumors of being gay all their careers. Are extremely handsome men really more likely to be gay?

From an evolutionary psychological perspective, it does not make sense for extremely handsome men to be gay. As I note in a previous post, such men receive disproportionate opportunities for extra-pair copulations (“affairs”) and short-term mating because women typically seek them out for their high-quality genes. (Remember, beauty is not only skin deep, and beautiful people do have better genes.) High-quality genes of extremely handsome men will therefore be “wasted” if their carriers are exclusively or predominantly homosexual.

Consistent with the evolutionary psychological logic, it turns out that extremely handsome men are not more likely to be gay. In fact, there is some evidence for the exact opposite. Compared to other men, extremely handsome men are often least homosexual, and homosexual men are least physically attractive. While this may go against the common stereotype, it makes perfect evolutionary sense.

In contrast, there are some heritable physical traits that it makes evolutionary sense to be associated with homosexuality. For example, women universally seek mates who are taller than them, and as a result, taller men attain greater reproductive success than shorter men. So short men have relatively less to lose, reproductively speaking, by being exclusively or predominantly homosexual. While exclusive homosexuality can never have any reproductive payoff, relative loss in fitness terms (what the economists call the opportunity costs) is less if the men are expected to be less successful in heterosexual reproduction. Further, by refraining from direct reproduction themselves, men who have dimmer reproductive prospect (by being short, for example) can help and aid the reproductive success of their siblings with more promising prospect.

Conversely, for the same reason that taller men are reproductively more successful than shorter men, shorter women attain greater reproductive success than taller women. (As a footnote, this discovery was made by Daniel Nettle of the University of Newcastle, whom we’ve encountered before.) The evolutionary psychological logic thus suggests that taller women have relatively less to lose, reproductively speaking, by becoming exclusively or predominantly homosexual.

Once again, consistent with the evolutionary psychological logic, it turns out that shorter men are more likely to be homosexual than taller men, and homosexual men are shorter than heterosexual men. Similarly, taller women are more likely to be homosexual than shorter women, and homosexual women are taller than heterosexual women. Such is the power of the evolutionary psychological imagination: It can predict who’s more likely to be gay even in the absence of a stereotype.

None of this assumes that sexual orientation is a deliberate conscious choice. We know that at least male homosexuality is strongly genetically influenced. But a strong genetic influence on sexual orientation is not inconsistent with the findings that those who are less likely to be reproductively successful (ugly men, short men, and tall women) are more likely to be homosexual, because the genes for homosexuality can come to be associated with genes for physical appearance or for height. More research is necessary to explore the potential proximate mechanism by which the genes for male homosexuality have come to be associated with genes for height and physical attractiveness.

Writing your managerial user's manual

Ben Dattner — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:57:14 -0700

There is increasing interest in the business world in "onboarding", the process by which managers and executives are oriented to, and integrated into, an organization. Books like "The First 90 Days" by Michael Watkins have become bestsellers, and organizations of all sizes are more mindful than ever about the importance of the first three months at a new job.

One tool that I have found effective in working with new managers and executives is a "Managerial User's Manual", a document in which a new leader describes his or her preferences and style to his or her new staff. The benefit of a user's manual is that it provides a basis for accelerating the "getting to know you" process.

The content of a user's manual should include what one values, what one is motivated by, and areas for potential misunderstanding. For example, a client of mine wrote a user's manual in which he let his team know that just because he asks many questions, doesn't mean that he is skeptical about their capabilities, it is simply his style.

In a sense, any interaction between a new leader and his or her team can be thought of as a cross-cultural communication. After all, the new leader comes from another organizational culture, and possibly also a different national culture as well.

By writing a "user's manual" in which one conveys valuable information about oneself, the risk that misunderstandings will occur can be greatly reduced. For example, another client wrote in his user's manual that he was a morning person, and he requested that his new team approach him with issues in the morning rather than in the afternoon. If he had not conveyed that preference, his staff might have approached him in the afternoon and concluded that he did not really want to interact with them or focus on the issues that they werre trying to bring to his attention.

With many people in career transition these days due to the challenging economy, writing a user's manual can be a good use of time, not just because when one finds one's next job the user's manual can be a useful tool, but also because even in the interviewing process, taking time to reflect on one's style and preferences can make it easier to prepare for interviews in which prospective employers may assess self awareness and potential leadership skills.

Why There's Always Room for Dessert

Susan McQuillan, MS, RD — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:08:10 -0700

Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have discovered that ghrelin, the “hunger hormone” known to stimulate appetite when you’re hungry or in need of calories, also makes you want to eat just because the food in front of you looks especially good.

Ghrelin is secreted by your stomach and, from there, sends a message to receptors in your brain, telling them to be more receptive to food’s visual cues. Your brain responds by shooting back a reply to your belly saying, “Hey, that looks good—let’s eat it!” For many people, hungry or not, that message is just too hard to resist.

Ghrelin targets the same “reward center” of the brain as drugs like nicotine, ethanol, and cocaine, a fact which may someday help explain why some foods have addictive potential. Everyone produces ghrelin, but leaner people produce more. People with anorexia, loss of appetite due to physical illness, or who are fasting or losing weight by dieting, have especially high levels of ghrelin circulating in their bloodstreams. That makes sense, because these are conditions under which your body, fearing starvation and armed with natural survival tools, wants you to eat. People who are obese and those who have had gastric by-pass surgery are found to have lower circulating levels of ghrelin.

Ghrelin’s real job, as scientists understand it, is to work with other hormones to correct appetite and energy imbalances, and help you maintain a consistent weight. Researchers believe that ghrelin also suppresses your body’s use of its own fat for energy. If you produce too much or too little ghrelin, however, these jobs can’t be done properly.

When there is an excess of ghrelin, or when circumstances occur that are known to affect normal hormonal action (such as lack of sleep), everyone—lean or obese—ends up eating more. If the release of ghrelin also makes food appear more desirable, that may help explain why there’s always room for dessert. And why your body always seems to work against you when you’re trying to lose weight.

By the way, in the study showing that grehlin stimulates a response to the mere sight of food, the participants weren’t even looking at real food. They were looking at pictures of food. The implications of this research may reach well beyond the normal urge to indulge in a sweet treat to illustrate the true impact of fast food advertising and accessibility on the weight-related health problems that continue to plague this country.

The Trauma of Evil

Dr. Stephen A. Diamond, Ph.D. — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:51:38 -0700

What are the psychological effects of massive disasters like this week's cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) that may have claimed as many as 100,000 victims? The 2004 Indonesian earthquake and tsunami in which more than 200,000 perished ? Hurricane Katrina? The recent mid-west twisters destroying property and killing eleven people? For many of those who barely survive such events, cheating death, the symptoms of acute stress disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder will likely be present, requiring some therapeutic intervention. What are the psychological, theological and philosophical issues victims of such tragedies struggle with? And what about the rest of us who witness such terrible suffering even from afar? Are we immune? How do catastrophic phenomena affect the human psyche? What are the emotional, existential and spiritual consequences of cataclysmic events such as cyclones, floods, famines, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and other so-called acts of God?

Let's first make a distinction between natural evil and human evil: While, as a forensic psychologist, I generally write in this blog about evil deeds--human destructiveness-- now we are speaking about nature's own evil. Evil is an existential reality, an inescapable fact with which we all must reckon. (I discuss the controversial notion of evil in Chapter 3, "The Psychology of Evil," in my book Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of Violence, Evil, and Creativity.) Virtually every culture has some word for evil, an archetypal acknowledgment of what Webster defines as "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity . . . . The fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing." We see human evil every day in its various subtle and not-so-subtle forms. But when evil strikes in suprahuman, transpersonal, cosmic occurrences such as drought, disease, and tragic accidents that wreak untimely death and destruction on multitudes of innocent victims, how do we make any sense of it? The biblical Book of Job addresses just this subject, as do major religions worldwide. Psychotherapists and mental health workers such as Red Cross counselors who deal with victims of evil are confronted daily with these profound questions: Why is there evil? Where does it come from? If there is a God, how could he or she condone it? Why me? Or why not me, as in the case of "survivor guilt."

Most of us try hard to deny or avoid the reality of evil: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Or we attempt to neutralize it, dismissing evil as maya or illusion, as in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. It is tempting to deny the reality of evil entirely, due to its inherent subjectivity and relativity: "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so," says Shakespeare's Hamlet, presaging the cognitive therapies of Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck.

But, even for the emotionally detached, spiritually enlightened or geographically distant observer, the grotesque spectacle of natural evil can be subtly traumatic. This is especially true for individuals with a history of previous trauma. Patients suffering from ASD or PTSD are initially in a state of emotional shock or psychic numbing, as psychiatrist Robert Lifton termed it. They have been precipitously exposed to either natural or human evil, or both, and unable to psychologically process the experience. Denial is no longer a viable defense. They feel out of control, victimized, helpless, powerless, frightened, disillusioned. Often, they also feel angry about what has happened. Angry at god. Or with fate or life itself. They have abruptly been stripped of their childish belief in life's inherent fairness. Their Weltanschauung (worldview) has been shattered. Many will never be the same. Like Humpty Dumpty, the bits and pieces cannot be put back together exactly as they were. Rather, victims of evil must somehow reconstruct themselves anew, psychologically assimilating this devastating experience and its implications into a more mature, realistic Weltanschauung, a reconstructed, sturdier, more flexible platform or foundation upon which to stand in life--one which can withstand, accept, and even embrace the existential facts of anxiety, suffering, disease and death. A revised worldview which recognizes and honors what philosopher Alan Watts called the "wisdom of insecurity." Perhaps one with a more realistic religious or spiritual outlook, such as Job's transformed recognition of god or Yahweh as the ultimate source of both good and evil; or a more sophisticated psychological understanding of the non-dualistic concept of the daimonic in psyche and nature.

These existential, philosophical and theological questions run deep, and can be consciously or unconsciously stirred up by such unsettling events. Natural disasters psychologically shake the very ground of our existence, causing us to question the fundamental nature and meaning of life--and death. They force us, in the starkest possible way, to face the existential fact of life's slender, tenuous thread: that being can at any moment become non-being; that death is always but a breath away; that the basic structure we daily depend upon for meaning and safety is in reality transitory and fragile. Such calamities can sometimes lead to precariously dangerous states of mind: depression, nihilism, panic, even psychosis. They can negate one's sense of security and predictability, leading to severe anxiety states. And they can rattle our religious faith, resulting in despair and, sometimes, even suicide. So it is imperative that psychologists are properly prepared to address such philosophical and spiritual issues in ways which will help victims courageously face and deal constructively with the perennial problem of evil: evil of both the human and natural variety.

Engines of Emotional Pollution II

Steven Stosny — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:56:08 -0700

In my last post I discussed the first two engines of emotional pollution: contagion and attunement. The second pair are negative bias and reactivity.

Negative Bias
To the great misfortune of human relationships, our emotions are negatively biased. Probably because negative emotions are more important for immediate survival - giving us the instant capability to avoid snakes in the grass and fend off saber tooth tigers - they gained priority processing in the primitive brain and continue to have great influence in modern times. So if you come home from work in a fairly good mood and find that your spouse is brooding or upset, attunement will bring him or her up a little and you down a lot. To keep from being "brought down" by the other's negative mood, many couples attempt to dull their sensitivity to the other's emotional world. This puts them squarely on the road to divorce, as it stenches the lifeblood of relationships -- compassion and appreciation -- both of which require openness to attunement.

Reactivity
You can think of emotional reactivity as a learned resistance to the unconscious pull of contagion and attunement. It can be obvious resistance, as in, "I'm not putting up with your attitude!" Or it can be passive resistance, as in trying to ignore you spouse's bad mood.

Of course, most of the time we don't want to resist contagion or attunement, because it helps us stay on the same page on a routine basis. Sporting events would be a lot less fun, if they existed at all, without the contagion of excitement. And while falling in love, the mere presence of your beloved fills you with fascination and joy. You thrill at the smile of your infant and revel in the excitement of a new friend. But as a function of attunement, reactivity also has a negative bias -- that which once thrilled you can eventually start to "push your buttons." Many of my clients who once loved it that their spouses greeted them at the door when they came home now resent them for "monitoring every time I walk in the door." She used to love his sense of humor, now she thinks he's sarcastic. He used to appreciate how she put him in touch with his feelings, now she's too emotional. These common relationship problems are reactivity confounding the natural process of attunement.

The aspect of reactivity that makes it difficult to see, let alone change, is its illusion of free will and ego independence, even "authenticity." You think that you are acting of your own volition and in your best interest, when you are merely reacting to someone else. We've all uttered (or at least thought) the most ironic of all statements, "You're not going to bring me down!" As long as you're in this reactive mode, you are down - reacting to negativity with negativity.

Trying to cope with emotional pollution on automatic pilot invariably increases reactivity and leads to the number one addiction of modern life: reactaholism. The reactaholic needs to react to others to know how he feels and what he thinks. You're probably a reactoholic if you feel that other people push your buttons. This unfortunate belief allows other people to live in your head and control your emotions. You become more reactive than proactive, more impulsive and less considered in your actions.

A quick test to see if you're a reactaholic is to notice how you approach a meeting. The reactaholic doesn't know what to do until someone gives him something to which he can react in a definite (usually ego-saving) way. Reactaholics need the low-grade arousal of reactivity to dispel self-doubt or to feel confident enough to form a decisive opinion.

Controlling people i.e., those who try to control others, are prime examples of reactaholics, although they don't seem to be. To lessen their anxiety about getting their buttons pushed, reactaholics try hard to control the behavior of others. My client, Shawna, like the vast majority of controlling people I have counseled, constantly told her beleaguered husband what to do. She had to; from her perspective it felt as if his behavior entirely controlled her emotions. If he would do something as trivial as absent-mindedly leaving his towel on the bathroom floor, she would feel overwhelmed with resentment and anger. "I get tense walking down the hall, because I know when I get to the bathroom, I'll see that he's left the toilet seat up again," she told me.

When Shawna considered making plans, she inevitably thought of how her husband might refuse to cooperate. To avoid such unpleasant thoughts, she stopped thinking about the future altogether, as reactaholics often do. This habitual avoidance of goal-setting is one reason that reactaholics never reach their full potential in life. Instead of planning how to achieve their goals, they simply avoid people and situations that push their buttons. Because so many people and situations have the power to do so, they never know how they will feel from one moment to the next. They can scarcely develop a consistent sense of self, for they will be different with each person who "makes" them react differently. If I'm one person with you and another with him and yet another with her, I won't know who the hell I am.

Reactaholism is the number one addiction because most of the others are vein attempts to numb the frustrating powerlessness of reactaholism.

After Being There: Bullet Points from the American Psychiatric Association's Annual Meeting

Peter D. Kramer — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:54:16 -0700

Bullet points noted down in the airport waiting lounge, en route home from the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting.

• In its public face, psychiatry has become humble.

The large-scale sessions at this year’s convention involved acknowledgement that our clinical tools have limitations. It’s been years since scientists have introduced a truly novel medication or psychotherapy for the mentally ill. Our treatments are reasonably effective, and we know how to combine them when necessary. But we’ve had that expertise for some time. Meanwhile, psychiatry knows it has an image problem built around the apprehension that the leadership is in bed with Pharma.

In part, that last problem accounts for the low-key presentations. The APA’s new rules require that the slides for all industry-sponsored presentations be vettted in advance by members without drug-company affiliations. Speakers who stray from the script and make unsubstantiated claims can be (and some have been) barred from participation in future meetings. The one Pharma-sponsored lecture I attended was sober, as regards our ability to treat bipolar disorder — although it seemed to me that one overly favorable table, about the benefits of a drug still in development, had slipped through the screen.

• Privately, the field is excited by the promise of neuroscience.

Researchers are moving past old models of mind and brain, the ones that focused on serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. In part, this means considering other neurotransmitters, like glutamate. But it also means looking in more detailed fashion at receptors on neurons and then peeking inside the cell, tracking reactions that lead to cell growth and new cell connections, down to the level of the gene.

• Within neuroscience, the hot topic is gene regulation.

The most striking presentations that I attended involved epigenetics. I’ll explain that term in a future posting. In brief, epigenetics refers to changes that don’t affect the sequence of genes but do determine which genes get expressed and which lie dormant.

• Neuroscience is telling this story: Gene expression is shaped by the environment, including life events, like neglect in childhood.

It works that way for rodents. Raise them in a harsh environment, and for the whole of their lives, they will behave as if resources are scarce. The new science shows what psychological deprivation looks like at the level of the altered gene.

Increasingly, the biological model is a psychological model. Who we are, in our brain cells, is a function of who we have been in our lives.

• Psychotherapy is beginning to speak the new language of neuroscience.

Much of this talk is metaphorical. Psychotherapists want to reshape gene expression, or to help patients circumvent fixed limitations, though new learning that modifies the “fate neurosis” embedded in the altered chromosomes. Combining medication and talk makes special sense, in particular in the treatment of patients whose early lives were difficult. The drugs allow for new connections; the therapeutic relationship shapes them. (I sketch out this model in Against Depression.)

In coming weeks, I’ll weigh in with details about a number of these points. For now, I’m glad to be heading home.

And glad — here’s an afterthought — that while I was away, we Democrats chose our nominee. (Plea to Hillary: Don't become this year's Ralph Nader.) The Drudge Report and Wonkette may or may not be right about Time’s new cover, but it’s fun to see the mock-up.

The Only Constant is Change

Michael J. Formica — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:23:03 -0700

An American diplomat in Myanmar (formerly Burma) today reported that, in the wake of the recent cyclone, the death toll in that country is likely to reach 100,000. This estimate has been confirmed by both French and U.N. aid workers.

Change can happen in an instant. It is the only constant. Situations like that in Myanmar remind us of this on a grand scale, but it is because of this grand scale that the impact may be lost on us personally. Impermanence is something that we rarely think about; confronting impermanence is, in fact, something that we typically avoid. It is often only in the wake of some tragedy in our own lives that we are forced to confront it at all.

The Buddhist wisdom teachings talk about "little deaths", suggesting that every experience of change that we have is a reflection of the greatest of all impermanences - death. As we typically neither confront impermanence, nor the grief with which it is associated, when we do experience one of the more sweeping changes in life -- death, divorce, marriage, moving, losing a job -- it can be quite overwhelming.

Everything in nature occurs in cycles, including human experience. If we bring this notion to bear, we begin to see that change is not only necessary, but inevitable. With this in hand, we can then develop a sense of equanimity and balance -- first in our daily lives, then within the scope of our larger experience. This can take the charge, or more pointedly the fear, out of our lives, without devoiding us of our emotional experience. This, then, brings greater authenticity to that emotional experience because we are able to respond to what is happening around us without being a slave to the noise of our internal dialogue.

By choosing to regard human experience as a matter of course, rather than a collection of individual linear events that we label as ‘good' or ‘bad', we actually end up magnifying our own humanity and increasing our connection to ourselves, our loved ones, and our world. We get to feel our feeling, instead of just freaking out.

Ask Dr. Jesse

Jesse Bering, Ph.D. — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:04:08 -0700

Forget about Dr. Phil. Ask Dr. Jesse!

What have you always wanted to know about human behaviour, but have been too afraid to ask (or too lazy to look up)? In this blog post, I thought I'd try something different: you tell me what I should write about. Go on, it's anonymous!

Think of it as an advice column sans the fact that I'm not a middle-aged, know-it-all shrew telling you to get your act together. In keeping with my "quirky little things" theme, and given that I'm an academic psychologist with a penchant for sleuthing out obscure facts from an oftentimes confusing, jargon-filled literature, ask me something based on your own experiences in being human and I'll tell you what the research out there has to say about it. Who cares about opinions? I'll give you the empirical facts.

I'm trying to sharpen my generalist skills, so it can be anything ... anything. I'd say keep it clean, but that wouldn't be any fun now would it? But for editorial reasons, do try to keep it, well, at least delicately worded.

Here's how it'll work: I'll leave this post up for one week (that's until Thursday, May 15), cross my fingers that I get some interesting responses, and then choose my favourite question. My next post will be devoted entirely to answering this question. Ask as many questions as you'd like, just be sure to post them separately. And here's my built-in escape clause: If I don't get any questions, or they're all duds, I'll simply nix this little experiment.

Use your real name, or a pseudonym, or no name at all. So, what are you waiting for?

When Trauma Happens, Children Draw: Part I

Cathy Malchiodi — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:26:51 -0700

After a disaster, children’s art and play provides a window into the experience of trauma. And this innate impulse to communicate through creative expression is more than just another picture or just “pretend”—it reflects the neuropsychological nature of trauma itself.

Media coverage of the growing disaster in Myanmar reminds me that there will soon be 1000's of child victims of this disaster, each needing food, shelter, and other basic needs to simply survive. They will also eventually need mental health intervention that is meaningful and addresses both the short and long term affects of trauma. Imagining how those children have been irrevocably changed by the current disaster additionally reminds me of the innumerable children I have worked with as an art therapist and how their young lives were altered by hurricanes, tornados, and the like.

Children relive their traumas not only in their minds, but also through their actions. In part, their actions are often attempts to regain mastery over events that have disrupted their lives. Art, play, and imagination are ways children naturally express the unspeakable and circumvent “talk” that is difficult or temporarily unavailable.

Non-verbal modalities such as drawing are effective because of the impact that trauma often has on language. Language, a function of declarative memory, is generally not readily accessible to trauma survivors of any age after a traumatic event. In particular, Broca’s area, a section of the brain that controls language is affected, making it difficult to relate the trauma narrative. In fact, when a trauma survivor attempts to speak, PET scans actually show that Broca’s area tends to shut down. Meanwhile, other parts of the brain, including the limbic system, are in overdrive, particularly in individuals with posttraumatic stress symptoms.

We certainly don’t know all there is to know about why art or play might be helpful to children who have experienced trauma. Some theorize that structured sensory experiences including drawing or play make progressive exposure of the trauma story tolerable. Under appropriate circumstances, it may be that these forms of communication are exactly what are necessary to bypass language and allow sensory aspects of trauma to be expressed rather than suppressed.

The simplicity of children’s art and play as responses to trauma has been understated as to their importance in trauma recovery. And does all this just apply to children? No, I don’t think so. The returning military from Iraq, students exposed to a random sniper’s fire, and all those who survive any disaster have the potential to benefit from creative expression, post-trauma. We all encode psychological trauma in a sensory way and we all have the possibility to use our senses in the recovery process.

Mañana

Timothy A. Pychyl, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:57:37 -0700

Mañana, tomorrow, the word conjures up a laid-back life style. In fact, we often stereotype some cultures as more laid back - Mañana nations perhaps? Are there national differences in the prevalence rates of chronic procrastination?

A recent study published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology by authors from the U.S., Spain, Britain and Peru, indicate that there are not differences, well not exactly. Joe Ferrari (DePaul University), Juan Francisco Diaz-Morales (Complutense University, Madrid), Jean O'Callaghan (Roehamptom University, London), Karem Diaz & Doris Argumedo (Pontifical Catholic University, Lima) collaborated to collect data from their respective countries as well as Australia and Venezuela. Using a mixture of convenience, snowball and random sampling techniques depending on their circumstances, the authors had 765 women and 582 men complete two measures of procrastination. This was an adult sample with an average age of approximately 40 years, 80% were married with two children, and the authors note that all participants would be labeled as middle-class employed adults by U.S. standards.

Ferrari and his colleagues worked with an assumption based on Ferrari's earlier research (see references below for Ferrari, 1992), that the two procrastination scales, although highly correlated measures of chronic (trait) procrastination, tap avoidance and arousal motivations distinctly. Clarry Lay's 20-item General Procrastination Scale was identified as arousal procrastination, whereas McCown & Johnson's 15-item Adult Inventory of Procrastination was identified as avoidance procrastination. Although Joe and I debate this distinction often, it's important to note this, as these researchers analyze the data to separate what they call "pure" types of procrastination (avoidant and arousal) in their analyses.

Ferrari and colleagues used the "translate, transport and test" method, carefully verifying the translation of the existing measures from English to Spanish for the data collection in Spain, Peru and Venezuela. That said, as the authors note in the concluding comments of their paper this "etic" approach to data analysis does not address the indigenous psychology of each culture, so caution must be taken in the interpretation of the results. For now, what we certainly have is an idea of how samples from each country score on these standard North-American measures.

The Results
At the level of the raw scores on both scales, adults living in the United Kingdom reported significantly higher chronic arousal procrastination compared to adults from Peru, the United States and Spain, with adults from Venezuela and Australia scoring lowest overall. The same results were found for the measure of avoidance procrastination. In fact, the correlation for these scales is typically very high (in the range of 0.65 to 0.75), so the parallel differences are not surprising.

For the Statistically minded readers . . .
Given the significant interrelation between the scales for participants in each country, Ferrari and his colleagues used a technique to examine the non-shared variance between the scales (for the statistically minded, they used standardized z residual scores for each scale by regressing each scale on the other). As they put it, "the use of within-culture z scores allowed us to identify pure interindividual variances within cultures while correcting for between-culture variance" (p. 462) They calculated the percentage of people who obtained a Z residual score of greater than 1.0 for both procrastination types to "purify" the types by eliminating the crossover effects between the distributions.

Once they had created scores for their pure types of avoidant and arousal procrastination for each country, they then repeated their cross-nation comparisons. There were no differences between the countries sampled. The overall percentage of adults sampled who reported procrastination tendencies with the arousal and avoidance motives were 13.5% and 14.6%, respectively.

Concluding comments
The authors report that their study was the first systematic investigation of chronic procrastination with adults across six different nations. Interestingly, although their sample included nations that have been stereotyped as "mañana" lifestyle (Mañana, Spanish for "tomorrow"), the data do not reflect higher procrastination in the Spanish-speaking nations. However, as the authors note, ". . . the causes and consequences within each culture need further investigation to ascertain an indigenous psychology" (p. 463). As I noted above, this will be an important consideration in future research, as this "emic" approach takes into account how each culture defines key psychological constructs.

Overall, this study does clearly indicate that chronic procrastination is a problem for a little over 10% of the adult population. Given the costs associated with chronic procrastination include performance decrements, negative emotions and even poorer health (see previous blog - "I'll look after my health later"), there is cause for concern and a need to better understand how we can deal with chronic procrastination.

Reference
Ferrari, J.R. Diaz-Morales, J.F., O'Callaghan, J., Diaz, K., & Argumedo, D. (2007). Frequent behavioral delay tendencies by adults: International prevalence rates of chronic procrastination. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 458-464.

Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories for adults: Arousal and avoidance measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97-110.

Fraternal Twins--The Hidden Pairs

Nancy L. Segal — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:55:10 -0700

I was on the Today Show today, May 7, 2008. The taped piece focused on studies from two separate laboratories. The first study concerned research on twins’ social relationships, conducted in my lab at California State University, Fullerton. In general, I have found that identical twins show closer, more cooperative behaviors than fraternal twins when working on a common task. The second study concerned new findings that identical twins may show actual DNA differences (what are called copy number variations--CNVs), conducted at the University of Alabama. Twins with DNA differences may help us understand what factors trigger illness or other conditions in one twin, but not the other. However, there were twins in that study who showed DNA differences, but who did not differ in other significant ways. These two studies are related in that DNA differences between identicals could be associated with behavioral differences; these could ultimately affect the twins’ social relationships. The two taped segments were followed by live interviews with two sets of identical twins, one male and one female. The male twins were current and past football greats, Ronde and Tiki Barber. Tiki Barber left the New York Giants last year to join the Today Show as a special correspondent. One of them commented that they do not try to do things the same way, but often end up doing them alike. As examples they cited buying the same item—and of course ,they play/played football. The female twins were my colleague, Dr. Eileen Pearlman, and her twin sister Elaine. Interestingly, Dr. Pearlman noted that as the slightly leaner twin from birth, she was referred to as “skinny”—and when she sees her twin even today she feels compelled to watch her diet to remain in that role. Both pairs also emphasized the importance of separating twins so that they feel prepared for the inevitable separations that occur later in life, e.g., school, work, marriage. I would qualify that, especially with reference to twin type. First, as indicated above, identical twins tend to be closer than fraternals and should, I feel, be allowed to enjoy their relationship. Most identical twins celebrate their twinship, emphasizing the great understanding and comfort it affords. I fully support the state-by-state movement, currently in play, that is developing legislation that would give parents a significant voice in their twins’ classroom placement. Too often, schools demand that twins be separated, when it is not in their best interests. Of course, some periods of separation for twins are needed—but in their own ways, each set will reveal what is appropriate for them. Fraternal twins may naturally gravitate toward their own friends and interests, but even they may suffer the effects of premature separation from one another. The bottom line is that the needs of each set should be handled on a case-by-case basis. This brings me to the final point. Fraternal twins are far more common than identical twins, yet the media focus on the latter. Understandably, their matched appearance makes for great visual effects. But science could not proceed without the presence of fraternal twins, that all-important control group for comparing twin similarity. (Greater resemblance between identicals than fraternals demonstrates genetic influence on the trait in question.) More families are raising fraternals than identicals and are in need of information and support, yet they and their “hidden twins” are overlooked. There are some fascinating varieties of fraternal twins that many people are unaware of—twins with different dads; twins who appear to come from different ethnic groups; and more. We also know a lot about the causes of fraternal twinning, a subject that would make for great viewing. I say this mostly as an investigator--not as a fraternal twin.

I am Iron Man!

Tim Delaney, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:02:50 -0700

I am Iron Man!

Have you ever dreamed of being a superhero? Most of us have, I would suppose. Imagine how cool it would be to have superpowers. Who wouldn't want the ability to see through walls, bend steel, possess super strength, or best of all, have the capacity to fly?

There are plenty of superheroes to emulate. Spiderman has the ability to shoot out webs that allows him to swing from building to building and he has super strength-proportionate to a spider! Batman is clever, has a fast car, and as the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) states, he has lots of "great toys" (in his utility belt). The Incredible Hulk is so powerful he can crush tanks with his bare hands. But, Superman would have to be the coolest of all. He can fly, leap tall buildings, repel bullets and he is so fast, that he once spun the earth against its natural rotation causing time to go backwards. Yes, Superman can do it all. So, why do we need another superhero? And one named "Iron Man?"

Those of us from a certain generation, or fans of a certain genre of music, may think of "Iron Man" in terms of the old Black Sabbath (featuring Ozzy Osbourne) song with the eerie opening lyric, "I am Iron Man..." I have to admit, when I first heard the promotion for Iron Man the movie, I would sing those Black Sabbath lyrics to myself. (Imagine how happy I was during the start of the closing credits!) But of course, Iron Man means something else to others. For some people, he was already a Marvel favorite. And now, for many others, Iron Man represents a movie blockbuster earning $200 million worldwide in opening weekend revenue.

So, who is this Iron Man and why does this movie hold such an appeal to folks? Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr.-who does a wonderful job acting, as usual-is the alter ego of Anthony "Tony" Stark, son of industrialist Howard Stark. Stark Industries produces weapons of destruction, and unbeknownst to Tony, many of these weapons are being sold to enemies of the U.S. Similar to other superheroes, Stark decides to rid the world of evil-doers. The special effects alone guaranteed that this film would be a blockbuster. Creating a lovable superhero, however is the real reason this film will continue to earn hundreds of millions of dollars. For you see, most of us love the idea of being a superhero that is powerful enough to fight for "justice."

Heroes have existed in society since ancient times. The study of heroes in any given culture is very revealing, as the people proclaimed as heroes gain such a status because they reflect cultural ideals and values. Heroes, then, reflect the character traits most desired by members of a society. In this regard, heroes help to reaffirm and maintain the social structure of a society by perpetuating cultural values and norms.

The ancient Greeks, who coined the word, had a precise meaning and limits for "hero." A hero was a person who was descended from a god or goddess on one side of the family, either by father or mother, and a mortal on the other side. This definition is flawed, of course, as Greek gods do not exist. However, heroes do exist in contemporary society. Today, a hero may be viewed as a person of distinguished courage or ability who is admired for brave deeds, noble qualities, achievement, dedication, integrity, and/or skill. Firefighters, police officers, athletes, and teachers, often serve as heroes. Each of these people, however, have their own limitations. Maybe this helps to explain why we, as with the ancient Greeks, turn to mythical creatures for shining examples of heroes. Characters such as Iron Man are, indeed, superheroes. They support cultural idealism of proper behavior (e.g., fighting evil). And, they do it in an entertaining manner. No wonder movies like Iron Man do so well at the box office.

Oh, and by the way, as the usher at the movie theatre said to me, "Be sure to stay until after the credits run...the movie continues-in superhero tradition!

Go Ahead -- Write My Blog!

Stanton Peele — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:16:44 -0700

Reading readers' comments, it's occurred to me that it doesn't really matter what I say about drugs and alcohol -- people just maintain their basic biases no matter what.

Thus, readers should have their own clear reactions to a sting perpetrated at San Diego State University by the DEA with the cooperation of SDSU officials. The DEA and University justified the five-month operation and the life implications for the 75 students arrested on various charges (e.g., losing all chance at federal loans) because of two earlier drug-use deaths on campus.

So, PT readers, please answer the following quiz:

1. Will the raid and arrests reduce drug use on SDSU campus? If so, for how long?

2. Will the raid reduce negative drug use consequences? That is, because of the sting and arrests, will fewer students use drugs in dangerous ways? Why or why not?

3. If your answers to (1) and (2) are "no" (or "yes, but not long" for 1), WHY did the DEA and University conduct the operation?

4. If you answer "no" to (2), what could the university have actually done to reduce negative drug and alcohol consequences?

5. If a Democrat is elected president, will such drug raids and similar activities become more or less frequent, or remain the same?

All right, go ahead and write my blog. Answers will be summarized in a few days.

The Overdiagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder

Michael J. Formica — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:03:58 -0700

National Public Radio aired a segment on its May 6th 2008 broadcast of All Things Considered reporting that a major talking point at the American Psychiatric Association's 2008 National conference, going on now in Washington DC, is the over-diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder (BPD). A study conducted at the University of Rhode Island found that over half of some 700 patients whose diagnostic profiles were reviewed were wrongly assigned the diagnosis, a situation that is of great concern to the psychiatric community.

Mark Zimmerman, of the Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University, has been studying the way that Bi-polar Disorder is diagnosed for more than a decade. He states that until about 6 years ago the disorder was typically under-diagnosed, when he began to see a reversal in diagnostic trends. He undertook to look at 145 patients who volunteered to have their diagnosis reviewed and found that, while many showed signs and symptoms that placed them on the depression spectrum, more than half did not meet the criteria for Bi-polar, despite that diagnosis.

One key piece of information was the detailed family history that Zimmerman and his team compiled for these patients. Typically, a person with Bi-polar Disorder evidences a family history of the same. In the case of the patients reviewed, this qualifier did not stand up to scrutiny, with none of the subjects in the study showing a family history of the disorder. Zimmerman will present his findings in a May 7, 2008 Scientific Forum discussion.

Gary Sachs, of Harvard, is also presenting on this topic. He points out that one of the major influences on the change in diagnostic trends may be the educational sessions that doctors are attending, which are sponsored by drug manufacturers. These sessions often contain consistent admonitions not to "miss the diagnosis", as well as emphasizing the propensity for under-diagnosis of certain disorders.

Sachs also points out that the diagnostic reviews done in an academic setting are far more involved than those undertaken in general clinical practice. Where the academic reviews are quite detailed, clinical diagnosis tends more to take on the form of generalized conversation and a more superficial history, which can lead to snap judgements. Although this can contribute to inconsistencies, Sachs says it is no excuse for sloppy diagnosis, as the tools for determining whether a patient meets the criteria for Bi-Polar Disorder have been in place for more than 30 years.

What is Productive Worry?

Robert L. Leahy, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:22:52 -0700

If you are a chronic worrier you have probably gotten some of this useless advice: “Don’t worry”, “It will all work out” or “You need to believe in yourself”. Worriers seldom find this well-meaning advice to be helpful. In fact, they often find it to be invalidating and they think, “You don’t understand how hard it really is for me.” Or you might think, “It must be really hopeless, if this is the only advice people give me.”

You may have a mixed mind about your worry. You feel it’s “driving me crazy”, but you also think you get something from your worry. Worriers believe that their worry can help them prepare, avoid surprise, or get motivated. You may not be entirely wrong. Like any anxious thought there is some truth in the idea that worry can—to some extent--- prepare you, help you avoid surprises, and motivate you. But the real question is, “How will worry help?” And, “When is it useless?”

I find it useful to distinguish between productive and unproductive worry. Let’s suppose that I am going to Washington, D.C. for a meeting. What is “productive worry”? Well, let’s think of productive worry as a worry that I can turn into an action plan TODAY where this action can reasonably help me solve a problem. So, productive worry could be the following actions: “Get a reservation on the train, get a hotel reservation, bring your flash drive with your power-point presentation, and give yourself enough time to get to the train station.” All of these are actions that I can take TODAY. I can actually do something. So, productive worry is a TO-DO LIST FOR TODAY.

Let’s imagine that you are worried about your health. You notice that you have aches and pains that are unusual for you. You begin thinking, “I wonder if I have cancer”. You form visions in your mind of getting sicker and sicker. You are plagued by “what-ifs?”---such as, “What if the doctor doesn’t diagnose me correctly?” and “What if it’s too late?” It would be foolish to say to you, “Don’t worry, you’re OK.” We don’t know that you are OK. So, what is productive worry? Call your doctor and make an appointment for an exam. Productive worry is prudent action.

Or, let’s imagine that you have an exam coming up next week. You are worried and you think, “What if I fail? What if I get thrown out of school? What if I end up homeless? What if my parents disown me for letting them down?” All of these “what-ifs” are unproductive worries. They are unproductive because you can’t do anything today to solve the problem. Since you haven’t taken the exam, you don’t know if you are going to pass. You don’t have to solve the problem of being homeless today because you have a home today. You don’t have to solve problems that don’t exist. Unproductive worry is about what-ifs that you can’t do anything about. But there are some productive actions that you can take about the exam. You can study. You can set aside time tonight and the night after and prepare.

The first thing I ask people to think about when they are worried is this, “Is there some productive action that you can take today that will help you solve the problem?” If so, make a to-do list and start taking action. Once you take action, you won’t be worried. If your taxes are late, rather than worry about them, start preparing your taxes over the next day. Take action and get out of your head.

In the next blog, I’ll tell you what you can do with all of those unproductive worries. The good news is that we have a lot of techniques that you can use.

Now, ask yourself, “What is the productive action that I can take?” If there is none, then you will have to learn how to accept some limitation and some uncertainty. This won’t be easy to do, but we will go over this in this blog.

Now, get to work!

Give a Man a Fish...

Ryan Howes, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:58:52 -0700

Allow me to introduce Jane Doe, an imaginary client offering her services to illustrate some of the finer points of therapy. Jane is a 30 year-old, single, educated and successful woman entering therapy for the first time. She and I have met for a couple sessions. Today she appears particularly upset. Here's how she opens the session:

"I don't know what to do. John and I were out to dinner last night and his cell phone rang. He ignored the call, but I had this sense it was his ex-girlfriend calling. He got up to use the restroom a few minutes later and left his phone, so I grabbed it and checked to see who called. It wasn't her. Now I feel bad for not trusting him. We've only been dating a month, so I'm not sure what he'd say if I told him. Should I keep it to myself, or tell him?"

What is about to transpire can be a very frustrating aspect of therapy for many clients. It's what distinguishes this relationship from friends, family, Dear Abby and Dr. Phil. But it may also be incredibly helpful for Jane in the long run.

I'm not going to tell her what to do.

You've probably heard this proverb (generally attributed to Lao Tzu): "Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and feed him for life." The goal of therapy is helping people understand and ultimately solve problems on their own, not solving their problems for them. Many people want their therapist to give answers and advice, and I don't blame them. Jane has a dilemma here, she wants it resolved, and she's paying me to help her. But in therapy we need to look at the bigger picture.

If I tell Jane what to do, she is no closer to understanding herself than when she walked through the door. She is no more enlightened, empowered or independent. She could leave with an answer for her quandary, but would feel no satisfaction for resolving it herself. If and when a similar issue arises in the future, Jane will not have tools to resolve it and would probably look to me again to give her another answer. Furthermore, I would be assuming the responsibility for her decision, as well as taking the credit or blame. That's empowering me, not Jane.

Instead of giving Jane advice about John, I'm curious about a few other things. I wonder if trying to understand the thoughts and feelings behind Jane's snooping could be helpful. Perhaps her suspicion has deeper roots and impacts other areas of her life. But first, maybe we should understand what gets in the way of Jane making her own decisions. Hers is an innocent enough question, but I've known clients who have great difficulty making decisions. They'll poll everyone they know and go with the greatest number of votes. I call this "living life by committee," and it's a painfully disempowering way to live. I'd want to explore this for a while to see how and why she may be giving her power away.

Of course, there are many exceptions to the "no advice" rule. The severity of the situation, the length of the therapy or the theoretical orientation of the therapist may deem advice necessary. But in general, therapists aren't part of the committee. If Jane can address these deeper issues in therapy, she may come to understand her thoughts and motivations better and develop confidence in her decision making skills. This will feed her for a lifetime.