Quantcast
Channel: Psychology Today
Viewing all 51702 articles
Browse latest View live

Is DNA Available From A Child Cold Case Murder 40 Years Ago?

0
0

Back in 1976, a boy named Donald Miles Whaley, just 12 years old, liked to hang out at a local shopping center

Barbara Dyer Channell, who at the time worked at May Co. and knew Donald—nicknamed Donnie—when he’d go to the department store to play its juke box. At the time, “His family lived down the street from my family on Graves Avenue,” Barbara said.

Now, after all these years, she can’t shake the case from her mind. After nearly four decades, she says it feels as if the smart-alecky, confident boy she remembers has been forgotten.

On the morning of September 25, 1976, Donald’s mother, Sandra Jean Whaley, reported her son missing since 8 p.m. the night before. Donald, who was wearing a brown Levi jacket, white shirt, brown corduroy pants and blue tennis shoes, had told his sister he leaving to walk home with his girlfriend, who had been at his house visiting.

Donald never came home.

He was last been seen walking near the intersection of Magnolia and Madison avenues in El Cajon, a city in east San Diego County. Nine El Cajon police officers went door-to-door within a five-square-block area from where the boy was last seen, questioning every household.

Six days later, on a Friday morning at 7 a.m. on October 1, Donald’s body was found in a drainage ditch in the Murphy Canyon area, some 10 miles from his home. His body, which was believed to have been tossed from a bridge, was found near an abandoned sand-and-gravel plant in the canyon.

Donald had been sexually assaulted and then strangled. The San Diego County coroner’s office reported at the time that he’d most likely been killed shortly after he was abducted.

While the El Cajon Police Department initially investigated it as case number 151058, it was handed off to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. It’s now shown on both department’s Websites as a cold case with a brief description.

Several phone calls to each department, including the records division of the sheriff’s department and the homicide unit of El Cajon police, have turned up zero information and unanswered messages. No one seems to know which jurisdiction has the case.

What we do know, according to news reports at the time, is that Donald was a seventh grader at Emerald Junior High School in El Cajon, and had left his home at around 8 o’clock on a Saturday night. Then his body was found a few days later.

Barbara Channell wants to know if DNA was collected from the crime scene and, if so, has it been submitted for a possible match to the FBI’s National DNA Index System, which contains DNA contributed by federal, state, and local participating forensic laboratories. Over the years, she has emailed and called law enforcement but has learned nothing. “No one seems interested,” she said.

Looking back, Channell noted, “Donald was a pest coming in to the store and filling up our juke box with songs. We'd shoo him away. He had a smart mouth and seemed street smart. He thought he could take anyone on.”

The biggest sticking point for Barbara Channell is the question of DNA. “It just seems like there should be DNA from the crime scene,” she said.

The answer at this point is unknown.


Do You Live in an Unhealthy System?

0
0

I grew up in a disorganized system, never quite sure what to expect. My mother was beautiful, charming, and mercurial. There were small things—did she really say that or had I imagined it?  I used to doubt my memory, to feel something was wrong with me—until my first year of college. For my last two years of high school, we lived in Ramstein, Germany where my father was stationed as an Air Force colonel, and I dreamed of going to UCLA. In my senior year, I sent away for applications and filled out the forms. That May I hugged my acceptance letter to my chest as a promise of things to come.  

The next month,  my family moved to a tract house in southern California, near Norton Air Force Base  for my father’s  new assignment. In late August I was packing my clothes for college when my mother came into my room and announced that she and my father had transferred my acceptance to UC Riverside, just a few miles down the road, so I “wouldn’t have to go away to college.” I stood there, numb.  “We can’t afford it,” she said, and walked away.  My deep disappointment was punctuated by fear—did  my parents have financial problems? But that year, my mother got a mink coat and a new Mercedes for Christmas.  I got a part-time job and began saving my money. I moved out at the end of my sophomore year, declaring my independence from a system I could not trust.

Healthy systems promote trust. We can rely on people who mean what they say, who are  “congruent” (Rogers, 1989). Healthy communities offer social support, families and friends we can count on. We all need such support. Without it, people can experience  isolation, anxiety, depression, even weakened immune systems  (Cacioppo, Cacioppo,  Capitanio, & Cole, 2015). 

Trust builds community, combining reliability, honesty, and a sense of agency to promote greater concern for others and civic engagement (Twenge, Campbell, & Carter, 2014) . But recent research has shown a dramatic decline in trust in others and confidence in our social institutions over the past few decades (Twenge et al, 2014), which does not bode well for us as individuals or for the future of our democracy.

Each of our lives is part of a living system—from family systems to organizations to communities—where the action of one part influences the health of the whole. This insight has been affirmed fields from psychology, to ecology, physics, Eastern philosophy, and leadership theory (Dreher, 1996).  

Within this dynamic system, our daily choices are constantly creating the larger community around us. By recognizing those we can trust and living with greater reliability, honesty, and agency, each of us can subtly change the system, building greater trust within and around us.  

So here’s the question: what steps can you and I take today to start rebuilding trust in our world?  

References

Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P.,& Cole, S. W. (2015). The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. The Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (9), 1-9.35. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015240

Dreher, D. E. (1996). The Tao of personal leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Rogers, C. R. (1989). A client-centered/person-centered approach to therapy In H. Kirschenbaum & V. L. Henderson. (Eds.), The Carl Rogers Reader (pp. 135-138).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972-2012. Psychological Science, 25, 1914-1923.

 ********************

Diane Dreher is a best-selling author, personal coach, and professor at Santa Clara University. Her latest book is Your Personal Renaissance: 12 Steps to Finding Your Life’s True Calling.

Follow Diane on Twitter: Diane Dreher (@dianedreher) on Twitter

Like Diane on Facebook: Diane Dreher | Facebook

 

How To Get Someone to Change Their Mind

0
0

How To Get Someone to Change Their Mind

A film review of Diplomacy by Dr. Lloyd Sederer

On a hot night in late August of 1944 the Allies, led by General Patton’s army, had advanced to the periphery of occupied Paris. It was a matter of hours before Paris would be liberated after four years of Nazi rule, and General Charles de Gaulle would announce a free France.  Europe was finally to see an end to the bloodiest of all wars but Paris as we know it today was about to be destroyed.

So sets the stage for this gripping drama about how Paris was spared. The Nazis had planted the city with explosives that would destroy the Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, La Place de Concorde, the Louvre, Les Invalides, the Eiffel Tower, countless other iconic landmarks, 33 bridges, as well as central train stations whose destruction would cause the Seine to flood and add further massive damage to compound the devastation. Human casualties and damages were estimated to impact 1.5 million people.

General Dietrich von Choltitz (Niels Arestrup) had been dispatched to Paris two weeks earlier as its Governor to ‘restore control’. But Choltitz also was under Hitler’s order to demolish Paris, to cause it to mercilessly suffer the fate of Berlin, Hamburg, and other German cities. When the Allies pushed through the German lines into Paris he was to give the order. What happened that he did not?

Diplomacy tells a fictionalized version of what happened, since no one quite knows. First a play (Diplomatie, 2011, by Cyril Gély, who with Director Volker Schlöndorff wrote the screenplay for this film) the film combines the power of theatre with the visual scope of film. The Swedish Consul in Paris, Raoul Nordling (André Dussollier, the distinguished French actor most recently known for Amélie,A Very Long Engagement and Tell No One), surreptitiously enters Choltitz’s headquarters at the Hotel Meurice and changes his mind.

Nordling had lived in Paris most of his life. He recently had negotiated with the General for the release of political prisoners so he was no stranger to the Nazi Governor. But his goal of averting the bombing was to call for extraordinary skill, as we witness as both men go at it for the crisp 88 minutes of this film.

As a psychiatrist, I loved the movie. I saw enacted how to change the mind of someone resolute in his decision. Life or death can hang in the balance, as it did in the film and as it does, for example, in mental health care when someone has decided to suicide; or believes they are God and commanded to act in a way destructive to others; or is addicted to drugs, alcohol, or tobacco; and countless other instances when someone has exited from reason and responsibility.

The work of changing a person’s mind starts with believing they are ambivalent in their conviction or planned behavior. Ambivalence is different from having doubt: ambivalence means holding two contradictory views or feelings at the same time; doubt is about questioning. The work of mental change is to enable someone to move from death to life, from compulsion to recovery, from delusion to reality. The change agent, whether they be a mental health professional or a diplomat, must believe that the now present conviction is but one side of a powerful psychological dilemma within that person - that he or she is ambivalent and can, thus, equally occupy the opposite pole of their resolve.

Consul Nordling has four principal tactics that enable him to prevail. First, he knows that control must reside in the General, and will never be ceded to him. Second, he makes sure that he avoids politics.
Third, he finds a way to make it personal. And fourth, he knows that any change must serve the interests of his subject. The Consul’s intelligence and charm help but the General is too dedicated and wizened to be won over by these refinements. Choltitz has fought in two wars and carried out horrendous orders as his “duty”; he is not about to be sweet talked into anything.

Nordling has the gift of empathy, which shapes his every move. He uses a variety of approaches, including imagery (children, the future of both countries); shame (the criminal act of razing a City and its inhabitants); remorse; generous doses of reality; calling upon self-respect and pride; evoking the integrity of Choltitz being the third generation in his family of German military leaders; even portraying the glory of the General as a savior. Nordling notices on the wall an etching of Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac and asks what kind of man would obey an order, even from God, if the price was the death of a child?  He knows when to show humility and admit he is wrong. Nordling understands the power of kindness and takes a gamble on it when he might have otherwise let Choltitz succumb to an asthma attack.  

But as powerful, and necessary, as these tactics are they are not sufficient to change the General’s mind. It is only when the Consul’s unbending efforts at change bring the General to the personal is he poised to find the good instead of the bad. Only then can Choltitz admit to the barbarism and hate that have driven his orders from the Führer, and with Nordling find a way to both save Paris and to save what the General holds most precious, namely his family.

The next time you are in Paris take time to admire its elegance and antiquity. But for one person’s ability to help another change, for what must have been masterful diplomacy, you might not be able to enjoy the view.

……….

 

Dr. Sederer's book for families who have a member with a mental illness is The Family Guide to Mental Health Care (Foreword by Glenn Close). 

Dr. Sederer is a psychiatrist and public health physician. The views expressed here are entirely his own. He takes no support from any pharmaceutical or device company.

www.askdrlloyd.com -- Follow Lloyd I. Sederer, MD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/askdrlloyd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Revolution in Selection Testing

0
0

On this, its 100th anniversary, it is interesting to reflect that World War I provided the stimulus for the birth of aptitude testing.  Led by American Psychological Association President Robert Yerkes, psychologists rallied around the war effort and in very short order produced aptitude tests – not so very different from those used today – that greatly improved the military’s ability to select, classify, and assign soldiers to jobs.

A hundred years and thousands of empirical studies later, psychologists now have an arsenal of aptitude and intelligence tests that are widely used in education, the military, and industry.  These tests are highly reliable and valid, and are of great utility in personnel selection and assignment.  However, as good as these tests are, evidence suggests they account for only about 25 percent of variability in academic grades, job performance, or other outcome variables they are meant to predict.  Said another way, 75 percent of the variation in performance is left unaccounted for by these tests.  

Today’s military psychologists are actively exploring ways to measure non-cognitive attributes including drive, motivation, character, and job interests in an attempt to significantly increase the predictive validity of selection testing.  The stakes are high.  Even modest improvements in predictive validity, spread over the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who are brought into the military each year, will have a substantial impact on job performance and training costs. 

I was lucky enough to be involved in some early efforts in this domain. Shortly after being commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Force, I was assigned to the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory. There I had the opportunity to work with Dr. William Alley, who had developed an interest inventory called the Vocational Interest Career Exam (VOICE).  The VOICE consisted of two scales.  The first was a basic interest inventory (interest in the outdoors, science, reading, etc.).  The second scale, formulated from the basic interests scale, linked constellations of basic interests to Air Force enlisted occupational categories.  In short, Dr. Alley found that certain patterns of basic interests were linked to different jobs and he was able to predict a recruit’s job satisfaction for these different jobs.  Later, we found that these predicted job satisfaction scores were significantly linked to subsequent measures of attrition, retention, and job performance.

Although the VOICE showed promise in improving Air Force enlisted selection and assignment it was not adopted.  The Air Force was and continues to be very focused on materiel systems such as state-of-the-art fighter planes and “selling” something like the VOICE to the senior leadership proved impossible.  It may be that the Zeitgeist was not ready for something like the VOICE.  The United States was focused on deterring peer adversaries, especially the Soviet Union, and to do so had to focus most of its attention on designing, acquiring, and maintaining expensive military hardware.  Something like the VOICE barely got anyone’s attention.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the shift away from confrontations between nuclear superpowers to smaller, lower-intensity but seemingly never ending conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the importance of optimizing human performance has become more salient for military planners and strategists.  Combined with budget strain resulting in a downsizing of the military, it has become ever more important to get the most out of military personnel as possible.  The Zeitgeist seems to have shifted, at least for the Army, toward an appreciation of the role of behavioral science in improving the performance of military personnel. 

Thus, in recent years the military is paying a great deal more attention to psychological research in general, and to advances in non-cognitive testing as a means to improve selection and assignment, in particular.  Indeed, there is too much excellent research to summarize in a short blog, so I will only point out a few highlights.  If you are interested in learning more details about these developments, I refer you to a recent special issue of Military Psychology edited by Michael Rumsey [Military Psychology, 26(3), 2014].

Grit is a non-cognitive trait that has received a substantial amount of attention both within the military and in other contexts.  University of Pennsylvania psychologist Dr. Angela Duckworth developed the concept of grit, which she describes as the passionate pursuit of long-term, difficult to achieve goals.  In her initial reporting of grit research, Dr. Duckworth and colleagues found grit to be correlated positively with age and educational attainment, grades received in college courses, and success among participants in the National Spelling Bee.[i]  Of special interest to the military community, she found that grit – as measured by a 12-item Likert scale – predicted the success of new West Point cadets, particularly in completing their demanding and rigorous basic training course.  Indeed, in predicting basic training completion, grit was the only measure that predicted success.  Aptitude, as measured primarily by SAT and ACT scores, was not correlated at all with course completion.  Subsequently, other researchers have found grit to be useful in predicting completion of other military training, notably the arduous army special forces selection program.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences is doing some of the most notable and systematic research on non-cognitive attributes of soldier performance. For example, they have designed and extensively evaluated the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System, or TAPAS.  The TAPAS represents a leap forward in selection and assignment evaluation, and utilizes a force-choice format, rather than Likert scales, to measure five different dimensions of non-cognitive attributes:  extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience.  TAPAS also include a measure of physical conditioning.  TAPAS has been field tested at Military Entrance Processing Stations.  A detailed description of the findings is beyond the scope of this blog, but when combined with traditional aptitude-based measures, the ability of the army to predict important organizational outcomes such as job performance and retention is significantly improved.

In this short space, I can only tease the reader with these two examples of how the science of psychological assessment has matured beyond aptitude testing.  And, just as early aptitude tests first developed by the army during World War I were later seized by business and industry as tools for improving their own personnel management systems, I expect the advances that military psychologists make today will also find their way into other institutions as ways of improving selection, classification, job performance, and retention.  These emerging testing strategies represent a tangible way of improving talent management in large organizations.

Note:  The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the United States Military Academy, the Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense.

[i] Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007).  Grit: Perseverance and passion for long term goals.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087-1101.

Love Your Work, Hate Your Tattoos and Piercings

0
0

Any discussion about tattoos and piercings in the workplace should start with full disclosure: I have tattoos.  Okay, I have a lot of tattoos.  Both of my arms are half-sleeved down to my elbows.  I have tattoos all over my left calf, down to the top of my left foot, and on both shoulder blades.  I have no piercings, brandings, diamonds on my teeth, or jewelry embedded under my skin.  I do have a mustache, but because I was a cop and they made me keep it when I retired, it’s the standard police-issue kind; nothing hairily creative or oddly-shaped about it.

Tattoos today are old hat.  In days of yore, your grandpa had a ship’s anchor on his forearm, to commemorate his time in the Navy during WWII, or the guy who worked at the traveling carnival was covered from scalp to toes, or the ex-convict had some weird allegorical freedom symbols scrawled all over his body.  Now your bank teller has a butterfly on her wrist, the soccer moms all have flowers on their shoulder blades or their kids’ names wrapped around their ankles, and the guy on the bus in the suit reading Forbes has a full arm sleeve.  Go to any public gathering during pleasant weather and you’ll see tattoos everywhere and times ten if it’s an under 30 crowd.

Tattoo regret is a whole subsection of Google Images and a lot of tattoo artists make a decent living covering up junk from previous tattoo non-artists who failed Shading 101 in Art School.  There are dermatologists who specialize in just tattoo removal and after a few (or a dozen, sometimes) laser treatments, your tribute to the band The Dropkick Murphys is a lightly-scarred memory.

Ask younger adults in the working world about tattoo discrimination and they will begin an extended rant about how companies have no right to make value judgments (read that as “company policies”) about how they choose to adorn their bodies.  Tattoo acceptance in the workplace is a matter of company culture, executive ruling, and perhaps even the need to attract, hire, and retain employees that fit a certain demographic.  If you run a video game company and you outlaw tattoos for all employees, you may find yourself sitting in the building alone.  And does it matter on a construction site if the guys tiling the floors are inked?  Does the coffee barista make a better or worse cup of your morning java if he or she has tattoos or doesn’t?  Starbucks seems to answer in the negative, since they don’t allow their employees to show their tattoos, and now, it appears, in a new attack on jewelry freedoms, no gem-encrusted rings or diamond-heavy wedding rings on the mitts of their people either.  I suppose getting a tourmaline in your latte would be hard on your digestive tract.

The company line defining the balance between acceptable and unacceptable is both thin, judgmental, and seemingly arbitrary.  Some firms write policies that prohibit tattoos on their employees’ hands, palms, fingers, necks, or faces, all areas that can’t be covered by long sleeves or pants.  Others make no such restrictions, saying only that no tattoos can be racist, anti-religious, demeaning, profane or hostile to anyone.  So does that mean you could sport a big piece on your forearm that says, “Darth Vader Sucks” and still be within policy?  Some companies have instituted a “percentage policy,“ saying “Employees cannot have more than 30 percent of visible tattoos,” which I imagine causes HR people to carry around their elementary school protractors and have to recall some basic geometry theorems to decide if they have compliance or not.   

And piercings and other body modifications, like scarring, branding, or embedding causes HR to have to ask the company lawyers for even more guidelines.  For some jobs, pierced ears on men are fine, on others, no way. If you work in a factory, they are going to ask you to remove anything that hangs from your ears or other parts of your body that could get caught in a whirling machine.  Makes sense, right?  No avulsions here, please.  But can your employer decree that you cannot pierce your nose, face, eyebrows, or blow out your ear lobes with plugs if you work in the back office at a loan brokerage and see no clients?   

“Why should a business owner or manager care?” is the lament of the tattooed or pierced employee.  Why do some companies have strong anti-body modification policies and others have none?  The US military and most police and fire departments have strict guidelines, but other first-responders, not so much. What’s the impact on the business, the customers, and other employees?  Should it matter to your clients or customers or do they have the same things on their bodies too?

Even getting this discussion past tattoos and on to other more unique (or some would say creepy) forms of body modification forces HR to come up with even more policies about “acceptable appearance in our workplace.”  What do they say about employees who split their tongues, or want to wear gold or metallic grills over their teeth (or “golds” or “fronts” as the hip-hoppers call them), permanently-tattooed eyeliner and cheek rouge, or buttons embedded under the skin of their foreheads?

And how creative can employees get with their facial hair?  We’ve all seen highly-stylized beards, creative mustaches, and interesting side burns.  And what about hair?  When I was in the cops, I worked with San Diego firefighters who had pony tails.  Is it okay to shave cool sports logos and other designs into the side of your head on Saturday and show up at work on Monday?  Should HR and the company leaders be able to dictate hair policies too?  Can I dye my hair lime green, shave my head into a reverse Mohawk, or just shave half of it (or let it fall out naturally, as I have been doing for years) and come to work, ready to serve?     

What is the dividing line between allowing employees to express themselves or simply demanding, by policy and the use of progressive discipline, that people toe (they wear rings there too) the line at work and “look like everyone else?”  Is this a new form of discrimination, ageism, or “body appearance racism”?  Let the lawyers start the battle for what the employers can do versus what employee want to do.  “You don’t have to work here and you shouldn’t apply if you’re going to look ‘strange’” is one way some HR people or company brass might look at it.  Or, “We hire people who are creative, highly individualistic, and even a little showy and narcissistic.  We like that they bring their true selves to the office every day.”

Let’s go the source.  Here are the words of a Millennial female employee I know:

“Body modifications are not in the public domain.  Many people just assume my tattoos are a conversation piece or some sort of statement. They’re not.  They’re simply choices I’ve made as to what I show to others and to myself.  Just like another person’s clothes, hair, or weight, it’s none of your business what someone does to modify their own body.”

“In almost every single other case of people being uncomfortable with another person’s appearance, they would be compelled to keep their opinions to themselves.  Here, they’ve made it company policy.  Because of Baby Boomer bosses, who seem to have an antiquated association of body modification with drunken sailors and convicts, Generations X and Y must now suffer the consequences. The methods, practices, and artistry in tattooing have come a long way since then. We are no longer dealing with badly-scrawled images on servicemen and criminals; we are seeing expensive and exquisitely-done artwork, with our bodies as the canvas, as a temple to adorn with what we choose. This has no bearing on our work ethics, motivation, jobs skills, personality types, or on our past life, work, or educational experiences.  It’s just decorated skin.”

“The issue that seems to drive most company policies on tattoos and piercings is wanting their employees to appear ‘professional.’  To this, I’d say we’ve already reached a point where the assumption that ‘professional’ people don’t have tattoos is totally baseless. Doctors, teachers, lawyers, brain surgeons, astrophysicists, cops, firefighters, and grandmothers have tattoos.  You’d be hard pressed to find a profession that doesn’t have tattooed people. This is because body modifications are not limiting in any way shape or form.  At the heart of the idea of ‘employee professionalism’ is the desire of a business and its people to be perceived as trustworthy, hardworking, service-oriented, helpful, and reassuring. To not allow tattoos or piercings is to assert that people with them are not any of those things. This is a baseless idea, which millions of body modifiers defy at their jobs daily.”

Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, BCC, is a San Diego-based speaker, author, trainer, and consultant.  He focuses on high-risk HR problems, employee coaching, threat assessments, and workplace and school violence issues.  In 1994, he co-wrote Ticking Bombs, one of the first books on workplace violence.  He is board certified in HR, security, and coaching. He holds a doctorate in Business Administration, an M.A. in Security Management, a B.S. in Psychology, and a B.A. in English.  He worked for the San Diego Police Department for 15 years and has written 16 books on business, HR, and criminal justice subjects.  He hosts a weekly radio show, “Crime Time with Steve Albrecht.” You can hear episodes, sign up for his monthly newsletter, and follow him on Twitter at his web site, www.DrSteveAlbrecht.com

The Gut Microbiome, Anxiety and Depression: 6 Steps to Take

0
0

Probiotic microbiome for anxiety and depressionImpressive new research is emerging every day regarding the role of the microbiome of the digestive tract lining. The microbiome refers to the healthful bacteria, or ‘good germs’ that line our digestive tracts. The digestive tract itself is a center point of the nervous system, hormonal system and immune system. It is responsible for the balance of the our molecules of emotion, the neurotransmitters, and as a result is an important player for best mood. And good bacteria is an important part of healthy digestion.  Probiotics are known not only to help the digestion, but are key factors in obesity, hormonal balance, healthy kidney function, and much more.

How Do Probiotics Help the Brain?

Medical research is uncovering the mechanism of probiotics in mood. These healthy germs boost mood in two important ways: they generate a particular neurotransmitter called gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and also enhance the brain receptors for GABA as well. Like a warm and gentle blanket for the brain, GABA is calming amino acid, known to calm areas of the brain that are over active in anxiety and panic and in some forms of anxious depression.

Animal studies working with mice showed those mice who ingested probiotics were, in general, more chilled out than the control mice.  The probiotic mice had lower levels of corticosterone in response to stress. Corticosterone is the mouse version of the human stress hormone cortisol. High levels of cortisol are common in anxiety as well as depression.  These mice were fed either the probiotic strain Lactobacillus rhamnosus or a broth without these. The lactobacillus-fed animals showed significantly fewer stress, anxiety and depression-related behaviors than those fed with just broth (Bravo et al., 2011).

Human studies have also corroborated these murine (mouse) findings. A French team learned via a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized parallel group study that giving humans specific strains of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium for 30 days yielded beneficial psychological effects including lowered depression, less anger and hostility, anxiety, and better problem solving, compared with the placebo group (Messaoudi et al., 2011). 

Yeast and the Microbiome

While a healthy microbiome will contribute to good mood, an unhealthy one full of Candida albicans (yeast), and all the toxins associated with it, may also contribute to mood disorder. Presence of yeast will alter the ability to absorb nutrients and push hypersensitivity reactions of toxin by-products which translates to inflammation in the body. Inflammation will greatly contribute to depression, anxiety and poor mental function (Rucklidge, 2013).

 

Unhealthy microbiome  yeast buildup  toxic byproducts → hypersensitivity reactions  inflammation  mood problems (anxiety and depression)

 

What You Can Do To Keep Your Microbiome Healthy?

Steps you can take for a healthy microbiome and mood are:

1 –Avoid excess sugary foods: to avoid yeast build up. 

2 –Good Quality Sleep: good sleep is key for the intestinal lining to repair and create a healthy microbiome.

3 –Meditation and Relaxation: Meditation and quality down time is important to keep the body in the ‘rest and digest’ mode instead of stress mode. Stress mode shuts circulation to the gut, which doesn’t allow a healthy microbiome.

4 – Eat Foods with Fiber: Good fiber helps feed the good bacteria and keeps them healthy. Vegetables, fruits, psyllium, flax, inulin and other fibers also help keep good flora and proper balance of short chain fatty acids in the intestines. 

5 – Eat Probiotic Foods: While the French study mentioned above used a supplement, there are also many wonderful natural foods full of probiotics. In my opinion, foods, over supplements, are always the best way to go for long term health. These include natto (a traditional Japanese fermented food), kim chi (Korean style cabbage), sauerkraut, yogurt, kefir, tempeh, fermented milk (like buttermilk), miso, and non-baked cheeses (like aged cheese). Homemade sauerkraut is better than store bought, for the store bought stuff is pasteurized, which kills some of the good probiotics.

6 – Consider a probiotic supplement: For patients with health issues, sometimes it makes sense to use a supplement along with foods. A good quality supplement should contain with Lactobacillus and bifidus bacteria. There are a number of good ones on the market and some that are poorly made, so if you choose to take a supplement, make sure the manufacturer is of the highest quality in terms of raw materials, culturing techniques, and quality control. My clinic uses Restoraflora, which contains about 4 billion bacteria per capsule. If you purchase one in the store, find a refrigerated version that doesn't have any binders, fillers, milk products, or corn.

 


Dr. Peter BongiornoPeter Bongiorno, N.D., L.Ac.,
naturopathic doctor and acupuncturist, is a leader in the natural medicine field. He is President of the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians and has a private practice in Huntington and New York City. Peter completed his medical training at Bastyr University in Seattle, and researched at both Yale University and the National Institutes of Health. He teaches an integrative medicine class at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine authored How Come They’re Happy and I’m Not? The Complete Natural Guide to Healing Depression for Good and the upcoming book Holistic Therapies for Anxiety and Depression by Norton Press. More about Peter can be found at drpeterbongiorno.com and innersourcehealth.com.

Please follow me on twitter: @drbongiorno

References

Bravo JA, Forsythe P, Chew MV, Escaravage E, Savignac HM, Dinan TG, Bienenstock J, Cryan JF. Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Sep 20;108(38):16050-5

Messaoudi M, Lalonde R, Violle N, Javelot H, Desor D, Nejdi A, Bisson JF, Rougeot C, Pichelin M, Cazaubiel M, Cazaubiel JM. Assessment of psychotropic-like properties of a probiotic formulation (Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175) in rats and human subjects. Br J Nutr. 2011 Mar;105(5):755-64.

Rucklidge JJ. Could yeast infections impair recovery from mental illness? A case study using micronutrients and olive leaf extract for the treatment of ADHD and depression. Adv Mind Body Med. 2013;27(3):14-8.

 

For Love That is Happily-Ever-After, Try Gratitude

0
0

Fairy tales promised happily-ever-after. When I was a little girl, we were raised to believe that someday our prince would come.  Cinderella found her dream when Prince Charming slipped her foot into the glass slipper. Then there was Snow White; she was awakened by the kiss of her prince.  Slowly society evolved in such a way that Prince Charming came and went leaving many women in debt.

As a society our dream of happily-ever-after has been evolving into happily after the divorce settlement or happily after the next marriage.  In 2010, after a Pew Research Center survey was released, they noted a sharp decline in marriage. “In 1960, two-thirds (68%) of all twenty-somethings were married. In 2008, just 26% were. How many of today’s youth will eventually marry is an open question.” In the executive summary the researchers noted:

“For now, the survey finds that the young are much more inclined than their elders to view cohabitation without marriage and other new family forms — such as same sex marriage and interracial marriage — in a positive light.” (1)

Couples and conflict:

Whether married or living together, couple’s face conflict. A conversation between the late Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth and Bill Moyers focused on marriage; it can easily be applied to those making the commitment of cohabitation. Professor Campbell called loyalty the essence of marriage — “not cheating, not defecting — through whatever trials or suffering, you remain true.”  

Bill Moyers said:  “The Puritans call marriage the little church within the church.  In marriage, every day you love, and every day you forgive.  It is an ongoing sacrament — love and forgiveness.”

Professor Campbell added: “The real life of a marriage or a true love affair is in the relationship…. Marriage is the symbolic recognition of our identity  — two aspects of the same being.” (2)

If in marriage or a committed relationship the concept of  “two aspects of the same being”  can be translated into finding a person who brings out the best in you and you in them – perhaps this the start of happily-ever-after.

 The role of gratitude:

One way to enhance a relationship might well be with a simple attitude of gratitude, which brings us good health and happiness according to continued research from the University of California at Berkeley and UC Davis.  With a $5.6 million grant, researchers are studying gratitude from a scientific perspective.

Robert A. Emmons, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at UC Davis -- whom I've interviewed -- says, “Gratitude is an attitude, not a feeling that can be easily willed . . .  Attitude change often follows behavior change.  By living the gratitude that we do not necessarily feel, we can begin to feel that gratitude that we live.”  (3)

Smiling, saying “thank you,” sending thank-you notes, and making gratitude visits are attitude boosters. If one thinks about a relationship or marriage as the entwining of a couple’s positive qualities as well as negative traits, then working together to tame the negative and enhance the positive -- with simple acts of gratitude -- we might see the beginning of a happiness trend.

By making a conscious effort to integrate gratitude as part of your life, the sense of appreciation eventually outweighs petty annoyances and feelings that lead to the bickering of:  “If you loved me you would...." 

At Michigan’s Adrian College graduation this May, the commencement address was  “Live in Gratitude and Thanksgiving.” Dr. John E. Harnish, pointed out, “If you approach life as a given, something you somehow deserve, you will be sadly disappointed. If you approach life as a gift, everything will be received with thanks.” 

 References:

1. The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families | Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, November. 17, 2010.

2. Campbell, Jospeh, with Bill Moyers. The Power of Myth. NY: Doubleday, 1988.

3. Emmons, Robert, Why Does Gratitude Matter? , Greater Good Science Center, University of Callifornia, Davis, September 10, 2014.

Copyright 2014 Rita Watson

Science and Religion

0
0

The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.

– Meister Eckhart (c.1260–1327), German mystic

I am, as it were, an eye that the cosmos uses to look at itself.

– Rudy Rucker (1946–    ), American mathematician and philosopher. This, and the preceding epigraph, are reminiscent of King Lear's lament: "And take upon us the mystery of things, As if we were God's spies."

I, Galileo Galilei, aged 70, arraigned before this tribunal of Inquisitors against heretical depravity, swear that I have always believed all that is taught by the Church. But whereas I wrote a book in which I adduce arguments of great cogency ... that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves, I abjure, curse, and detest these errors and heresies and I swear that I will never again assert anything that might furnish occasion for suspicion regarding me.

– Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Italian astronomer who, threatened with torture by the Inquisition, here recants his belief that the earth moves around the sun (but cannot resist pointing out that his arguments do have "great cogency"). After delivering his retraction, he is said to have whispered under his breath, "But it does move!" He spent the rest of his life under house arrest making further astronomical discoveries and writing books for posterity. In 1992, an ecclesiastical commission appointed by Pope John Paul II acknowledged that Galileo had been right.

I now saw very plainly that these were little eels, or worms, lying all huddled up together and wriggling; the whole water seemed to be alive with these multifarious animalcules. I must say that no more pleasant sight has ever yet come before my eye than these many thousands of living creatures, seen all alive in a little drop of water, moving among one another, each creature having its own proper motion.

We cannot in any better manner glorify the Lord and Creator of the universe than that in all things, however small they appear to our naked eyes, but which have yet received the gift of life and power of increase, we contemplate the display of His omnificence and perfections with the utmost admiration.

– Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723), Dutch scientist, inventor of the microscope, describing the bacteria he was the first to see.

Sire, I found no need for that particular assumption.

– Pierre Simon Laplace (1749–1827), French mathematician and astronomer, in response to Napoleon, who had asked him what place was left to God in his system of celestial mechanics.

[The 21st] century will be defined by a debate that will run through the remainder of its decades: religion versus science. Religion will lose.

– John McLaughlin (1927–    ), former Jesuit priest and TV talk show host

The writers of the Bible were ... as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible.

– Monseigneur George Lemaître (1895–1966), Belgian Jesuit priest and physicist, Father of the Big Bang

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.

I am convinced that [God] does not play dice [with the universe].

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.

I am a deeply religious unbeliever.

– Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

– Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968), American Civil Rights Leader and Nobel-laureate

Description demands intense observation, so intense that the veil of everyday habit falls away and what we paid no attention to, because it struck us as so ordinary, is revealed as miraculous.

– Czeslaw Milosz (1911–2004), Nobel-laureate Polish poet

The place where we do our scientific work is a place of prayer.

– Joseph Needham (1900–1995), British biochemist, sinologist, and historian of science

Religious feeling is as much a verity as any other part of human consciousness; and against it, on the subjective side, the waves of science beat in vain.

– John Tyndall (1820–1893), Irish physicist who explained why the sky is blue.

There is a grandeur in this view of life.

– Charles Darwin (1809–1882), English naturalist whose theory of evolution undermined theological dogma more than anything since Copernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system

I asserted that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.

– Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895), English biologist making an ad hominem attack on Bishop Wilberforce for criticizing Darwin's theory of evolution

Basically, everything is one. There is no way in which you can draw a line between things. I think maybe poets have some understanding of this.

Every time I walk on grass I feel sorry, because I know the grass is screaming at me.

– Barbara McClintock (1902–1992), American Nobel prize-winning geneticist

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.

– Stephen Hawking (1930–    ), British physicist and author a best-selling but seldom-read book A Brief History of Time. The film version is more accessible.

You can talk about people like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and Confucius, but the thing that really convinced me that such people exist were conversations with Niels Bohr.

– John A. Wheeler (1911–1908), leading American physicist who co-authored a seminal paper on nuclear fission with Niels Bohr

Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.

If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

– Thomas Szasz (1920–   ), Hungarian-born American psychiatrist and writer

Medicine makes people ill, mathematics makes them sad, and theology makes them sinful.

– Martin Luther (1483–1546), German Protestant reformer

It is a strange and long war, the war that violence is forever waging against truth. All the efforts of violence are powerless to weaken truth, and serve only to make it stronger. All the lights of truth are powerless to stop violence, and serve only to make it angrier. Do not suppose, however, that the two are equal: there is one very great difference between them. The course of violence is directed by God who channels its effects to the exaltation of the truth it attacks; where truth subsists eternally and in the end triumphs over all its enemies, for it is eternal and powerful as God himself.

– Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), French scientist and philosopher

Though much has been written foolishly about the antagonism of science and religion, there is indeed no such antagonism. What all these world religions declare by inspiration and insight, history as it grows clear and science as its range extends display, as a reasonable and demonstrable fact, that men form one universal brotherhood, that they spring from one common origin, that their individual lives, their nations and races, interbreed and blend and go on to merge again at last in one common human destiny upon this little planet amidst the stars.

– H. G. Wells (1866–1946), British writer, from his Outline of History written in 1920.

Awe is an intuition of the dignity of all things, a realization that things not only are what they are but also stand, however remotely, for something supreme.

– Abraham Heschel (1907–1972), Polish-born American rabbi and philosopher

From The Wisdom of Science


An Attitude of Curiosity

0
0

Did curiosity really kill the cat? Is it truly dangerous to want to learn, to move yourself toward knowing something more?

Or does it allow us to explore—to change, in small ways as well as large?

I don’t typically write here about myself—even though “back in the day” web logs were all about oneself—but that was eons before tweets and selfies took over. Still, here’s a true story, to illustrate the point.

A bit over a year ago, I decided to take a drawing class. I’ve been interested and involved in the visual arts throughout my life in a variety of ways. This time I had a different goal: I wanted to see if I could understand how it is that with a single line—the essence of two-dimensionality—an artist can convey three dimensions, figures in space. While I may set the bar pretty high sometimes, I didn’t want to compete with Picasso or Matisse. I just wanted to figure out how they could do this sleight of hand (and eye).

How was I going to figure it out? The most direct way might be by taking a drawing class myself. Well, it took a year to free my schedule up enough to make space for a class. Item one accomplished.

It turned out there were any number of further obstacles yet to be overcome.

Like: What equipment do I need for the class?

The instructor supplies an illustrated list of items to be purchased. I walk into an art supply store, list in hand. What could be so difficult? All I need is paper and pencils—and a few other things. But I’m…overwhelmed. It turns out there are options for everything. Possibilities. Take pencils, for example: wooden pencils, woodless graphite pencils, a seemingly infinite variety of types and gradations. H’s and B’s and HB’s and….

If this example seems a bit abstract to you, imagine that you want to purchase some paper. Somebody thrusts a Staples catalogue in your hand (or on your screen). Where do you start? What are the parameters? What’s important? What differentiates multipurpose paper from color copy paper from specialty paper from…? If you’ve been around different types and grades of paper for a while, the answer may seem simple. But if you haven’t…. We take a lot of what we know for granted.

So here I am, looking around….I can’t even figure out where the pencil section is. My natural tendency is to believe that I should know everything already. You name it, and I should know it—whether I have any experience or not. The good news: I recognize this absurd belief when it shows up. And this time, I see it coming from miles away.

The truth is: I don’t know. I could, of course, prowl the store, hunting for the pencils, seeing if I can scope out one from another…from another…from another….

Instead, I decide to be curious. To see what I can understand and learn.

There’s another thing: An attitude of curiosity allows me to observe. To pay attention to the most elemental things. Paper, pencils. Things that are around us all the time—that we don’t notice.

Happily, a clerk—who does know—is quite willing to walk me through the aisles with my list, helping to differentiate one object from another.

Loaded up with my new supplies, I go to the first class. And of course I have a choice about how to approach it: I can pay attention to all the differences between me and the other students. I can make comparisons—and it’s a guarantee that many will be self-critical. I can worry about how the instructor will “grade” me—even if I’m not taking the course for a grade.

Or: I can approach the class with curiosity. I can be open to what I will learn.

Although I need to keep reminding myself of this spirit of inquiry, I’m able to do so. I’m aided and abetted by two aspects: immersion in paying attention and the attitude of the instructor. As with any creative process (see, for example, a blog I wrote about the process of writing), the only way it works is by being open and non-judgmental first…the critical voice will have plenty of time later. In class, I work at “just” seeing, “just” putting hand to paper. And the instructor (fortunately!) is very clear in encouraging us to just notice, not to judge.

Does this sound like mindfulness? Well, it should. My colleague Rezvan Ameli recently commented that mindfulness has “several overlapping and interrelated features…including attention, present moment orientation, non-judgment, letting go, the so-called beginner’s mind, and acceptance.”

And what a pay-off this has for me, not only in learning to draw but also in truly paying attention to what I see. Later the same week, I visit the Phillips Collection in Washington DC. At an exhibit on Neo-Impressionism, I look at the ways that pointillist painters constructed a sense of volume out of small shards of color. I visit Renoir’s famous Luncheon of the Boating Party, observing these nearly life-size friends in conversation. Instead of standing right in front of the painting, when I stand to the left of the painting suddenly it’s as if a place has been laid for me to sit at the table with the boating party. I have no doubt that that’s what Renoir intended—but I’ve never before really seen this painting in this way.

A couple of years ago, I wrote here about having an “attitude of gratitude” at Thanksgiving. Here’s another attitude we can cultivate: an attitude of curiosity.

 

If you would like to be in contact with me directly, send me a note via my website, www.theperformingedge.com

 

Which Children Are The Best Liars? How About Adults?

0
0

What predicts who will be more successful at deception? One important line of research had adolescents, aged 11 to 16, lie or tell the truth about their enjoyment of a soft drink that tasted either good or bad. Adult judges watched them on videotape and tried to determine if they were lying or telling the truth. Beforehand, the researchers had assessed each adolescent’s possession of social skills. As you might imagine, the more socially skilled kids were the most successful liars.

Our own research has investigated what it is that makes socially skilled people better liars than persons with less social competence. The primary reason that socially skilled people make better liars is that they are able to look “honest” regardless of whether they are lying or truth-telling. What are some of these honest-looking nonverbal cues? Speaking quickly, without hesitations or speech errors, and keeping a pleasant, positive facial expression, are cues that tend to be interpreted as truthful.

What about verbal cues? We found that when lying, successful liars are those who tell a “plausible” story or lie.

References

Feldman, R.S., Tomasian, J.C., & Coats, E.J. (1999). Nonverbal Deception Abilities and Adolescents' Social Competence: Adolescents with Higher Social Skills are Better Liars. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 237-249.

Riggio, R.E., Tucker, J.S., & Widaman, K.F. (1987). Verbal and nonverbal cues as mediators of deception ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 126-145.

Follow me on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/ronriggio

 

Why Are Married Men Deliberately Doing Honey Do's Wrong?

0
0

The blogosphere and cable news shows exploded this weekend with the news of a new study by Victoria Plumb of 2000 people who live with a partner. It found that 30% of the men intentionally sabotage their honey do's  around the house so their exasperated partner will do it for them, noting that "most guys will admit they don't always pull their weight when it comes to the cleaning, but it's worrying to see so many purposely do a bad job."

Most television pundits expressed surprise and exaperation at these results. But this is to be expected from compliant men who have bought into the predominant cultural view in America that the romantic ends justify the means. Using physical attraction, charm and feigned compatibility to gain a sexual relationship has its price.

Despite healthy motives, the compliant man eventually finds himself feeling resentful. After the honeymoon peak of the relationship, when the man was willing to forgo food, drink and sleep to please his lover's every desire, he gradually begins to tire of always accommodating his unsuspecting mate. She will usually have no idea why her devoted swain no longer seems to have his heart in the household maintenance, social activities and family events he seemed to enjoy so much with her during their initial courtship and bonding.

Our hero can't let on that his initial persona was not genuine. In the movies George Clooney or Brad Pitt only has to be Prince Charming  for two hours. But this compliant man must live out his persona  for the rest of his life. He becomes an actor who must portray his role twenty-four hours a day, with no flubbed lines or missed cues. He is not allowed to take off his costume, wash off his greasepaint and relax with a smoke in the comfort of his dressing room. He has a fully committed partner waiting in the wings who believes in all her heart in the character he is depicting. Not surprisingly, most begin to wear down over time. What is an actor to do?

 The only way for our compliant man to preserve a relationship born on a false premise is to continue to accede to her wishes. Thus he feels trapped. He eventually begins to look at his beloved as his oppressor and begins to lead a second. secret life, stealing away  for precious moments to do the things he really enjoys, like watching ESPN or The Golf Channel in his Man Cave. Thus it is no wonder this study  found that 40% of men want to get the honey do's done as soon as possible to get back to what they really like doing. They no longer see the need to put the painstaking effort to properly wash the dishes, clean the bathroom  or make the bed that they would have gladly done at the beginning of the relationship when they wanted to impress their woman. Now it's just one more roadblock in the way of having fun.

The compliant man's seamless performance will inevitably begin to slip. His mate will notice the dust swept under the rug instead of being vacuumed, accumulating dishes not loaded into the dishwasher, the laundry hamper bursting with dirty clothes, the trash can  in the kitchen overflowing and the streaks on the bathroom mirror as the physical intensity of the relationship begins to wane. Half measures, less than the minimum and short cuts become the rule instead of the exception. But the compliant man will resist discussing the real reason for the decline in his honey do skills. That might lead to questioning the very premise of the relationship.

Don't Touch My Phone!

0
0

Would you let someone use your cell phone to make a call? How about to search the internet? Or send a text message? Just how private are you with your cell phone?

Phones have become personalized. I remember when a household had a single phone that everyone used, and when others in that household could listen in on your phone call by picking up a receiver in another room. But now everybody has their own phone. We personalize our phones. Choose your color, your apps, your decorative case. We’ve become very possessive of our phones.

Of course we’re possessive of many of our things – I guess that’s why we call them possessions. Over 100 years ago, before there were even landline phones, William James noted that one’s self includes everything to which the label ‘my’ can be applied. My clothes, my house, my job, and yes my family. Some of these are more crucial to one’s self than others. When any of these are harmed, the self is hurt. If someone steals something important to your self-understanding, then it feels as though you’ve been deeply injured and that you’ve lost part of you. Some of these feelings reflects how we use some objects to interact with the world (see I am my car and my toothbrush). But some of the feelings also reflect our choosing the objects as expressions of who we are, as status symbols. People have defined themselves by their objects at least as long as we’ve been collecting objects.

The cell phone is clearly part of how people interact with the world. For many people, their social life depends on their cell phone. They connect with others through the phone. And for many people, their identities are tied up in their phones, the internet, and social media (see Are you addicted to your cell phone?). The phone has become part of who they are.

So I shouldn’t have been, but I was surprised by a conversation I recently had with a colleague and some students. As we were talking about when and how people use their phones, the students all displayed clear discomfort at the idea of letting someone use their phones. No. That was the basic response to the idea of letting someone use their phones. If it really had to happen, they would set everything up so this other person could make a phone call. I can’t imagine they would let that person out of sight during the call, and certainly they would expect to get their phone immediately. It just felt too personal, too private, and too intimate to let someone use. Just a simple “No.” They would prefer to not even be asked and would avoid someone whose phone had died just so they wouldn’t be asked.

This generation posts widely about the private details of their lives. But they’re also a generation that doesn’t want anyone to touch their phone. Although these seem like contradictions, it may be part of the same issue. They want control over their selves. They decide what to post. Their phone is so important to the self, that it feels like an invasion for someone else to touch their phone.

In some ways, we never outgrow our childhood sense of possessiveness. This is my toy and you can’t touch it. The question is what toys result in such a tight sense of ownership, of importance to the self. I’m unlikely to loan my car to someone. You might feel uncomfortable having stay in your house and sleep in your bed when you’re out of town. Where do you draw your line of what is a critical part of your self? For the millennials, the self includes their cell phones. Clearly the phone is more than a toy. So much of their lives are stored and embedded in their phones. Their phones hold their pictures, their friends, their passwords, their entire lives. Loaning the phone is far too personal and intimate to contemplate. So if your phone dies and you need to borrow someone else’s, you might not want to ask a millennial. You would make them cringe to imagine letting you touch their phones.

 

George Bernard Shaw, Imagination, And The Leaders We Get

0
0

Our imaginations are incredibly powerful. As Nobel Prize and Academy Award winner (wow!) George Bernard Shaw said:

“Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine, and at last you create what you will.”

I wrote in my very first blog post about how people imagine national leaders to be taller than typical citizens. And guess what? That’s what we get.

Last time I wrote about my recent research showing that when asked to imagine the person they would want to lead the country, the people who participated in my experiment described a more physically formidable leader when prompted to think about the person leading in a time of war than in a time of peace or when national cooperation was required. In particular, in the war study condition they imagined a heavier and taller leader with a greater, but not unhealthy, body mass index (BMI) than in the peace or cooperation conditions.

Of course, this is weird since in modern times a national leader would never actually physically fight another leader or lead troops into battle. But I argued that evolution may help explain this head scratching outcome.

Specifically, followers prefer leaders with greater physical stature because of evolutionary adaptations resulting from humans’ violent ancestral environment. In this environment, individuals who allied with and followed physically powerful partners were more likely to survive and reproduce because the presence of the physically powerful ally signaled to others to avoid challenging for important survival and reproductive resources or risk a costly fight.

 

BUT THERE’S MORE

The first part of the study looked at actual physical measures (i.e., pounds of weight and inches of height), but I wanted to confirm these “anthropometric” results with perceptual measures. So I also asked my participants to indicate how well each of the following words or phrases described their imagined leader: athletic, attractive, competent, dependable, dominant, friendly, intelligent, physically fit, physically imposing or intimidating, and physically strong.

And the perceptual outcomes confirm the anthropometric outcomes. Of primary interest here, the participants indicated their leader was more “physically imposing or intimidating” and “more physically strong” in the wartime study condition than the other conditions. I think these results are hard to explain outside of evolutionary theory.

(The results also indicated the wartime leader was more “dominant” and had more classic leadership traits, but you’ll need to dig into the actual published article to see that discussion.) 

 

I CAN’T ESCAPE IT

I’m not crazy about the idea that our leadership preferences are influenced by the physical characteristics of candidates. But there’s a great deal of evidence that we support more physically formidable leaders, whether in politics (be sides my posts see, e.g., fellow PT bloggers Gad Saad and Mark van Vugt) or business (again see, e.g., Gad Saad and Mark van Vugt). And this and my previous post suggest it’s at least partially driven by perceived threat and evolution.

I imagine I personally would not have been crazy about George Bernard Shaw, either, but I’m in awe that he could win two such prestigious awards…and he was tall.*  

Hey, GBS, leave some for the rest of us!

 

* Reports indicate he was over six feet tall, with one noting he was 6’2”.   

- - - -

For more information:

Gregg R. Murray. Forthcoming. "Evolutionary Preferences for Physical Formidability in Leaders." Politics and the Life Sciences.

In addition to writing the "Caveman Politics" blog for Psychology Today, Gregg is the Executive Director of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas Tech University. You can find more information on Gregg at GreggRMurray.com

If you enjoyed this post, please share it by email or on Facebook or Twitter.

Follow Gregg on:  Facebook / Twitter / GreggRMurray.com

Jerry Seinfeld and Autism

0
0

Jerry Seinfeld’s casual statement that he “might be on the autism spectrum” has created a huge uproar in the autism community.  I posted a few paragraphs on Facebook last night and I thought I’d follow up here with more thoughts.

I think it’s important to have respected figures identify in a positive way with autism.  When someone who is admired by many says, “I feel I’m a bit autistic,” I take that to mean he feels solidarity with our group (Our group being those of us on the autism spectrum and our families and loved ones.)

Mr. Seinfeld’s speculation that he “may be on the spectrum,” may be the first step in an actual diagnosis or evaluation, and it may be a milestone of his journey of self-discovery. Many people are critical of self -diagnosis, but the fact is, most adult diagnoses start by people asking themselves, “might I be autistic?”  Seldom are adults handed this diagnosis out of the blue.  So before we attack self-diagnosis let’s remember that’s how “real diagnosis” begins for many adults.

Whenever someone says, “autism made me the success I am today,” in whatever way they mean, and in whatever field . . . we take a step toward recognizing that autism confers both gift and disability on us.  Society needs us, but we also need society – or at least its respect and resources.  For the broader public to see examples of autistic strength can only be good.

This should not take away from the fact that autism has aspects that are profoundly disabling, and that society has also changed in ways that render formerly functional autistic people (in an earlier time) outcast and disabled in the world of today.  But that’s another discussion.

Someone like Mr. Seinfeld – by virtue of his public persona – could easily be seen as a “face of autism,” when in fact we are a very diverse community and many of us want or need far more services and supports than Mr. Seinfeld has so far requested publically.  The uninformed public could look at him and say, “autistic people are millionaire comedians,” which is far from accurate.  Sure, there are some autistic comedians and some rich ones but most of us are somewhere in the middle.  We are all individuals.

We just have to hope the public recognizes that.  I think they do in other cases.  Warren Buffett is a business manager and so am I, but beyond that I don’t think most people assume we are the same just because we share that descriptor. 

 It’s easy for an autistic person who struggles with relationships and jobs to look at Mr. Seinfeld – who seems to have both aplenty – and his seemingly casual description of autism as an insult to those for whom those things come very hard.  But I don’t think he meant it that way.  He didn’t make a comment about any broader “us;” he spoke about himself.

Many people rushed to judgment in their comments, saying “he’s not autistic,” or “he’s making a play for attention.”  Some of the angriest comments came from parents who said, “My son has real autism.  Jerry Seinfeld is not autistic and he’s insulting us!”  There are also angry comments from autistic self advocates who resent the fact that he helped raise money for Autism Speaks, and an organization they despise.

Not, so fast, I say.  Let’s step back and take a deep breath here.

Advocates for autistic people generally ask for three things:

  • Acceptance
  • Respect
  • Accommodation

Those are noble and reasonable requests. Some people approached Mr. Seinfeld's remarks in that spirit.  Others did not, and those traits were lacking in the angry backlash to his words. Yet he did not come to us in anger or arrogance.  Mr. Seinfeld uttered his words in a reflective tone, perhaps as an explanation for things in his life not previously understood.

Who are we to judge him?  We see his TV persona, but we know nothing of his real life.  We know nothing of his true feelings.  Maybe he is on the spectrum, maybe he’s not.  I’m sure of this:  We owe him respect as a fellow human being on a voyage of self-discovery.

What about the suggestion that “he does not really have autism?”  Actually, he didn’t claim to have autism.  His words imply he thinks he is part of what scientists call the Broader Autism Phenotype – people who have traits of autism, but not to the degree that they would be diagnosed autistic by a professional.  Millions of people are in this BAP group.

The “my autism is worse than yours” is a counterproductive and destructive way of thinking.  Look at depression and Robin Williams.  He looked pretty successful and functional a few month back, didn’t he?  But now he’s dead.  None of us can know the struggles of another.  There is no better and worse in autism’s affect.

That brings me to my last point – overcoming or emerging from disability.  Mr. Seinfeld is 60 years old.  He’s found a place for himself in the world.  Did he do it by “figuring out the formula to make people laugh, even though he does not get is himself?”  Maybe.  I don’t know. 

I do know that the “overcoming disability” model is an unhealthy goal or way to portray autistic people.  Emerging from disability is a healthier perspective.  Autism is not a demon to be battled and overcome.  It is a difference that can cripple or render extraordinary.  Most autistics are disabled as children because our sensory apparatus is different, our communication skills are weak, and we have not yet learned coping strategies, or found our gifts.

When we find comfortable environments, learn to communicate, and find what we can do well we begin to emerge from disability.  When we find places that our autistic differences are respected and we discover they give us advantages, we emerge more. Perhaps Mr. Seinfeld will talk of his own emergence and so provide a constructive model to younger people who follow.  I don’t know what he will do but I say, let’s give him a chance.

Please join me to welcome him, and see where it leads.  If we don’t like what he has to say, we can tune him out and go about our lives.  Remember that we must first extend compassion and acceptance to others if we are to ask and expect it for ourselves.

 

John Elder Robison is an autistic adult and advocate for people with neurological differences.  He's the author of Look Me in the Eye, Be Different, Raising Cubby, and the forthcoming Switched On. He serves on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee of the US Dept of Health and Human Services and many other autism-related boards. He's co-founder of the TCS Auto Program (A school for teens with developmental challenges) and he’s Neurodiversity Scholar in Residence at the College of William & Mary.  The opinions expressed here are his own.

Choosing People Wisely

0
0

When we err in choosing a friend, romantic partner, or whom to hire, the person often is one of these types:

Hottie.  Most of us are drawn toward people who society traditionally deems attractive: symmetrical features, not overweight, shapely in women, strong-looking in men, clear skin, full head of hair, etc. But because most people agree on who's a hottie, they're in demand even if they’re obnoxious. As a result, some hotties are particularly difficult to deal with, aware that some people will accept their bad behavior because they’re gorgeous. Per this Business Insider report, attractive people have an edge not only in personal life but in work, indeed in nearly all aspects of life. Do you want to give so many brownie points to The Pretty People?

Not too smart.  We admire but tend to be intimidated by people who are much more intelligent than we are. We think, if only unconsciously, things like, “Who does he think he is?” or “Well, she may be smart but she’s too full of herself (or obnoxious, ugly, etc.) Should you try to tamp down your insecurity and value a person’s intelligence for the treasure it is?

Funster.  Funsters laugh a lot, ever joke, and talk about the frivolous: pop culture, the big sports game, fashion, who’s sleeping with who. Yes, they make you laugh, but do their benefits to you outweigh their liabilities? For example, you may find funsters, as an employee or live-in romantic partner to be a procrastinator. Maybe you do need that light-hearted spirit in your life, or woulld you be wiser to value serious people more highly?

Laid back. It’s comfortable to be around relaxed people but some of the most interesting, productive people are intense and driven. Do you prematurely reject them because they can be stressful to be around and/or because you feel inferior?

Games-player. Most of us claim to like people who are direct but in practice, prefer the mystery of games-players: those who hide what they really feel and, worse, do things to make you think the opposite of what they feel. For example, a person is really interested in being your romantic partner but not only doesn’t show it but deliberately is dismissive. Many people are attracted to that hard-to-get routine. But are you sure you want to be involved with such a person? Later on, games-playing can turn into serious deception and drama.

Bad boy or girl. Some people are attracted to bad boys or bad girls. Perhaps it gives them someone to fix. Or they like that a Baddie might expose them to edgy things. But the relationship highway is littered with roadkill of relationships with Baddies. Might you want to resist Bad Boys and Girls in favor of people more likely to be good in a relationship?

The takeaway.  So is there anything you want to do as the result of reading this article?

Marty Nemko's bio is in Wikipedia.


10 Surprising Facts about Guilt

0
0

Guilt is a common feeling of emotional distress that signals us when our actions or inactions have caused or might cause harm (physical, emotional, or otherwise) to another person. Because guilt typically occurs in ‘micro-bursts’ of brief signals, we often underestimate the rather significant role it plays in our daily lives.

Therefore, you might be surprised to learn the following facts about guilt:

1. Guilt protects our relationships. Guilt occurs primarily in interpersonal contexts and is considered a ‘pro-social’ emotion because it helps you maintain good relations with others. In essence, guilt is like a signal that keeps going off in your head until you take the appropriate action (e.g., “It’s Mother’s Day, must remember to call mom!”). Each signal might be brief but taken together the signals can add up such that:

2. We experience 5 hours a week of guilty feelings. One study found that if you add up all the moments you spend feeling mildly or moderately guilty, it adds up to a pretty significant chunk of time. This is especially important because while guilt can be useful in small doses:   

3. Unresolved guilt is like having a snooze alarm in your head that won't shut off: If you had a snooze alarm that never shut off it would be hard to concentrate, as your attention would be constantly hogged by bursts of guilty feelings. Indeed, it is not uncommon for guilt to persist over lengthy periods of time. Having unresolved guilt can have an extremely detrimental effect because:

4. Guilty feelings make it difficult to think straight. When guilty feelings compete for your attention with the demands of work, school, and life in general, guilt usually wins. Studies found that concentration, productivity, creativity, and efficiency, are all significantly lower when you're feeling actively guilty. It’s not only that guilt makes it hard to function, but:

5. Guilt makes us reluctant to enjoy life: Even mild guilt can make you hesitant to embrace the joys of life. In one study, college students were made to feel guilty and then given a choice of free items they could get for their participation. Students who were not made to feel guilty chose movie DVDs and music downloads while guilty students chose school supplies. Again, these students only felt mild guilt. Guilty feelings might make you choose to skip a party, not celebrate your birthday, or mope around during your vacation without being able to enjoy it. But for some people, guilt can do even worse damage:

6. Guilt can make you self-punish:The Dobby Effect—a phenomenon named after the head-banging elf in the Harry Potter books—refers to a psychological tendency for people to employ self-punishment to ward off feelings of guilt. In one study, students who were made to feel guilty by depriving another student of lottery tickets (worth only a few dollars) were actually willing to give themselves electric shocks to signal their remorse. However, it’s not always ourselves we punish when we feel guilty:

7. Guilt can make you avoid the person you’ve wronged. Even though you might have already caused someone harm, you might unwittingly make matters worse by distancing yourself from that person because of the guilt you feel when you're around them. This tendency to avoid reminders of guilt can even extend to more distantly related people and even to locations and things (e.g., “That restaurant is where I had that awfully sad breakup talk with my ex, so I never go there anymore.”). This tendency to avoid the people who make you feel guilty also applies when you're the subject of: 

8. Guilt trips make you feel guilty but also resentful. People who give guilt trips to others do so in order to control or manipulate their behavior but they rarely consider the amount of resentment the guilt trip provokes in the other person. So while saying, “You never call me!” might get the person to call in that moment, it will also make them less likely to want to call in the future. That is why guilt trips are more harmful to relationships than most guilt-trippers realize. However, some people don’t even need a guilt trip to feel guilty when they’ve done nothing wrong:

9. Guilt prone people assume they’ve harmed others when they haven’t. When your trigger for feeling guilty feelings is set too low, your guilt alarm goes off when it shouldn’t. As a result, you end up feeling guilty about impacting others adversely when you actually haven’t. This is no minor issue because by over-interpreting people’s disapproval when it’s not there, you’re exposing yourself to constant and unnecessary stress and impacting your own quality of life. Indeed, guilt is a ‘burden’ in more ways than we imagine:

10.  Guilty feelings make you feel literally heavier and more belabored. Studies found that feeling guilty makes people assess their actual weight as being significantly heavier and physical activities as requiring significantly more effort than non-guilty people do.

So what can you do to address unresolved guilt? One of the best ways to resolve guilty feelings is to offer effective apologies. It sounds simple, but if you think you know how to apologize effectively, you are likely wrong-- read The 5 Ingredients of an Effective Apology and you will discover you probably miss at least 2 of them when you apologize.

And for science based tips for managing guilt, check out Emotional First Aid: Healing Rejection, Guilt, Failure and Other Everyday Hurts (Plume, 2014).

Do you have questions or comments about this article? Like The Squeaky Wheel Blog Facebook page, post your questions and I will answer them. You will also be able to see new articles as soon as they are posted.

Sign up for my email list and receive an exclusive gift article: How to Recover from Rejection

Visit my website at guywinch.com and follow me on Twitter @GuyWinch

You might also like:

10 Surprising Facts about Rejection

10 Surprising Facts about Self-Esteem

10 Surprising Facts about Loneliness

Copyright 2014 Guy Winch

Images by freedigitalphotos.net      

What's your EIQ?

0
0

Chances are you’re familiar with the term “emotional intelligence”, that was popularized by the Psychologist Daniel Goleman in his 1995 best seller by the same name. To refresh your memory in case it needs refreshing, emotional intelligence, or “EI”, according to the 2008 edition of the Dictionary of Psychology, can be defined as “The ability to monitor one’s own and other people’s emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior.”  Goleman, however, wasn’t the first person to coin the term. That was done by the poetically and aptly-named Wayne Payne, whose doctoral thesis entitled A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence was written in 1985.

Around that same time, Howard Gardner wrote the book Frames of Mind  which introduced the idea of multiple intelligences which included both interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations. It’s this type of intelligence that is most directly relevant and beneficial in the domain of human relationships. And like other forms of intelligence it can be developed and strengthened by engaging in specific practices. The obvious good news here is that anyone, regardless of his or her personal history or current level of EI can raise their quotient and become more skilled and effective in all interpersonal relations. Examples of some of the ways that our EI quotient can be raised are illuminated in Goleman’s books. He has written several other books related to emotional intelligence, including Social Intelligence, Primal Leadership, and Working with Emotional Intelligence. The higher your level of interpersonal intelligence the more likely it is that you will be capable of creating and sustaining fulfilling and successful long-term relationships of all kinds.

There are a great many available tests and inventories that can assess your level of emotional intelligence, and we’ve added our own to this list and offer it here, with the understanding that it is not meant to be used as a clinical or diagnostic tool, but rather as a means to informally assess the strengths and weaknesses that you possess in regard to areas of your life that are relevant to EI.

Rate yourself on a scale of 1-5  (1=not true 2=generally not true 3=generally true, , 4=very frequently true, 5= always true) on the items that follow, and then tally your score.

  1. I find it easy and natural to be aware of my inner feelings, thoughts, and desires
  2. Even when I am very excited about something my passions don’t overwhelm my reason.
  3. I experience life through all of my sense and don’t filter my experiences through my analytical mind
  4. I experience a healthy degree of motivation, ambition, vitality and zeal in my life.
  5. I welcome opportunities to try improve my relationships through conversation
  6. People tell me that I’m a good communicator
  7. I rarely interrupt people when they are talking to me
  8. 8 I think before I respond even when I’m having strong emotions
  9. It is more important to me to hear another’s point of view than oit is to have them to hear mine
  10. Being right is less important to me than having a sense of connection and understanding
  11. I tend not to hold grudges
  12. I have good conflict management skills
  13. People tell me that I’m a good listener
  14. I’m willing to be the butt of a joke if it helps someone to trust me
  15. When there is a breakdown in my relationship I look to what I can do to repair it before I look at how the other person caused it
  16. I can be honest and respectful to people even when I feel angry at them
  17. When it come to relationships, I DON’T believe that the best defense is a good offense
  18. I don’t ever tell people, “You’re making a mountain out of a molehill”.
  19. I don’t tell people that they are too sensitve.
  20. I try very hard to express myself in ways that are respectful to people
  21. I tend to withhold my opinions and advice unless I am sure that they are desired by others.
  22. I tend to NOT dwell on negative thoughts and feelings towards those with whom I am upset or disappointed
  23. When I know that I’m wrong I find it easy to apologize
  24. When others admit that they are wrong I am not satisfied until they apologize.
  25. When people don’t apologize to me when I think they owe me one, I DON’T insist that they give it.
  26. 26 I don’t issue threats and ultimatums to others.
  27. If I catch myself trying to manipulate or coerce someone into giving me my way, I stop doing it and become more honest with what I need or want.
  28. I value openness and am willing to get vulnerable even if my partner is being defensive.
  29. I am quick to forgive and slow to anger.
  30. I can accept and feel comfortable with compliments when I receive them.
  31. I look for learning opportunities in difficult situations
  32. People don’t tell me that they think I might have a substance abuse problem
  33. I don’t procrastinate
  34. I’m basically optimistic by nature
  35. I rarely feel depressed
  36. I’m willing to delay gratification until the time is right, even if it’s something that I really want.
  37. I live with a strong sense of gratitude.
  38. I’m not embarrassed if I cry in front of others.
  39. When things don’t go according to plan, Ican easily shift gears.
  40. When I’m stuck and unable to accomplish something on my own, I’m willing to seek out and accept help and assistance.
  41. I’ve enjoyed doing this inventory.

190-205=Great job! Keep up the good work!

160-189= Doing well. On the right track!

130-159=Need to focus more on areas that need development or attention

90-129= You’ve slipped into the danger zone

60-89= Expect relationship breakdowns without significant changes

Under 60=Get to work and probably some help, Now!

Remember that this test is meant only to be a guide that can help you to identify the areas of you life, particularly in regard to relationships that could use more attention and possibly some help. Identifying those areas is an essential primary step in the process of enhancing the quality and level of your emotional intelligence. Once you’ve done that you will begin to recognize situations and circumstances in your life that are providing you with opportunities to practice new responses that can challenge, interrupt and eventually break old habituated patterns. Seeing and acting on opportunities to practice vulnerability, self=care, patience, emotional honesty, generosity, compassion, and some of the other qualities and traits is the essence of this process is the key to developing a higher EIQ. There may be no better way to enhance the quality of your relationships than by becoming more emotionally intelligent, and the quality of your relationships, with yourself and others, may be the most significant variable in that process!

Which Comes First -- Religion or Morality?

0
0

Monkey Business

                Does any American regret that the mid-term elections are over?  Beleaguered American voters have survived months of pundits’ prognostications, robo-calls, and, worst of all, a tsunami of campaign advertisements filling the airwaves.  Because of recent Supreme Court decisions, mountains of money were spent on record numbers of television and radio advertisements for mid-term elections.  This resulted in various groups, whose sources of funding were often obscure, running thousands of negative advertisements against candidates whom they wished to defeat.  That, of course, was on top of all of the negative advertisements sponsored by the political parties and the candidates themselves.

                The National Republican Congressional Committee sponsored an ad in Georgia, entitled “John Barrow Is Bankrupting America.”  The ad faulted Mr. Barrow for voting with President Obama 85% of the time, implying that such a voting pattern necessarily demonstrated his endorsement of government profligacy.  In the advertisement a woman with a monkey sitting on her shoulder declared that the people’s representatives should be far more concerned with cutting spending in Washington, eliminating such frivolous expenses as supporting scientific research on monkeys’ sense of fairness and on their susceptibilities to cocaine.  Setting aside the puzzling complaint about the research on susceptibility to cocaine (would the members of the National Republican Congressional Committee have preferred either that the researchers had used human participants in their experimentation instead or, perhaps, that no research on the use of cocaine should be pursued at all?), consider research on the sense of fairness in monkeys.

 

Monkey See, Monkey Don’t

                The kinds of studies that the ad’s sponsors may have had in mind would, presumably, include research carried out (in Georgia, no less!) by my colleagues at Emory University, Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal.  (Upon graduation, Sarah accepted a position at Georgia State University.)  Brosnan and de Waal’s most famous experiment furnished striking evidence that capuchin monkeys are keenly sensitive to issues of equity, at least with regard to how they are treated by humans possessing and dispensing resources that they desire.

                If a capuchin monkey carries out a simple task, it is perfectly happy with a piece of cucumber as a reward.  By contrast, if, after viewing a second capuchin doing the same task and receiving a more highly prized grape as a reward, the first capuchin receives a piece of cucumber for carrying out the task, it will reject the cucumber.  “Reject” is probably too neutral.  A wonderful video shows how sometimes the monkeys purposefully maneuvered their arms outside of their cages so that they could throw the cucumber piece back at the experimenter with all of the force that they could muster.  Brosnan and de Waal hold that capuchins’ reactions reflected their “inequity aversion.”

 

The Phylogenetic Roots of Morality

                To be sure, evidence of a penchant for inequity aversion in capuchins does not demonstrate that they possess the full-blooded sense of fairness that informs and regulates so many human transactions.  In some sense the capuchins’ responses are grounded in self-interest.  (But is that any less true of humans’ notions of fairness?)  Still, the capuchins’ understanding of their self-interest is not based on simple acquisitiveness.  In the face of inequitable treatment the capuchins are willing to forego a valuable resource, viz., a piece of cucumber.  Remember, that under the first condition the capuchins find a piece of cucumber, which is, after all, a nourishing food, perfectly acceptable.        

               The citizens of the United States and their representatives will have to decide whether research of this sort should receive federal funding, but many cognitive scientists of religion and de Waal himself maintain that such findings provide valuable clues about the relations of religion and morality in human prehistory.  Most religious people hold that morality has normative force because the gods command it.  On this view morality and moral authority depends on the gods.  Brosnan and de Waal’s study, other experimental research, and literally hundreds of de Waal’s observations of the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos across his career, recounted in his many books, suggest that the building blocks of humans’ moral sentiments have a far older phylogenetic heritage than this view allows.  The suggestion, in short, is that humans’ moral sensibilities, not their religious ones, come first. 

 

 

Marriage and Divorce Are Changing Radically

0
0

In case you haven’t noticed, marriage and divorce are in turmoil. It seems that every week there are numerous stories about how people are shunning tradition—and in some cases the law—and creating their own marriage or divorce agreements. 

Articles range from millennials having children and creating family without marrying, to couples giving their wedding rings back to their spouse but staying together in the same house (divorced) in order to raise the kids. 

The Great Recession is what I point to as the driving force behind people having to get creative with family and housing. I believe it opened the way for people to realize that, “Maybe it’s okay if we get married (or stay married) for financial security,” or, “We don’t have a choice but to live on separate coasts for our jobs, but we like not living together 24/7.”

There was a time when social order felt more imperative but what once brought us a sense of comfort and order is now a strangling noose around our coupling paradigm.

Why wouldn’t marriage need more choice? We have a gazillion TV channels, an entire supermarket aisle dedicated to cereal options, we even have a seemingly endless variety of candy and gum these days. And that doesn’t count options that get introduced from outside countries!

In fact, in most areas, change is not only welcome, it is vital in keeping a product appealing. Why must we keep a Model T marriage?

I know that some of you will say, “Anything other than “traditional marriage” is not marriage!” And I know you believe that.

But think about the car analogy: Is a Tesla Model S less of a car than Ford’s Model T? Actually, it’s quite the opposite. 

We live in a time of rapid change that we call The Information Age only someone forgot to inform the powers that be that marriage doesn’t fit who we are any longer. 

Most of the traditions were put in place thousands of years ago! For example, in 1215 when marriage became a Holy sacrament and “Until Death Do Us Part” was added to the vows, the average life expectancy was 35- to 40-years-old.

Lots of people know why women wear white dresses (a symbol of her purity and virginity), but do you know why people throw rice at the couple? Do you know why women carry a bouquet of flowers? Do you know where the term “Tying the Knot” comes from?

The average person won’t know the answers to these questions. The average person won’t question these traditions. The average person will follow these traditions. I did it myself.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for tradition. With one caveat: if the tradition does no harm.

In my opinion, we cause harm to those we expect to marry in the same old way of forsaking all others and until death do they part. I love the notion of remaining faithful and staying together even when times get rough. I believe that mature love requires sacrifice and compromise.

The concern I have is that we expect EVERYONE to abide by these rules and it’s not a good fit for far too many (40% divorce rate on average in developed countries).

The back cover of The New I Do, Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels (co-authored by me and journalist Vicki Larson) says, “If half of all cars bought in America each year broke down on the road, there would be a national uproar. But when half of all marriages in America fail, we blame the drivers, not the faulty engines.”

It’s time for some changes to be made. It’s time for us to allow people to marry for more reasons than just love. Reasons like financial security or to co-parent (sans amour). It’s time for us to allow anyone who marries to have their own version of a successful marriage: to live in separate houses, to open their marriage to others, or to try marriage on for size and to not have to stay married to one person for the rest of their lives.

And may we all live happily ever after in whatever form that takes.

Here is a story from this week in the news where people are doing marriage and divorce differently

 

How to Prevent Arguments

0
0

In the late 1960’s, a series of catastrophic plane crashes occurred without any apparent awareness of danger on the part of the pilots. In response, the aviation industry introduced an enhanced warning system to alert pilots to danger. For example, if terrain rises significantly within 2,000 feet of the aircraft due to a mountain range, a red warning light flashes and an automated voice will say, ‘Terrain! Terrain!’ The new system improved safety performance overnight.

This set me thinking about an equivalent warning system in the conversational world. While we can’t calculate that we are 2,000 feet from a dispute, we can trigger an internal alert that says, ‘Miscommunication! Miscommunication!’ or, ‘Argument! Argument!’ By noticing and attending to the warning lights in a conversation as they appear– not as an after-thought – we can change the direction of a problematic conversation before things get worse.

Here are five warning lights to look out for.

Blamestorming – when the accusations and criticisms are starting to fly and you notice you’re beginning to sound alarmingly self-righteous. You won’t be interested in sharing responsibility, taking a balanced view or finding a pragmatic solution. You’ll use language like ‘you always’ and ‘you never’, and load the blame for an issue or problem on someone else’s shoulders.

How can you tell when you’re Blamestorming? You’ll find yourself being more committed to apportioning blame than to resolving the issue.

Escalation – when the temperature is starting to rise and your conversation seems to have become all about ‘winning’, regardless of the cost. Escalation is what happens when your emotions take over. You’ll find yourself making wild and exaggerated claims, dragging up the past, drawing below-the-belt comparisons and making threats you’re likely to regret later. You may find yourself saying at the top of your voice, ‘Stop shouting!’, to which the other person may bellow, ‘I’m not shouting!’

How can you tell when you’re Escalating? You’ll notice the intensity of an argument increasing FAST.

Yes, But …– when someone dismisses your solutions because they want to be heard, or brushes aside your opinions which don’t match theirs. Many of us are addicted to giving our point of view or pearl of wisdom, whether the other person wants to hear it or not. Examples would be the manager who gets his sense of worth from having an answer to every problem, or the parent who feels compelled to offer her worldly advice to her teenager, even though she knows it will fall on deaf ears. In doing so, we forget to listen or to consider what they actually need.

How can you tell when you’re in Yes, But …? The short answer is that you’ll notice yourself saying it.

Dominatricks – when a conversation’s flow and rhythm starts to fall apart because you’re trying to take control and dominate. You’ll have spotted the signs of Dominatricks if you’ve noticed that you’re finishing each other’s sentences: that one or other of you is trying to drive the conversation on their terms, not listening to what’s being said and not allowing space for the other’s opinion or disagreement.

How can you tell when you’re in Dominatricks? It feels competitive – you’ll notice you’re interrupting the person you’re speaking with and not taking time to pause, listen and reflect.

Mixed Messages – when you’re making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are out of step with reality, or when you’re speaking at cross-purposes. Like trains that pass in opposite directions, some conversations can feel as though you’re on a different track going in the opposite direction to the other person. It might be that:

  • The context isn’t clear
  • You’re not addressing the sub-text of the conversation
  • You’re swapping preconceived ideas or opinions rather than listening
  • You’re replying to what you thought they said rather than what they actually said.

How can you tell when you’re in Mixed Messages? You feel puzzled or surprised about how a conversation seems to be unfolding or the conversation you’re having feels as if it’s somehow out of sync.

Dr John Gottman and Dr Bob Levenson are world-leading experts on relationship analysis and the characteristics of marital stability. During a study in 1983, they discovered that in 96 per cent of cases, the way people handled the first three minutes of a conflict discussion determined how it would go for its duration. So what can you do differently? Here are five tips:

  1. Pay attention to the pace and rhythm of the conversation. When you’re in Dominatricks, the pace will accelerate, there are no pauses between your speaking and your listening deteriorates. There’s a subtle change in context: it becomes more about winning and being right than hearing each other and finding agreement or a solution. When you notice this happening, consciously slow the speed of the conversation down.
  2. If an interaction is moving into Escalation, press the STOP! button. Create some distance from it, even for a minute or two. Tell the other person you need to go to the bathroom, get some air or water. It takes the heat out of the situation and gives you time to regain your center of gravity.
  3. When you notice you’re in Blamestorming, ask yourself what’s needed rather than looking to prove why you’re right. This immediately changes the direction of your thinking, and the tone of the conversation.
  4. If you hear someone saying ‘Yes, But…’ two or three times, try a different approach because your advice isn’t making a difference. Listen to what they’re saying, repeat back what they’ve said so they know you’ve heard them, or ask what they need from you.
  5. If you think you’re in Mixed Messages, wind the conversation back to check that you’re both clear about what’s being discussed and that you understand each other, or to ascertain what you’re both really trying to say.

It’s important to remember that disagreements are a healthy part of any relationship, but when they get out of control they can become destructive. Every time you notice a warning light, you have a choice. You can continue on the same course or change direction.

 

Reference:

Gottman, J. and Silver, N., The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1999.

 

For more information, and to subscribe to future blogs, visit www.conversationexpert.com.

To follow me on Twitter @Rob_Kendall

Rob's new book is Blamestorming: Why Conversations Go Wrong and How to Fix Them

 

Viewing all 51702 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images